Timing of pedagogical intervention: Oral error treatment in EFL vs. CLIL contexts in primary education in Spain

Year 2019, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 578 - 586, 01.07.2019

Jose Luis Estrada Chichon Ana Otto

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.586263

Abstract

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
Timing of pedagogical intervention: Oral error treatment in EFL vs. CLIL contexts in primary education in Spain
This study stresses the major circumstances in terms of timing of pedagogical intervention in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) contexts within the same school setting in Madrid (Spain). The rationale of the research lies in the EFL and CLIL Primary Education teachers' preferences for online and offline correction (Pawlak, 2014). In order to gather significant data, classroom observation took place to list teachers' timing of error correction in oral communication –i.e., whether EFL and CLIL teachers perform immediate, delayed, or postponed correction. As for content and language integration, recent literature (Coyle, 2010; Wewer, 2017) stands out that CLIL practice should reflect upon alternative teaching methods different to EFL instruction (i.e. focus on language forms). Contrary to the expectations, the results highlight that there are no major differences of the timing of pedagogical intervention between EFL and CLIL teachers: Mostly all oral errors committed during EFL and CLIL courses were immediately intervened. In light of the results, some recommendations are proposed concerning the focus on language functions; i.e., being able to develop communicative competence and collaborative work along with language teachers.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Estrada Chichon, Jose Luis
Affiliated institution (University)	University of Cadiz
Country
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	Yes
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)	Otto, Ana
Affiliated institution (University)	UDIMA (Universidad a Distancia de Madrid)
Country
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Keywords

English as a Foreign Language (EFL); error treatment; Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL); primary education; timing of pedagogical intervention

References

• Allwright, R. & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Author 1 (2017)
• Ball, P. (2018, June). CLIL: The three dimensions of content, presented at II Congreso Internacional para Profesionales de la Enseñanza Bilingüe, Madrid, Spain.
• Bovellan, E. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs about learning and language as reflected in their views of teaching materials for Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (Ph.D. thesis). University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
• Cabezuelo-Gutiérrez, P. & Fernández-Fernández, R. (2014). A case study on teacher training needs in the Madrid Bilingual Project. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 7(2), 50-70.
• Corder, P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 160-170.
• Corder, P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Council of Europe (2001): Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL–A pedagogical approach. In Van Deusen-Scholl, N. & Hornberger N. (Eds.) (2008), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd edition). New York, Springer, 97-111.
• Coyle, D. (2010, June). Classroom Pedagogies for Enhancing CLIL Practice, presented at University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland. Retrieved from: https://goo.gl/CFSHK1
• Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to Learners: An Investigation into “Successful Learning” across CLIL Contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 244-266.
• Coyle, D. Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: CUP.
• Crain, S. & Lillo-Martin, D. (1999). An Introduction to Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.
• de Graaff, R., Koopman, G., Anikina, Y. & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603-624.
• Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and Correction. Harlow: Longman.
• Fuentes-Arjona, M. (2013). Which score is adequate: Approximation to the assessment rationale used in science through English CLIL written text. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 6(4), 54-73. Retrieved from: http://www.raco.cat/index.php/Bellaterra/article/viewFile/297851/386834
• Halbach, A. (2010). From the classroom to university and back: Teacher training for CLIL in Spain at the University de Alcalá. In D. Lasagabaster & P. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 243-256.
• Harmer, J, (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Hüttner, J. & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): The bigger picture. System, 44, 160-167.
• Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
• Lorenzo, F. Casal, S. & Moore, P. (2009). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 418-442.
• Lyster, R. & Ranta, E. (1977). Corrective feedback and learner pptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-61.
• Milla-Melero, R. (2016). Corrective feedback in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom (Master's thesis). País Vasco University, Spain.
• Moore, P. (2009). On the emergence of L2 oracy in bilingual education: A comparative analysis of CLIL and mainstream learner talk (Ph.D. thesis), Pablo de Olavide University, Seville, Spain.
• Nikula, T. & Järvinen, H. (2013). Vieraskielinen opetus Suomessa [instruction in a foreign language in Finland]. In L. Tainio & H. Harju-Luukkainen (Eds.), Kaksikielinen koulu – tulevaisuuden monikielinen Suomi [Bilingual school—the multilingual future Finland].
• Olivares-Leyva, M. & Pena-Díaz, C. (2013). How do we train our CLIL teachers. A case study form Alcalá University. Porta Linguarum, 19, 87-99.
• Park, H. (2010). Teachers' and learners' preferences for error correction (Master's thesis). California State University, Los Angeles, United States.
• Pavón, V. & Ellison, M. (2013). Examining teachers’ roles and competences in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Linguarum Arena, 4, 65-78.
• Pawlak, M. (2014). Error Correction in the Foreign Language Classroom: Reconsidering the Issues. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
• Pawlak, M. (Ed.) (2015). Error Correction in the Foreign Language Classroom: Reconsidering the Issues. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
• Pérez-Cañado, M. (2017). Stopping the “pendulum effect” in CLIL research: Finding the balance between pollyanna and scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 79-99.
• Salaberri-Ramiro, S. (2010). Teacher training programmes for CLIL in Andalusia. In D. Lasagabaster & P. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 140-161.
• Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
• Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing correction. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
• Truscott, J. (1999). What´s wrong with oral grammar correction. Canadian Modern Language Review, 44(4), 437-456.
• Ur, P. (1996). A course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Van Patten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(3), 287-301.
• Wewer, T. (2017). An observation tool for comprehensive pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Examples from Primary Education. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(2), 277-292.