Students' response to CLIL in tertiary education: the Case of Business administration and economics at Complutense University
Keywords:CLIL, tertiary education, students’ response, questionnaire
AbstractThe implementation of CLIL in Spanish education is a natural consequence of the global use of English as a ‘lingua franca’. This affects not only primary and secondary education but also university, where a wide range of degrees are being taught in English as a medium of instruction (aka EMI). However, in contrast to Spanish primary and secondary education, which have received more attention (Sierra, 2011; Llinares and Whittaker, 2009; Halbach, 2009, inter alia), there is still a considerable lack of studies focusing on the Spanish university context and the attitude of both lecturers and students to the implementation of these EMI courses (Dafouz, 2011; Dafouz and Núñez, 2009; Dafouz et al, 2007; Muñoz 2001). The aim of this paper is to analyse students’ response to pro-CLIL implementation in the degrees offered by the Economics and Business Administration schools at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. The data used in the study have been collected by means of a questionnaire addressed to students where aspects like the effects of FL instruction on their own linguistic competence or their general attitude towards instruction in English are considered.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. and D. Marsh (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dafouz, E. (2004). “It is never too late: implementing CLIL in tertiary education”, Paper presented at the 2004 International Symposium of CLIL, Aranjuez, Spain.
Dafouz, E. (2011) “English as the Medium of Instruction in Spanish Contexts”, in Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra and F. Gallardo del Puerto (eds.) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Berlin: Peter Lang, 189-209.
Dafouz, E. and B. Núñez Perucha (2009) “CLIL in higher education: Devising a new learning landscape”, in E. Dafouz and M. Guerrini (eds.) CLIL across educational levels: experiences from primary, secondary and tertiary contexts. Madrid: Richmond Santillana, 101-112.
Dafouz, E. et al (2007). “Integrating CLIL at the tertiary level: teachers’ and students’ reactions”, in D. Marsh and D. Wolff (eds.) Diverse Contexts-converging goals. CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 91-101.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). “Foreword”, in Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra and F. Gallardo del Puerto (eds.) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Berlin: Peter Lang, 1-24.
Dörney, Z. (2001a). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667343
Dörney, Z. (2001b). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Longman, Ltd.
Dörney, Z. and K. Csizér (2002). “Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation: Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey”, Applied Linguistics, 23(4): 421-462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.4.421
Eurydice Report (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice, the information network of education in Europe.
Fernández, R. and A. Halbach (2011). “Analysing the situation of Teachers in the Madrid Bilingual Project after Four Years of Implementation”, in Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., J.M. Sierra and F. Gallardo del Puerto (eds.) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 240-270.
Halbach, A. (2009). “The primary school teacher and the challenges of bilingual education”, in Dafouz, E. and M. Guerrini (eds.) CLIL across Educational Levels: Experiences from Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Contexts. Madrid: Santillana, 19-26.
Hellekjaer, G. (2010). “Language matters: assessing lecture comprehension in Norwegian English-medium higher education”, AILA Applied Linguistics Series, Vol. 7 , in C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, U. Smit, (eds.) Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 233–258.
Horwitz, E. (2001). “Language anxiety and achievement”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21: 112-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000071
Llinares, A. and R. Whittaker (2009) “Integrating the learning of language and the learning of content in CLIL classes: the UAM-CLIL project”. Invited lecture. III Encuentro sobre Semi-Inmersión en Catalunya –I mesa Redonda Internacional sobre Programas AICLE. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.
Llinares, A. and E. Dafouz (2010) “Content and Language Integrated Programs in the Madrid Region: Overview and research findings”, in Lasagabaster, D. and Y. Ruíz de Zarobe (eds.) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newscastle: Cambridge Scholars, 95-113.
Marsh, D. (2001). CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension. Action, Trends and Foresight Potential. Finland: UniCOM, University of Jyväskylä.
Muñoz, C. (2001). “The use of the target language as the medium of instruction. University students’ perceptions”, Annuari de filologia XIII/A/10, 71-81.
Oppenheim, Abraham N. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London: Continuum.
Sierra, J.M. (2011). CLIL and Project Work: Contributions from the Classroom. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Juan Manuel Sierra and Francisco Gallardo del Puerto (eds.). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 211-239.
Wilkinson, R. (ed.) (2004). Integrating content and language. Meeting the challenge of a multilingual higher education. Maastricht: Maastricht University
This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.