Activa JavaScript para disfrutar de los vídeos de la Mediateca.
Taller: CLIL in Primary Education: an experience, its results and challenges
Ajuste de pantallaEl ajuste de pantalla se aprecia al ver el vídeo en pantalla completa. Elige la presentación que más te guste:
Taller "CLIL in Primary Education: an experience, its results and challenges" por Dª.Anna Vallbona González, 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)
Yeah, I'm going to refer to the subject of science, although I must say before I start
00:00:00
that in Catalonia there is no official CLIL program for the teaching of English in schools,
00:00:24
so anything that happens in the area of English and science are independent initiatives from
00:00:30
teachers in schools, but there is nothing official, although all these teachers receive
00:00:36
the support of the administration.
00:00:42
But as I've said, there is an increasing number of schools in Catalonia that are teaching
00:00:44
subjects and I would say parts of subjects in English to improve the students' language
00:00:52
competence.
00:00:58
Our concern, Mia and myself, is that research is still embryonic, there isn't very much
00:01:00
research in our context, and we really need studies comparing the outcomes of the traditional
00:01:06
approach, the EFL approach, compared to the CLIL approach to see if the benefits of CLIL
00:01:12
are real or not.
00:01:19
I believe in CLIL, okay, don't worry.
00:01:21
We need to evaluate the development of CLIL instruction, but also classroom dynamics and
00:01:25
how both affect the outcomes of the approach.
00:01:30
So back in 2006, we were asked to follow and evaluate the implementation of a CLIL instruction
00:01:34
program in a school.
00:01:41
The school had decided to teach one hour a week of the subject natural sciences in English.
00:01:43
So we accepted and what we present, what I present today, I'm sorry if I say we because
00:01:48
this was prepared by two people and I'll probably keep saying we, okay, what I present today
00:01:53
or we present today are the results of the study.
00:01:58
This is a case study, so I don't mean to generalise anything that I'm going to say because this
00:02:01
is a study in a particular school in a particular context, but I think it's quite important.
00:02:05
So all right, okay.
00:02:10
These were our main research questions.
00:02:13
We wanted to see if the students' language proficiency improved and when we say students'
00:02:15
language proficiency, we mean listening, reading, speaking and writing skills at different time
00:02:20
periods.
00:02:24
That's why we collected data at different times.
00:02:25
The effects as well on the students' motivation, we were interested to see up to what point
00:02:28
the students were motivated and what their perceptions were on the implementation of
00:02:33
the program and the problems and challenges for the teachers involved in this particular
00:02:37
case.
00:02:42
I'll tell you a little bit about the school context, what we had.
00:02:43
It was a state assisted primary and secondary school, Concertada.
00:02:48
The people population in this school was socially mixed.
00:02:53
We had children from all social classes in this school.
00:02:56
Most of them, 90% are Catalan speakers.
00:03:00
They study Spanish at school as well as English, right?
00:03:03
Remember that apart from being a bilingual community, Catalan and Spanish, they also
00:03:07
do English.
00:03:11
In this case, it was a parent-led initiative but it was supported by the school.
00:03:13
The school agreed to implement a program to see what's happening and if the proficiency
00:03:20
of the students improved in English, obviously.
00:03:26
These were the groups that we compared.
00:03:32
Obviously we needed a control group and we collected data, let me use this to show you.
00:03:35
For the control group, we collected data in October 2006 and we chose the fifth and
00:03:41
sixth grades of primary.
00:03:46
At that time, which I'm going to call time one, these students had done three hours of
00:03:48
English a week, instrumental English, EFL, no CLIL approach yet.
00:03:53
Then we get the CLIL groups, yet again, fifth and sixth of primary in October 2007, so just
00:03:57
one year after the implementation of the CLIL approach.
00:04:05
These children had done three hours a week of instrumental English plus 35 hours of science
00:04:09
in English.
00:04:15
Notice that we didn't collect data in 2007 and we waited until 2009, October 2009.
00:04:18
We went back to fifth and sixth of primary, we collected data, the same data, and these
00:04:25
students had been doing three hours a week instrumental English but this time, they had
00:04:29
been doing 105 hours of science in English.
00:04:35
This is important for the results that we obtained.
00:04:38
I also want to talk about the teachers involved in this project.
00:04:42
We have that the EFL teacher was the same for all the groups and then from time one
00:04:47
to time two, we had a primary school teacher specialised in English and she was as well,
00:04:53
apart from the English teacher, she was the science teacher, she was both.
00:04:59
Unfortunately and unexpectedly, I don't know whether I should say unfortunately but unexpectedly,
00:05:04
we had a change of teacher after time two, after these 35 hours and the next English
00:05:08
teacher was, he's still an English philology graduate with a CLIL master's trained in CLIL,
00:05:14
so with CLIL methodology.
00:05:21
I want to talk briefly as well about the different instruments that we used to collect data so
00:05:27
you can see where we got our results from.
00:05:31
We used both, we used language proficiency tests and we used qualitative instruments
00:05:35
because we felt that we did not only want to use statistics and give you results about
00:05:39
just these numbers but we felt that we had to support our findings with qualitative data
00:05:45
as well.
00:05:51
We carried out a listening comprehension test, a dictation test in which the children, I'll
00:05:53
go through the test quickly, let me finish, a closed test, a written composition and speaking
00:05:58
tasks and then as for qualitative instruments, we used a student's background questionnaire,
00:06:03
an interview with the CLIL teachers, CLIL class observations and CLIL student's opinion
00:06:09
questionnaire.
00:06:14
For this presentation, I'm not going to talk about the speaking results because this is
00:06:17
not my work and some of the work is still in progress so I didn't want to use anybody
00:06:21
else's data and results.
00:06:25
Okay, very briefly, you can see the listening was 30 items in increasing order of difficulty.
00:06:28
The utterances were read by an English speaker with a standard British accent.
00:06:35
We chose a standard British accent because we thought that that was the closest accent
00:06:39
that the students were used to in their classes and that's it.
00:06:42
I meant to say that these tests had already been used in the Barcelona Age Factor Project
00:06:46
years ago, okay, when we were trying to find out the relation between the level of English
00:06:52
and the age or the age when the children would start learning English, so they were
00:06:56
exactly the same tests.
00:07:00
A dictation test, okay, in which children had to write 50 words.
00:07:02
We told the children to write anything that they could understand, right?
00:07:07
The closed test was based on a popular fairy tale, Little Red Riding Hood and the children
00:07:13
had to fill gaps.
00:07:18
It was a gap fill exercise and then written composition.
00:07:19
We told the children to write for a steady time, 15 minutes, which was, I can tell you,
00:07:24
quite difficult to keep them writing for 15 minutes without giving them any answers to
00:07:28
what they were saying to you about my life, my present, my past, and my future.
00:07:32
The compositions were evaluated under three categories, accuracy, fluency, and lexical
00:07:39
complexity and I'm going to show you now the measures that we used, okay, because saying
00:07:45
accuracy, fluency, and lexical complexity is very wide, but we wanted to see what aspects
00:07:50
of accuracy, what aspects of fluency, what aspects of lexical complexity, what happens
00:07:54
in their development.
00:07:59
And we, as for fluency, we calculated the total number of words in English.
00:08:01
Don't forget that we are dealing with primary school children, fifth and sixth grades, okay,
00:08:07
and sometimes when they write they still use words, in this case, in Catalan in their writing,
00:08:10
so they can write a whole clause and they use the keyword that they don't know, they
00:08:15
just write it in Catalan and they carry on, so things like this.
00:08:19
So as for fluency, we calculated the total number of words in English that they used
00:08:24
and the total number of clauses, how many sentences they could use.
00:08:27
Correct clauses, okay, how many of the clauses they wrote were completely correct.
00:08:32
As for accuracy, the number of error-free clauses, how many of those clauses were completely
00:08:36
error-free according to standard British, standard English.
00:08:42
And then the ratio between the number of error-free clauses in relation to the total
00:08:46
number of clauses that they had used.
00:08:51
We calculated the lexical density and the ratio of nouns, adjectives, adverbs, lexical
00:08:54
verbs and auxiliaries, okay, we didn't study anything in terms of coordination or subordination,
00:09:01
I can tell you that most of the sentences they wrote, they had no subordination at all,
00:09:08
they were all just one sentence after the other, there was no coordination even, okay,
00:09:13
sentence, sentence, sentence, sentence, and sometimes they did not even write punctuation,
00:09:18
it was obvious that was the end of one and the beginning of the other one, but they did
00:09:22
not really use punctuation.
00:09:25
Okay, we needed information about their background because we decided not to use all the children
00:09:28
because we knew that some children were receiving extracurricular classes and that would not
00:09:35
be fair in our results.
00:09:40
So we decided not to take the children that had taken extracurricular classes, that reduced
00:09:41
our sample, obviously, but we wanted to see what happened in just the school context with
00:09:47
children with no extra exposure to English, just the exposure that they had at school
00:09:52
because we had children with years of extra exposure to English.
00:09:56
We also wanted information of the teachers, so we actually interviewed the teachers, we
00:10:03
asked them about their perceptions, how they felt about the implementations, what problems
00:10:10
they had, so we used that as qualitative data, okay.
00:10:13
We did observation, we went into the classes, in fact this is one observation session per
00:10:19
group but it was more than one, we went several times to do the observation in the classes
00:10:23
to see what happened, we followed the protocol of observation and note-taking, and we focused
00:10:27
basically on the teacher's strategies, the input, the student's output, the class activities,
00:10:34
and the use of L1, L2, what happened in there between basically the students when they used
00:10:41
the L1 and when they used the L2.
00:10:47
Then we wanted to know as well the opinion of the children involved in the process because
00:10:50
we thought that was very important, so basically we asked them how they felt about the implementation
00:10:54
process, their perceptions in whether they were motivated or not, we used different types
00:11:00
of questions, we used structured questions, we did not only ask them, did you like it,
00:11:05
do you like it, if they said yes, we said write it down, write down the reasons, so
00:11:09
we carried out this questionnaire in Catalan so they could all understand what we were
00:11:14
asking them because we wanted the reasons why they liked it or they didn't like it,
00:11:17
they found it difficult or they found it easy, okay.
00:11:21
So these are the different comparisons that we carried out, first of all we compared the
00:11:24
children at times one and two, so in other words the children who had had no exposure
00:11:29
to CLIL with the children who had had 35 hours of CLIL, both in 2006, 2007, fifth graders
00:11:33
and sixth graders.
00:11:41
Then we compared the children who had already had both CLIL, 35 hours of CLIL versus 105
00:11:42
hours of CLIL, so in this group all children had been exposed to CLIL, different from the
00:11:50
first group.
00:11:56
And then the third comparison was the children who had had no exposure to CLIL with the children
00:11:57
who had had 105 hours of CLIL and we wanted to see what happened with the test that we
00:12:03
carried out that we gave them.
00:12:08
As you can see the numbers are really lower, the number of students, because that's when
00:12:11
we decided not to use the children who had had extra exposure, okay.
00:12:18
First of all obviously we had to make sure that the groups were comparable because when
00:12:23
you are comparing groups you can compare very different groups and we were not, this is
00:12:27
not a longitudinal study, we were not following a group, we were just taking children when
00:12:31
they got to fifth and sixth grade at different times.
00:12:36
So we had to make sure that the groups were similar and comparable and we decided to do
00:12:39
that by getting the marks in Catalan and Spanish and we calculated a global mark, we applied
00:12:43
test of normality to see if that was comparable and two tests for the global academic marks,
00:12:50
the different tests, okay.
00:12:55
And then some of the tests did not show the required normality and the number of students
00:12:58
that we had was quite low, we decided to use non-parametric tests.
00:13:05
As I mentioned before very quickly we only accepted, when I said error free clauses we
00:13:09
accepted clauses that were completely correct, okay.
00:13:15
We did not accept anything that we did not consider correct when we analysed the writings,
00:13:18
okay.
00:13:24
We used the tagger of the University of Lancaster to tag the words grammatically, then we checked
00:13:25
and double checked, manual recount and revision, we calculated mean scores and we applied non-parametric
00:13:31
tests, okay.
00:13:37
We transcribed all the data, all the qualitative data and we used it only on sort of content
00:13:39
based analysis and what we calculated were the percentages, you'll see later, obtained
00:13:44
in the structured questions in the opinion questionnaire, obviously not, we couldn't
00:13:50
do that in the open questions, that's when they gave us the reasons why they liked it
00:13:54
or they didn't like it, but we calculated the percentages, okay.
00:13:57
So to make it easier for everybody in the audience what we did, okay, we highlighted
00:14:01
in yellow the results that are significantly positive in favour of the CLIL students.
00:14:07
So as you can see in the first group in the proficiency test, close listening and dictation,
00:14:14
not significant results after 35 hours, okay.
00:14:22
So I am in 35 hours comparing the students that had done no CLIL and these only had done
00:14:26
35 hours of science in English, there was no significant difference here.
00:14:32
So we can say that they had not really improved dramatically, so that we can say.
00:14:37
Except for lexical complexity, in fact this is the lexical density, so in other words
00:14:43
they used more content words, the CLIL children used more content words than in their writings
00:14:48
than any others and we start seeing that in terms of the total number of words in English
00:14:53
it's favourable to the CLIL students.
00:14:59
They use more words in English than the children who have not been exposed to CLIL.
00:15:01
When we compare the 35 hours versus 105 hours, so I'm comparing 35 hours of CLIL, 105 hours
00:15:06
of CLIL, I do find positive results.
00:15:13
So these ones, the ones who had done 105 hours are much better in listening and dictation,
00:15:16
which involves listening as well and writing at the same time.
00:15:23
And literacy as well, so they write a total number of words in English and they write
00:15:27
more clauses and the clauses that they write are more correct.
00:15:32
But when we look at the lexical part, the lexical complexity, we find that they use
00:15:37
more adjectives, they use the verb to have much more and they use many more lexical verbs
00:15:41
than the ones who had only done 35 hours and we have already said that there were no really
00:15:47
significant results.
00:15:52
And when we compared the control groups, so the initial data that we had, the children
00:15:54
who had done no CLIL at all, with the children who had done 105 hours of CLIL, we find that
00:15:59
this time it's even the CLOS test, which was reading comprehension and grammar, basically
00:16:06
what they had to write there, they improved in this proficiency test, CLOS listening and
00:16:11
dictation and they still show better results in the total number of words in English.
00:16:15
This is for the fifth graders, okay?
00:16:21
I'm going to show you, it's very similar what happened with sixth graders, we have to consider
00:16:23
that they are a year older, they have been more mature than the fifth graders, right?
00:16:28
So basically what I have is that, yet again, 35 hours of CLIL, no important results, not
00:16:32
even in fluency this time, I didn't get any positive results in fluency, they did not
00:16:38
write any more words in English than the other groups.
00:16:42
Yet again, lexical complexity, yeah, it improves, but surprisingly this time it was not the
00:16:46
number of adjectives of the word half as I had found with the fifth graders, this time
00:16:51
was the number of adverbs and the number of proper nouns, when I mean proper nouns I mean
00:16:56
names of countries in English, for example, this sort of thing.
00:17:01
And the final comparison, when we compared the ones with no exposure to CLIL to 105 hours
00:17:05
of CLIL, right, you can see that there is a great improvement in the sixth graders in
00:17:10
favour of these children who had done CLIL.
00:17:15
So the language proficiency tests, they all show an improvement, CLOS test, the listening
00:17:17
test, the dictation test, in terms of fluency, this time the total number of words in English
00:17:22
in this particular one was representative, total number of clauses and the number of
00:17:27
error-free clauses in sixth grade, okay?
00:17:32
So they had been doing 105 hours of CLIL.
00:17:35
So this is the summary, after 35 hours no major differences between CLIL and non-CLIL
00:17:39
students, after 70 additional hours, similar improvement in fifth and sixth grade groups
00:17:44
in terms of the language proficiency test, fluency and lexical complexity, the differences
00:17:49
after 105 hours, there were differences in the proficiency tests and in the fluency,
00:17:54
but accuracy follows a progressive pattern with sixth graders, now with fifth graders
00:18:00
and lexical complexity shows a very, very irregular pattern, okay?
00:18:05
So our problem obviously was to interpret that, why do we think this happened in this
00:18:10
particular school?
00:18:14
I said I don't want to generalise, this is just a case study, all right, and okay.
00:18:15
But we can say that some of the results observed are in line with previous research findings
00:18:21
on CLIL, improvement of receptive skills, such as listening, breathing and dictation
00:18:26
and the writing areas, these areas that we calculated, fluency, accuracy and the complexity,
00:18:32
do not necessarily develop simultaneously as students become better writers.
00:18:39
So maybe at the point it's fluency what they develop, at some point it's the accuracy what
00:18:44
they develop, but they do not develop it in a steady progress all the way through.
00:18:50
Right, what happened?
00:18:56
What do we think happened?
00:18:58
So at time two, these children had been exposed to 35 hours of English, they had the same
00:19:00
English and CLIL teacher, but we think that that was a very limited number of hours of
00:19:05
exposure so we are not surprised that we didn't find anything positive.
00:19:11
We also must be honest and say that the teacher had very English limited, it was very, the
00:19:15
proficiency of the teacher was very limited.
00:19:20
We think it was not a good model because the quality of the input was not right.
00:19:23
That stopped her completely from establishing genuine communication, interaction with the
00:19:29
students in the class.
00:19:35
The use of L1, she did not really make an effort to try to make students, encourage
00:19:38
students to use English.
00:19:42
Sometimes when she was overwhelmed with students, she just used Catalan and gave up and told
00:19:45
them in Catalan, which somebody said is very difficult not to do.
00:19:51
She was a very experienced science teacher.
00:19:56
She had been teaching science for 25 years, right, but she felt that, she did say that,
00:19:59
she felt that she didn't have enough training in CLIL methodology.
00:20:07
The other important thing that she mentioned, and that's one I am using now our qualitative
00:20:12
data, is that she said in the interview that she didn't have time to prepare lessons because
00:20:16
the school did not consider this as an extra duty.
00:20:21
She said, okay, you do your science classes in English, but no extra time to prepare anything.
00:20:24
We're talking about 2006, so there are lots of materials now.
00:20:30
We can see outside, all the publishers are publishing lots of materials and providing
00:20:34
lots of material.
00:20:37
But back in 2006, trying to find adequate materials for just one hour of science that
00:20:38
were suitable for what you wanted to tell them at that particular time or that particular
00:20:45
topic was quite difficult for her, right?
00:20:49
All right, what happens between time two and time three?
00:20:53
Remember I said we have a change of teacher, a more qualified teacher with a competence
00:20:56
in English, CLIL training.
00:21:01
We have increased the number of hours.
00:21:05
We have evaluated our accessory after 105 hours.
00:21:06
The teacher was qualified linguistically and methodologically, and that provided a much
00:21:11
richer input, a good model, elaborate explanations, mostly in L2.
00:21:15
You'll see that the children said that to us, okay?
00:21:21
They mentioned it in one of the interviews, which was very interesting.
00:21:24
Obviously, the activities were more challenging because the language was not such a problem
00:21:27
for her.
00:21:31
There was much more interaction, and there were many more, at the moment, there are many
00:21:32
more resources available.
00:21:36
So, in fact, she now is using a book.
00:21:37
Then we selected some of the, for this presentation, the opinion questionnaire of the students,
00:21:42
okay?
00:21:47
We asked them whether they liked it or not.
00:21:48
In general, very positive, okay?
00:21:50
They all said, oh, we liked it very much, it was very good.
00:21:52
You can see 95% fifth graders, 100% sixth graders, we liked it very much.
00:21:55
But when we look at 2009 groups, okay, the percentages are a bit lower, you see?
00:22:00
They're a bit lower.
00:22:05
We say, okay, why did you like it?
00:22:06
And they say, okay, because the teacher, especially the 2009 students said the teacher gave very
00:22:08
good explanations in English, and the activities are fun.
00:22:13
We do games, we do oral tasks, we do group work, so they like the structure and the strategies
00:22:16
used in the class.
00:22:21
So, well, they say they are very interested in English.
00:22:22
This is one of the first things, because we asked them, do you like English?
00:22:25
And they say, yes, we do like English, more or less than before CLIL, and they all say,
00:22:28
I promise you, they said more, we like English much more, and science is one of our favorite
00:22:32
subjects when we ask them.
00:22:37
But we also asked them about how easy or difficult they found it.
00:22:39
2007 groups said that 71% of fifth graders, 79% in the sixth grade, they said it was easy,
00:22:43
okay?
00:22:51
But 2009 groups, look at the percentages, okay, yet again, they go down.
00:22:52
They say they found it easy, because the percentage is quite high if you think about it.
00:22:58
We asked them, okay, why was it easy?
00:23:03
And they say, okay, because these are topics that are familiar, done in year one, not the
00:23:05
specific topic that they were doing, but as primary contents are cyclical, they had heard
00:23:08
about them before, so it was not really the first time that they heard what they were
00:23:13
doing.
00:23:18
The activities, they say, they're very easy, and interestingly, they say, because we have
00:23:19
an ability for languages, so their self-esteem is quite high, they think they are good at
00:23:23
English, most of them.
00:23:27
If you ask them, they say, yeah, okay.
00:23:28
We also wanted to know why they thought it was difficult, and they say, okay, what was
00:23:30
difficult was understanding some contents and some key vocabularies.
00:23:35
It's true, sometimes the teacher, sometimes when we did the observations, we felt that
00:23:39
it was not the language where it was difficult, it was that they could not really understand
00:23:44
the concept.
00:23:47
They did not really get to the concept.
00:23:48
It was not the language, and the teacher was trying very hard, doing lots of rephrasing
00:23:51
and changing strategy and looking for the right words, even looking for words of Latin
00:23:55
origin that, at some point, were easier for the students to understand.
00:24:01
The 2007 students, they said, understanding the recordings, okay, that was very difficult.
00:24:06
I must tell you an anecdote here when we're doing the interviews with the students.
00:24:13
We asked them, and one of the children said, this is because the 2007 teacher was not similar
00:24:18
to the DVD, the sound of the DVD, but we understand that the 2009 teacher, she says things in
00:24:24
English, and it's very similar to the DVD, they said to us, okay?
00:24:31
One of the things that they find very difficult, and they recognize it, is answering questions
00:24:37
in English, especially the students in 2007.
00:24:40
Somebody has pointed it out as well.
00:24:43
The 2009 understanding the teacher's explanations, they think it's very difficult, and obviously,
00:24:45
the predominant use of 2009 was the teacher now does never, never change language.
00:24:50
Do I still have time?
00:24:57
You have like two minutes.
00:24:58
Two minutes, okay.
00:24:59
I'll speed up, okay?
00:25:00
Right.
00:25:01
There are several reasons why this.
00:25:02
2007 was all an innovative approach, it was all new, the teachers, the children thought
00:25:04
it was good fun, but we think that, okay, at time three, I have received three courses,
00:25:09
the teacher creates more challenging activities, the explanations are always in English, and
00:25:15
the students, we think, and they've told us, they've started to associate CLIL classes
00:25:21
with a content class, so CLIL is not anymore an ELT class.
00:25:26
It's a content class, and they've slowly realized that what they are doing, a contents,
00:25:30
is not the English, the fun class that they have when they do the English class, okay?
00:25:35
So I'm going to write, as I have said, this is a three-year, we call it case study, because
00:25:42
we have not followed the children, we followed a project, okay, it's not the same children.
00:25:48
It had advantages, you can see, we could see the whole process, limitation, because this
00:25:56
is only a case study, the sample is very small, and we need that, we think that we
00:26:00
need larger samples to allow generalizations of results, we need lots of longitudinal studies
00:26:04
to see what happens in every particular context, what can we, what are the results in every
00:26:10
particular context, because not all the contexts are the same, okay, but we do think that we
00:26:15
need quantitative and qualitative data in all the studies, it's not just quantitative
00:26:20
data, okay, and that's it, thank you very much for your...
00:26:24
- Valoración:
- Eres el primero. Inicia sesión para valorar el vídeo.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Idioma/s:
- Etiquetas:
- Miscelánea
- Autor/es:
- Dª.Anna Vallbona González
- Subido por:
- EducaMadrid
- Licencia:
- Reconocimiento - No comercial - Sin obra derivada
- Visualizaciones:
- 743
- Fecha:
- 20 de enero de 2011 - 10:21
- 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:
- 26′ 38″
- Relación de aspecto:
- 1.31:1
- Resolución:
- 480x366 píxeles
- Tamaño:
- 169.86 MBytes
