Teacher attitudes to language in university bilingual education

  1. Francisco Rubio Cuenca 1
  2. Pat Moore 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Cádiz
    info

    Universidad de Cádiz

    Cádiz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04mxxkb11

  2. 2 Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla
Revista:
Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

ISSN: 1697-7467

Ano de publicación: 2018

Título do exemplar: Adressing bilingualism in Higher Education: policies and implementation issues

Número: 3

Páxinas: 89-102

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.30827/DIGIBUG.54303 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Outras publicacións en: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

Obxectivos de Desenvolvemento Sustentable

Resumo

The main goal of this article is to explore the attitudes (opinions, beliefs, etc.) regarding ‘language’ of university teachers engaged in bilingual education. The context for this research is an on-going teacher development programme at the School of Engineering (Escuela Superior de Ingeniería) at the University of Cadiz. At this stage in our research, we are looking at teacher attitudes to language from three perspectives: to better understand what they think about language in their ‘normal’ i.e. Spanish/monolingual teaching; how they conceive of language per se in learning and how they feel about bilingual classrooms. Prior to their involvement in bilingual education, these teachers were likely encouraged to think of themselves as specialists in Áreas No Lingüísticas, but it would appear that they are in the process of reconceptualising both the roles of language in learning and the contributions that teachers can make. In the bilingual classrooms, most of their students are locals with limited language skills and the teachers favour an approach geared to developing both content and languages (L1 and L2) concurrently and perceive of themselves as both models and facilitators in the process. We interpret this as a good example of Internationalization at Home (IaH).

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aguilar, M. (2017). Engineering lecturers’ views on CLIL and EMI. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(6), 722-735.
  • Aguilar, M. & Muñoz, C. (2013). The effect of proficiency on CLIL benefits in Engineering students in Spain. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 1-18.
  • Airey, J. (2012). ‘I don’t teach English’: The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25, 64-79.
  • Airey, J.; Lauridsen, K.M.; Räsänen, A.; Salö, L., & Schwach, V. (2017). The expansion of English-medium instruction in the Nordic countries: Can top-down university language policies encourage bottom-up disciplinary literacy goals? Higher Education, 73(4), 561-576.
  • Ament, J.R. & Pérez Vidal, C. (2015). Linguistic outcomes of English medium instruction programmes in higher education: A study on economics undergraduates at a Catalan university.Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(1), 47-68.
  • Björkman, B. (2011). Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of achieving communicative effectiveness? Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 950-964.
  • CRUE (2017). Documento Marco de Política Lingüística para La Internacionalización del Sistema Universitario Español. Madrid: CRUE.
  • Dafouz, E.; Hüttner, J., & Smit. U. (2016). University Teachers’ Beliefs of Language and Content Integration, in T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore & U. Smit (Eds.) Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp.123-144). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Dafouz, E. & Núñez Perucha, B. (2010). Metadiscursive devices in university lectures: a contrastive analysis of L1 and L2 teacher performance, in C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula & U. Smit (Eds.), Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms (pp. 213-231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Doiz, A. & Lasagabaster, D. (2017). Teachers’ beliefs about translanguaging practices, in C.M. Mazak and K.S. Carroll (Eds.) Translanguaging in higher education: Beyond monolingual ideologies (pp. 155-175). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Doiz, A.; Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2011). Internationalisation, multilingualism and Englishmedium instruction: the teachers’ perspective. World Englishes 30, 345-359.
  • European Commission (2015). Erasmus Facts, Figures & Trends. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/ dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/statistics/erasmus-plus-facts-figures_en.pdf , accessed 8 January, 2018.
  • Flores, M.A. & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: a multi-perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education 22(2), 219-232.
  • Fortanet-Gomez, I. (2012). Academics’ beliefs about language use and proficiency in Spanish multilingual higher education. AILA Review 25, 48-63.
  • Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). Some grammatical problems in scientific English, in C. Coffin; A. Hewings and K. O’Halloran (Eds.) Applying English Grammar, (pp. 77-94). London: The Open University.
  • Huckin, T.N. & Olsen, L.A. (1983). English for Science and Technology. A Handbook for Nonnative Speakers. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
  • Hughes, N. (2016). We’re all language teachers now: teaching subject discipline content through the medium of a second language, in C. Goria, O. Speicher, & S. Stollhans (Eds), Innovative language teaching and learning at university: enhancing participation and collaboration, (pp. 131-137). Dublin: Research-publishing.net.
  • Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes. A learning-centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hyland, K. (2013). Writing in the University: education, knowledge and reputation. Language Teaching 46(1), 53-70.
  • Jonassen, D.H. & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology: Research and Development 58(4), 439-457.
  • Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Moore, P. & Nikula, T. (2016). Translanguaging in CLIL, in T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore and U. Smit (Eds.) Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education (pp. 211-234). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Olivella Nadal, J. (2016). España como destino de estudiantes universitarios internacionales: datos y tendencias. Working Paper. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Available from http://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/82472 accessed 18 January 2018.
  • Phelps Walker, J. & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to Argue and Arguing to Learn: argumentdriven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50(5), 561-596.
  • Rubio Cuenca, F. & Domínguez, J.J. (2016). El programa de enseñanza bilingüe de la Escuela Superior de Ingeniería: Aspectos organizativos, estructurales y metodológicos. Actas de las Jornadas de Innovación Docente de la Universidad de Cádiz, (pp. 78-82). Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones de la UCA.
  • Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, J. (2003). Is there a role for the use of the L1 in an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly, 4, 760-770.
  • Strotmann, B.; Bamond, V.; Lopez Lago, J.M.; Bailen, M.; Bonilla, S., & Montesinos, F. (2014). Improving bilingual higher education: training university professors in Content and Language Integrated Learning. Higher Learning Research Communications 4(1), 91-97.
  • Wächter, B. & Maiworm, F. (2014). English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education. The state of play in 2014. Bonn: Lemmens.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet