Tendencias actitudinales en evaluación AICLEestudio piloto

  1. Jesús García Laborda
  2. Elena Alcalde Peñalver
Revista:
Tejuelo: Didáctica de la Lengua y la Literatura. Educación

ISSN: 1988-8430

Año de publicación: 2020

Título del ejemplar: Monográfico "Interfaces in language teaching"

Número: 31

Páginas: 325-341

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.17398/1988-8430.31.325 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDehesa editor

Otras publicaciones en: Tejuelo: Didáctica de la Lengua y la Literatura. Educación

Resumen

El objetivo de este artículo es presentar los resultados de un estudio piloto obtenidos a través de un cuestionario distribuido a futuros maestros de asignaturas de contextos AICLE y no AICLE que están familiarizados con este tipo de metodología por los estudios que están realizando, ya sean de grado o posgrado. El artículo empieza con una introducción al tema y continúa con una revisión de los estudios de investigación relevantes en el campo de la evaluación en este ámbito. A continuación, se presenta el método de nuestro estudio con información sobre el instrumento, los participantes y el contexto académico. Posteriormente, analizamos los resultados con ejemplos concretos de los datos obtenidos. Finalmente, reflexionaremos sobre los resultados obtenidos a modo de conclusión. Los resultados preliminares de este estudio piloto mostrarán los problemas más importantes relacionados con la evaluación en contextos AICLE de acuerdo con las expectativas de futuros maestros sobre cómo podría basarse la enseñanza siguiendo esta metodología.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aguilar, M., & Rodriguez, R. (2012). Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(2), 183-197. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.615906
  • Aiello, J., Di Martino, E., & Di Sabato, B. (2017). Preparing teachers in Italy for CLIL: Reflections on assessment, language proficiency and willingness to communicate. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(1), 69-83. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1041873
  • Bertaux, P., Coonan, C.M., Frigols, M.J., Mehisto, P. (2010). The CLIL teacher's Competence Grid. Common Constitution and Language Learning (CCLL) Comenius Network. Retrieved from http://lendtrento.eu/convegno/files/mehisto.pdf.
  • Brevik, L. & Moe, E. (2012). Effects of CLIL Teaching on Language Outcomes. In Tsagari, D. & Csépes, I. Collaboration in Language Testing and Assessment. Berlin: Peter Lang. 213-227.
  • Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Coyle, D. (2006). “Content and language integrated learning: motivating learners and teachers”. Scottish Languages Review, 13: 1-18.
  • De, l. B., Veloso, S., & Maluenda, L. (2018). Integrating assessment in a CLIL-based approach for second-year university students. PROFILE: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 20(2), 111-126.
  • Díaz Cobo, A. (2009). Assessment instruments for CLIL written production tasks. In Marsh, P. Mehisto, D. Wolff, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. J. Frigols-Martín, S. Hughes & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field (pp. 139-148). Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
  • ELDaou, B & Abdallah, A (2019). The impact of CLIL implementation on Lebanese students’ attitudes and performance. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 1-9.
  • Ennis, M. J. (2015). "Do we need to know that for the exam?" teaching English on the CLIL fault line at a trilingual university. TESOL Journal, 6(2), 358-381. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tesj.199 García Laborda, J.& Litzler, M.F. (2015). Current approaches in teaching English for Specific Purposes. Revista Onomázein, 31, 38-51.
  • Genc, Z. (2016). The opinions of primary school teachers' candidates towards material preparation and usage. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 11(2), 70-76.
  • Jäppinen, A. K. (2005). Thinking and content learning of Mathematics and Science as cognitional development in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland, Language and Education, 19, 2: 147-168.
  • Kiely, R. (2016). CLIL. The Question of Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/clil1_richard.htm.
  • Kirmizigul, A. S., & Bektas, O. (2019). Investigation of pre-service science teachers' epistemological beliefs. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 14(1), 146-157.
  • Lancaster, N. K. (2016). “Stakeholder perspectives on CLIL in a monolingual context”, in English Language Teaching, 9, 2: 148-177.
  • Leal, J. P. (2016). Assessment in CLIL: Test development at content and language for teaching natural science in english as a foreign language. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 293-317. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1895976317?accountid=14609.
  • Marsh, D.; Mehisto, P.M Wolff, D. & Frigols Martín, M. J. (2011). European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education. Retrieved from https://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/20-01-2014/european_framework_for_clil_teacher_education.pdf.
  • McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. (2001). Investigación educativa. Madrid: Pearson.
  • Massler, U., Stotz, D., & Queisser, C. (2014). Assessment instruments for primary CLIL: The conceptualisation and evaluation of test tasks. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 137-150. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.891371
  • Milla Lara, M. D. & Casas Pedrosa, A. V. (2018). Teacher Perspectives on CLIL Implementation: A Within-Group Comparison of Key Variables. Porta Linguarum, 29. 159-180.
  • Morgan, C. (2006). Appropriate language assessment in content and language integrated learning. Language Learning Journal, 33(1), 59-67. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/61880471?accountid=14609.
  • O’Dwyer, F. & de Boer, M. (2015). Approaches to Assessment in CLIL Classrooms: Two Case Studies. Language Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 397-421.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017). CLIL and Educational Level: A Longitudinal Study on the Impact of CLIL on Language Outcomes. Portal Linguarum, 29, 51-70.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2015). Evaluating CLIL Programmes: Instrument Design and Evaluation. Pulso, 39. 79-112.
  • Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). “CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future”, in International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 3: 315–341.
  • Reierstam, H. (2015). Assessing Language or Content? A comparative study of the assessment practices in three Swedish upper secondary CLIL schools. Master’s Thesis. University of Gothenburg.
  • 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.
  • Tajgozari, M. & Alimorad, Z. (2019). Iranian EFL students’ perceptions of criteria for assessing students’ written performance. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 1-9.
  • Vilkancienė, L. & Rozgienė, I. (2017). CLIL Teacher Competences and Attitudes. Sustainable Multilingualism, 11. 196-218. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/sm-2017-0019.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet