Part 2. Sancho Guinda CLIL Murcia 2014
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Part 2. Sancho Guinda CLIL Murcia 2014

on

  • 53 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
53
Views on SlideShare
45
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 8

http://www.campusmarenostrum.es 8

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Part 2. Sancho Guinda CLIL Murcia 2014 Part 2. Sancho Guinda CLIL Murcia 2014 Presentation Transcript

    • Carmen Sancho Guinda Universidad Politécnica de Madrid DIAPOSITIVA 0
    • DIAPOSITIVA 1
    • DIAPOSITIVA 2
    • Find out teaching habits & perceptions of UPM teachers  Create a model to help UPM content teachers undertake EMI efficiently Broaden genre & linguistic repertoires + change mentalities & practices _ Classroom discourse as versatile + complex Use their visualizer style (a visual trope!) Help turn classrooms into spaces of mutual scaffolding _ An environment for natural FL learning & content with realistic expectations Make teachers autonomous teaching learners DIAPOSITIVA 3
    • DIAPOSITIVA 4
    • Educational Low democratic class dynamics ● Class notion as monolithic teacher chalk-and-talk ● Teachers at blackboard giving back to students Prestige of research over teaching ● Predominant research commitment ● Logical disregard of didactic matters (Neumann et al 2002) Recent ‘clilization’ of classes due to Bologna process ●‘Holistic turn’ Transversal skills + LF teaching (Foran 2011) ●‘Multiple reins’ syndrome: insecurities, teachers at a loss DIAPOSITIVA 5
    • Linguistic (misconceptions) Wrong idea of EMI as mere translation ● Same class notes but in English ● Same pedagogical routines Wrong idea that FL fluency guarantees good LF teaching ● Mere indicator of LF teaching potential (i.e. ability to function in LF contexts) ● Does not entail pedagogical qualification (Klaasen & Räsänen 2006) Reluctance to become linguistic role models ●‘We aren’t teachers of English!’(Airey 2012) ●‘And who teaches us English?' Unsupported internationalization of UPM ●Teacher training as ‘solitary & mercenary’ initiative ● Genres and language command as students’ responsibility DIAPOSITIVA 6
    • Remedial (my in-service seminar) ICE (Instituto de Ciencias de la Educación), UPM 2009-2012 ‘Teacher training for the EMI class within the EHEA’ ● 15-16 participants on average, B1-C1 ● 20h ● Sociolinguistic dimension ● Phonetics, intonation, lexico-grammar, body language ■ ‘Situational sociopragmatics’ _ Politeness (metadiscursive repertoires) _ Genres (register, moves & steps, lexicogrammar) _ BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) _ CALP (Cognitive Academic Linguistic Proficiency) ■ Desirable class dynamics _ Interactive lectures, case studies & discussions, team/project ■ work, self-documentation and decision-making TBL, Q&A routines, marking of lecture phases (Young 1994), preparatory readings, etc. DIAPOSITIVA 7
    • ● Course mechanics ■ IDEAL OUTCOME Diagnostic performance ● Reflective teaching _ 45’ max, accessible disciplinary content, free format ■ Video-watch ● Flexibility to involve students in active learning _ University of Stanford Online (YouTube), MICASE corpus ■ Note-taking + discussion Capacity to select (on teaching strategies) strategies pedagogical fitting class needs ● _ Pace CLASS NEEDS _ Tone _ Asides ● Presentation & _ Humour communication skills _ Questions (referential /authentic, display, rhetorical) ● Interpersonal skills _ Read-outs simultaneous with blackboard calculations ● Planning issues _ Interruptions _ Emphatic body language ■ Final diagnose DIAPOSITIVA 8
    • SOME RECORDED LECTURES http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyX8kQ-JzHI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3omwHv3Cmog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPjfbStnWd8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPQ9a_xIqRg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey25vULQ6YM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZNm7L96pfY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DId0iMTN6o http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/c/corpus/corpus?c=micase&cc=micase&type=bro wse&role=all&nss=all&firstlang=all&speecheventtype=LES&acaddiv=all DIAPOSITIVA 9
    • DIAPOSITIVA 10
    • Focus (impressions /beliefs + performances) Research Questions Are UPM content teachers ready for the EMI challenge? ● How do their beliefs tally their performances? ● ■ ■ ■ ■ How participative they think is their teaching? How do their beliefs differ from their didactic practices? How engaging is their class discourse? Do they resort to genre embedding? How much, if so? Corpus 10 consented diagnostic recordings ● Totalling 174.08 min ● ■ Unexpectedly short! (long samples around 20’) DIAPOSITIVA 11
    • Population ● N = 18 subject-matter teacher volunteers at UPM ● Enrolled in my ICE training seminar ● Mean age = 41.6 ■ 25-35 yrs  17% 36-45 yrs  44% 46-55 yrs  39% 16 native Spanish speakers, 1 of Galician, 1 of German ● Disciplines: ● ■ Aeronautical Engineering Telecommunications Engineering Civil Engineering Forestry Engineering Mining Engineering Naval Engineering Informatics DIAPOSITIVA 12
    • LECTURE 1 LENGTH (in min) 15.54 TOPIC 2 17.55 Introduction to road construction projects Source coding 3 14.33 Soils compaction 4 21.20 Sustainable energies 5 14.35 Cartographic systems 6 16.08 Software designs 7 18.02 Noise-absorbing properties of reed in fitting acoustic enclosures 8 16.59 μ-controllers in electronic systems 9 17.00 Thermal treatment of wastes 10 21.42 Properties of wine and their evaluation TOTAL 174.08 _____ DIAPOSITIVA 13
    • •What is your usual teaching dynamics? (More than one option is possible) 1) Teacher-delivered lecture 2) Team- and pair-work 3) Autonomous learning (laboratory sessions, multimedia support, reading packages prepared by the teacher, project work, guided visits) •Do you consider your classes participative enough? •What participation rate student/teacher best describes your classes? •Should that rate be increased? If not, indicate why •What do you think should be the ideal rate? •Do you slow down your teaching pace according to the class’s level and needs? And insist more on certain parts of the syllabus? DIAPOSITIVA 14
    • •Mark your habitual teaching practices: 1) Start the class inductively (with familiar facts or phenomena or concrete examples to captivate the audience’s interest) 2) Start the class deductively (with a general law, principle, or theory) 3) Start the class with tangible objects or authentic reports 4) Draw connections between previous contents 5) Repeat/rephrase certain points during the class 6) Ask questions to students 7 ) Use rhetorical questions 8) Exemplify and clarify 9) Summarize class contents at the end 10) Anticipate contents of the current class 11) Anticipate contents of the next class 12) Let other colleagues supervise your classes DIAPOSITIVA 15
    • •What difficulties do you think you will face when teaching in English? 1) The technical vocabulary of your discipline 2) The situational vocabulary of class interaction 3) The expressions and structures to formulate hypotheses, conclusions, arguments, verbalize graphic information, evaluate the credibility of information sources, etc. 4) The expressions and structures to link ideas, emphasize relevant points, summarize, illustrate, contrast, describe, define, express attitude, etc. 5) The expressions and structures of written English to do online tutorials and give feedback, conduct debate forums, or send e-mails 6) English pronunciation 7) Students’ low proficiency in the English language 8) Students’ mixed abilities in English 9) Assessment issues 10) The need to slow down your teaching pace to ensure the assimilation of contents 11) The elaboration of class materials 12) The adoption of adequate teaching methodologies 13) Your aural comprehension skills to understand what students say 14) Collaboration with other colleagues to plan contents and methodology DIAPOSITIVA 16
    • DIAPOSITIVA 17