Assessment re-visited

Marta Genis, Ph.D.
Trinity College London Spain

Assessment, in Education, refers to the knowledge needed for gathering data about the students’ learning and using that information to improve teaching and, ultimately, the outcomes of students. According to Stiggins (2008, p.2)1, assessment practices that were before used “to separate the successful from the unsuccessful student now must become practices that support the learning of all students”. Therefore, assessment is now regarded as the other face of the coin of instruction, a tool that helps teachers plan and readjust teaching and learning programmes so that both teachers and students can improve the process of education, thus satisfying the primary purpose of assessment: to improve students’ learning and teachers’ teaching, producing a permanent flow of information in order to fine-tune the learning goals for the students’ success. Harris & Mc Cann (1994, p.2)2 consider assessment as “one of the most valuable sources of information about what is happening in a learning environment.”

Evaluating CLIL Programmes: Instrument Design and Validation

 María Luisa Pérez Cañado
Department of English Philology, University of Jaén, Spain

 

Abstract

This article presents the three sets of question-naires which have been originally designed and validated within a broader governmentally-funded research project to determine how CLIL schemes are playing out across a broad array of contexts (Primary and Secondary Education; urban and rural settings; public and private schools; with tea-chers, students, and parents). They are the first qualitative instruments whose design has been based on recent research outcomes and which have undergone a carefully controlled double-fold pilot process for their validation (external ratings approach and pilot phase with a representative sample of nearly 300 subjects). After characterizing the questions included in the surveys, along with their format and chief categories, the article goes on to describe the steps undertaken for their research-based design and the double-fold pilot process followed for their validation. The actual questionnaires are then presented (for language teachers, non-linguistic area teachers, teaching assistants, students, and parents) in a format which can directly be applied in any CLIL classroom in order to gauge how bilingual pro-grammes are playing out at present.Keywords: CLIL, survey, validity, reliability, stakeholder perspectives.

ResumenEste artículo presenta los tres cuestionarios que se han diseñado y validado en el seno de un Proyecto de I+D para determinar cómo están funcionando los programas AICLE en una amplia gama de contextos (Educación Primaria y Se-cundaria; contextos urbanos y rurales; centros públicos y privados; con profesorado, alumnado y padres y madres). Se trata de los primeros instru-mentos cualitativos cuyo diseño se ha basado en los hallazgos de las más recientes investigaciones y que han sido sometidos a un riguroso proceso de doble pilotaje para su validación (sistema de jueces y pilotaje con una muestra representativa de casi 300 sujetos). Tras caracterizar las preguntas incluidas en los cuestionarios, junto con su formato y principales categorías, el artículo describe los pasos acometidos para su diseño y el proceso de pilotaje seguido para su validación. Los cuestionarios en sí (para profesorado, alumnado y padres y madres) se presentan en un formato directamente aplicable en cualquier aula AICLE para determinar el funcionamiento de los programas bilingües.Palabras clave:AICLE, cuestionario, validez, fiabilidad, perspectivas de los participantes

 

Evaluating CLIL Programmes: Instrument Design and Validation (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312583170_Evaluating_CLIL_Programmes_Instrument_Design_and_Validation  [accessed Mar 24, 2017].

 

 

Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance between Pollyanna and Scrooge

María Luisa Pérez Cañado
Department of English Philology, University of Jaén, Spain

 

Abstract:

This article examines the appearance of the “pendulum effect” in the CLIL research arena and makes a case for a balanced, disinterested, and methodologically sound approach to continue driving the CLIL agenda forward. It is written as a response to the steady stream of criticism to which CLIL research has recently been subjected and which is primarily embodied by Bruton (Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the Research. System 39.523–532 (2011b), CLIL: Some of the reasons why... and why not. System 41.587–597 (2013), CLIL: Detail matters in the whole picture. More than a reply to J. Hüttner and U. Smit (2014). System 53. 119–128 (2015)) and Paran (Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth? Applied Linguistics Review 4(2). 317–342 (2013), on whose articles it focuses in order to redress the balance on the chief three fronts which these authors explore: CLIL characterization, implementation, and investigation. Within each one, it counters incorrect data and biased interpretations, updates obsolete information which renders certain arguments invalid, and identifies and provides solutions to the main caveats in the CLIL research hitherto conducted. The ultimate aim is to illustrate how we should neither harbor an excessively optimistic view on the way CLIL is playing out nor maintain an overly dismal outlook on the feasibility of its implementation, and to carve out a future research agenda in order to bring the pendulum to a standstill through solid, unskewed, and unbiased CLIL research.

Keywords: CLIL, pendulum effect, characterization, implementation, research

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304607695_Stopping_the_pendulum_effect_in_CLIL_research_Finding_the_balance_between_Pollyanna_and_Scrooge

 

From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy

María Luisa Pérez Cañado

Department of English Philology, University of Jaén, Spain

 

Abstract

This article provides an updated account of the evolution of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), from an initial period of CLIL craze to one of CLIL critique to, at present, what could be considered a CLIL conundrum. The controversies which currently affect this approach are documented on three main fronts (characterization, implementation, and research), illustrating how the so-called pendulum effect is at work in all of them. The concomitant challenges posed by these controversies are identified and specific ways to redress them are provided via concrete research-based proposals stemming from two governmentally-funded research projects. The ultimate aim is to identify the chief hurdles which need to be tackled within the CLIL arena in the very near future and to signpost possible ways of superseding them in order to continue advancing smoothly into the next decade of CLIL development.
 
Key words: CLIL, controversy, characterization, implementation, research

Two case studies of content-based language education

Fred Genesee and Kathryn Lindholm-Leary
McGill University / San Jose State University

This article describes and discusses two case studies of content-based instruction for second language education — foreign/second language immersion for majority language students in Canada and dual language education for minority language students in the U.S. After discussing the rationale for CBI in general, we examine 45 years of research on each program model and provide empirical evidence on a number of important issues, including: students’ proficiency in the two languages used for instruction; non-language academic outcomes; whether age is an important factor in students’ language outcomes; and the relationship between age of first exposure to the second language and outcomes in that language. Two outstanding major issues are discussed at some length; namely, the suitability of these programs for at-risk learners and the need for a coherent model of how best to integrate language and content instruction to maximize second language proficiency without detracting from academic achievement.
Suggestions for future directions are provided.

Additional abstract(s) at end.
Keywords: Content-based instruction, second/foreign language immersion, dual language education, language proficiency outcomes, academic outcomes, at-risk learners, content and language integration