Category: research

5 recent papers on Data-driven learning

 

Requested by one of my students, a selection of 5 recent papers on Data-driven learning and the use of corpora in language education.

 

Ballance, O. J. (2017). Pedagogical models of concordance use: correlations between concordance user preferences. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3-4), 259-283. (Link)

Boulton, A. (2017). Corpora in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 50(4), 483-506. (Link)

Boulton, A., & Cobb, T. (2017). Corpus Use in Language Learning: A Meta‐Analysis. Language Learning, 67(2), 348-393. (Link)

Godwin-Jones, R. (2017). Data-informed language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 9–27. (Link)

Lee, H., Warschauer, M., & Lee, J. H. (2018). The Effects of Corpus Use on Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A Multilevel Meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics. (Link)

 

 

 

Academia is like a pie-eating contest where the reward is more pie

Love this art by Christopher Vorlet in The Chronicle of Higher Education. This is about how those in the academia experience anxiety and the never-ending feeling that there is not such thing as “enough”. I was shocked by this quote: “Academia is like a pie-eating contest where the reward is more pie.”

Productivity anxiety: the uneasy feeling that there is always something left to do.

You can read the whole piece here:

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Feeling-Anxious-You-re-Not/243117

 

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.

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.

Free copy of our latest paper in Computer Assisted Language Learning

Our article, Language teachers’ perceptions on the use of OER language processing technologies in MALL, has just been published on Computer Assisted Language Learning Journal, Taylor & Francis Online.

50 free eprints can be downloaded from the following URL:

http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/epWFWhVAGFZ4yRSIaMcA/full

Get yours now!!!!

Abstract

Combined with the ubiquity and constant connectivity of mobile devices, and with innovative approaches such as Data-Driven Learning (DDL), Natural Language Processing Technologies (NLPTs) as Open Educational Resources (OERs) could become a powerful tool for language learning as they promote individual and personalized learning. Using a questionnaire that was answered by language teachers (n = 230) in Spain and the UK, this research explores the extent to which OER NLPTs are currently known and used in adult foreign language learning. Our results suggest that teachers’ familiarity and use of OER NLPTs are very low. Although online dictionaries, collocation dictionaries and spell checkers are widely known, NLPTs appear to be generally underused in foreign language teaching. It was found that teachers prefer computer-based environments over mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets and that teachers’ qualification determines their familiarity with a wider range of OER NLPTs. This research offers insight into future applications of Language Processing Technologies as OERs in language learning.

KEYWORDS: Language learning, teachers’ perceptions, OER, MALL, natural language processing technologies, higher education