Author: perezparedes

Categories
applied linguistics L1 language

Día mundial de la lengua madre: un par de recursos de interés

 

Naciones Unidas celebra hoy, 21 de febrero, el día mundial de la lengua madre (o las lenguas madres, habría que matizar). Naciones Unidas ha elegido este año 2018 el tema “Linguistic diversity and multilingualism: keystones of sustainability and peace”.

Durante 20 años, esta organización viene celebrando el papel central que nuestra lengua madre, la lengua o las lenguas madre en la aprendimos a comunicarnos con nuestros padres y con la(s) que empezamos a socializar,juega en la configuración de nuestra personalidad, de nuestro yo. Nuestra lengua madre (nuestra L1) nos da las herramientas necesarias para entender quiénes somos y encontrar sentido al mundo que nos rodea.

En un mundo cada más interconectado, nuestra L1 interacciona con otras lenguas que hemos adquirido o aprendido a lo largo de nuestra vida, bien en la escuela, bien en nuestro desempeño profesional, facilitando, en general, el aprendizaje de nuevas lenguas. Queda como cosa del pasado la visión negativa de la interferencia de la L1 en el aprendizaje de la(s) L2 tan en boga en los años 60 del siglo pasado.

Comparto aqui un par de recursos estupendos en este día.

El primero de ellos es un podcast elaborado en el marco del proyecto Multilingualism: Empowering Individuals, Transforming Societies (MEITS), liderado por la Universidad de Cambridge. En este podcast, 6 estudiantes de 15 años en Parkside Community College, Cambridge, comparten sus ideas y opiniones sobre el uso que hacen de las diversas lenguas que hablan y cómo contribuyen al desarrollo de sus identidades individuales.

El segundo recurso es un kit para el fomento del multilingüismo creado por la UNESCO en 2016:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002462/246278e.pdf

Categories
Painting Paintings

Lady of Shalott – Anna-Marie Ferguson

 

Lady of Shalott - Anna-Marie Ferguson

Lady of Shalott – Anna-Marie Ferguson

Categories
applied linguistics research

Co-authorship and productivity: insights from Parish et al. (2018)

The following is a selection of quotes from the following paper:

Parish AJ, Boyack KW, Ioannidis JPA (2018) Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research. PLoS ONE 13(1): e0189742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189742

You can find here something I wrote co-authorship in the area of applied linguistics where I call for a re-evaluation of collaboration in this area.

Collaboration is now seen as essential to progress in scientific research, and over the past several decades large-scale collaborative projects have become increasingly frequent in fields as diverse as medicine, genetics, and high-energy physics. Although these large collaborations have received more media attention, collaboration on a smaller scale is also important for scientific productivity.

The average number of co-authors per paper published by individual scientists has steadily increased in all fields over the past century. The possible effect of collaboration on improving scientific efficiency and productivity is particularly appealing.

Increased collaboration has long been found to be associated with increased scientific productivity using individual researchers as the unit of study. Collaboration is also frequently mentioned as an important factor in scientists’ own reflections on their success.

A researcher’s productivity may also shape their future role in networks of co-authors, with greater scientific success and exposure allowing the researcher more opportunities to collaborate.

Highly collaborative authors also seem to cite more recently published articles and to re-cite (citing the same references in multiple papers) less frequently, and thus may dwell closer to and push the frontiers of research. International collaboration in particular seems to be strongly related to productivity, as measured by total publications.

Different scientific fields to possess distinguishing network characteristics, including average number of collaborators per author.

In one study of 36,211 Italian scientists, Abramo et al found that across scientific fields women have a slightly higher tendency to engage in collaboration, as measured by the fraction of publications resulting from collaboration.

Within biology, earth sciences, and social sciences, there is not a significant relationship between R and h-index in 2015. Additionally, the association is strongest for physicists. This particularly strong association makes sense given the growing number of large, high impact, intensely collaborative projects in experimental physics.

Categories
Painting Paintings

Vanity, by A. Toulmouche

 

Vanity, by  A.Toulmouche (September 21, 1829 – October 16, 18909, French painter known for his luxurious portraits of Parisian women.

Wikipedia entry.

 

 

Categories
conferencias Corpora for Content and Language Integrated Learning Docencia en inglés EMI Empleo investigación research University

Empleo y aprendizaje de lenguas en el Reino Unido

 

I Jornadas Vocational Guidance In Clil (VGCLIL). Universidad de Murcia. 23 October, 2018.

CLIL en contextos profesionales.Acceso a la presentación online.

Links:

Languages for the future. British Council 2017.

The value of languages. Cambridge Language Sciences. 2017.

SMEs language survey. British Academy. 2015

 

Algunos datos sobre VGCLIL (Prof. Purificación Sánchez Hernández, Coordinadora en España VGCLIL)

Sitio web: http://vgclil.eu/index.php

Twitter: @VGCLILproject

Plataforma de formación: http://vgclil.eu/pages/page.php?id=4

 

Referencias sobre CLIL, EMI e internacionalización

Dafouz, E., & Smit, U. (2014). Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 397-415.

Referencias usadas en el proyecto VGCLIL

  1. Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning process: Delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences. Language Awareness, 25(1), 110. doi:10.1080/09658416.2015.1122019
  2. Bamond Lozano, V. M., & Strotmann, B. (2015). Internationalizing higher education: Language matters. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 847-857. doi:10.1002/tesq.251
  3. Pérez-Vidal, C., & Roquet, H. (2015). The linguistic impact of a CLIL science programme: An analysis measuring relative gains. System, doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.05.004
  4. Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E. (2015). Getting used to content and language integrated learning: What can classroom interaction reveal? The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 239. doi:10.1080/09571736.2015.1053281
  5. Melinda Dooly, & Dolors Masats. (2015). A critical appraisal of foreign language research in content and language integrated learning, young language learners, and technology-enhanced language learning published in spain (2003–2012). Language Teaching, 48(3), 343-372. doi:10.1017/S0261444815000117
  6. Pavón Vázquez, V., Ávila López, J., Gallego Segador, A., & Espejo Mohedano, R. (2015). Strategic and organisational considerations in planning content and language integrated learning: A study on the coordination between content and language teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 409-17. doi:10.1080/13670050.2014.909774
  7. Kong, S. (2015). Designing Content‐Language integrated learning materials for late immersion students. TESOL Journal, 6(2), 302-331. doi:10.1002/tesj.151
  8. Vilma Bijeikienė, & Daiva Pundziuvienė. (2015). Implementation of CLIL in lithuanian secondary schools: A case study. Coactivity: Philology, 23(1), 1-13. doi:10.3846/cpe.2015.252
  9. Lo, Y. Y., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2015). Special issue: Designing multilingual and multimodal CLIL frameworks for EFL students. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(3), 261-269. doi:10.1080/13670050.2014.988111
  10. Jill Surmont, Esli Struys, & Thomas Somers. (2015). Creating a framework for a large-scale implementation of content and language integrated learning: The first steps. European Journal of Language Policy, 7(1), 29.
  11. Reljić, G., Ferring, D., & Martin, R. (2015). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of bilingual programs in europe. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 92-128.
  12. Wei, R., & Feng, J. (2015). Implementing CLIL for young learners in an EFL context beyond europe. English Today, 31(1), 55-60. doi:10.1017/S0266078414000558
  13. Julian Chapple. (2015). Teaching in english is not necessarily the teaching of english. International Education Studies, 8(3), 1. doi:10.5539/ies.v8n3p1
  14. Yilmaz Satilmis, Doganay Yakup, Guvercin Selim, & Islam Aybarsha. (2015). Teaching concepts of natural sciences to foreigners through content-based instruction: The adjunct model. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 97. doi:10.5539/elt.v8n3p97
  15. María Ángeles Martín del Pozo, & Débora Rascón Estébanez. (2015). Textbooks for content and language integrated learning: Policy, market and appropriate didactics? Foro De Educación, 13(18), 123-141. doi:10.14516/fde.2015.013.018.007
  16. Heras, A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2015). The impact of CLIL on affective factors and vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 70-88. doi:10.1177/1362168814541736
  17. Llinares, A., & Pascual Peña, I. (2015). A genre approach to the effect of academic questions on CLIL students’ language production. Language and Education, 29(1), 15-30. doi:10.1080/09500782.2014.924964
  18. Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58-73. doi:10.1080/07908318.2014.1000925
  19. Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8-24. doi:10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922
  20. 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
  21. Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41-57. doi:10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
  22. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Cenoz, J. (2015). Way forward in the twenty-first century in content-based instruction: Moving towards integration. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 90-96. doi:10.1080/07908318.2014.1000927
  23. Martínez Adrián, M., & Gutiérrez Mangado, M. J. (2015). Is CLIL instruction beneficial in terms of general proficiency and specific areas of grammar? Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3(1), 51-76. doi:10.1075/jicb.3.1.03adr
  24. Lorenzo, F., & Rodríguez, L. (2014). Onset and expansion of L2 cognitive academic language proficiency in bilingual settings: CALP in CLIL. System, 47, 64-72. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.09.016
  25. Khan, S. (2014). Integration of theory and practice in CLIL. System, 47, 177-179. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.10.004
  26. Lin, C., & Zhang, J. (2014). Investigating correspondence between language proficiency standards and academic content standards: A generalizability theory study. Language Testing, 31(4), 413-431. doi:10.1177/0265532213520304
  27. Jun Lei, & Guangwei Hu. (2014). Is english-medium instruction effective in improving chinese undergraduate students’ english competence? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 99-126. doi:10.1515/iral-2014-0005
  28. Taguchi, N. (2014). English-medium education in the global society: Introduction to the special issue. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(2), 89. doi:10.1515/iral-2014-0004
  29. Baker, F. S. (2014). The roles of language in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(4), 500-503. doi:10.1080/13670050.2013.809911
  30. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243-262. doi:10.1093/applin/amt011
  31. Javier Barbero, & Jesús Ángel González. (2014). Chapter ten CLIL at university: Transversal integration of english language and content in the curriculum. Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication, (28), 161.
  32. Felipe Jiménez, Agata Muszynska, & Maite Romero. (2014). Chapter seven: Learning processes in CLIL: Opening the door to innovation. Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication, (28), 111.
  33. Ignacio Pérez-Ibáñez. (2014). Chapter six: Addressing our students’ needs: Combined task-based and project-based methodology in second language and CLIL courses. Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication, (28), 97.
  34. Anonymous. (2014). Directory of CLIL projects and resources. Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication, (28), 189.
  35. Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (content and language integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. system 41 (2013): 587–597. System, 44, 160-167. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.03.001
  36. Banegas, D. L. (2014). An investigation into CLIL-related sections of EFL coursebooks: Issues of CLIL inclusion in the publishing market. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(3), 345-359. doi:10.1080/13670050.2013.793651
  37. Muñoz-Luna, R. (2014). From drills to CLIL: The paradigmatic and methodological evolution towards the integration of content and foreign language. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 16(1), 167-180. doi:10.15446/profile.v16n1.37843
  38. Heine, L. (2014). Models of the bilingual lexicon and their theoretical implications for CLIL. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 225-237. doi:10.1080/09571736.2014.889973
  39. Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 296-311. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12057.x
  40. Lo Bianco, J. (2014). Domesticating the foreign: Globalization’s effects on the Place/s of languages. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 312-325. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12063.x
  41. Richards, J. C., & Reppen, R. (2014). Towards a pedagogy of grammar instruction. RELC Journal, 45(1), 5-25.
  42. Aguilar, M., & Muñoz, C. (2014). The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in engineering students in Spain. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-18. doi:10.1111/ijal.12006
  43. Hu, G., Li, L., & Lei, J. (2014). English-medium instruction at a Chinese university: Rhetoric and reality. Language Policy, 13(1), 21-40. doi:10.1007/s10993-013-9298-3
  44. Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
  45. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
  46. Clark, R., Chopeta, L. (2004). Graphics for Learning : Proven Guidelines for Planning, Designing, and Evaluating Visuals in Training Materials . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Categories
applied linguistics corpora corpus linguistics

Corpus linguistics & vocabulary learning

 

clandvocab

Recently, one of my students asked for some pointers in corpus linguistics and vocabulary learning. Here´s my top 5 impromptu list.

Sinclair, J. (2003). Reading concordances. An introduction. Harlow: Longman.

This is a great resource to fully understand the implications of using concordances to derive (linguistic) meaning.

Leńko-Szymańska, A. (2015). The English Vocabulary Profile as a benchmark for assigning levels to learner corpus data. Learner corpora in language testing and assessment, 115-140.

Interesting research that discusses the use of Cambridge Vocabulary Profile to sort ICCI learners into levels.

Schmitt, N., Cobb, T., Horst, M., & Schmitt, D. (2017). How much vocabulary is needed to use English? Replication of Van Zeeland & Schmitt (2012), Nation, (2006), and Cobb (2007). Language Teaching, 50(2), 212–226.

Excellent paper that makes use of corpus linguistics research methods to assess how much vocabulary do learners need to use English.

Schmitt, N. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64, 4, 913–951.

Great paper that discusses the many sides of vocabulary knowledge. Great if you need a start for vocabulary research in language education.

Jones, M. & Durran, P. (2010) What can a corpus tell us about vocabulary teaching materials? The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics.

Hopefully, this chapter will help you bridge the gap between corpora as resources and language teaching. Very practical stuff. By the way, the whole Routledge Handbook of corpus linguistics is a superb resource.