Assessing Language in Content and Language Integrated LearningA Review of the Literature towards a Functional Model

  1. Otto, Ana 1
  1. 1 Universidad a Distancia de Madrid
    info

    Universidad a Distancia de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01r9skd65

Revista:
Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning

ISSN: 2011-6721,  2322-9721

Año de publicación: 2018

Volumen: 11

Número: 2

Páginas: 308-325

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5294/LACLIL.2018.11.2.6 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning

Resumen

Evaluación del lenguaje en aprendizaje integrado de contenidos y lenguas extranjeras: una revisión de la literatura hacia un modelo funcionalAvaliação da linguagem em CLIL: uma revisão da literatura para um modelo funcionalLa evaluación es uno de los temas más discutidos en aprendizaje integrado de contenidos y lenguas extranjeras (AICLE) debido a la dualidad entre el contenido y el idioma, y la falta de directrices e investigaciones oficiales sobre este tema. Adicionalmente, como AICLE es un término general que refleja diferentes realidades, resulta esencial considerar los contextos educativos en los que se establece este enfoque metodológico. Estos diversos contextos hacen que cada programa AICLE sea único en cuanto a aspectos generales como el nivel educativo, qué tan expuestos están los estudiantes a la lengua extranjera, la edad y el nivel de los estudiantes en la lengua extranjera y las diferentes materias que se enseñan en ella. El objetivo de este artículo es discutir las investigaciones existentes sobre evaluación de AICLE y ofrecer un modelo funcional preliminar para que los profesionales se ocupen de los problemas del lenguaje. Al analizar la literatura de forma sistemática, se revisan los conceptos de evaluación discreta e integrada y se considera mirar más de cerca la importancia de tener en cuenta el dominio limitado del lenguaje por parte de los estudiantes, así como los errores. Se espera que el modelo funcional sugerido y las recomendaciones derivadas de él puedan servir de ayuda a los maestros para evaluar el idioma en una variedad de temas y contextos de AICLE.To reference this article (APA) / Para citar este artículo (APA) / Para citar este artigo (APA)Otto, A. (2018). Assessing language in CLIL: A review of the literature towards a functional model. LACLIL, 11(2), 308-325. DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2018.11.2.6Received: 23/11/2018Approved: 18/02/2019

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aiello, J., Di Martino, E., & Di Sabato, B. (2017). Preparing teachers in Italy for CLIL: Reflections on assessment, language proficiency and willingness to communicate. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(1), 69–83, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2015.1041873
  • Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., Park, J.E., Amabisca, A., & Boscardin, C. K. (2009). Developing teacher capacity for serving ELL’s writing instructional needs: A case for systemic functional linguistics. Bilingual Research Journal, 31, 295–322. DOI: 10.1080/15235880802640755
  • Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Barbero, T., & Clegg, J. (2005). Programmare percorsi CLIL. Rome, Italy: Carocci.
  • Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT Course: CLIL module. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Boscardin, C. K., Jones, B., Nishimura, C., Madsen, S., & Park, J. (2008). Assessment of content understanding through science explanation tasks, (CRESST Report 745). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
  • Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre-based approach to teaching literacy. London, UK: Falmer Press.
  • Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, U.K: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
  • Coyle, D. (2005). Planning and monitoring CLIL. University of Nottingham: UK.
  • Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Retrieved from https://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/20-01-2014/coyle_clil_planningtool_kit.pdf
  • Cushing Weigle, S., & Jensen, L. (1997). Issues in assessment for content based instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. Brinton, (Eds.) The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 200–220). New York, NY: Longman.
  • Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg, Germany: Universitätsverlag Winter GmbH.
  • Eurydice (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning at school in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice European Unit.
  • Fuentes-Arjona, M. A. (2013). Which score is adequate: Approximation to the assessment rationale used in Science through English CLIL written text. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 6(4), 54–73. Retrieved from http://www.raco.cat/index.php/Bellaterra/article/viewFile/297851/386834
  • Gablasova, D. (2014). Learning and retaining specialized vocabulary from textbook reading: Comparison of learning outcomes through L1 and L2. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 976–991. DOI: 10.1111/modl.12150
  • García, O., & Lin, A. (2014) Translanguaging in bilingual education. Bilingual and Multilingual Education, 1–14. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-02324-3_9-1
  • González, J. A., & Barbero, J. (2013). Building bridges between different levels of education: Methodological proposals for CLIL at university. Language Value, 5(1), 1–23. DOI: 10.6035/LanguageV.2013.5.2
  • Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
  • Halliday, M., & Matthiesen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
  • Hargett, G. R. (1998). Assessment in ESL and bilingual education: A hot topics paper. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED425645.pdf
  • Hasan, R., & Williams, G. (Eds.). (1996). Literacy in society. London, UK: Longman.
  • Hönig, I. (2010). Assessment in CLIL: Theoretical and empirical research. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
  • Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and research. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
  • Ioannau-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in pre-primary and primary education. Nicosia, Chipre: PROCLIL. Retrieved from http://www.schools.ac.cy/klimakio/Themata/Anglika/teaching_material/clil/guidelinesforclilimplementation1.pdf
  • Järvinen, H. M. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook: Language in content instruction. Turku, Finland: University of Turku. Retrieved from https://broadyesl.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/language-in-content_handbook_en.pdf
  • Kiely, R. (2009). CLIL: The question of assessment. Retrieved from http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/clil1_richard.htm
  • Kiely, R. (2011) Understanding CLIL as an innovation. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 153–171.
  • Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccp082
  • Lasagabaster, D., & García, O. (2014). Translanguaging: Towards a dynamic model of bilingualism at school [Translanguaging: hacia un modelo dinámico de bilingüismo en la escuela]. Cultura y Educación, 26(3), 557–572. DOI: 10.1080/11356405.2014.973671
  • Lin, A. M. Y. (2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–89. DOI: 10.1080/07908318.2014.1000926
  • Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lo, Y. L., & Fung, D. (2018). Assessments in CLIL: The interplay between cognitive and linguistic demands and their progression in secondary education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2018.1436519
  • Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (Eds.). (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London, UK: Routledge.
  • Marsh, D., Marshland, B., & Stenberg, K. (2001). CLIL compendium. Profiling European CLIL classrooms. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
  • Massler, U. (2011). Assessment in CLIL learning. In S. Ioannau-Georgiou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL Implementation in pre-primary and primary education (pp.114–136). Nicosia, Chipre: PROCLIL. Retrieved from http://www.schools.ac.cy/klimakio/Themata/Anglika/teaching_material/clil/guidelinesforclilimplementation1.pdf
  • Megías-Rosa, M. (2012). Formación, integración y colaboración: palabras claves de CLIL. Una charla con María Jesús Frigols. Encuentro: Revista de Investigación e Innovación en la Clase de Idiomas, 21, 3–14. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10017/14561
  • Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Mohan, B., & Huang, J. (2002). Assessing the integration of language and content in a Mandarin as a foreign language classroom. Linguistics and Education, 13(3), 407–35. DOI: 10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00076-6
  • Morton, T. (2018). Reconceptualizing and describing teachers’ knowledge of language for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 275–286, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2017.1383352
  • Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Heidelberg, NY: Springer.
  • Pérez-Vidal, C. (2007). The need of focus on form (FoR) in content and language integrated approaches: An exploratory study. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 39–54. Retrieved from http://hispadoc.es/descarga/articulo/2575491.pdf
  • Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the Interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 1–19 DOI: 10.1111/1540-4781.00133
  • Polias, J. (2006). Assessing learning: A language-based approach. In M. Olofsson (Ed.). Symposium 2006. Stockholm, Sweden: Nationellt Centrum för SFI, HLS.
  • Raitbauer, M., Fürstenberg, U., Kletzenbauer, P., & Marko, K. (2018). Towards a cognitive-linguistic turn in CLIL: Unfolding integration. LACLIL, 11(1), 87–107. DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2018.11.1.5
  • Serragiotto, G. E. (2007). Assessment and evaluation in CLIL. D. In D. Marsh & D. Wolff (Eds.), Diverse contexts-converging goals: CLIL in Europe (pp. 271–286). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
  • Unsworth, L. (Ed.) (2005). Researching language in schools and communities: Functional linguistic perspectives. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.
  • Van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, J., & Berry, A. (2017). Do we all share the same goals for content and language integrated learning (CLIL)? Specialist and practitioner perceptions of ‘ideal’ CLIL pedagogies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 222–236 DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2017.1411332
  • Weir, C. (1990). Communicative language testing (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
  • Wewer, T. (2014). Assessment of young learners’ English proficiency in bilingual content instruction CLIL (Doctoral dissertation). University of Turku, Turku, Finland. Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-29-5754-5
  • Whittaker, R. M., O’Donnell, A., & McCabe, A. (Eds). (2006). Language and literacy. Functional approaches. London, UK: Continuum.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet