Show Less
Open access

Teachers’ Perspectives, Practices and Challenges in Multilingual Education

Edited By Nagore Ipiña Larrañaga, Ainara Imaz Agirre, Begoña Pedrosa and Eneritz Garro

The aim of this book is to address teachers’ perspectives, practices and challenges in multilingual education. The book that brings together perspectives and practices in multilingual contexts could be of great interest for researchers, practitioners and stakeholders because it also provides ideas for pedagogical practice and new language policies. It covers key concepts such as emotional aspects of multilingualism, innovation in language teaching and teacher training and challenges in (foreign) language teaching.

Show Summary Details
Open access

Chapter 5. Conceptualising Effective CLIL Teaching Practice: the ECTP Observation Tool (Carme Flores)

←110 | 111→

Carme Flores

Chapter 5 Conceptualising Effective CLIL

Teaching Practice: the ECTP Observation Tool

Abstract: Based on a solid theoretical framework and observation, Flores (2018) designed the Effective CLIL Teaching Practice (ECTP) for pre-service Teacher Education. The tool for observation (the ECTP Observation Tool) was based on Sagasta and Ipiña’s (2016) Tool for Analysing Units of Work (2016) and used in several studies. This chapter will present some of the results obtained in a research study carried out at the Faculty of Psychology where the ECTP tool was used. Conclusions drawn from the study show that there is a need to guarantee a solid foundation of teaching competence, in terms of knowledge, actions and attitudes in Teacher Education. This study also contributes to the multilingual ethos by dealing in depth with content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Higher Education and by focusing on ECTP in pre-service Teacher Education.

Keywords: CLIL, effective teaching practice, Higher Education, observation tools, integration in education, ECTP

The Role of CLIL in Higher Education

The content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in Higher Education (HE) is rather heterogeneous. Universities design graduate and postgraduate studies for different reasons using different CLIL models (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010). They are all aware of the importance and prestige of internationalisation and the added value of plurilingual competence (Alcón & Michavila, 2012; Doiz & Lasagaster, 2016). According to Dafouz and Llinares (2008), in the year 2008 there were 30 institutions in Spain that offered bilingual studies (English being the additional language), especially dealing with economics, tourism, law and engineering. This number has rapidly increased (Doiz & Lasagaster, 2016), especially considering the “status of English as a lingua franca in so many areas, not merely the academic field” (Ball & Lindsay, 2013).

Although CLIL has been mostly associated with primary, secondary and vocational education, there seems to be no reason to underestimate its potential in HE: “quite the reverse, it has been proved that one of the secrets of success for CLIL is continuity throughout the educational process” (Fortanet-Gómez, 2013).

Some specialists have seen the need to differentiate CLIL from the practice of using an additional language in a university context, as one can assume that students are already proficient in the language: “Maybe another terminology is needed for university-level CLIL (…); (…) but at university level the ←111 | 112→FL is ‘known’ so to speak, so students are working on content, learning their field (major) while practicing/keeping up their LS – is this really CLIL?” (Ting et al., 2007, p.7). This assumption has pushed some authors to look for alternative terms to refer to the teaching of content subjects through an additional language specifically in university contexts (ICLHE1, ICL2, EMI in HE3, ELFA4). The term CLIL, however, has become very familiar in the international arena and has transcended ideological and geographical boundaries (i.e. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning) (Fortanet-Gómez, 2013).

There has also been discussion over whether additional language competence should be considered a basic competence to be covered at university. Should language and information communication technology (ICT) competences be considered secondary competences in HE or should they be considered fundamental? “(…) the rising importance of a global language such as English has led to some re-positioning of this specific profession [language teaching in higher education]” (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010, p.24). Employers and society in general, however, believe that language competence and ICT are essential and necessary for any future professional to succeed. And this means that special focus should be placed on communication competence throughout the different university degrees (Räsänen, 2008). Unfortunately, this competence still remains a challenge for many students in a number of European countries (Eurostat, 2014).

Räsänen visually shows the different potential approaches to CLIL in HE and defines them as a continuum. Figure 1 describes six possible realities where additional language and content respectively play more or less important roles in HE teaching and learning:

←112 | 113→

Figure 1. Anne Räsänen’s Continuum. Source: Räsänen (2008)

We should focus on the last four models to coherently identify CLIL university practice. Several institutions in Europe have already developed pre-CLIL experiences. Students are offered language support before taking the subject courses, or they have LSP/LAP5 courses coordinated with the subject specialist. Adjunt-CLIL and pure CLIL, using Räsänen’s words, are also being implemented in some European countries, but coordination between subject teachers and language teachers is a must, via either joint planning of the CLIL module or ←113 | 114→by co-teaching. The planning should involve learning outcomes and assessment criteria, which could also consider a possible distribution of credits. Reflection, agreement and gradual development of CLIL in HE is a challenging but potentially encouraging opportunity for the students and teachers of the 21st century, as it implies innovation in education.

←114 | 115→

The reasons for CLIL in HE may be classified into four main categories: reasons related to teaching and learning, intercultural reasons, institutional reasons and professional reasons. Table 1 shows the advantages that researchers in the field have provided regarding CLIL in HE. Some of them may be similar to the advantages found in previous educational stages, but most of them relate to academic, professional and international issues (Lasagabaster, 2008; Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Räsänen, 2008). Räsänen, for instance, provides justifications in line with the objectives set by the European Higher Education Area. Some reasons are to enhance the institutional profile, to promote plurilingualism (social, citizenship and intercultural competence and employability), to open working possibilities, to promote future academic/research/professional networking and to develop the European dimension, among others.

Table 1. Advantages of CLIL in Higher Education. Source: Author’s Design Based on Different Authors

Experiences in teaching languages in HE have been minimal or non-existent due to the compact degrees and the competition for hours among departments, especially after the Bologna Agreement. The economic crisis has also affected university budgets and consequently the courses offered to students. Fortanet-Gómez (2013) sees CLIL as a possible solution to these two problems.

Dale and Tanner (2012) highlight reasons related to motivation and cognitive development, to the improvement of oral and written communicative skills, intercultural awareness and to the diversity of learning and teaching processes, among others.

Emphasis on the need to offer courses for international students, on cooperation among universities and on the recruitment of foreign specialist teachers support CLIL in HE, as does the positive perception in some university departments that some international subjects should be taught through an international language (Hellekjær, 2007). Boughey (2011) and Curry and Lillis (2013) add other reasons, such as the increase in participation and accessibility to the academic world and to the knowledge of the discipline, which eventually enhances the quality of the future professional/researcher’s pre-service training. Finally, Doiz and Lasagabaster (2016) justify the academic “jump on the EMI bandwagon” through the survey carried out by the European Commission (2008), which concluded that “Universities are motivated to offer the programmes in order to attract international students (circa 83 % of institutions), to prepare domestic students for the global labour market (around 80 %) and to raise the profile of the institution (53 %).”

Integrating Content and Language in HE may also be an opportunity for professional development, as some teachers and researchers may not have been trained in educational methodologies and may not be familiar with interactional modes of teaching, fundamental in CLIL pedagogy (Dafouz & Nuñez, 2009). Moreover, teacher mobility and international collaboration and funding require ←115 | 116→multi-skilled professionals ready for internationalisation (Kirkpatrick, 2011). Therefore, university professionals could take the advantages and challenges that CLIL provides as new opportunities for improving their professional status.

2. CLIL Teaching and Learning in Higher Education

University classroom settings provide critical moments that can show effective learning, from a social-constructivist perspective, and higher-level thinking. Dalton-Puffer and Nikula (2006) studied classroom management discourse, and one of their conclusions was that classroom and school settings still placed limitations on the evolution of discourse. Dafouz and Linares (2008) studied the role of repetition in CLIL teacher discourse and concluded that teacher repetition is more frequent in the instructional register (Christie, 2002), when the teacher focuses on the content and not so much on the instructions on how to proceed. They found IRF structure (i.e. Initiate, Response and Feedback) (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975) in CLIL classes less rigid than in additional language classes.

Fortanet-Gómez (2013) contextualises the special pedagogy for CLIL in European HE institutions in a multilingual environment and places plurilingual awareness and practices as one of its main priorities:

(…) that is, even though only the priority languages are included in the curriculum, all other languages known by students, either as first or subsequent languages, are respected and can be used as a resource by teachers in order to clarify concepts or compare specific terms in several languages.

Fortanet-Gómez, 2013: 147

She refers to CLIL’s multimodality when she calls for the use of visual support, audios and computer-based materials. Fortanet-Gómez also states that deductive methods of teaching have unfortunately had a strong tradition in several countries in Europe, whereas inductive methods have been less common. She provides examples of European settings where collaborative learning through classroom discourse between teacher and learner is not supported by university practices. García (2009) relies on the combination of three methodological approaches generally related to language learning when trying to provide elements for CLIL pedagogy: a) the grammatical approach: focus on form, language patterns and discourse markers in academic discourse; b) the communicative approach (which derives from the constructivist and socio-constructivist frameworks): simplified discourse, higher order thinking skills, collaborative learning by means of interaction, project work (Stoller, 2002) and case studies (Almagro Esteban & Pérez Cañado, 2004) and c) the cognitive approach: emphasis on the learner’s meta-cognitive processes, relating new knowledge to students’ previous experiences, ←116 | 117→to what they have learned and to the world at large. García, however, does not mention content or culture (two of Coyle’s Cs) in her attempt to list elements for CLIL pedagogy, nor does she mention socio-affective features.

CLIL In-service and Pre-service Teacher Education needs to be promoted at a pre-service and in-service level in order to guarantee teacher supply and the quality of CLIL teaching practice, which requires skilled multilingual practitioners. Kelly et al. (2004) identify 40 elements that should be included in any programme of CLIL pre-service and in-service TE. With the same aim, the final report of the Socrates-Comenius 2.1 Project (2006) provides eight main areas for the development of CLIL competences.

Figure 2. Areas of CLIL Teacher Education. CLIL Competences. Source: Socrates-Comenius 2.1. Project (2006)

Marsh et al. (2010) also suggest eight professional competences for CLIL TE and a series of corresponding modules which should be implemented in order to acquire the competences: a) Personal reflection; b) CLIL fundamentals; c) Content and language awareness; d) Methodology and assessment; e) Research and evaluation; f) Learning resources and environments; g) Classroom management and h) CLIL management.

Escobar Urmeneta (2010) presents the model of PTE (TED for CLIL) developed at the UAB and which has been “the result of an on-going process of design, experimentation and discussion among all stakeholders: student-teachers, school mentors, university tutors and researchers” (p.188). Although the experience has been basically implemented in a Master Course context, where student ←117 | 118→teachers were to be secondary school teachers at the end of the course, there are several aspects that are worth considering when thinking in PTE (primary education). She especially highlights the importance of the collaborative element of the research carried out among all the participants, and of considering teachers as a “Community of Practice.” The TED for CLIL component described by Escobar offers students, teachers, tutors, mentors and the rest of the school the opportunity to act and reflect, learn and develop, to keep and to change, to become a real community with a “living curriculum for the apprentice” (p.192).

Novotná et al. (2001) suggest several CLIL competences classified into two categories: the verbal-visual-meta-cognitive category and the peer-affective category. The first group includes competences such as showing an understanding of the amount and type of content language she/he should use during the lesson, contextualising new content language items and presenting them in a comprehensible way, using a variety of non-verbal communicative techniques and authentic situations, speaking clearly, breaking tasks down into component parts and giving instructions for each part, teaching thinking skills and learning strategies, clustering content material and relating it to past classroom experience. The second category comprises competences such as showing an understanding of and sensitivity to individual learners’ needs, involving learners, encouraging collaborative learning, praise, feedback and encouragement.

Navés (2002) identifies several macro features that may influence effective CLIL and that should be taken into consideration before implementing content and language integration: (1) respect and support for learners’ L1 and home culture; (2) multilingual and bilingual teachers; (3) integrated dual language optional programmes; (4) long-term teaching staff; (5) parental involvement; (6) joint effort of all parties involved; (7) teachers’ profile and training; (8) high expectations and assessment; (9) materials and (10) underlying CLIL methodology. There is no doubt that all these features have their role to play and may affect outcomes considerably. Empathy and respect towards cultures and languages, collaboration and professionalism from teachers, parents and educational stakeholders, and optimism and help in meeting the challenges that programming and assessment entail are all conditions that should go along with any educational practice. Navés provides some examples of positive CLIL teaching by listing a number of strategies that involve some of the features mentioned above. Some of these strategies are giving instructions clearly, describing tasks accurately, maintaining learners’ engagement by maintaining task focus, demonstrating, outlining, using visuals, scaffolding, rephrasing, linking new information to learners’ previous knowledge, checking comprehension and allowing learners to respond in different ways. In some of these teaching strategies, we can ←118 | 119→see how the learner is invited to take a more active role. These strategies, however, may not be different from successful language teaching. In fact, they might even be some of the components of positive teaching.

All the aforementioned authors seem to list a large number of competences and conditions without distinguishing them from positive language teaching practice or positive teaching practice in general. The accounting of effective CLIL practices is thus slightly imprecise.

For the purpose of going deeper into identifying and measuring specific elements of positive CLIL teaching, several authors have designed and employed different tools.

In recent years, many European CLIL practitioners have been satisfied with the CLIL observation tool (De Graaff et al. 2007), which includes five principles from second language learning that can also be applied to optimal CLIL pedagogy. The teacher then becomes the facilitator of what they call “essential conditions” for “effective language teaching performance”: (1) exposure to input; (2) content-oriented processing; (3) form-oriented processing; (4) (pushed) output and (5) strategic language use. Each of the five categories includes indicators that are worth mentioning.

Even though de Graaff et al. prioritise a language learning approach, likely drawn from the field of Linguistics, the variables considered may integrate some of the components of positive CLIL teaching. However, a more CL view of CLIL teaching practice might be needed. Or is it a more teaching practice per se perspective that is needed?

Coyle et al. (2010)’s CLIL Unit Checklist has also become a user-friendly tool for CLIL teaching assessment. It was designed by a group of CLIL teachers and was proved useful for reflective practice.

Sagasta and Ipiña (2016) introduce their tool for analysing CLIL units of work, where several criteria are classified into five essential dimensions: a) contextualisation of the unit of work; b) competences and learning outcomes, c) assessment; d) input and e) activities.

More recently, Coral et al. (2017) have designed a task evaluation tool specifically for CLIL Physical Education, and Escobar Urmeneta (2017) has published a manual for HE CLIL teachers on linguistic uses, and discusses variables and recommendations in relation to: a) selection of teaching materials; b) classroom language interaction (teacher-students, students-students, oral production and feedback) and c) tasks and assessment criteria.

Finally, Soler (2017) suggests another CLIL observation tool, which is an adaptation of two previous ones (CARLA, 2000; Coyle et al., 2010). He adds another dimension to the existing ones, as he also focuses on leadership and internationalisation.

←119 | 120→

3. The Study: How Do We Identify Effective CLIL Teaching Practice?

During the academic year 2015–16, a research study was carried out at the Faculty of Psychology Education and Sport Science Blanquerna (University Ramon Llull), Barcelona (Spain). The participants were teachers and first year Teacher Education students.

One of the main objectives was to identify ECTP and, through the analysis of the literature and data gathered from classroom observation, an ECTP observation tool was designed.

In order to identify the indicators that specifically belong to ECTP, two parallel processes were followed: on the one hand, there was a need to explore results obtained from the literature review in relation to effective teaching, effective language teaching and effective CLIL teaching. This analysis provided the optimal framework for comparing, matching and discriminating effective teaching practices and eventually identifying which elements could specifically belong to effective CLIL teaching. On the other hand, the results provided us with an opportunity to design a tool for analysing CLIL teaching.

3.1 Conceptual Specification of Effective CLIL Teaching Practice within an Effective Teaching Practice Framework

The data gathering in relation to the analysis of the literature on effective teaching was a process from which results were classified, categorised and used for a new contribution in the conceptualisation of ECTP.

Several steps were taken, starting first with the literature revision. After data collection, all the indicators were classified, categorised and ordered on a frequency basis. This process was done at three separate levels of specification of teaching practice: effective teaching practice, effective language teaching practice and ECTP.

Table 2. The Three Levels of Specification for Effective Teaching Practice

Elements of EFFECTIVE TEACHING PRACTICE identified in the literature

Elements of EFFECTIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING PRACTICE identified in the literature

Elements of EFFECTIVE CLIL TEACHING PRACTICE identified in the literature

The first analysis allowed us to classify elements into three main categories: a) subject-matter knowledge; b) pedagogical knowledge and skills and c) ←120 | 121→socio-affective skills and attitudes. These categories were inspired by Dinçer et al.’s (2013) four categories of good language teaching pedagogy: socio-affective skills, pedagogical knowledge, subject-matter knowledge and personality characteristics; and by O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) identification of the three types of learning strategies, namely, cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies.

Table 3. Three Main Categories on Teaching Practice

Subject-matter knowledgePedagogical Knowledge and skillsSocio-affective skills and attitudes

knowledge and competence of the subject contents to be taught and used in class

knowledge of the pedagogical aspects that affect the teaching and learning process and the ability to carry it out effectively

attitudes and personal characteristics that positively influence the relationship between teaching and learning

After classifying the elements, a new categorisation was needed. For this categorisation, three important aspects were taken into consideration: 1) finding common and/or similar characteristics that could assemble elements in a group (a new subcategory); 2) record keeping of the frequency (number) of references and 3) observing whether a category or new subcategory includes elements from the three levels of specification, that is, from the list of elements of effective teaching practice, from the list of effective language teaching practice and from the list of ECTP.

Parallel to this new categorisation, there was a process of identifying the characteristics of specific ECTP, discriminating them from the elements of effective teaching practice and of effective language teaching practice. Throughout this process, it was observed that most of the features related to ECTP seem to coincide with the features identified as effective teaching practice and/or effective language teaching practice. However, there were elements that were not found on the two previous levels. Those specific characteristics would be the ones identified as specific ECTP. The other characteristics belonging to the other two levels of specification may also be considered ECTP, but not exclusively, whereas the specific ECTP would only relate to the characteristics identified in the last stage of the process.

In order to visually represent the process of discrimination, table 4 is provided below, with several equations:

Table 4. The Four Equations for Effective Teaching

On the one hand, ECTP would be the result of adding the elements of effective teaching practice, specific effective language teaching practices and specific ECTP. Consequently, specific ECTP would be the result of subtracting effective teaching ←121 | 122→practice and specific language teaching practice to ECTP identified so far in the literature. The main contribution of table 4 to CLIL literature would be the consistent organisation of what up to now has been used indiscriminately to define ECTP without considering that most of the elements do not specifically belong to CLIL but rather to general effective teaching practice.

The final equation would thus be:

Table 5. Final Equation for ECTP

EFFECTIVE TEACHING PRACTICE

SUBJECT-MATTER KNOWLEDGE

PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS

SOCIO-AFFECTIVE SKILLS AND ATTITUDES

+
SPECIFIC EFFECTIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING PRACTICE

LANGUAGE KNOWLEDGE

LANGUAGE PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS

LANGUAGE SOCIO-AFFECTIVE SKILLS AND ATTITUDES

+
SPECIFIC EFFECTIVE CLIL TEACHING PRACTICE
=
EFFECTIVE CLIL TEACHING PRACTICE (ECTP)

Twenty-eight final subcategories were identified after the whole process of analysis. Table 6 shows the final organisation of these final subcategories, which would define ECTP. ECTP would thus be the attainment of these subcategories.

Table 6. Classification of the 28 Defining Categories for ECTP

From the analysis of the effective teaching practice provided by research, most of the features identified belong to the category pedagogical knowledge and skills, where the teaching practice seems to be more visual and explicit. However, the other two categories, subject-matter knowledge and socio-affective skills and attitudes, should not be ignored, as they are also fundamental for any educational act.

Two considerations should be made in relation to the classification of the 28 defining categories for ECTP:←122 | 123→

1. The subcategories may or may not have appeared in the literature review of all three specifications of effective teaching practice.

2. There was a need to add new subcategories in order to complement the table in a coherent way.

In relation to consideration 1: The subcategories appeared in at least one level of specification, which allowed us to reflect on whether they may or may not relate to the other two levels. Out of the twenty-eight subcategories, fifteen were found on the three levels, or effective teaching practice, effective language teaching practice and ECTP, whereas ten were found on one or two levels of specification (six and four subcategories).

Table 7 shows the subcategories that appeared on all three levels of specification.

Table 7. Subcategories Appearing in the Three Levels of Specification (ETP + ELTP + ECTP)

ON ALL THREE LEVELS OF SPECIFICATION (ETP + ELTP + ECTP)

1. Subject-matter knowledge

2.1. Appropriate scaffolding for language and content comprehension and output/sharing

2.2. Appropriate feedback

2.3. Collaboration, interaction, peer work, group work

2.4. Multimodality/variety of materials, methods and tasks

2.5. Cognitive challenge / HOTS-LOTS/content focus

2.6. Connecting /integration

2. Pedagogical knowledge and skills

2.7. Providing clarity + comprehensible input

2.8. Appropriate structuring/pace: positive planning of content delivery

2.9. Enhancing self-regulation: /metacognitive processes/self-directness/autonomy

2.12. Alignment /coherence

2.13. Positive class/group management

2.16. Authenticity, relevance and task focus – students’ interests

2.17. Being a reflective practitioner and member of a community of practice

2.18. Checking understanding

3. Socio.-affective skills and attitudes

3.2. Motivation: engagement/ low affective filter (inter) /empowerment/positive management

Table 8 shows the subcategories that appeared on two levels of specification of effective teaching practice.

Table 8. Subcategories Appearing on Two Levels of Specification

Finally, table 9 shows the subcategories that appeared on one level of specification.

←123 | 124→

Table 9. Subcategories Appearing on One Level of Specification

In relation to consideration 2: When some subcategories emerged, other complementary subcategories seemed to be necessary if the table was to be coherent and complete. For instance, when we take effective teaching practice, language knowledge of the additional language suggests the need for its complementary subcategory of language knowledge of the first/vehicular language. This was the case in the following subcategories:

←124 | 125→

Table 10. Additional Subcategories for ECTP

1.1.2.1.

L1 LK: Language knowledge of L1/vehicular language (BICS + CALP)

1.1.3.1

Content L1 LK: Content language knowledge of L1/vehicular language (CALP)

1.1.3.2.

Content AL LK: Content language knowledge of AL (additional language) (CALP)

From the previous analysis, one question arises: which categories would be considered specific ECTP?

It seems that subcategory 2.20: Using the L1 as a pedagogical strategy appropriately, could be one, as it only appeared on the third level of specification (ECTP) of the literature consulted. As for the three new subcategories, the first one, subcategory 1.1.2.1. L1 LK: Language knowledge of L1/vehicular language ←125 | 126→ ←126 | 127→(BICS + CALP) would rather complement effective language teaching practice, because category 1.1.2.2: Language knowledge of AL (additional language) (BICS + CALP) appeared on the second level of specification (ELTP), but it would also be considered an element of effective teaching practice without presence in the literature consulted; the second subcategory 1.1.3.1: Content language knowledge of L1/vehicular language (CALP) would also be considered an element of effective teaching practice without presence in the literature consulted, because one would think that, when teaching any subject to students, there must be a competent knowledge and use of the L1/vehicular language specifically related to the subject-content covered; finally, the third subcategory, 1.1.3.2: Content language knowledge of AL (additional language) (CALP) would be considered specific ECTP as it focuses on the knowledge of the AL specifically related to the subject-content covered and this subcategory may only be seen in the CLIL context.

To sum up, from the twenty-eight subcategories, only two seem to match with ECTP:

Subcategory 1.1.3.2: Content language knowledge of AL (additional language) (CALP)

Subcategory 2.20: Using the L1 as a pedagogical strategy appropriately

Subcategory 2.20., however, calls for careful attention, as this strategy could also be considered an element of ELTP if we added new references on the use of L1 in the language classroom. Some research carried out on the importance of using students’ home languages (Cummins, 2007; Sugranyes & González-Davies, 2014) and the use of translation and code-switching in the language classroom (Cook, 2001; Corcoll & González-Davies, 2016; Gonzalez-Davies, 2014; Macaro, 2007; Wilson & González-Davies, 2017) may conclude that strategic use of the L1/vehicular language during lesson delivery could be considered effective ←127 | 128→language teaching practice. The concept of translanguaging (García, 2009), which is defined as “the act performed by bilinguals of accessing different linguistic features or various modes of what are described as autonomous languages, in order to maximize communicative potential” (p. 140) has been taken as a consistent, and perhaps effective, step towards the plurilingual approach to additional language learning (García & Wei, 2014).

Finally, there seems to be only one subcategory that could be considered specific ECTP:

Table 11. Subcategory Exclusive of ECTP

Content language knowledge of AL (additional language) (CALP)

The other 27 subcategories would thus be considered elements of ECTP but would also be elements of general effective teaching and/or effective language teaching.

Content language knowledge of AL (additional language) (CALP) is a reflection of what Llinares, Morton and Whittaker (2012) termed “subject literacy.” The authors define the concept as “the spoken and written language forms and texts through which content knowledge is accessed by CLIL learners.” Teachers with this capacity must focus on text types which learners have to understand and produce (genre) and on the grammatical and lexical resources behind these genres (register). Llinares and her colleagues explore what seem to be the “unique characteristics of CLIL” (p.14) and, by doing so, they make a contribution to CLIL pedagogy that may in fact be much more relevant than what could be expected from a book focusing on languages, as the authors themselves may not have been aware of the real “uniqueness” of The Roles of Language in CLIL (the title of their book). This chapter has not set out to provide a detailed account of their work, but rather to emphasise the importance for all CLIL teachers to have both content language knowledge of additional language (once this has been identified as the only feature of specific ETCP) and knowledge of how content is constructed through language and literacy, what Love (2009) calls “literacy pedagogical content knowledge.” This last concept, however, permeates all categories from the second macro-category to pedagogical knowledge and skills, as the focus is on the “how,” the same way content knowledge (category 1.1.1.), language knowledge of L1/vehicular language (BICS + CALP) (category 1.1.2.1.) and language knowledge of AL (additional language) (BICS + CALP) (category 1.1.2.2.) would be inherent in all features belonging to pedagogical knowledge and skills.

←129 | 130→

Once the twenty-eight subcategories were identified, it was necessary to define each of them, and these definitions are thus provided in order to clarify possible doubts. The definitions were the result of integrating the most relevant characteristics identified in the literature and which were grouped under each ←128 | 129→subcategory. However, a final and more complete definition could be provided with extensive semantic work on all the elements taken from the literature review.

The following are the definitions of the twenty-eight subcategories for ECTP. For these definitions, the term “category” is used rather than subcategory for the purpose of offering the final outcome of the whole process of analysis. This gives a clearer idea of the most concrete elements of effective teaching practice without leaving out where they come from in relation to the three initial categories (subject-matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills and socio-affective skills and attitudes). All definitions start with the phrase “The teacher…” in order to make them more comprehensible and helpful for observation and reflection.

Table 12. Identification of the 28 Defining Categories for ECTP

1. Subject-matter knowledge

1.1. Subject content knowledge

1.1.1. Content knowledge: The teacher has and shows specialized knowledge of his/her specific field, obtained through both academic study and practical experience.

1.1.2. Language knowledge:

1.1.2.1. Language knowledge of L1/vehicular language (BICS + CALP): The teacher has knowledge of the L1/vehicular language in terms of fluency, accuracy, lexicon and pronunciation, uses it effectively, at an academic and less formal level and provides good language models.

1.1.2.2. Language knowledge of AL (additional language) (BICS + CALP): The teacher has knowledge of the additional language in terms of fluency, accuracy, lexicon and pronunciation, uses it effectively, at an academic and less formal level, and provides good language models.

1.1.3. Content language knowledge:

1.1.3.1. Content language knowledge of L1/vehicular language (CALP): The teacher has knowledge of the L1/vehicular language specifically related to the subject-content, uses it effectively, at an adequate academic level and provides good language models.

1.1.3.2. Content language knowledge of AL (additional language) (CALP): The teacher has knowledge of the additional language specifically related to the subject-content, uses it effectively, at an adequate academic level, and provides good language models.

←130 | 131→

1.2. Contextual knowledge: The teacher shows knowledge of the context and of the target culture and, in his/her specific setting, he/she understands the dynamics and relationships, rules and behaviours established.

2. Pedagogical knowledge and skills

2.1. Appropriate scaffolding for language and content comprehension and output/sharing: The teacher provides large amounts of comprehensible input at a level just high enough to be challenging, facilitates output production and supports students’ learning through expressiveness, the use of contextualised cues, non-verbal communicative techniques (visual aids, realia, body language, modelling…), outlining, rephrasing, repetition, reformulation (intralinguistic), translation (interlinguistic), varying intonation, linking new information to learners’ previous knowledge, adapting materials, discourse markers, simplifying discourse, emphasizing key vocabulary, recycling past, present and future vocabulary and language structures consciously, breaking complex information and processes into component parts, affording sufficient wait time and displaying written language throughout the classroom and hallways.

2.2. Appropriate feedback: The teacher provides close monitoring through correct formative assessment and in various forms (dual feedback, multiple assessment…) in relation to content and language.

2.3. Collaboration, interaction, peer work and group work: The teacher develops reciprocity and cooperation through negotiated interaction, collaborative learning techniques and environments for meaningful participation.

2.4. Multimodality/variety of materials, methods and tasks: The teacher uses a variety of teaching styles, different types of meaningful tasks and multimodal resources for content and language development.

2.5. Cognitive challenge/HOTS-LOTS/content focus: The teacher emphasises higher-order cognitive processing and challenges students academically through creating the necessary climate and conditions for deep learning to take place.

2.6. Connecting/integration: The teacher provides tasks that integrate concepts with language practice opportunities and relates new knowledge to students’ previous knowledge and experiences, to what they have learned and to the world; he/she does not provide an isolated unit of work, but establishes connections with other themes or areas of knowledge.

←131 | 132→

2.7. Providing clarity + comprehensible input: The teacher provides instructional clarity through appropriate task introduction and explanations.

2.8. Appropriate structuring/pace: positive planning of content delivery: The teacher designs, prepares and develops organised, well-structured lessons at an adequate progression and provides students with shared content and language objectives.

2.9. Enhancing self-regulation: metacognitive processes/self-directness/autonomy: The teacher promotes students’ self-regulation and guides them to develop learning strategies, metacognitive/metalinguistic processes, critical thinking, reflective learning and autonomy.

2.10. Enquiry/questioning: The teacher provides a learning environment that encourages enquiry through information seeking, good questioning (referential and open questions being preferable to display questions), case studies or project work.

2.11. Focus on form/language and academic language: The teacher fosters language awareness by creating opportunities and activities to assist students in noticing and producing specific language in oral and written form. The teacher also works on the language of learning (genre appropriateness/content-obligatory language) and for learning (academic language).

2.12. Alignment/coherence: The teacher provides coherence across topics and across tasks and assessment is aligned with the intended learning outcomes and the specific context of learning.

2.13. Positive class/group management: The teacher uses effective practices and procedures to maintain an environment in which instruction and learning can occur. He/she does so by setting up learning arrangements appropriately (i.e. grouping students to support language and content objectives), opening and ending sessions positively and emphasising time on tasks, among other strategies.

2.14. Diversity/inclusion: The teacher respects and enhances diverse talents and learning styles through catering for individual needs, mixed ability and inclusion, allowing learners to respond in different ways, surveying students interests and reinforcing concepts and language with multi-sensory activities (visual, auditory, tactile, kinaesthetic, etc.).

2.15. Focus on culture: The teacher raises intercultural consciousness, empathy and respect towards cultures as a starting point for developing ←132 | 133→students’ intercultural competence and offers multiple perspectives of the knowledge/views/attitudes of a topic (from local to global, developing identity and citizenship).

2.16. Authenticity, relevance and task focus – students’ interests: The teacher keeps students on task by using authentic, interesting and creative situations, student-centred activities and real language.

2.17. Being a reflective practitioner and member of a community of practice: The teacher shows the potential for learning, reflective practice and growth coming from collaboration with teachers, parents and educational stakeholders.

2.18. Checking understanding: The teacher makes frequent use of comprehension checks to involve students and to ensure understanding.

2.19. Developing the four communicative skills: The teacher integrates language communicative skills by providing fluency development activities in listening, speaking, reading and writing.

2.20. Using the L1 as a pedagogical strategy appropriately: The teacher uses and invites students to use the L1 as a communicative and learning strategy.

3. Socio-affective skills and attitudes

3.1. Positive teacher’s attitude: active/passionate/charismatic teaching (intra): The teacher shows enthusiasm/passion, optimism, action, creativity, tolerance, patience, sensibility, kindness, sense of humour and openness to experience.

3.2. Motivation: engagement/low affective filter (inter) /empowerment/positive management: The teacher encourages and supports students positively by using active and motivating learning techniques, creating stress-free and warm learning environments by lowering the affective filter and thus minimising the fear of making mistakes, by engaging students in meaningful experiences, interacting with them in and outside the classroom and providing confidence throughout the process of learning, by praising, sparing time for students when they ask for help, communicating high expectations, caring for them and providing spaces to share their opinions and their progress.

It is important to note that the twenty-eight categories could be more specified if the definitions were broken down into more concrete indicators. However, there is an attempt to provide here a clear and concise definition of each category.

←133 | 134→

3.2 The ECTP Observation Tool

In order to design the ECTP Observation Tool, it was important to add, if necessary, the results obtained from classroom observation through the use of the Observation Tool 1 (OT-1). The tool was employed in order to record and analyse several CLIL sessions and was an adaptation of the “Tool for analysing units of work: Dimensions and Criteria considered in the analysis of CLIL units of work” (Sagasta & Ipiña, 2016) and the “Manual d’usos lingüístics per a Graus universitaris amb docència en anglès’ (Guidelines for language use in university degrees taught in English) (Escobar Urmeneta, 2017).

After thorough analysis of the tools published in the literature in relation to CLIL teaching practice, Sagasta and Ipiña’s tool was finally considered the most suitable one for a number of reasons:

1. The context of their research and professional experience is similar to the one considered in this thesis. Mondragon University is a private university in a trilingual context (2 official languages +1 additional language). This university has collaborated with the FPESSB on a number of projects due to the shared vision and mission of the two HE institutions.

2. Several studies conducted by the authors focus on TE, which is exactly the same setting in which this research study is carried out.

3. The process followed to elaborate the tool was the final outcome of the work done by a professional learning community where “teachers share their practices, pose problems, challenge their own assumptions, discuss their students’ learning processes and results, and learn together” (Sagasta & Ipiña, 2016: 162).

4. Sagasta and Ipiña’s tool was published in 2016.

It was also deemed desirable to incorporate some elements identified in Escobar Urmeneta’s Guidelines, published in 2017, as she adds some aspects that have been considered relevant or more specific (use of the L1 as a strategy, types of assessment and the use of glossaries, among others).

Results from classroom observation seemed to confirm some of the categories already identified and selected for the ECTP Observation tool. The indicators included in OT-1 are present in the ECTP Observation Tool and are classified into three main categories. As far as structure is concerned, OT-1 provided space to record qualitative evidence, which is not possible to gather during observation time. So, the ECTP Observation Tool would not feature this square. Finally, it was also decided to include a 1–4 gradation (from not evident – 1 – to highly evident – 4), following Coral’s (2017) gradation used in his ←134 | 135→“PE in CLIL tasks evaluation” tool: 1) Highly evident throughout the class session; 2) Evident during most, but not all, of the class session; 3) Evident during a limited portion of the class session and 4) Not evident to any degree during the class session.

The definitions of the twenty-eight categories should always be available for consultation before, during and after observation.

Finally, Table 13 shows the ECTP Observation tool, which is provided with the aim of sharing what, from the author’s perspective, is a relevant contribution to CLIL practice and research in Europe.

Table 13. The ECTP Observation Tool/OT-2: The ECTP Observation Tool

←135 | 136→

References

Alcón, E., & Michavila, F. (Eds.). (2012). La Universidad Multilingüe. Madrid: Tecnos.

Almagro, A., & Cañado, M. L. P. (2004). Making the case method work in teaching Business English: A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 23(2), 137–161. doi: 10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00016-4.

←136 | 137→

Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2002). The significance of CLIL/EMILE. CLIL/EMILE The European Dimension. Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential, 1, 20–26.

Ball, P., & Lindsay, D. (2013). Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education. Learning from a specific context. English-medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges, 44–66.

Boughey, C. (2011). Institutional difference: A neglected consideration in the scholarship of teaching and learning. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(2), 6.

CARLA. (2000). The Immersion Teaching Strategies Observation Checklist. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition at: http://carla.umn.edu/immersion/checklist.pdf. Fortune, T.

Christie, F. (2002). Classroom Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.

Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402–423. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402.

Coral, J., Urbiola, M., Sabaté, E., Bofill, J., Lleixà, T., & Vilà Baños, R. (2017). Does the teaching of physical education in a foreign language jeopardise children’s physical activity time? A pilot study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1, 1–16.

Corcoll, C., & González-Davies, M. (2016). Switching codes in the plurilingual classroom. ELT, 70, 67–77.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–240.

Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2013). Introduction to the thematic issue: Participating in academic publishing – consequences of linguistic policies and practices. Language Policy, 12, 209–213.

Dafouz, E., & Linares, A. (2008). The Role of Repetition in CLIL Teacher Discourse: A Comparative Study at Secondary and Tertiary Levels. International CLIL Research Journal (ICRJ), 1(1), 50–59.

Dafouz, E., & Núñez, B. (2009). CLIL in Tertiary Education: Devising a New Learning Landscape. In E. Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across Educational Levels: Experiences from Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Contexts (pp. 101–112). Madrid/London: Richmond Santillana.

Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL Activities. A Resource for Subject and Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

←137 | 138→

Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2006). Pragmatics of content-based instruction: Teacher and student directives in Finnish and Austrian classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 27, 241–267.

De Graaff, R., Koopman, G., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624.

Dinçer, A., Göksub, A., Takkaçc, A., & Yazicid, M. (2013). Common Characteristics of an Effective English Language Teacher, Educational Research Association The International Journal of Educational Researchers, 4(3), 1–8.

Doiz, A., & Lasagaster, D. (2016). The motivational self system in English-medium instruction at university. In D. Lasagabaster & A. Doiz (Eds.), CLIL Experiences in Secondary and Tertiary Education (pp. 127–160). Bern: Peter Lang.

Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (Eds.). (2013). English-Medium Instruction at Universities. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2010). Pre-service CLIL Teacher-Education in Catalonia: Expert and Novice Practitioners Teaching and Reflecting Together. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (pp. 188–218). New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2017). Manual d’usos lingüístics per a Graus universitaris amb docència en anglès. In Monograph: Formem mestres trilingües per a una societat cosmopolita: el projecte Guideway. Temps d’Educació, 52, 147–154.

European Comission. (2008). Eurydice Report. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.

Eurostat. (2014). Level of the Foreign Language Reported as Best-known in the Country (Self-reported) by Educational Attainment Level. Brussels: European Commission.

Flores, M. C. (2018). Identifying Effective CLIL Teaching Practice in Higher Education: A Case Study of Integrated Practices in Pre-Service Teacher Education. PhD dissertation. Accesed 19/8/2019 in https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/650899#page=1

Fortanet-Gómez, I. (2013). CLIL in Higher Education. Towards a Multilingual Language Policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

←138 | 139→

García, O. (2009). Bilingual Education for the 21st Century. A Global Perspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

García O., & Wei L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Pivot.

González-Davies, M. (2014). Towards a Plurilingual Development Paradigm: From Spontaneous to Informed Use of Translation in AL Learning. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 8(1), 8–32. doi: 10.1080/1750399X.2014.908555

Gustafsson, M., Eriksson, A., Räisänen, C., Stenberg, A.C., Jacobs, C., Wright, J., Wyrley-Birch, B., & Winberg, C. (2011). Collaborating for content and language integrated learning: The situated character of faculty collaboration and student learning. Across the Disciplines, 8(3), 1–8.

Hellekjær, G. O. (2007). The Implementation of Undergraduate Level English Medium Programs in Norway: An Explorative Case Study. In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Eds.), Researching Content and Language Integration in Higher Education (pp. 68–81). Nijmegen, Maastricht: Valkhof Pers & Maastricht University.

Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the International University. Oxon: Roudledge.

Kelly, M., Grenfell, M., Allan, R., Kriza, C., & Mcevoy, W. (2004). European Profile for Language Teacher Education: A Frame of Reference. Final Report. A Report to the European Comission Directorate General for Education and Culture. Brussels: European Commission.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2011). English as a medium of instruction in Asian education (from primary to tertiary): Implications for local languages and local scholarship. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 99–120.

Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31–42.

Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain. Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge University Press.

Love, K. (2009). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in secondary teacher education: Reflecting on oral language and learning across the disciplines. Language and Education, 23(6), 541–560.

Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: Adhering to a theoretical framework. Language learning journal, 35(2), 239–243.

←139 | 140→

Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols, M.J. (2010). The European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.

Navés, T. (2002). Successful CLIL Programmes. In G. Langé & P. Bertaux (Eds.), The CLIL Professional Development Course (pp. 93–102). Milan: Ministerio della’ Istruzione della’ Università e della Ricerca. Direzione Regionale per la Lombardia. Retrieved from http://lada.fil.ub.es/Angles/CLIL/Docs/SLAforCLILNavesMunozPavesi2002.pdf

Novotná, J., Hadj-Moussová, Z., & Hofmannová, M. (2001). Teacher Training for CLIL – Competences of a CLIL Teacher. In M. Hejný & J. Novotná (Eds.), Proceedings SEMT 01 (pp. 122–126). Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Pedagogická fakulta.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Räsänen, A. (2008). Redifining CLIL – Towards Multilingual Competence. LANQUA Year One Report.

Sagasta, P., & Ipiña, N. (2016). Teacher educators growing together in a professional learning community: Analysing CLIL units of work implemented in Teacher Education. In D. Lasagabaster & A. Doiz (Eds.), CLIL Experiences in Secondary and Tertiary Education (pp. 161–196). Bern: Peter Lang.

Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

SOCRATES-COMENIUS 2.1 project: CLIL across Contexts: A scaffolding framework for teacher education 128751 – CP – 1 – 2006 – 1 – LU O COMENIUS C21. (2006).

Soler, D. (2017). El lideratge de la innovació educativaper implementar l’AICLE als centres educatius: Estudi de casos (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/404793#page=1

Stoller, F. (2002). Content-based instruction: A shell for language teaching or a framework for strategic language and content learning. In Keynote presented at the Annual Meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. Salt Lake City.

Sugranyes, C., & González Davies, M. (2014). Translating heritage languages: Promoting intercultural and plurilingual competences through children’s literature. Children’s Literature in Multilingual Classrooms, 1, 114–121.

←140 | 141→

Ting, T. et al. (2007). Collective Reflection of the AILA CLIL-ReN Symposium. (20–22 Sept. 2007) http://www.ichm.org/clil/pdfs/summary_symposium07.pdf

Wilkinson, R., & Zegers, V. (2008). Realizing Content and Language Integration in Higher Education. Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastrich University Language Centre.

Wilson, J., & González Davies, M. (2017). Tackling the plurilingual student/monolingual classroom phenomenon. TESOL Quarterly, 51(1), 207–219.

←141 | 142→

1 ICLHE: Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education (Wilkinson and Zegers, 2008)

2 ICL: Integrating Content and Language (Gustafsson, M. et al., 2011)

3 EMI in HE: English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education (Doiz et al., 2013)

4 ELFA: English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings (Jenkins, 2014)

5 LSP: Language for Specific Purposes

LAP: Language for Academic Purposes