Language attention in content-based instruction

John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 3:2 © 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible only to members (students and faculty) of the author’s/s’ institute. It is not permitted to post this PDF on the internet, or to share it on sites such as Mendeley, ResearchGate, Academia.edu. Please see our rights policy on https://benjamins.com/#authors/rightspolicy For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

Language attention in content-based instruction The case of language instructors teaching content in a foreign language in Mexican higher education Andrés Arias and Jesús Izquierdo

Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco Subject-matter specialists teaching content via a foreign/second language in higher education often exhibit a meaning-based pedagogy, unsystematically attending to inaccurate language. This observational study examined whether two foreign-language-teaching-trained instructors teaching content in English in a Mexican undergraduate program would emulate these instructional patterns, or would attend to language favouring language-and-content-integrated pedagogy. In the study, over 400 instructional episodes, video-recorded during 18 hours of regular-classroom teaching, were analyzed using the COLT observation scheme (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995). Results showed that the foreign-language educators favoured content, erratically attending to inaccurate language during communication breakdowns. Language attention occurred reactively through word translations, lexical-gap scaffolding, and isolated explanations for non-target phonological forms. These instructional patterns may result from the language teachers’ newly assumed content-based instructional roles. To favour language attention during subject-matter teaching, language instructors need training and curricular support that helps them draw on their foreign language teaching experience as they deliver content. Spanish abstract at end. Keywords: content-based instruction, CLIL, Mexican higher education, second language pedagogy, English as a foreign language

1. Introduction Content-based instruction (CBI) is an educational approach defined as “the integration of a particular content with language teaching aims…more specifically, Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 3:2 (2015), 194–217. doi 10.1075/jicb.3.2.02ari issn 2212–8433 / e-issn 2212–8441 © John Benjamins Publishing Company

Language attention in content-based instruction 195

it refers to the current teaching of academic subject-matter and second language skills” (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 2003, p. 2). Although CBI programs range from content-driven to language-driven models and present instructional and nomenclature variations, they share curricular and instructional characteristics integrating content and language learning (Met, 1999). CBI has expanded widely in post-secondary education, through sheltered, adjunct, and theme-based models (Brinton et al., 2003). In sheltered programs, courses are taught through a second language (L2) to help a segregated group of students master content material. The adjunct model integrates both content and language through separate but linked courses to “help students master content material and introduce them to L2 academic discourse and develop transferable academic skills” (Brinton et al., 2003, p. 19). Theme-based CBI is language-driven and its aim is to “help learners develop their L2 competence within specific topic areas” (Brinton et al., p. 19). Since the 1980s, numerous CBI university models with differing priorities, needs, aims, and outcomes have emerged (Chadran & Esarey, 1997; Corin, 1997; Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2013). European institutions have preferred the term CLIL (content-and-language-integrated-learning), which is “a generic umbrella term for bilingual, content-based education” (Ruiz, 2008) for CBI courses holding distinctive features. Grin (2005, cited in Coyle, 2007, p. 545) states that “there are 216 types of CLIL programs based on variables such as compulsory status, intensity, starting age, starting linguistic level and duration”. In these programs, two consistent findings are that learners develop control over content (Corrales & Maloof, 2009; Friedenberg & Schneider, 2008; Rodgers, 2006) with language flaws (Airey & Linder, 2008; Costa, 2012) and that educators emphasize content, with little attention to language (Airey, 2012; Vinke, Snippe, & Jochems, 2008). One explanation to these possibly interconnected issues may relate to the professional background of the CBI educators (for similar arguments regarding other types of CBI programs see Kong, 2009; Llinares & Lyster, 2014). Often, these educators are subject-matter specialists who do not see themselves as language educators (Airey, 2012) and do not necessarily have language teacher training (e.g., Hincks, 2010; Hynninen, 2012). To integrate a language focus into their content-based teaching, CBI educators require training and support (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Fortanet-Gómez, 2012). Research shows that pedagogical practices integrating language and content are more likely to occur in CBI post-secondary contexts where language educators collaborate with subject matter specialists (Burger & Chrétien, 2001; Friedenberg & Schneider, 2008; Stryker, 1997). In these contexts, language educators draw on their language knowledge and teaching expertise to help content specialists embed language attention across content learning tasks. While in these collaborative contexts language educators promote attention to language during subject matter teaching, the integration of language

© 2015. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved

196 Andrés Arias and Jesús Izquierdo

and content in the actual instructional practices of language teaching specialists when they are appointed to teach subject matter in the L2 in a university setting has yet to be explored. As in other Latin American countries (Nikula, Dalton-Puffer, & Llinares, 2013), CBI has gained popularity in Mexico, where about 33 universities offer undergraduate programs with CBI courses [Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior (ANUIES), 2007]. Some universities offer BA programs in Modern Languages, Applied Linguistics, or Language Education, with English Language Teaching specializations (ANUIES, 2007), where language instructors with language teacher training and international certifications are often appointed to teach content in English to Spanish-speaking learners due to their foreign language education background. Research in the public Mexican higher education context shows that, in their regular foreign language lessons, these language instructors exhibit strong language-oriented practices, with rare instances of theme-based language instruction. This conclusion has been reported in classroom observations (see Hernández & Izquierdo, in press; Morales & Izquierdo, 2011), quasi-experimental studies (Izquierdo, 2014; Izquierdo, Simard, & Garza, 2015), and learners’ interview reports (Izquierdo & Collins, 2008). Within this context, the current study aims at examining the integration of language and content in the CBI pedagogy of these foreign language teachers when they are hired to teach subject matter via a foreign language in higher education. Specifically, the study examines (a) whether these teachers exhibit content, language, or content-and-language-oriented practices in their CBI lessons and (b) the L2 forms they attend to. 2. Background to the study 2.1 Language attention in university-level content-based instruction One of the central objectives of CBI is often achieved when university students are exposed to subject matter via an L2: content learning (Friedenberg & Schneider, 2008; Madrid & García, 2001; Rodgers, 2006). Regarding language learning, however, diverging outcomes have been reported. For example, Tatzl (2011) has shown that L2 receptive skills are positively enhanced. CBI learners obtain higher L2 writing and reading scores than language students in non-CBI courses (Chadran & Esarey, 1997; Kasper, 1997; Song, 2006), but they exhibit lexical and stylistic weaknesses in their written language (Tatzl, 2011). In terms of oral production, while CBI learners develop L2 fluency (Airey & Linder, 2008), they produce short utterances and slow rates of speech (Hincks, 2010). L2 vocabulary substantially



grows in CBI courses (Chadran & Esarey, 1997; Myers, 2008; Vines, 1997), but L2 grammar gaps remain (see Myers, 2008). Dalton-Puffer (2008, p. 143) summarizes L2 development among CBI learners this way: “students’ syntax, writing, informal and non-technical language, pronunciation and pragmatics remain either unaffected or indefinite.” Often, L2 gaps are hypothesized to result from CBI teachers’ predominant attention to content rather than language (Airey, 2011; Ball & Lindsay, 2013; Greere & Räsänen, 2008). Indeed, lecturers see content as more important, and thus, tend not to deal explicitly with language (Hynninen, 2012) or to provide feedback on ill-formed language (Tatzl, 2011). Burger and Chrétien (2001) state that “a great deal of attention is paid to the students’ understanding of content and little time is left to focus on language” (p. 98). Costa (2012, p. 42) observes “language is seen as secondary in importance to content.” Moreover, Unterberger (2012) adds that, when grading student assignments, lecturers “focus primarily on the quality of content in students’ contributions.” (p. 93). Whenever attention to language occurs, teachers tend to focus on “the introduction or explanation of mainly subject-specific terms or expressions” (Smit, 2010, p. 408), whereas L2 grammar remains unaddressed (Hynninen, 2012). Language attention occurs in an unsystematic fashion and is mostly focused on lexical issues (Ball & Lindsay, 2013; Van der Walt & Kidd, 2013). Costa (2012, p. 37) further acknowledges that lexical attention occurs incidentally, via “codeswitching through translation of terms” to scaffold content delivery (see also Hynninen, 2012). 2.2 Attention to language and language education among CBI teachers The CBI teaching practices summarized above could be the result of the fact that CBI instructors are often subject matter specialists who speak the target language, but do not necessarily have language education training, as can be observed in the studies conducted with specialists in physics (Airey, 2012), engineering (Hincks, 2010; Vinke et al., 2008), business (Unterberger, 2012), and other disciplines such as journalism, environmental sciences, maritime studies, nursing and law, to mention a few (Airey, 2011; Costa, 2012). Possibly, due to their educational background, these CBI teachers do not see themselves as language teachers (Airey, 2011, p. 50), and do not regard attention to language as an integral part of their daily teaching (Airey, 2012). In interviews, these instructors have acknowledged “I’m not a language teacher…so I got, got problems with that” [i.e., correcting students’ language] (Tatzl, 2011, p. 261). Also, “lecturers suggest that they would feel uncomfortable correcting students’ English” (Airey, 2011, p. 46), since most of them are not native speakers of the target language and do not consider



themselves qualified or confident enough to address students’ mistakes (Airey, 2012; Unterberger, 2012). This brings about the question as to whether teachers who hold formal L2 teacher training and international attestations on language competencies will exhibit greater attention to language when they teach content in the foreign language, because language educators see themselves responsible for fostering sustained language learning opportunities in the classroom (see Borg, 2006; Burns & Richards, 2009; Kömür, 2010). Congruent with this claim, observational analysis results from other CBI settings such as secondary (Kong, 2009) and elementary contexts (Llinares & Lyster, 2014, p. 191) suggest that previous language teaching education and experience has the potential to make CBI teachers feel comfortable to focus on language during content lessons. In higher education, a small number of studies have explored the pedagogical practices of subject matter specialists with some language training (Rodgers, 2006) and those of language educators teaching content (Pica, 2002). Nonetheless, these studies have provided inconclusive results regarding language attention during subject matter instruction. Rodgers (2006) found that three CBI teachers, having communicative L2 teacher training, favoured attention to form-meaning mapping through specially constructed activities during subject matter instruction in Italian. Pica (2002), however, found that two experienced English as a Second Language (ESL) instructors, who held degrees in Applied Linguistics and had over a decade of L2 teaching experience, adhered to content teaching without addressing learners’ ill-formed language, as they taught thematic units on film and literature. The aim of this classroom-based observational study was to explore the possible interplay between language education and instructional practices in CBI higher education. It examines whether foreign language educators, who are nonnative speakers of the target language in which they deliver content classes, but hold formal language teacher training, international language knowledge certifications, and foreign language teaching experience, favour attention to language during CBI. Thus, two research questions (RQs) were put forward. 1. Does the instructional practice of language-trained instructors, who teach content through English to university Spanish-speaking learners, favour meaning-based over language-focused subject matter instruction? 2. If attention is paid to language, which L2 features do these teachers address?



3. Method To answer the research questions, CBI practices were observed in the “regular classrooms” (see Brown & Rodgers, 2002, p. 80) of a public Mexican university with an unobtrusive approach (Mackey & Gass, 2005). To achieve an understanding of the language teaching phenomenon under investigation, pre-conceived categories were used to analyze the observational data (Mackey & Gass, 2005, p. 186) in regard to the instructional orientation of the teachers and L2 features prompting attention. 3.1 Context and participants The participating university, in southeastern Mexico, offers a BA in Modern Languages with a concentration in Language Education. The BA includes 88 courses organized in disciplinary fields. Within each field, some courses are taught in Spanish (L1); others are taught in an L2 through Language Arts or CBI. Language Arts courses explicitly focus on L2 grammar, pronunciation, lexis, etc. (e.g., Hernández & Izquierdo, in press; Izquierdo, 2014; Izquierdo et al., 2015; Morales & Izquierdo, 2011), whereas CBI courses focus on subject matter learning through an L2. Using Brinton et al.’s (2003) CBI program taxonomy, these courses can be classified as sheltered courses. Of the 25 CBI courses offered, twelve are taught in English; the others are taught in French or Italian. Of the CBI courses offered in English, Culture of English-Speaking Countries and L2 Materials Development were selected, as their instructors and students consented to participate in the study. Both courses span over 40 instructional hours, excluding assessment. The first course is taught during the first half of the second year of the program, and is one of the first compulsory CBI courses. This course focuses on the main historical, artistic, and social aspects of English-speaking countries. The second course is taught in the second half of the fourth year of the program, constituting one of the last CBI courses. This course covers the theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical foundations preservice teachers need in order to develop a critical mind for the creation, selection, and implementation of L2 teaching materials. A female teacher (María henceforth) taught Culture, whereas a male teacher (José henceforth) taught the L2 Materials course. Both teachers, roughly 40 years old, had taught English as a Foreign Language and CBI courses for over 10 years in the program. They were Mexican Spanish speakers and held undergraduate English language teaching diplomas as Language Arts teachers. Their English language proficiency was considered advanced based on standardized assessments [Cambridge University Certificate of Advanced English for María and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) for José]. Due to their language education,



they were often appointed to teach CBI courses. However, neither of them had attended professional development courses for CBI teachers. Learners were Mexican Spanish speakers, whose ages ranged from 19 to 25. There were 25 students in the Culture course and 30 in the L2 Materials class. Learners in the former group had already taken two English Language Arts courses, and their English proficiency could be characterized as A1 on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF) (http://www.commoneuropeanframework.org/), based on the institution’s program and the guidelines in the current Language Arts textbook. The latter group had already completed seven English Language Arts courses, and nine CBI courses delivered in English. Their English proficiency could be characterized as C1 on the CEF, based on the institution’s program and the textbook in their current Language Arts courses. 3.2 Data collection Course lectures only allowed for the classroom lessons to be video-recorded between March and April of an academic year. Video-recordings were scheduled to take place once a week for the Culture course, as this course was taught during a three-hour weekly session, and twice a week for the L2 Materials course, as it included a one-hour session on Mondays and a two-hour session on Thursdays. Initially, 15 hours of video-recordings were to be collected from each instructor. Due to technical problems with the video-recordings and some session cancellations resulting from extracurricular activities, however, the final database included 12 hours of video-recordings for María, distributed across four sessions, and six hours of video-recordings for José including two one-hour and two twohour lessons. Nonetheless, one of Maria’s sessions fully unfolded in Spanish. Thus, it was not included in the analyses, so a total of 9 hours for María were analyzed. 3.3 Data analysis Three research assistants transcribed the recorded lessons verbatim. Then, the authors verified and analyzed the transcripts. 3.3.1 Analysis procedures Lessons were analyzed using the Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observation Scheme (COLT; Spada & Fröhlich, 1995). This scheme was selected as its analysis categories examine L2 teaching and learning practices in both meaning- and form-oriented L2 instruction (for the theoretical perspective of the scheme, see Spada & Fröhlich, 1995; Spada & Lyster, 1997). This characteristic allowed us to answer Research Question 1 by identifying the lesson orientation:



meaning-based (i.e., focused on content) or language-focused subject matter (i.e., focused on language). Then, to answer Research Question 2, lesson instances focusing on form or form/meaning connections were examined to determine the language feature (e.g., morphology, syntax, pronunciation, lexis) prompting attention. COLT is divided into Parts A and B. Part A describes classroom events at the level of activities and episodes; “an activity is typically marked by a change in the overall theme or content” (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p. 30); and an episode is distinguished when there are shifts within the COLT categories; moreover, “episodes are characterized by any teaching/learning behaviour that is approximately a minute or longer” (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p. 33). Part B analyses the communicative features of verbal exchanges between teachers and students and/or students and students (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p. 13). Only Part A of COLT was used in the study, as it allowed researchers to “obtain an initial ‘macro level’ analysis of the classroom behaviours” (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p. 128) that shed light on the research questions. Figure 1 illustrates the different central features of COLT. Part A of COLT involves lesson analysis considering the activities and episodes of the lessons and their focus. The focus can be determined in light of participant organization, content, content control, student modality, and materials (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995).

Figure 1. COLT Part A (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p. 13, reproduced by permission of Macmillan Education Australia)

To illustrate the different features and categories of COLT and exemplify the classification of every episode across the features and categories, the following excerpt from José’s Lesson 4 is presented below (see Appendix for transcription conventions). In this approximately 3-minute excerpt, the teacher is checking students’ understanding of a reading that describes various advantages and disadvantages of using an Overhead Projector (OHP) in class.


202 Andrés Arias and Jesús Izquierdo Excerpt 1: José, Lesson 4, Activity 2, Episode 10 1) T: All right! Let’s check the advantages! 2) LL: The first advantage 3) T: Yeah, the first advantage. 4) M: Bueno [= well], in this case the advantage, in this part is, eh, in the over projector. 5) T: Overhead projector [the teacher corrects the lexical error and pronunciation with a recast] 6) F: Diagrams. 7) T: Diagrams [the teacher corrects pronunciation with a recast] 8) F: The second one. 9) T: That is the first one? 10) M: No, the second one. 11) T: The first one, yes? So, who understood the first idea: the first advantage? Is it clear? As Daniel [Su] said before, it was marvellous in that time, ok? Good pictures, if they were printed, ok? Be careful with that part [the teacher asks someone for his copies]. Ok, now, the first one, it says: you can write on an overhead projector without turning your back to the class, what is that? 12) M: That the teacher is always in… 13) T: [The teacher indicates that he can’t hear] 14) M: That the teacher is always in the front. 15) T: Ok. That is one advantage, I mean, he is not writing and giving the back to the class, no? The teacher is always in front of the group, ok? That is the point, be careful. I mean with the assistants is better, but sometimes the problem is when, for example, you, Daniel! [Teacher asks him to pay attention] when you are doing the job, yes? You are presenting and changing the acetates; I mean doing the changes is difficult. For example, in the preparatoria se acuerdan? [= back in high school, do you remember?] Hacían los cambios o no hacían los cambios ustedes? [= Did you use to change the transparencies yourselves?] 16) LL: Yeah 17) T: No había asistente, a quien decir: la siguiente. [= There was no teaching assistant to ask to change the transparency.]

This excerpt was coded in Figure 2. The first feature, Participant Organization, focuses on the organization of the students, using three basic patterns: class, groups or individual (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995). Regarding the excerpt above, a checkmark was placed under the T-S/C column of the Class category, since the whole episode involved the teacher interacting with a student or the whole class. The second feature, Content, refers to what the teacher and students are talking, reading or writing about” (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p. 16).



Figure 2. Codification of Excerpt 1

During the analysis, the “Content” section uncovered the teachers’ orientations towards each lesson; moreover, every area of this feature directly relates to our research questions. This section involves three areas: Management, Language, and Other Topics. Management captures the teacher’s focus on procedural and disciplinary directives (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995), which directly emphasize meaning. Thus, for the excerpt, the procedure in the Management sub-category was checked, as the teacher explicitly told students what they were doing: checking the advantages of the overhead projector (Turn 1). The Other Topics category documents episodes focusing exclusively on meaning (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995). Other Topics are further categorized as either “narrow” or “broad.” Narrow topics include lesson activities and episodes dealing with information about the immediate context of the participants, such as “personal information, routine, school, family and community topics” (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p. 17). For the excerpt, narrow was checked, since the discussion focused on a school subject, related to the context of the students. Broad topics include lesson episodes that capture exchange of information not related to the participants’ context, such as “international events, subject-matter instruction and imaginary/ hypothetical events” (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p. 17). The Language category captures “emphasis on linguistic features, frequent repetitions of formal aspects or repeated form corrections” (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p. 37). This category uncovers four language aspects teachers attend to: form, function, discourse, and sociolinguistics. Therefore, under the sub-category Language, Form was checked, as the teacher attended to pronunciation and lexical errors (Turn 5 & 7). The Content Control feature “refers to who selects the topic (or task) that is the focus of instruction” (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p. 18); here, the T-text column was checked, since the text being read determined the topic of the episode. The fourth



feature, Student Modality “identifies the various skills involved in the classroom activity” (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p. 18). In the excerpt, students mostly engaged in listening (Turns 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17), reading, and speaking (Turns, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14). Finally, the last feature, Material, describes classroom materials in terms of text type and source of material; in this respect, the extended column was checked, under the sub-category type, because the students read complete paragraphs; a checkmark was also placed in the L2-NS column, under the source sub-category, as the materials were for English native speakers. 3.3.2 Inter-rater reliability during the coding procedure To reduce coding subjectivity (see Brown & Rodgers, 2002; Mackey & Gass, 2005), the first author worked independently to analyse each lesson into activities and episodes. Then, he met with the second author to check his coding results. Researchers agreed on 96% of the activities and 88% of the episodes coded. Then, as advised by Spada and Fröhlich (1995), they reached consensus on their differences, consulting the COLT codification manual. Table 1 shows that 20 activities and 277 episodes were documented for María. From the 277 episodes coded, coders agreed on 272. Differences were found in the codification of two episodes of Lesson 1 and three episodes of Lesson 2 within the Student-Modality and the Type of Material categories. The researchers reached consensus on these differences consulting the COLT manual. Table 1. Activities and episodes in María’s lessons Lesson

Activities

Episodes

Lesson 1

8

84

Lesson 2

7

98

Lesson 3

5

95

Total

20

277

Table 2. Activities and episodes in José’s lessons Lesson

Activities

Episodes

Lesson 1

5

33

Lesson 2

2

21

Lesson 3

1

24

Lesson 4

2

46

Total

10

124



With respect to José’s lessons, Table 2 shows that 10 activities and 124 episodes were documented. Of the 124 episodes identified, researchers found coding differences in 23 of them. Differences were found in the codification of Lessons 1, 2 and 4. In Lesson 1, differences related to the coding of 12 episodes that occurred within the Source of Material feature. In Lesson 2, differences were related to one episode coded under the column “Other Topics” of the Content category. Finally, in Lesson 4, differences were found in 10 episodes coded under the Type of Material. 4. Results In this section, the results are first presented for each teacher; then, the overall results are addressed in the discussion section in light of the research questions. 4.1 Instructional orientation of María’s lessons Figure 3 shows that 277 episodes were documented in María’s lessons, where similar amount of teacher- and student-led episodes were identified. The student-led episodes illustrate passages where a group of learners led a multimedia presentation while the rest of the class listened. This L2 production activity was a rather surprising finding, because it is contrary to most descriptions of university CBI classrooms, where students produce very little language and concentrate on note-taking (Airey & Linder, 2008; Ball & Lindsay, 2013; Burger, 1989). It has typically been reported that university instructors talk more (Airey, 2011), as CBI lessons take the form of monologues (Costa, 2012; Fortanet-Gómez, 2012; Jochems, 1991). In this regard, Airey and Linder (2008) highlight that “[f]luency in spoken disciplinary English… does not appear to be encouraged” (p. 155), as students have relatively limited opportunities to speak (see also Burger & Chrétien, 2001; Fortanet-Gómez, 2012).

Figure 3. COLT Analysis of María’s Lessons



Lesson materials determined the class topics. The materials were authentic for the most part, as the readings were designed for English native speakers. This substantiates Brinton et al.’s (2003) statement that the feature uniting CBI course materials is “authenticity” (p. 89). The sustained use of these materials mostly prompted content comprehension through a large number of listening- and reading-based episodes, as researchers have reported in other CBI contexts (Costa, 2012; Greere & Räsänen, 2008; Wilkinson, 2013). With respect to the Management aspect of the Content feature, the language used by the teacher mostly dealt with the “procedures” needed for task completion in Lessons 1 and 3. Lesson 2, nevertheless, was more balanced, with a similar number of episodes related to discipline and instructions. Due to the nature of the Culture course, the lessons frequently focused on international events, as the large number of episodes in the Broad category illustrate. Regarding Language, in about 37% of the episodes, the teacher concentrated exclusively on Form as a result of communication breakdowns; nonetheless, in these cases, the teacher explicitly drew student attention to language without building form/function relationships between the content being delivered and the language being used; thus, no evidence of attention to Function, Discourse, or Sociolinguistics was identified (see also Costa, 2012; Hynninen, 2012; Tatzl, 2011). 4.2 Language attention in María’s lessons Table 3 presents the language forms María attended to. It should be noted that there is a mismatch between the number of times in which the teacher focused on form in Figure 3 (i.e., 103 times) and the number of form-related aspects triggering María’s attention to language in Table 3 (i.e., 119 times). This is because one single episode could have related to one or more aspects of form; where this happens, there are two coding possibilities: primary focus and secondary focus (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995). The COLT scheme suggests that when doing the calculation, only the aspects that received primary focus are considered because the interest lies in “those categories which are most prominent in different classroom settings” (Spada & Fröhlich, 1995, p. 116). This guiding principle was adopted in the results in Table 3; hence, the 103 times María focused on form. However, for the purpose of the second research question, it was also necessary to consider those formrelated aspects that received secondary focus. The same explanation applies for variations in José’s Figure 4 (i.e., 24 times) and Table 4 (i.e., 26 times) presenting language attention.



Table 3. María’s attention to specific language features Lesson 1

Lesson 2

Lesson 3

Total

Pronunciation

15

35

3

53

Vocabulary

12

29

16

57

Spelling

0

1

0

1

Morphology

1

4

0

5

Syntax

1

2

0

3

Table 3 shows the episodes eliciting language attention, mostly due to students’ mispronunciation of words in Lessons 1 and 2. The second form-related aspect María attended to was vocabulary. This is in line with Costa’s (2012) findings in Italian CBI lectures, where instructors mainly focused on L2 lexical items. In Lesson 3, however, the opposite pattern was identified; here, María paid more attention to vocabulary than to pronunciation. Spelling, Morphology, and Syntax were aspects the teacher attended to minimally. This result is similar to that of Burger and Chrétien (2001) who found that “Syntactic and discourse features are not taught formally” (p. 98). In all cases, María’s attention to language occurred reactively, when pronunciation and lexical errors hindered message intelligibility. No evidence of proactive or focused reactive language attention was documented. This type of unplanned attention to language has been documented in different university settings in which lecturers make use of code-switching or pre-emptive focus on form as linguistic issues arise (Hynninen, 2012; Unterberger, 2012; Van der Walt & Kidd, 2013). 4.3 Instructional orientation of José’s lessons Figure 4 shows that, for José, 124 episodes were documented. A strong preference for teacher-centered instruction was documented across lessons, as the large number of teacher-led episodes suggests. Teacher centered pedagogy is a strong characteristic of CBI (Creese, 2006; Fortanet-Gómez, 2012; Vinke et al., 2008). Materials also determined lesson discussions for José. Since this class was about materials development for language teachers, the majority of the materials used were student-made. Lessons mostly required aural comprehension through a large number of listening-based episodes, as reported in other CBI contexts (Airey, 2011; Burger & Chrétien, 2001; Jochems, 1991).



Figure 4. COLT Analysis of José’s Lessons

With respect to Management, José mostly focused on the delivery of instructions for task completion, as did María. In the Other Topics category, the majority of the episodes were coded under the Narrow category. This result relates to the course content, focusing on the materials students can use to teach an L2. Across lessons, 19% of the episodes provided evidence of attention to Form, which often occurred as a result of communication breakdowns; except for Function with two instances, no attention was given to other language aspects to draw learner attention to form/ function mapping references, such as Discourse or Sociolinguistics. This behaviour is in line with that of María and other university CBI teachers whose grammar treatment remained superficial (Burger & Chrétien, 2001; Hynninen, 2012; Tatzl, 2011). 4.4 Language attention in José’s lessons Table 4 shows that José attended to language in Lesson 1 and 4. In these lessons, he mainly concentrated on scaffolding communication through word provision, as the number of episodes referring to vocabulary demonstrates. This finding is similar to Costa’s (2012), who found that CBI lecturers focused mainly on lexical items through the translation of terms. Furthermore, whenever students used the past tense or past participle incorrectly, the teacher limited his attention to the target verbs’ morphology, without building form/function mapping between the content being delivered and the language required. While attention to morphology focused on past tense, this attention was erratic throughout the lessons. José paid attention to pronunciation minimally, only when learners’ errors impeded communication. Attention to pronunciation did not show a pattern or linguistic target. These findings substantiate those of Smit (2010, p. 408), as whenever a language issue came into play, it mainly related to “the introduction or explanation of mainly subject-specific terms or expressions. Other aspects of language were



not topicalized.” The absence of systematic language attention in these CBI lessons and the lack of attention to form/meaning mapping, points to superficial attention to form as highlighted in previous research (Burger & Chrétien, 2001; Hynninen, 2012; Rodgers, 2006; Unterberger, 2012). Table 4. José’s attention to specific language features Lesson 1

Lesson 2

Lesson 3

Lesson 4

Total

Pronunciation

3

0

0

3

6

Vocabulary

9

0

0

2

11

Spelling

0

0

0

0

0

Morphology

6

0

0

3

9

Syntax

0

0

0

0

0

5. Discussion and conclusion The integration of meaning and language in L2 subject matter courses is necessary to help students restructure their ill-formed linguistic systems (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Klee & Tedick, 1997; Lyster, 2007). This integrative approach can prevent the stabilization of inaccuracies in the learners’ use of the target language. Since subject matter specialists often fall short on this integration in higher education CBI lessons, the current study examined, through two research questions, whether formally trained language educators who deliver content via an L2 would integrate language attention in CBI courses. Question 1 asked whether the instructional practice of language-trained instructors, who teach content through English to university Spanish-speaking learners, would favour meaning-based over language-focused subject matter instruction. The results of the analysis of 401 class episodes showed that the observed teachers did not systematically integrate language attention through content learning. This observed lack of attention to form corroborates findings from previous studies conducted with subject matter specialists (e.g, Airey, 2011, 2012; Costa, 2012; Hincks, 2010; Unterberger, 2012; Vinke et al., 2008) and language educators (Pica, 2002) in higher education programs. Question 2 dealt with the L2 aspects these teachers would address in their CBI lessons. Our results indicated that language attention occurred reactively, when pronunciation and lexical errors in the learners’ L2 production led to communication breakdowns. Attention to lexical gaps was not sustained. When teachers scaffolded communication via vocabulary provision through word translations, this language attention was limited to either providing word meaning or



the explanation of mainly subject-specific terms or expressions (Ball & Lindsay, 2013; Hynninen, 2012; Van der Walt & Kidd, 2013). No evidence of intentional pre-planned work on the emerging lexical system of the learners was documented. The limited and inconsistent attention to these language features has been reported in previous studies conducted at the tertiary level, where the majority of students’ non-target utterances went unaddressed and where grammar was left unattended (Burger & Chrétien, 2001; Costa, 2012; Rodgers, 2006; Wilkinson, 2013). Our results also corroborate those of various CBI program types where little, if any, time is spent on grammar instruction or error correction in content classes (see Hynninen, 2012). Moreover, the gap in language attention between these formally-trained language instructors teaching content in an L2 and their colleagues with similar language education backgrounds teaching foreign languages in the same context (Hernández & Izquierdo, in press; Izquierdo, 2014; Izquierdo & Collins, 2008; Izquierdo et al., 2015; Morales & Izquierdo, 2011) is clearly evident. This finding is congruent with reports on the gap in language attention in CBI and non-CBI L2 education programs in other educational contexts (see Greere & Räsänen, 2008). Our results, and those of Pica (2002), suggest that, at the tertiary level, the absence of focus on form can occur when language teachers with formal language education training are appointed to teach subject matter in an L2. One factor that might explain these findings is the well-documented adherence of CBI teachers to their content teaching role rather than their language-teaching role. First, content and language teachers tend to see their educational roles as two non-interrelated L2 education dimensions (Airey 2012; Fortanet-Gómez, 2012). Content teachers see themselves responsible for content only (Burger & Chrétien 2001; Unterberger, 2012). Further evidence to substantiate this argument comes from María’s choice to deliver one of the video-recorded lessons in the L1 of the learners to cover content (see Airey, 2012, for similar L1/L2 use in CBI programs). This ‘identity separation’ might have been a key reason behind the observed teachers’ priority to content and absence of attention to formal aspects of language despite their professional background as language teachers. Similar to what other CBI teachers have acknowledged in previous research (Airey, 2012; Wilkinson, 2013), the teachers in this study might have assumed that language issues should be left to Language Arts lessons. The materials implemented in the classroom might have contributed to the observed instructional patterns. CBI materials used in the lessons indicate how a teacher has organised his/her lessons (Corin, 1997) and “[provide] both teachers and students with a map that lays out the general content of lessons and a sense of structure that gives coherence to individual lessons as well as to an entire course” (Richards & Bohlke, 2011, p. 36). Moreover, the authenticity of the material does



not naturally prime teachers’ attention to the language forms in the texts, as usually occurs in non-CBI L2 instructional materials. Moreover, despite the international language attestations of the observed CBI teachers, the extent to which they might not have felt confident correcting their students’ use of the target language (see Airey, 2012; Costa, 2012; Tatzl, 2011) and to which teachers themselves mastered the linguistic richness of the authentic texts remain to be explored. In the context of the study, the overwhelming attention to content in the observed lessons is enhanced by the program curriculum itself. First, the program curriculum sees CBI courses as an opportunity for learners to build confidence, and to function competently in L2 environments (see also Burger, 1989; Corrales & Maloof, 2009; Kasper, 1997). Under this guideline, teachers might not have felt at ease focusing on students’ mistakes during subject matter learning, as has been observed in other contexts (Stryker & Leaver, 1997), particularly if language inaccuracies do not lead to communication breakdowns (Ball & Lindsay, 2013). Second, while the curriculum recognizes that the delivery of content through L2 instruction creates opportunities for L2 development, nowhere in the syllabi of the participating university are teachers advised on instructional or assessment procedures that foster an integrative approach to content and language attention. Third, the program places a particular emphasis on the content that students should be evaluated on and master by the end of the course, to be able to register in subsequent subject matter courses. This, in turn, leads teachers to focus on preparing students for exams, and thus, place prominence on content over language. In light of these curricular constraints, it might be that, for these language teachers, the notion that they need to integrate language attention tasks as they deliver subject matter is out of the scope of their responsibilities. Another explanation for these teachers’ strong preference for content could relate to their language education background. These Language Arts teachers might be influenced by the strong side of the communicative approach as they were trained in the late 90s, a period still influenced by the fever of the communicative approach, at least in Mexico. As widely known, in the communicative approach the focus of L2 education is on the development of “fluency in language use” (Richards, 2006, p. 14) through rich meaning-based instruction. Since these language teachers might see meaning-based instruction at the heart of subject matter learning in CBI courses, fluency rather than accuracy might have been encouraged in the messages their students were to generate. Moreover, in line with the most meaning-oriented interpretation of the communicative approach, in CBI where subject matter learning is the central aim of the course program, teachers might see attention to language as detrimental to learners’ motivation and efforts to use the L2 to communicate their message (Brown, 2001; Harmer, 2001).



While our results substantiate findings in previous CBI research, some aspects of the research design might have contributed to our results. First, the participating teachers were not randomly selected from a group. Instead, they were the only teachers who were willing to participate in this study. Second, although the professional profile of the participating teachers is quite similar to that of other CBI teachers in the program and nationwide, a larger number of participants should constitute the scope of future research. Third, due to technological and contextual constraints, we were able to analyse many fewer video-recorded lessons than we had originally planned; in a future study, a larger number of video-recordings should be considered. Finally, while the analysis of the participants’ attitudes and perception of language teachers towards the integration of content and language in CBI was beyond the scope of our research questions, their viewpoints on the constraints influencing their instructional practices and educational roles during CBI deserve further attention in a follow-up study. Moreover, future quasi-experimental or action research investigations should examine the impact that training on CBI pedagogy has on the attitudes and instructional practices of subject matter specialists and language instructors in CBI courses. In conclusion, these language instructors teaching content at the university level held a strong meaning-based orientation and provided learners with inconsistent attention to the target language (see also Burger & Chrétien, 2001; Hynninen, 2012; Pica, 2002; Unterberger, 2012). The extent to which their current instructional practices foster L2 development beyond the current communicative abilities of the CBI learners remains debatable (see Airey, 2012; Airey & Linder, 2008). Empirical reviews and meta-analyses in L2 acquisition research conducted in a large number of contexts indicate that language education emphasizing meaning-oriented instruction is unlikely to help learners overcome L2 areas that they have problems with (Pica, 2002; Lyster, 2007; Rodgers, 2006), particularly when learners have developed strategies that allow them to communicate their ideas (e.g., Myers, 2008; Tatzl, 2011). Nonetheless, the integration of language and content does not happen automatically, and “second languages are not learned by osmosis” (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012, p. 262). Moreover, language and content integration may not occur naturally under the curricular demands of university CBI programs, and the subject matter professional needs of the instructed university-level clientele. As evident in this study, although both participating teachers had a solid L2 education, none of them had CBI training. This finding suggests that language teachers (see also Pica, 2002) and subject specialists (Costa, 2012; Fortanet-Gómez, 2012), who are appointed to teach subject matter in an L2 at the university level, need education on how to integrate both content and language in their lessons. Furthermore, this training must be accompanied and supported by curricular guidance that



provides both instructional and assessment guidelines leading to a systematic content and language integrated pedagogy in higher education.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to the journal editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on previous versions of the manuscript. We thank Roy Lyster, James Poirier, and Leah Rubinoff for their insightful comments throughout the development of the article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: [email protected].

References Airey, J., & Linder, C. (2008). Bilingual scientific literacy? The use of English in Swedish university science courses. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7, 145–161. Airey, J. (2011). Talking about teaching in English: Swedish university lecturers’ experiences of changing teaching language. Ibérica, 22, 35–54. Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language” The linguistic attitudes of physics lectures in Sweden. AILA Review, 25, 64–79. DOI: 10.1075/aila.25.05air ANUIES (2007). Catálogo de carreras de licenciatura y posgrado. Mexico: Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior [Catalogue of undergraduate and graduate studies. National Association of Universities and Further Education Institutions: Mexico]. Retrieved from http://www.anuies.mx/servicios/c_licenciatura/index2.php. Ball, P., & Lindsay, D. (2013). Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education. Leaning from specific context. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at the university: Global challenges (pp. 44–61). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. UK: Continuum. Brinton, D., Snow, M., & Wesche, M. (2003). Content-based second language instruction (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Brown, D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). NY: Longman. Brown, J., & Rodgers, T. (2002). Doing second language research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Burger, S., & Chrétien, S. (2001). The development of oral production in content-based second language courses at the University of Ottawa. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 84–102. DOI: 10.3138/cmlr.58.1.84 Burger, S. (1989). Content-based ESL in a sheltered psychology course: Input, output and outcomes. TESL Canada Journal, 6(2), 45–59. Burns, A., & Richard, J. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251–269. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x 0026-7902/12/251-269


214 Andrés Arias and Jesús Izquierdo Chadran, J., & Esarey, G. (1997). Content-based instruction: An Indonesian example. In S. Stryker & B. Leaver (Eds.), Content-based instruction in foreign language education. (pp. 222–236). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Corin, A. (1997). A course to convert Czech proficiency to proficiency in Croatian and Serbian. In S. Stryker & B. Leaver (Eds.), Content-based instruction in foreign language education (pp. 78–104). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Corrales, K., & Maloof, C. (2009). Evaluating the effects of CBI on an English for medical students program. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 2(1), 15–23. DOI: 10.5294/laclil.2009.2.1.3 Costa, F. (2012). Focus on form in ICLHE lecturers in Italy: Evidence from English-medium sciences lecturers by native speakers of Italian. AILA Review, 25, 30–47. DOI: 10.1075/aila.25.03cos Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 543–562. DOI: 10.2167/beb459.0 Creese, A. (2006). Supporting talk? Partnership teachers in classroom interaction. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 434–453. DOI: 10.2167/beb340.0 Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & I. Volkman (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching. Anglistische Forschungen, Vol. 388 (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg, Germany: Winter. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2013). Future challenges for English-medium instruction tertiary level. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at the university: Global challenges (pp. 213–221). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Fortanet-Gomez, I. (2012). Academics’ beliefs about language use and proficiency in Spanish multilingual higher education. AILA Review, 25, 48–63. DOI: 10.1075/aila.25.04for Friedenberg, J., & Schneider, M. (2008). An experiment in sheltered sociology at the university level. In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Eds.), Realizing Content and Language Integration in Higher Education (pp. 155–168). Maastricht Netherlands: Maastricht University. Greere, A., & Räsänen, A. (2008). Redefining ‘CLIL’ – Towards multilingual competence. Retrieved from http://www.lanqua.eu/sites/default/files/Year1Report_CLIL_ForUpload_ WithoutAppendices_0.pdf. Grin, F. (2005, March). The value added of CLIL: A language policy evaluation approach. Paper presented at the conference: The Changing European Classroom — The Potential of Plurilingual Education. Luxembourg. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). NY: Longman. Hernández, J., & Izquierdo, J. (In press). Metacognición y comprensión oral en L2: Estudio en nivel universitario [Metacognition & L2 oral comprehension: An observational study in the university context]. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 18(1). Hincks, R. (2010). Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca oral presentations. English for Specific Purposes, 29, 4–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.004 Hynninen, N. (2012). ICL at the micro level: L2 speakers taking on the role of language experts. AILA Review, 25, 13–29. DOI: 10.1075/aila.25.02hyn Izquierdo, J. (2014). Multimedia instruction in foreign language classrooms: Effects on the acquisition of the French perfective and imperfective distinction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(2), 188–219. DOI: 10.3138/cmlr.1697



Izquierdo, J., Simard, D., & Garza, G. (2015). Multimedia instruction and language learning attitudes: A study with university students. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 17(2), 101–115. Retrieved from http://redie.uabc.mx/vol17no2/contents-izqsimard.html. Izquierdo, J., & Collins, L. (2008). The facilitative effects of L1 influence on L2 tense-aspect marking: Hispanophones and Anglophones learning French. The Modern Language Journal, 93(iii), 350–368. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00751.x Jochems, W. (1991). Effects of learning and teaching in a foreign language. European Journal of Engineering Education, 16(4), 309–316. DOI: 10.1080/03043799108939537 Kasper, L. (1997). The impact of content-based instructional programs on the academic progress of ESL students. English for Specific Purposes, 16, 309–320. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00035-5 Klee, C., & Tedick, D. (1997). The undergraduate foreign language immersion program in Spanish at the University of Minnesota. In S. Stryker & B. Leaver (Eds.), Content-based instruction in foreign language education (pp. 141–173). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Kömür, S. (2010). Teaching knowledge and teacher competencies: A case study of Turkish preservice English teachers. Teaching Education, 21, 279–296. DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2010.498579 Kong, E. (2009). Content-based instruction: What can we learn from content-trained teachers’ and language-trained teachers’ pedagogies? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 233–267. DOI: 10.1353/cml.0.0102 Llinares, A., & Lyster, R. (2014). The inﬂuence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: A comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms. The Language Learning Journal, 42, 181–194. DOI: org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889509 Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A Counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.18 Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research methodology and design. NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Madrid, D., & García, E. (2001). Content-based second language teaching. In E. García Sánchez (Ed.), Present and future trends in TEFL (pp. 101–134). Almería, Spain: Universidad de Almería. Met, M. (1999). Content-based instruction: Defining terms, making decisions. Washington, DC: The National Foreign Language Center. Morales, D., & Izquierdo, J. (2011). L2 phonology learning among young adult learners of English: Effects of regular classroom-based instruction and L2 proficiency. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 13(1), 1–22. Myers, M. (2008). Code-switching in content learning. In R. Wilkinson & V. Zegers (Eds.), Realizing content and language integration in higher education (pp.43–52). Maastricht Netherlands: Maastricht University. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Llinares, A. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse. Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–100. DOI: 10.1075/jicb.1.1.04nik Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the international and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 1–19. DOI: 10.1111/1540-4781.00133 Richards, J. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. NY: Cambridge University Press. Richards, R., & Bohlke, D. (2011). Creating effective language lessons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


216 Andrés Arias and Jesús Izquierdo Rodgers, D. (2006). Developing content and form: Encouraging evidence from Italian contentbased instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 373–386. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00430.x Ruiz, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 60–73. Smit, U. (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education: A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter. Song, B. (2006). Content-based ESL instruction: Long-term effects and outcomes. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 420–437. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2005.09.002 Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M. (1995). The communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme (COLT). Sydney, Australia: MacMillan. Spada, N., & Lyster, R. (1997). Approaches to observation in classroom research: Macroscopic and microscopic views of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 787–795. DOI: 10.2307/3587763 Stryker, S., & Leaver, B. (1997). Content-based instruction: From theory to practice. In S. Stryker & B. Leaver (Eds.), Content-based instruction in foreign language education (pp. 2–29). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Stryker, S. (1997). The Mexico experiment at the foreign service institute. In S. Stryker & B. Leaver (Eds.), Content-based instruction in foreign language education (pp. 177–202). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Tatzl, D. (2011). English-medium masters’ programmes at an Austrian university of applied sciences: Attitudes, experiences and challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 250–270. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.08.003 Unterberger, B. (2012). English-medium programmes at Austrian business faculty: A status quo survey on national trends and a case study on programme design and delivery. AILA Review, 25, 80–100. DOI: 10.1075/aila.25.06unt Van der Walt, C., & Kidd, M. (2013). Acknowledging academic biliteracy in higher education assessment strategies: A tale of two trials. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Ed.), English-medium instruction at the university: Global challenges (pp. 27–43). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Vines, L. (1997). Content-based instruction in French for journalism students at Ohio University. In S. Stryker & B. Leaver (Eds.), Content-based instruction in foreign language education (pp. 119–140). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Vinke, A., Snippe, J., & Jochems, W. (2008). English-medium content courses in non-English higher education: A study of lecturer experiences and teaching behaviours. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(3), 383–394. DOI: 10.1080/1356215980030307 Wilkinson, R. (2013). English-medium instruction at a Dutch university: Challenges and pitfalls. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Ed.), English-medium instruction at the university: Global challenges (pp. 3–24). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Appendix Transcription Conventions (from Mackey & Gass, 2005, p. 345) T = Teacher LL = unidentified subgroup of class M = unidentified male learner



F = [ ] = [=] = [xx] = [Su] =

unidentified female learner commentary from the researchers translation of speech incomprehensible item pseudonym

Resumen En el nivel universitario, las asignaturas de contenido en una lengua segunda/extranjera (L2) son comúnmente impartidas por especialistas disciplinares. Estos centran la enseñanza en los contenidos temáticos, prestando poca atención a la lengua meta o a la calidad lingüística del discurso de sus estudiantes. En este estudio, se observó la práctica pedagógica de dos profesores universitarios con formación en enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras al impartir asignaturas de contenido en una L2. Para determinar si estos profesores prestan atención a la lengua meta, se analizaron 400 episodios didácticos durante 18 horas de clase. Empleando el esquema de observación COLT (Spada y Fröhlich, 1995), se identificó una pedagogía centrada en los contenidos temáticos. La atención a la L2 se dio cuando los errores lexicales o fonológicos impidieron la comprensión del discurso de los estudiantes. A esta situación, los profesores respondieron con explicaciones descontextualizadas o traducción de la terminología requerida para expresar el mensaje en la L2. En consecuencia, se sugiere formación profesional que permita a estos profesores recuperar sus conocimientos didácticos en lenguas y ajustes curriculares que favorezcan atención a la forma durante el aprendizaje de contenidos temáticos en la L2.

Authors’ addresses Andrés Arias de la Cruz Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco División Académica de Educación y Artes Zona de la Cultura, Av. Universidad S/N Col. Magisterial, Villahermosa, Tabasco C.P. 86040 Mexico [email protected]

Jesús Izquierdo Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco Coordinación de Investigación y Posgrado DAEA Zona de la Cultura, Av. Universidad S/N Col. Magisterial, Villahermosa, Tabasco C.P. 86040 Mexico [email protected]


Language attention in content-based instruction

Language attention in content-based instruction

Suggest Documents

Rethinking Academic Language in Second Language Instruction

Rethinking Academic Language in Second Language Instruction

Instruction BP 6142.2 World/Foreign Language Instruction In order ...

Sustained attention in language production: An ...

direct language instruction and interactive language ...

Second language reading instruction in Pakistan - ScienceDirect

Differentiated Instruction in the Foreign Language Classroom

Form-Focused Instruction in Communicative Language Teaching ...

comprehension strategy instruction in language learning classrooms

Instruction for English Language Learners

TEACHING WITH GENERAL INSTRUCTION LANGUAGE

Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction

Problems of English language instruction in primary in ...

The Interface Between Language and Attention ...

Attention-based Natural Language Person Retrieval

Coherent Dialogue with Attention-based Language Models

Attention to speech and spoken language ...

Visual attention during spatial language comprehension - Cognitive

Brief Introduction to Language Ecology and Language Instruction

Brief Introduction to Language Ecology and Language Instruction

Reading Instruction - Cornell Language Resource Center

Wikiotics: The Interactive Language Instruction Wiki

Cognition and second language instruction ...

LANGUAGE POLICY AND MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION ... - CiteSeerX