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。.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The ELRC lecturers identify themselves as applied linguists, and all have PhDs in the discipline.
References
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.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
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.
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.
English Language Research Centre. (2019). Project Agreement 1. Canada: Polyglot University.
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.
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.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. (Gordon et al., Trans.). New York: Pantheon.
Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: a material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148–164.
Hyland, K. (2011). Writing in the university: education, knowledge and reputation. Language Teaching, 46(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000036.
Institutional Research and Planning. (2018a). Fall international student report. Canada: Polyglot University.
Institutional Research and Planning. (2018b). 2018 undergraduate student survey: preliminary report. Polyglot University, Canada.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kayi-Aydar, H. (2019). Positioning theory in applied linguistics: research design & applications. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Lattuca, L. (2011). Creating interdisciplinarity: interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
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.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: theory and practice. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE - The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential public services contract. DG EAC: European Commission.
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.
Marshall, S. (2009). Re-becoming ESL: multilingual university students and a deficit identity. Language and Education, 24(1), 41–56.
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.
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.
Morton, T. (2016). Content and language integrated learning. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of English language teaching (pp. 252–264). London: Routledge.
Murray, N. (2016). Standards of English in higher education: issues, challenges and strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: a critical introduction. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-020-00052-4
Keywords
- Integrating language and content
- Interdisciplinary collaboration
- Higher education in Canada
- Power dynamics