Book contents
- Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching
- Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Part I The Educational Context for CLIL
- Part II Current Aspects of Practice in CLIL
- Part III New Knowledge and Future Directions
- 8 Lessons to Be Learned
- 9 Supporting Peer Collaboration and Social Cohesion in Multilingual Classrooms
- 10 Exploring the Potential of a Pluriliteracies Approach
- Afterword
- Index
- References
8 - Lessons to Be Learned
A Professional Development Approach to Curriculum Planning in a Multilingual School in Galicia
from Part III - New Knowledge and Future Directions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2020
Book contents
- Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching
- Curriculum Integrated Language Teaching
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Part I The Educational Context for CLIL
- Part II Current Aspects of Practice in CLIL
- Part III New Knowledge and Future Directions
- 8 Lessons to Be Learned
- 9 Supporting Peer Collaboration and Social Cohesion in Multilingual Classrooms
- 10 Exploring the Potential of a Pluriliteracies Approach
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter focuses on how integrated curriculum planning and implementation in a trilingual setting might provide useful insights for those working with CLIL, across what would appear to be very different and specific linguistic contexts including multilingual and Anglophone contexts. We draw on relevant lessons learned from a detailed longitudinal case study in Galicia to highlight key areas for consideration and analysis across different contexts. This experience emphasized four key factors that emerged from the study that we suggest are transferable to other linguistic contexts: training/professional learning for teachers, a literacies approach that facilitates pluriliteracies development, teacher collaboration where language and content teachers co-construct the CLIL curriculum together and implement their designs across CLIL lessons and ownership of CLIL pedagogies.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Curriculum Integrated Language TeachingCLIL in Practice, pp. 145 - 164Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., and Bloom, B. S. (eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing. Abridged ed. New York, NY: Longman-Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Barbero, T. (2012). ‘Assessment Tools and Practices in CLIL’, in Quartapelle, F. (ed.), Assessment and Evaluation in CLIL. Pavia, Italy: Ibis-Como, pp. 38–56.Google Scholar
Barreiro, I., and San Isidro, X. (2009). ‘Estudo: Perspectiva empírica sobre as aulas CLIL galegas’, in San Isidro, X. (ed.), CLIL: Integrando linguas “a través” do currículo. Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria, Xunta de Galicia, pp. 183–224.Google Scholar
Calvo, E., and San Isidro, X. (2012). ‘The Fusion Effect of CLIL on Language-Building and Content Learning: Research Study’, in Meyer, O. and Marsh, D. (eds.), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett, Germany: Eichstaett Academic Press, pp. 122–135.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Coyle, D. (2007). ‘Content Language Integrated Learning: Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D. (2008). ‘CLIL – a Pedagogical Approach from the European Perspective’, in Van Deusen-Scholl, N. and Hornberger, N. H. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 97–111.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., and Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., and Smit, U. (2007). Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
De Coninck, C. (2008). Core Affairs: Flanders, Belgium: Case Studies Basic Education in Europe. Enschede, the Netherlands: SLO–Netherlands Institute Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
de España, G. (2013). Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad educativa. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 295, 97858–97921.Google Scholar
Guillamón-Suesta, F., and Renau, M. L. (2015). ‘A Critical Vision of the CLIL Approach in Secondary Education: A Study in the Valencian Community in Spain’. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Infante, D., Benvenuto, G., and Lastrucci, E. (2009). ‘The Effects of CLIL from the Perspective of Experienced Teachers’, in Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., Aliaga, R., Asikainen, T., Frigols-Martín, M. J., Hughes, S., and Langé, G., (eds.) CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä, pp. 156–163.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2017). ‘Language Learning Motivation and Language Attitudes in Multilingual Spain from an International Perspective’. Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 583–596.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., and Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Macaro, E. (2018). English Medium Instruction: Content and Language in Policy and Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Massler, U., Stotz, D., and Queisser, C. (2014). ‘Assessment Instruments for Primary CLIL: The Conceptualisation and Evaluation of Test Tasks’. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 137–150.Google Scholar
McKernan, J. (2008). Curriculum and Imagination: Process Theory, Pedagogy and Action Research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., and 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.Google Scholar
Paran, A. (2013). ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning: Panacea or Policy Borrowing Myth?’ Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342.Google Scholar
Pavón, V., Ávila, J., Gallego, A., and Espejo, R. (2014). ‘Strategic and Organisational Considerations in Planning CLIL: A Study on the Coordination between Content and Language Teachers’. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), 1–17.Google Scholar
Pavón, V., and Rubio, F. (2010). ‘Teachers’ Concerns and Uncertainties about the Introduction of CLIL Programmes’. Porta Linguarum, 14(June), 45–58.Google Scholar
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). ‘CLIL and Educational Level: A Longitudinal Study on the Impact of CLIL on Language Outcomes’. Porta Linguarum, 29(January), 51–70.Google Scholar
Priestly, M. (2019). ‘Curriculum: Concepts and Approaches’. Retrieved from https://mrpriestley.wordpress.com/2019/01/04/curriculum-concepts-and-approaches/.Google Scholar
Sahlberg, P. (2006). ‘Models of Curriculum Development: International Trends and the Way Forward’, in Sahlberg, P. (ed.), Curriculum Reform and Implementation in the 21st Century: Policies, Perspectives and Implementation, pp. 108–121.Google Scholar
San Isidro, X. (2010). ‘An Insight into Galician CLIL’, in Lasagabaster, D. and Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 55–78.Google Scholar
San Isidro, X. (2016). ‘AICLE: un viaje a HOTS’, in Herrera, F. (ed.), Enseñar español a niños y adolescentes. Barcelona, Spain: Difusión, pp. 67–78.Google Scholar
San Isidro, X. (2017). CLIL in a Multilingual Setting: A Longitudinal Study on Students, Families and Teachers. Doctoral thesis. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
San Isidro, X. (2018). ‘Innovations and Challenges in CLIL Implementation in Europe’. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 185–195.Google Scholar
San Isidro, X., and Lasagabaster, D. (2019). ‘The Impact of CLIL on Pluriliteracy Development and Content Learning in a Rural Multilingual Setting: A Longitudinal Study’. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 584–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
San Isidro, X., and Lasagabaster, D. (2019). ‘Monitoring of Teachers’ Views on Both CLIL and the Development of Pluriliteracies: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study’. English Language Teaching, 12(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
Schwab, G. (2015). ‘Teaching Methods and Approaches: Looking into a Unique CLIL Classroom in Germany’, in Jenks, C. J. and Seedhouse, P. (eds.), International Perspectives on ELT Classroom Interaction. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 10–27.Google Scholar
Sierra, J. M. (2016). ‘Cooperative Projects in a CLIL Course: What Do Students Think?’, in Lasagabaster, D. and Doiz, A. (eds.), CLIL Experiences in Secondary and Tertiary Education: In Search of Good Practices. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang, pp. 69–97.Google Scholar
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London, UK: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Whittaker, R., Llinares, A., and McCabe, A. (2011). ‘Written Discourse Development in CLIL at Secondary School’. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4
- Cited by