Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:23:31.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A role for lexical bundles in the implementation of Content and Language Integrated Learning programmes in Colombian universities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2013

Extract

The production of content-appropriate discourse in academic English has proved a difficult task for learners in different disciplines in Colombian universities. There is plenty of blame to go around: among other problems, educators frequently point to the belief that language courses (isolated from university subjects) automatically promote linguistic skills transferable to a specific subject-language, the informal approach to subjects demanding high-skill communicative proficiency, the abuse of L1 informal register in both L1 and L2 academic writing and speaking; the idiosyncratic academic culture dominated by a blinkered return-of-investment thinking, and the lack of academic rigour leading to distinct increments in existing knowledge. In such a scenario, it becomes apparent that a practical, unambiguous approach is to be taken in order to facilitate the implementation of a more seamless integration of language and content in Colombian EAP classrooms.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkinson, D. 2002. ‘Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition.’ Modern Language Journal 86(4), 525–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. 2008. ‘Formulaic sequences: are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 7289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, V. 2004. ‘Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: examples from history and biology.’ English for Specific Purposes 23, 397423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. 2000. Literacy and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mercer, S. 2012. ‘Dispelling the myth of the natural-born linguist.’ ELT Journal 66(1), 22–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, S. & Ryan, S. 2010. ‘A mindset for EFL: learner beliefs about the role of natural talent.’ ELT Journal 64(4), 436–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nekrasova, T. M. 2009. ‘English L1 and L2 speakers’ knowledge of lexical bundles.' Language Learning 59(3), 647–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shulman, L. 1987. ‘Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform.’ Harvard Educational Review 57, 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ting, Y. L. 2011. ‘CLIL…not only not immersion but also more than the sum of its parts.’ ELT Journal 65(3), 314–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar