Abstract
The present study is aimed at presenting CLIL university teachers' attitudes towards the implementation of bilingual education at university. Results show that content teachers who take part in CLIL teacher training courses tend to agree on certain positive as well as negative beliefs regarding bilingual education at university. Once the information obtained from the survey has been examined, this chapter will focus on the reasons identified as to reject the implementation of CLIL in higher education. This work will then offer possible solutions to the hindering zones identified in CLIL teaching by describing a CLIL teacher training formula which should help future CLIL professors in their daily tasks.
TopBackground Of The Study And Methodology Description
This study was structured into three different phases (Contero, 2017). The first of them focused on direct observation in the classroom and the analysis of CLIL sequences designed for university content courses (distinguishing them from FL courses). It is the second phase of our study that will be the focal point of the present paper. Our survey comprised two key open-ended questions addressed to a population of expert professors in content teaching who were immersed in a process of experimentation with CLIL methodology. This survey allowed us to collect and analyze judgments made by university teachers on their first contact with CLIL practices It is also crucial to mention that the third phase of our study will not be deeply presented in this chapter for length limitations. Particularly, this third phase of our work consisted of a survey formed by closed-ended questions addressed to content university teachers of different areas and intended to obtain the following information: 1) confirming CLIL-ProfiTs’ attitudes towards CLIL teaching at university; 2) identifying non-CLIL content professors’ beliefs towards CLIL university teaching; 3) comparing both positions; and 4) providing solutions to the obstacles encountered.
As noted above, the focus of this paper is to delve into phase two through which CLIL-ProfiTs had the opportunity to openly put forward their viewpoint regarding the teaching practices shown to them in the CLIL training schemes they had participated in.
Key Terms in this Chapter
CLILUT: CLIL for University Teachers, a teacher training scheme for new content teachers immersed in bilingual programmes in higher education.
English/Languages for Specific Purposes: Area of knowledge whose experts can help taking part in the coordination teams of bilingual programmes, by collaborating with content teachers so as to offer their expertise in the technical language to be used in CLIL, as well as in the teaching strategies LSP teachers employ in their language courses.
Scaffolding Model: The method to provide students with a scaffold so as to be helped in the building process of their knowledge can be done following different models. The pattern suggested in our study is characterized by adopting a more student-teacher interactive perspective.
Foreign Language Acquisition Method: A FL teaching approach firstly presented by Haidl (1993) and his research group aimed at encouraging authenticity in the FL class.
Methodological Strategy: Mechanism used by the teacher to be applied in class as to obtain a specific goal.
CLILUT Pentagon: A teaching proposal firstly described in Contero’s work (2017) designed as an attempt to systematize CLIL university teacher training.
CLIL-ProfiTs: CLIL Professors in Training. They join training activities so as to gain experience before or during the first phases of their CLIL teaching.