Category: EMI

Estudios “bilingües” y EMI en la Universidad española 2016 – 2017

Acaba de publicarse el documento de la CRUE sobre la Universidad española correspondiente al curso 2016-2017.

Esto es lo que incluye sobre enseñanzas “bilingües” (p.115 del mencionado informe):

 

4.04 La impartición de titulaciones oficiales de Grado y Máster en lenguas extranjeras es todavía muy reducida en la oferta de las universidades españolas.

En el curso académico 2016/17, las universidades públicas presenciales impartieron el 7,5% del total de su oferta de enseñanzas de Grado en régimen bilingüe, mientras que en las Universidades privadas presencia- les, la participación de la oferta bilingüe de enseñan- zas de Grado fue del 17,8%.

La rama de Sociales y Jurídicas concentra el mayor porcentaje del total de las titulaciones bilingües en las universidades privadas (53%), en tanto que, en las universidades públicas, la rama de Artes y Humanidades es la que presenta un mayor porcentaje sobre el total de las titulaciones bilingües (36,4%).

Las titulaciones de las ramas de Salud y Ciencias son las menos representadas en el conjunto de las ofertas de Grado bilingües de las universidades públicas y privadas presenciales.

Señalar que, a pesar de su reducida dimensión, tanto las universidades públicas como las privadas muestran un acusado dinamismo en la implantación de esta modalidad de enseñanzas que se hace patente en aumentos del 24,6% y 95% con relación a las ofertas del año anterior.

A nivel institucional, la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (61,4%), de las universidades públicas; y la Universidad Europea de Madrid (55,7%), de las universidades privadas, son las que han ofertado un mayor nivel de enseñanzas de Grado en régimen bilingüe en el curso académico 2016/17 (ver Gráfico/ 4.14).

Para las enseñanzas de Máster oficial, la presencia en el curso académico 2016/17 de las enseñanzas bilingües fue del 10,4% y del 14,3% del total de la oferta en las universidades públicas y privadas presenciales, respectivamente.

Por ramas de enseñanza, destacan las titulaciones de Sociales y Jurídicas (56,9%) e Ingeniería (31,9%) del total de la oferta de las universidades privadas, mientras que en las universidades públicas se observa una distribución más homogénea entre las diferentes ramas de enseñanza, siendo las titulaciones de Ciencias con el 25,2% y Artes y Humanidades con el 15,9% del total de la oferta bilingüe la de mayor y menor participación, respectivamente.

A nivel institucional, la Universidad Europea de Madrid lidera la relación con el 51,8% del total de su oferta en régimen bilingüe, seguida por la Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya con el 40% del total de su oferta impartida en la modalidad bilingüe en el curso académico 2016/17 (ver Gráfico/ 4.14).

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.

English as a medium of instruction, British Council report

emiBCouncil

 

This report presents the findings of a study which attempted to provide an initial picture of the rapidly
growing global phenomenon of English medium instruction (EMI). Our working definition of EMI was:
The use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first
language (L1) of the majority of the population is not English.
The study was conducted by EMI Oxford (The Centre for Research and Development in English Medium
Instruction), a centre based in the University of Oxford’s Department of Education. The research
group included Professor Ernesto Macaro, Dr Catherine Walter, Julie Dearden and Ting Zhao.
The study was enabled thanks to the support of the British Council and the data were collected between
October 2013 and March 2014.

The broad aim was to map the size, shape and future trends of EMI worldwide. In order to meet
the challenge of researching a global phenomenon with limited resources it was decided that the
methodology of this initial and unique study would be to ask British Council staff in 60 countries to act
as ‘informed respondents’ for the countries in which they were resident. Open-ended questionnaires were
sent to these respondents and they were asked to provide information on the current state of EMI under
a number of headings. Further information on the methodology used is provided in the main report.
We obtained information on 55 countries.

The main conclusions are:
■ The general trend is towards a rapid expansion of EMI provision.
■ There is official governmental backing for EMI but with some interesting exceptions.
■ Although public opinion is not wholeheartedly in support of EMI, especially in the secondary
phase, the attitudes can be described as ‘equivocal’ or ‘controversial’ rather than being ‘against’ its introduction and/or continued use.
■ Where there are concerns these relate to the potentially socially divisive nature of EMI because
instruction through English may limit access from lower socio-economic groups and/or a fear
that the first language or national identity will be undermined.

Academic discourse: EIDUM 2014-2015


Academic discourse – Created with Haiku Deck, presentation software that inspires


Source: www.phdcomics.comReferences

Biber, D.,  Conrad, S. 2009. Register, genre and style. Cambridge: CUP.

Biber, D. Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, Edward Finegan . 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Carter-Thomas, S.,   Rowley-Jolivet, E. 2003. Analysing the scientific conference presentation (CP). A methodological overview of a multimodal genre, ASp, 39-40, 59-72.

Carter-Thomas, S., Rowley-Jolivet, E. 2005. Genre Awareness and rhetorical appropriacy
: manipulation of information structure by NS and NNS scientists in the international
conference sett. English for Specific Purposes, 24,1: 41-64.

Glasman-Deal, H. 2009. Science Research Writing A Guide for Non-Native Speakers of English. World Scientific.

Hyland, K. 2009. Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. London: Continuum

Rugg, G.,  Petre, M. 2004. The unwriten rules of PhD research. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Scitable: English communication for scientists: Giving oral presentations. Nature.com.


Presentations (general presentations)

How to deliver an oral presentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_h5iPPYPO8

A bad presentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATfY8dvbuFg

Comparing oral presentations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRaPmO6TlaM