Saltar navegación

Activa JavaScript para disfrutar de los vídeos de la Mediateca.

Mesa de comunicación: Online CLIL instruction at university level: theory meets practice

Ajuste de pantalla

El ajuste de pantalla se aprecia al ver el vídeo en pantalla completa. Elige la presentación que más te guste:

Subido el 13 de enero de 2011 por EducaMadrid

327 visualizaciones

Mesa de comunicación "Online CLIL instruction at university level: theory meets practice" por Dª.Giovanna Carloni, celebrado en el I Congreso Internacional sobre Bilingüismo en Centros Educativos el 14 de junio de 2010 dirigido a profesores de primaria, secundaria y universidades, a investigadores y responsables políticos interesados en la educación bilingüe y en metodología AICOLE (Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lengua)

Más información Transcripción

Descargar la transcripción

Okay, so first I will investigate the output produced by learners and the instructor in 00:00:00
a synchronous online clean learning environment provided by the online clear degree course 00:00:18
in applied computer science implemented by the Information Science and Technology Institute 00:00:25
of Urbino University. I will also examine whether clean chat classrooms are actually 00:00:33
a setting of equal or unequal power discourse. So I actually analyzed the online first year 00:00:41
computer architecture course taught entirely in English at Urbino University. And in this 00:00:53
learning environment, learners are provided with clear designed teaching materials. The 00:00:59
participants of the study were just one non-native speaker instructor whose L1 was Italian and 00:01:06
30 non-native speaker first year university students featuring different L1s and aged 00:01:14
between 30 and 55. And I carried out my analysis on chat postings actually featuring the interactions 00:01:22
between learners and the instructor. Chat postings were just the written transcripts 00:01:31
of 22 weekly chat classrooms which were collected over kind of a two semester period. So I carried 00:01:38
out both a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of language. In terms of language 00:01:49
complexity, well the language was analyzed in terms of word number, words per sentence, 00:01:56
passive sentences, academic vocabulary, and subject specific terminology. As regards qualitative 00:02:03
analysis, well the analysis was carried out on the interactions implemented by the participants 00:02:12
in chat classrooms. So as the chart shows, the amount of words produced by the instructor 00:02:19
in chats was much higher than the amount of words produced by learners, which was kind 00:02:29
of a result that we didn't really expect because we thought that chat classrooms were 00:02:36
kind of equalizers in participation. In terms of distribution of talk between the participants, 00:02:44
the instructor's talk amounted to 90% of the total output, quite a striking result. But 00:02:54
in terms of words per sentence, well the instructor produced more words per sentence 00:03:04
in every chat, more than of course learners, just in 50% of all chats. In general, learners 00:03:13
output ranged between 7 and 23 words per sentence, while the instructor's output ranged between 00:03:22
8 and 19 words per sentence, okay? So most of the times, learners' output equaled or 00:03:31
sometimes even outnumbered the instructor's output. So here we started to see that actually 00:03:40
learners were able to produce quite a complex amount of language. In terms of passive sentences, 00:03:47
well learners almost never used passive structures, while the instructor used passive structures 00:03:56
quite regularly, okay? This was kind of an important difference. We also used the word 00:04:04
frequency text profiling to compare chat language with two word frequency lists, okay? The first 00:04:12
one, which is the 2000 most frequent word list featuring general non-academic English 00:04:22
and another word list featuring academic English, and it is a word list devised by Paul Nation. 00:04:30
In terms of general non-academic English, no big differences were detected between learners 00:04:38
and the instructor's output. But in terms of academic language, things were slightly 00:04:45
different, okay? If you take a look at the chart, you can see that learners' output ranged 00:04:53
between, in terms of course of academic language, between 2 and 14%, while the instructor's 00:04:59
output ranged between 6 and 15%. But what is actually most striking is the fact that, 00:05:07
just look at the chart, learners' use of academic English visibly increased during the second 00:05:17
semester, okay? So these results were likely to measure learners' acquisition of academic 00:05:23
language, and we know that academic language is one of the main features of CLIL. 00:05:31
Now, as regards all the words not included in either list, well, learners' output ranged between 00:05:38
10 and 34%, while the instructor's output ranged between 10 and 21%. But the thing was that we 00:05:50
realized that learners used subject-specific terminology quite extensively and effectively 00:06:02
during the whole target period, but there was no significant increase during the target period. 00:06:12
But they used this kind of subject-specific terminology quite extensively. So these results 00:06:19
were likely to measure learners' acquisition of subject-specific terminology, which is one of the 00:06:26
key features and one of the key objectives of CLIL instruction. We also investigated whether 00:06:33
chat classrooms were a setting of equal or unequal power discourse, and how power was negotiated 00:06:43
in chat classrooms. We had also some research questions, such as what kind of questions does 00:06:52
the instructor ask? What kind of questions do learners ask? What kind of output are learners 00:07:01
expected to produce? What kind of output do learners produce? Moreover, all the questions 00:07:09
asked by the participants were classified according to a taxonomy featuring content 00:07:17
and procedural questions, open and closed questions, questions for facts, explanations, 00:07:24
reasons, and opinions. Moreover, we tried to investigate the role of questioning and answering 00:07:32
in the negotiation of power in chat classrooms. Well, to analyze chat practice, we used half-frame, 00:07:38
and the main purpose of chats was for the participants to discuss computer architecture 00:07:48
related topics. Now, the analysis showed that in terms of turn-taking, well, turn-taking was 00:07:55
definitely managed by the instructor by access to the opening move, and it was still the instructor 00:08:05
who actually filtered students' questions. In terms of roles and rights of the participants, 00:08:13
learners were simply expected to ask content-related questions. And in terms of act sequencing, 00:08:21
well, the instructor actually managed openings, transitions, closings, as well as asking and 00:08:29
answering questions. But the analysis of chat postings revealed that in every chat, 00:08:36
the instructor produced slightly more chat postings than learners, which makes perfect 00:08:46
sense, since, as we have just mentioned, it was the instructor who managed openings, transitions, 00:08:52
rights, and closings. So the analysis revealed also that questioning was the main interactional 00:09:00
pattern. So the way content was conveyed was deeply affected by this interactional pattern. 00:09:10
Overall, the instructor asked mainly closed-content questions, which means that learners 00:09:19
were simply expected to produce one-word, one-number answers. To be even more specific, 00:09:27
the instructor asked 29 closed-content questions with an average of two questions per chat, 00:09:35
while the students asked overall 86 content questions, which are, of course, open by default, 00:09:44
with an average of four questions per chat. And all the questions asked by the students fell 00:09:52
into two main categories, questions regarding vocabulary meaning and real content questions. 00:10:00
And actually, the instructor answered learners' questions with rather extended monologues, 00:10:07
which accounts for the huge amount of words that the instructor produced, as we saw previously. 00:10:15
Well, in terms of procedural questions, the instructor asked 12 procedural questions 00:10:23
overall. And these questions concerned mainly exam planning, clean materials, 00:10:29
and self-evaluation tests. Students asked just 15 procedural questions, always dealing with exams 00:10:38
mainly and projects. So we can claim without unbuffer that questions influence the quality 00:10:48
and quantity of students' contributions to classroom talk. In terms of content questions, 00:11:00
learners asked 73% of them. And learners asked mainly for explanations and facts, 00:11:09
while the instructor asked mainly for facts and, to a much lesser extent, for students' hypotheses. 00:11:18
Now, the analysis of the role of questioning and answering in the negotiation of power 00:11:29
revealed that the instructor was still conceived as the main source of knowledge, 00:11:35
even though he sometimes tried to switch from instructor-led to students-led discussions. 00:11:41
However, due to this large preference for students over teacher-initiated questions, 00:11:49
we can claim that chat classrooms featured, to a certain extent, a setting of equal power discourse. 00:11:56
Now, we also tried to answer the following question. What is the role of the triadic dialogue 00:12:08
in online chat classrooms? Well, the analysis revealed that the triadic dialogue was often used, 00:12:16
but especially when the interaction was teacher-initiated, such as in the example 00:12:24
I've provided you with, okay? And as regards the second question, is the opening move used 00:12:30
by the instructor to control topic management? Well, the answer is yes, but only if interaction 00:12:40
is teacher-initiated, okay? But it's definitely not a positive answer if the interaction is 00:12:49
student-initiated. And by now, we know that the instructor-student-initiated question ratio is 00:12:58
23% to 73%. In conclusion, we can claim that questioning and answering were the main 00:13:06
interactional patterns which deeply affected the way content was conveyed and the way 00:13:16
CLIAO discourse was constructed. Second, that CLIAO chat classrooms featured, definitely, 00:13:24
a certain degree of conversational symmetry. Third, that there was definitely more focus on content 00:13:33
than on form. Fourth, that learners' output featured, definitely, a certain degree of 00:13:42
complexity in terms of sentence length, academic English, and subject-specific terminology. 00:13:49
And last but not least, in terms of future developments, the construction of knowledge 00:13:56
by means of collaborative tasks and student-led discussions is advocated for. Thank you. 00:14:02
Thank you. 00:14:12
Valoración:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Eres el primero. Inicia sesión para valorar el vídeo.
Idioma/s:
en
Etiquetas:
Miscelánea
Autor/es:
Dª.Giovanna Carloni
Subido por:
EducaMadrid
Licencia:
Reconocimiento - No comercial - Sin obra derivada
Visualizaciones:
327
Fecha:
13 de enero de 2011 - 17:18
Visibilidad:
Público
Enlace Relacionado:
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos de Madrid en colaboración con la Consejería de Educación de la Comunidad de Madrid
Descripción ampliada:

La Universidad Rey Juan Carlos de Madrid en colaboración con la Consejería de Educación de la Comunidad de Madrid acogió el I Congreso Internacional sobre Bilingüismo en Centros Educativos que se celebró en Madrid en la Universidad Rey Juan Carlos los días 14, 15 y 16 de junio de 2010.


En los últimos años, se ha observado una implicación cada vez mayor en los países europeos respecto a la educación bilingüe con el fin de preparar a sus alumnos para sus futuros estudios, trabajo y vida en una Europa cada vez más multilingüe. Si el objetivo es conseguir una Europa multilingüe, el Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lengua (AICOLE) sería el instrumento necesario para conseguir esta meta. Como consecuencia, el AICOLE ha provocado un gran interés en los últimos años en Europa, y  especialmente en España.


Por otro lado la Comunidad de Madrid se ha convertido en una región de referencia gracias a su decidida apuesta por el bilingüismo en los centros educativos. Un ambicioso proyecto iniciado en el año 2004 que cuenta en la actualidad con 242 colegios públicos en los que se desarrolla una enseñanza bilingüe de gran calidad. Este curso 20010-2011 el modelo alcanza a la enseñanza secundaria donde se extenderá con la puesta en marcha de 32 institutos bilingües. Estas políticas educativas están produciendo resultados muy apreciables y han generado un gran interés entre los profesores que se sienten cada vez más atraídos por este tipo de enseñanza.


Por estas razones, este I Congreso Internacional sobre Bilingüismo en Centros Educativos ha estado dirigido a profesores de primaria, secundaria y universidades, a investigadores y responsables políticos interesados en la educación bilingüe y en metodología AICOLE.
Duración:
14′ 25″
Relación de aspecto:
1.31:1
Resolución:
480x366 píxeles
Tamaño:
89.05 MBytes

Del mismo autor…

Ver más del mismo autor

EducaMadrid, Plataforma Educativa de la Comunidad de Madrid

Plataforma Educativa EducaMadrid