Parent Perspectives on CLIL Implementation: Which Variables Make a Difference?

• Juan Ráez-Padilla ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidad de Jaén

     Universidad de Jaén

     Jaén, España

     
• Localización: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, ISSN 1697-7467, Nº. 29, 2018, págs. 181-196
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.30827/digibug.54033
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Perspectivas parentales sobre la implementación de AICLE: ¿Qué variables marcan la diferencia?
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
  • Texto completo
• Dialnet Métricas: 3 Citas
• Resumen
  • español

    El presente artículo sondea el punto de vista de los padres en relación con el desarrollo de programas AICLE. Para ello, se han aplicado cuestionarios a 237 padres en las provincias andaluzas occidentales de Cádiz y Málaga con el objetivo de llevar a cabo un análisis exhaustivo de su opinión sobre la implementación de programas AICLE.

    Tras inscribir el estudio en el marco de investigaciones previas y justificar la necesidad de investigaciones de esta naturaleza, en el artículo se expone el diseño de investigación llevado a cabo y se resumen sus principales hallazgos en relación con siete campos de interés sondeados: el desarrollo de la competencia L2, metodología, materiales y recursos, evaluación, formación e información, movilidad y mejora y motivación en inglés, incluyendo una valoración global de programas bilingües. Se proporciona asimismo un diagnóstico detallado sobre el lugar donde nos encontramos en relación con este proceso de implementación de pedagogías AICLE, y se establecen comparaciones dentro de la cohorte considerando una serie de variables.

  • English

    This article canvasses parents’ outlooks on CLIL program development.

    To this end, it has applied questionnaires to 237 parents in the western Andalusian provinces of Cádiz and Málaga in order to carry out an in-depth analysis of this cohort’s perspectives on CLIL implementation. After framing the topic against the backdrop of prior investigations and substantiating the need for a study of this nature, the article expounds on its research design and outlines its main findings in relation to the seven main fields of interest which have been canvassed: L2 competence development, methodology, materials and resources, evaluation, training and information, mobility, and improvement and motivation towards English, including and overall appraisal of bilingual programs. A detailed diagnosis of where we currently stand in this process of implementation of CLIL pedagogy is provided and within-cohort comparisons are carried out in terms of a series of intervening variables.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Banegas, D. L. (2012). “CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences”, in Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated...
  • Breidbach, S. and Viebrock, B. (2012). “CLIL in Germany: Results from recent research in a contested field of education”, in International...
  • Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bruton, A. (2011). “Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research”, in System, 39: 523-532.
  • Bruton, A. (2013). “CLIL: Some of the reasons why ... and why not”, in System, 41: 587-597.
  • Brüning, C. I. and Purrmann, M. S. (2014). “CLIL pedagogy in Europe: CLIL teacher education in Germany”, in Utrecht Studies in Language and...
  • Cabezas Cabello, J. M. (2010). “A SWOT analysis of the Andalusian Plurilingualism Promotion Plan (APPP)”, in M. L. Pérez Cañado (ed.), Proceedings...
  • Casal, S. and Moore, P. (2008). “The Andalusian bilingual sections scheme: Evaluation and consultancy”, in International CLIL Research Journal,...
  • Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. and Gorter, D. (2013). “Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward”, in Applied Linguistics, 2013:...
  • Coyle, D. (2010). “Foreword”. In D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training....
  • Cummins, J. (2000). Immersion education for the millennium: What we have learned from 30 years of research on second language immersion. Available...
  • Czura, A. and Papaja, K. (2013). “Curricular models of CLIL education in Poland”, in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,...
  • Denzin, N. K. (ed.) (1970). Sociological methods: A source book. Chicago: Aldine.
  • Jäppinen, A. K. (2006). “CLIL and future learning”, in S. Björklund, K. Mård-Miettinen, M. Bergström and M. Södergård (eds.), Exploring dual-focussed...
  • Junta de Andalucía (2005). Plan de Fomento del Plurilingüismo en Andalucía [Andalusian Plan for the Promotion of Plurilingualism]. Sevilla:...
  • Junta de Andalucía (2017). Plan Estratégico de Desarrollo de las Lenguas en Andalucía [Strategic Plan for the Development of Languages in...
  • Lancaster, N. (2016). “Stakeholder perspectives on CLIL in a monolingual context”, in English Language Teaching, 9, 2: 148-177.
  • Lasagabaster, D. and Doiz, A. (2016). “CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning process: Delving into self-perceived improvement...
  • Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
  • Liberali, F. (2013). “Student-teachers and teacher-educators experience new roles in pre-service bilingual teacher education in Brazil”, in...
  • Lorenzo, F. (2007). “The sociolinguistics of CLIL: Language planning and language change in 21st century Europe”, in RESLA, 1: 27-38.
  • Lorenzo, F. (2010). “CLIL in Andalusia”. In D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher...
  • Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. and Moore, P. (2009). “The effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning in European education: Key findings...
  • Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., Moore, P. and Afonso, Y. M. (2009). Bilingüismo y educación. Situación de la red de centros bilingües en Andalucía....
  • Marsh, D., Maljers, A. and Hartiala, A. K. (2001). Profiling European CLIL classrooms. Languages open doors. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
  • Marsh, D. (2015). “Postscript”. In D. Marsh, M. L. Pérez Cañado and J. Ráez Padilla (eds.), CLIL in action: Voices from the classroom. Newcastle-upon-Tyne:...
  • Mehisto, P. and Asser, H. (2007). “Stakeholder perspectives: CLIL programme management in Estonia”, in International Journal of Bilingual...
  • Michavila, F. (2009). “Preface”, in M. L. Pérez Cañado (ed.), English language teaching in the European Credit Transfer System: Facing the...
  • Paran, A. (2013). “Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth?”, in Applied Linguistics Review, 4, 2: 317-342.
  • Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. London: Sage.
  • Pavón Vázquez, V. and Rubio, F. (2010). “Teachers’ concerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes”, in Porta Linguarum,...
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). “CLIL research in Europe: Past, present and future”, in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,...
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2015). “Training teachers for plurilingual education: A Spanish case study”, in D. Marsh, M. L. Pérez Cañado and J....
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016a). “Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study”, in European Journal of Teacher Education, 39,...
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016b). “Evaluating CLIL programmes: Instrument design and validation”, in Pulso. Revista de Educación, 39: 79-112.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016c). “Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher perceptions”, in International Journal of...
  • Tobin, N. A. and Abello-Contesse, C. (2013). “The use of native assistants as language and cultural resources in Andalusia’s bilingual schools”,...
  • Wolff, D. (2002). “On the importance of CLIL in the context of the debate on plurilingual education in the European Union”, in D. Marsh (ed.),...