Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

CLIL Collaborations in Higher Education: A Critical Perspective

高等教育中學科內容和語言整合教學的合作:批判性視角

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
English Teaching & Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While the research on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in North American K-12 settings, as well as European post-secondary English as a medium of instruction contexts, is substantial, there is limited research on CLIL in Anglo-dominant higher education. CLIL is a pedagogical approach wherein applied linguists and content faculty collaborate to support multilingual student success in the internationalized university. This study critically examines CLIL interdisciplinary collaborations between applied linguists and content faculty at a Canadian university to better understand the processes and discourses that shape these partnerships. Data were collected from audio-recorded professional development meetings involving applied linguists, as well as semi-structured individual interviews of content faculty and applied linguists. To analyse the data, we draw on critical applied linguistics perspectives to examine the institutional structures, processes and discourses impacting interdisciplinary collaboration between applied linguists (ALs) and content faculty (CF) and to investigate the power dynamics within these relationships. The findings suggest that in CLIL collaborations applied linguists and content faculty work together in a “trading zone” or “contact zone” against a backdrop of power relations and institutional constraints and affordances. Recommendations are made in relation to the importance of institutional support for interdisciplinary collaborations for universities that have increasing linguistically and culturally diverse student populations.

摘要

儘管基於北美K-12教育框架以及歐洲高等教育以英語為教學媒介語的背景下, 已有大量針對學科內容和語言整合教學(CLIL)的研究, 但在以英語為主導的高等教育中對CLIL的研究卻很少。CLIL為一種教學方法, 指的是語言教師和學科教師合作以支援多語言學生在國際化大學中的學業發展。本研究深入探究了加拿大一所大學的語言教師和學科教師之間CLIL的跨學科合作, 以理解影響這些合作關係的過程和論述。本研究資料來源為語言教師參與專業發展會議的錄音檔, 以及與學科教師和語言教師的半結構化個人訪談。為了分析研究資料, 我們採用批判的應用語言學觀點來研究影響語言教師和學科教師之間跨學科合作的體制、過程、和論述, 並研究這些關係中的權力動態平衡。研究結果表明, 在CLIL合作中, 語言教師和學科教師在權力關係和制度限制的背景下, 在「交易區」或「交流區」中進行合作。本研究亦針對在語言及文化層面, 多樣化學生群體不斷增加的大學, 就機構對跨學科合作支持的重要性提出了建議。.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The ELRC lecturers identify themselves as applied linguists, and all have PhDs in the discipline.

References

  1. Arkoudis, S. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb337.0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Canagarajah, S. (2008). The politics of English language teaching. In S. May & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd edition, vol 1 (pp 213–227). New York: Springer.

  4. Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chanock, K., & Horton, C. (2011). Strange bedfellows: embedding development of skills in discipline curricula. Paper presented at the tenth biennial conference of the Association for Academic Language and Learning (pp. 23-25). Adelaide, Australia.

  6. Creese, A. (2002). The discursive construction of power in teacher relationships: language and subject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 597–616. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Creese, A. (2010). Content-focused classrooms and learning English: how teachers collaborate. Theory to Practice, 49(2), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841003626494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: how do we know when we are doing it right? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 454–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Early, M. (2001). Language and content in social practice: a case study. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(1), 156–179. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.58.1.156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. English Language Research Centre. (2019). Project Agreement 1. Canada: Polyglot University.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Evans, E., Tindale, J., Cable, D., & Hamil Mead, S. (2009). Collaborative teaching in a linguistically and culturally diverse higher education setting: a case study of a postgraduate accounting program. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(6), 597–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fenton-Smith, B., & Humphreys, P. (2015). Language specialists’ views on academic language and learning support mechanisms for EAL postgraduate coursework students: the case for adjunct tutorials. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. (Gordon et al., Trans.). New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: a material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Goldstein, L., Campbell, C., & Cummings, M. (1994). Smiling through the turbulence: the flight attendant syndrome and writing instructor status in the adjunct model. The CATESOL Journal, 7(1), 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Harris, A., & Ashton, J. (2011). Embedding and integrating academic skills: an innovative approach. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 5(2), 73–87 Retrieved from http://journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/158/110.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Holmes, B. (2005). Language learning for the 21st century- the normalization of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) within the curriculum for England. Position Paper: CILT.

  20. Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: exploring common ground. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hyland, K. (2011). Writing in the university: education, knowledge and reputation. Language Teaching, 46(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Institutional Research and Planning. (2018a). Fall international student report. Canada: Polyglot University.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Institutional Research and Planning. (2018b). 2018 undergraduate student survey: preliminary report. Polyglot University, Canada.

  25. Jacobs, C. (2007). Towards a critical understanding of the teaching of discipline-specific academic literacies: making the tacit explicit. Journal of Education, 41, 59–82 Retrieved from https://journals.co.za/docserver/fulltext/joe/41/1/24.pdf?expires=1552344476&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=C82391691B48F52831AFEB1141836F8F.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jacobs, C. (2010). Collaboration as pedagogy: consequences and implications for partnerships between communication and disciplinary specialists. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 28(3), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2010.545025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jimenez-Silva, M., Merritt, J., Rillero, P., & Kelley, M. F. (2016). Working together to prepare teachers of science and language: examining the value of collaboration among science and language faculty. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 73–91 Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1188093.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jones, A. (2009). Redisciplining generic attributes: the disciplinary context in focus. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802602018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kayi-Aydar, H. (2019). Positioning theory in applied linguistics: research design & applications. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Kubota, R. (2018). Critical approaches to second language writing. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (First ed.). Inc: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0525.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Lattuca, L. (2011). Creating interdisciplinarity: interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

  32. Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: theory and practice. Singapore: Springer Singapore.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE - The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential public services contract. DG EAC: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Marsh, D., Marsland, B., & Nikula, T. (1999). CLIL: A review of current thinking. In CLIL initiatives for the millenium: report on the CEILINK think-tank. Finland: Continuing Education Centre, University of Jyväskylä.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Marshall, S. (2009). Re-becoming ESL: multilingual university students and a deficit identity. Language and Education, 24(1), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Marshall, S., & Moore, D. (2016). Plurilingualism amid the panoply of lingualisms: addressing critiques and misconceptions in education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(1), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McKinney, K. (2013). Introduction to SoTL in and across the disciplines. In K. McKinney (Ed.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in and across the disciplines (pp. 1–12). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  39. Morton, T. (2016). Content and language integrated learning. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 252–264). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Murray, N. (2016). Standards of English in higher education: issues, challenges and strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Pawan, F., & Green, M. C. S. (2017). In trust, we collaborate: ESL and content-area teaching working together in content-based language instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: new perspectives on integrating language and content, 2nd edition (pp. 323–-337). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

  42. Pawan, F., & Ortloff, J. H. (2011). Sustaining collaboration: English-as-a-second-language, and content-area teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: a critical introduction. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Pennycook, A. (2008). Critical applied linguistics and language education. In S. May & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Language policy and political issues in education (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 169–181). Boston: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_13.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Perry, B., & Stewart, T. (2005). Insights into effective partnership in interdisciplinary team teaching. System, 33(4), 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Poole, G. (2013). Square one: what is research? In K. McKinney (Ed.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in and across the disciplines (pp. 135–151). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  47. Pratt, M. L. (1999). Arts in the contact zone. In D. Bartholomae & A. Petrosky (Eds.), Ways of reading: an anthology for writers (5th ed., pp. 582–596). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Short, D. J., & Echevarria, J. (1999). The sheltered instruction observation protocol: a tool for teacher-research collaboration and professional development, (Educational Practice Report 3). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED434533.

  50. Slater, T., & Mohan, B. (2010). Cooperation between science teachers and ESL teachers: a register perspective. Theory Into Practice, 49(2), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841003626478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Smit, U., & Dafouz, E. (2012). Integrating content and language in higher education: an introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices across Europe. AILA Review, 25(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 201–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Weinberg, A. H., Knoerr, H., & Gohard-Redencovic, A. (2016). L'immersion française à l'université: politiques et pédagogies. Ottawa: Les Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wheaton, M., & Kezar, A. (2019). Interlocking systems of oppression: women navigating higher education leadership. In H. L. Schnackenberg & D. A. Simard (Eds.), Challenges and opportunities for women in higher education leadership (pp. 61–83). Hershey: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7056-1.ch005.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Zappa-Hollman, S. (2018). Collaboration between language and content university instructors: factors and indicators of positive partnerships. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1491946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda Wallace.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wallace, A., Spiliotopoulos, V. & Ilieva, R. CLIL Collaborations in Higher Education: A Critical Perspective. English Teaching & Learning 44, 127–148 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00052-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00052-4

Keywords

關鍵詞:

Navigation