Reflexiones sobre la adquisición L2AICLE en Madrid

  1. Carmen Pena Díaz 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Alcalá
    info

    Universidad de Alcalá

    Alcalá de Henares, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04pmn0e78

Journal:
Tonos digital: revista de estudios filológicos

ISSN: 1577-6921

Year of publication: 2019

Issue: 37

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDIGITUM editor

More publications in: Tonos digital: revista de estudios filológicos

Abstract

The Spanish joke “ Who is a Spanish person? Someone whose life is spent learning English”, perfectly defines the Spanish general perception of their second language acquisition, which is usually English. According to a survey conducted by the national media, 65% of Spaniards recognize that they are not able to speak, read or write in that language and there is an ete rnal and complex dilemma of why this occurs in a country where many hours are dedicated to its study both at school and privately and also, where schooling in English begins at very early ages. In response to this dilemma of why Spaniards do not seem to ac quire English as proficiently as their neighbours (there is a general belief that Portuguese or French speak English much better), there tend to coalesce diverse opinions such as the fact that audiovisual material is dubbed into Spanish, that there are not enough hours of study devoted to this language, that little importance is given to its study, etc. All of these opinions are perceived by the general public and even by some language teachers. However, not much importance is normally given to the way Engl ish is being taught and the learning methods which are used. The purpose of this paper is to analyze precisely which factors are involved in the solution to this dilema, especially regarding one of the latest attempts to improve this acquisition, the impl ementation of CLIL methodology, which is being made to improve younger generations’ English proficiency.

Bibliographic References

  • Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. (2008). Multilingualism and minority languages. Aila Review 21.
  • Coyle, D. (2010). Foreword. In CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training, D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), vii-viii. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Dobson, A., Pérez Murillo, M. D., & Johnstone, R. M. (2010). Bilingual Education Project Spain: Evaluation Report. Madrid: Gobierno de España Ministerio de Educación & British Council (Spain).
  • European Union website. (2016).
  • European Commission (2014). Improving the Effectiveness of Language Learning. CLIL and CALL. http://ec.europa.eu/languages/library/studies/clilcall_en.pdf
  • “European Commission’s White Paper on Education and Training”, available from: http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdf (accessed 28-11-18).
  • Fernández Fernández, R., Pena Díaz, C., García Gómez, A., & Halbach, A. (2005). La implantación de proyectos educativos bilinguës en la Comunidad de Madrid: Las expectativas del profesorado antes de iniciar el proyecto. Porta Linguarum, 3, 161-173.
  • Gallardo del Puerto, F. &Martínez Adrián, M. (2013). “ ¿Es más efectivo el aprendizaje de la lengua extranjera en un contexto AICLE? Resultados de la investigación en España”. Revista de Padres y Maestros/ Journal of Parents and Teachers, 349.
  • Halbach, Ana. (2008). “Una metodología para la enseñanza bilingüe en la etapa de primaria”, Revista de Educación, Nº 346, Ministerio de Educación: 455-466.
  • Lasabagaster, D. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  • Lorenzo, F. (2007). The sociolinguistics of CLIL: Language planning and language change in 21stcentury Europe. RESLA Vol. Extra 1: 27-38.
  • Marsh D. (2008). Language awareness and CLIL. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Knowledge about Language, Volume 6, J. Cenoz J. & N. H. Hornberger (eds.), 233-246. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
  • McKendry, E. (2006). Immersion Education: A Short Guide for Teachers. I gcomhairle le Maire Ui Eigeartaigh, Bunscoil Bheann Mhadagain.
  • Morton, T. (2013). “A View from Spain”, BIEN Newsletter 1. University of Exeter.
  • Novotná, J. & Hofmannova, M. (2005). “Teacher training for Content and Language Integrated Learning”. 15th ICMI Study Conference The Professional Education and Development of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. CUP:10
  • Olaziregi, I. (2006). “Irakastereduak aldatzeko ordua ote?” Bat: Soziolinguistika aldizkaria, 60: 31-41.
  • Olivares, M. & Pena, C. (2013). “How Do We Teach Our CLIL Teachers? A Case Study from Alcalá University”. Porta Linguarum 19.
  • Pena Díaz, C. & Porto Requejo, M. (2008). “Teacher Beliefs in a CLIL Education Project”, Revista Porta Linguarum: 151-161.
  • Pena Díaz, C. & Olivares Leyva, M. (2013). "How do we teach our CLIL teachers? A Case study from the University of Alcalá" (ISSN:1697-7467). Porta Linguarum, 19: 87-99.
  • Pérez-Vidal, C. (2007). The need for focus on form (FoF) in Content and Language Integrated approaches: An exploratory study. RESLA Vol. Extra 1: 39-54.
  • Siguán, M. (1992). España Plurilingüe. Alianza Universidad: Madrid.
  • Urrutia, H., Candia, L., Martínez, M.D. y Milla, F. (1998). Bilingüismo y rendimiento académico en la educación vasca. Ed. Jóvenes por la Paz.
  • Van de Craen, P. (2001). “Content and Language Integrated Learning, Culture of Education and Learning Theories”. In Bas, M., Reflections on Language and Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Van de Craen, P., Mondt, K., Allain, L. & Gao, Y. (2007). Why and how CLIL works. An outline for a CLIL theory. Vienna English Working Papers 16(3): 70-78.
  • Marsh, D. (ed.). 2002.CLIL/EMILE. The European Dimension. Actions, Trends, and Foresight Potential. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä
Data source: Dialnet