February 2022 – Volume 25, Number 4
Gemma Delicado-Puerto
University of Extremadura, Spain
<gdelpue
unex.es>
Laura Alonso-Díaz
University of Extremadura, Spain
<laulonsounex.es>
Laura V. Fielden Burns
University of Extremadura, Spain
<lvfieldenunex.es>
Abstract
How to better prepare future bilingual teachers for foreign language learning classrooms and their challenges is a key consideration in education, a concern echoed across the world as such programmes, where curricular content is taught in a foreign language, grow in popularity. This article presents student profiles and satisfaction for the first year of an EMI (English as a Medium of Instruction) teacher training model at the University of Extremadura in Spain. The goal of this programme is to offer instruction for education majors in a four-year, bilingual Bachelor’s in Primary Education (BA) programme where 50% of curricular subjects are taught in students’ native Spanish, and 50% in English. The data collected in this study revealed that first-year students in the bilingual programme have higher university admission scores than average, as well as high expectations for their linguistic progress in the programme. They are also quite motivated and indicate that the cooperative model of the programme positively impacted the experience of their first year and was a hallmark of their satisfaction overall. The positive results of the study offer insight not only onto analogous contexts in Spain but also to other countries where EMI or bilingual education is of interest.
Keywords: EMI programmes in higher education, pre-service teachers, motivation, perceptions
Teaching standard class subjects (math, physical education, science, etc.) in a foreign language is a trend on the rise in education internationally (Macaro et al., 2017; US Dept. of Education, 2015; Walsh & Mann, 2020; Wilson, 2011) in particular over the last twenty years. Although contextual differences exist, for the most part, these programmes have a similar objective (Cummins, 1980, 2016; Howard, et al., 2007; Pérez Cañado, 2012): to offer curricular content in a foreign language in order to improve students’ skills in that language whilst acquiring the content under study. While names for such programmes have varied (Hanesová, 2015) in Europe, Asia (Macaro et al., 2017), and South America (An & Murphy, 2018) these are often termed EMI (English as a Medium of Instruction) programmes at the university level when content subjects are offered in English in a country where English is not spoken by the general population (Macaro et al., 2017) reflecting the growth of English as a lingua franca in these parts of the world. At lower levels, such as primary and secondary school, the term in use is typically CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), which may be considered similar to EMI programmes at its core, in that both use a foreign language to teach non-linguistic content, with the difference being that CLIL programmes may be undertaken in any foreign language, while EMI always refers to programmes in English. The term CLIL was established by Marsh (1994) and it has become a term adopted to denote the European context particularly. In North America, they are often known as immersion, dual-language, or content-based instruction (CBI) programmes (US Dept. of Education, 2015) with a similar variety of foreign languages being taught. While some programmes coincide in nomenclature, not all of their participants necessarily follow the same approach or tenets (Cenoz et al., 2014), resulting in a good deal of confusion and debate in the field, as well as issues with implementation policies, such as how much foreign language use should be required. In this paper, we will use the term EMI and we will be referring to programmes where some percentage of curricular content is taught in English, in our case 50% of the curricular programme. We will also use the term bilingual as a descriptive adjective of these programmes in Spain, in particular, as it is a translation of the typical nomenclature in Spanish, programa bilingüe, although we are making no inference about FL proficiency when we do so. Finally, we will use the term content-in-FL as a general descriptor that focuses on what these programmes have in common without assuming any of the diverse characteristics that have distinguished them in previous studies.
Escobar (2019, p.10) describes teaching content in FL programmes as an approach that mirrors the maxims of L1 language acquisition research, including a focus on meaning over form, “abundant” language input, “meaningful exchanges” and sufficient support to understand and be understood, which can result in more, and higher quality, contact with the L2. Although these programmes are not without their valid critics (see Bruton, 2011; 2013 and, more recently, Fernández et al., 2019), Pérez-Vidal (2009) points to three principal areas of benefits to doing content in a foreign language derived from research in the field which are linguistic, educational/pedagogical, and social benefits, all of which have contributed to making these programmes popular in language education.
Yet there seems to be a dearth of qualified teachers to head content-in-FL classrooms at numerous levels, especially primary (Babino & Steward, 2018; DeFour, 2012; Lachance, 2017), which points to a lag in university teacher training programmes (Belver, 2020; Jacobs, 2019; Menárguez, 2018; Morales & Aldana, 2010). This lag includes gaps in linguistic preparation as well as pedagogical preparation (Pérez Cañado, 2018) and it leads to a subsequent need to reevaluate how to best prepare future teachers for this changing landscape in education, in particular in primary school education where content-in-FL programmes are most present (Howard et al., 2007; Pérez Cañado, 2017).
In response to this problem in Spain, where CLIL has grown exponentially (Menárguez, 2018), universities are in a moment of programme transformation, updating the curriculum for education majors and post-graduate students who will go into the bilingual teaching field. In this context of transformation, numerous bilingual and multilingual programmes in their different range of models (Bachelor and Master’s programmes, specialization certificates, partial and complete programmes, etc.) are being promoted by higher education institutions (Ramos, 2013) following the European model for plurilingualism (Council of Europe, 2001; Pladevall-Ballester & Vallbona, 2016) and global trends (Macaro et al., 2017), with the goal to connect content-in-FL education to more relevant teacher training (Pérez Cañado, 2012; 2018). Coyle et al. (2010) recognized early on the importance of looking to teacher education programmes and professional development to determine the future quality of CLIL programmes:
Without serious attention being paid to implementing strategies for training the professional workforce, which include longer-term plans for skilling multilingual teachers, then quality CLIL is not sustainable.eacher education in CLIL at both pre- and in-service levels needs to involve a range of programmes which address a wide range of CLIL training needs. (pp. 161–162).
The impact of preservice teachers’ education is central in particular in a country like Spain, a model for CLIL growth in the EU (Coyle et al.., 2010) where CLIL teaching has been largely institutionalized with top-down decision making as to their implementation (Pérez Cañado, 2018; Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). By pre-service teachers, we refer to students enroled in university programmes preparing them to be future teachers, who can be at any stage of that preparation and who have not yet been certified to teach. Since they are both students and pre-service teachers at the same time, we will use both terms throughout this paper. A key area in need of continuing research for pre-service teachers is that of stakeholder perceptions, an understudied field (Martí & Portolés, 2019). This is particularly important when considering the weight of the future work of these pre-service teachers as bilingual programmes continue to trend upward and higher education looks to accommodate this need.
The goal of this research then was to focus on pre-service teachers at the beginning of their undergraduate education. The research objectives were to profile students currently enroled, to identify their impressions, motivations, expectations, linguistic competence, and satisfaction with the first year of the BA programme in Primary Education, with an eye to collecting data for the improvement of EMI programmes in general, and specifically for gauging how the peculiarities of this programme are functioning. This programme in particular is unique as the only EMI undergraduate option in this region in Spain, taking place, moreover, in an area of importance for the future of bilingual teaching: in the field of primary education. Finally, this programme includes a unique model for advisor teachers which will be discussed shortly. Taking the pulse of the first year of this new programme will point to its strengths and weaknesses and reveal where future work should occur.
This paper is structured in the following way. In Part 2, we will examine the literature and background of the study, looking at research done in other EMI university programmes internationally and in Spain on pre-service teachers. We will then turn to the objectives of the study in Part 3. In the following section, 4, we will look at the study context and participants, as well as research methodology in terms of the instruments used and how data was analysed. In Parts 5 and 6, we will examine the survey results and discuss their importance. Finally, in Part 7, we will present conclusions and recommendations for improvement as well as avenues of future research and study limitations.
Literature Review and Background
The Spanish Context
Spain has been at the forefront of CLIL education in the European Union (Coyle et al., 2010, as well as the center of the surge in CLIL research (Macaro et al., 2017), so it represents an excellent context of study. Bilingual programmes in Spain are largely institutional, occurring in regulated, academic spaces that ultimately answer to a state-regulated curriculum. The implementation of these programmes began in 1996 with the signing of an agreement between the Spanish government and the British Council (MECD & British Council, 2013), and, as noted, have grown rapidly.
In general terms, in Spain, the goal of so-called bilingual education is focused on students’ development of communicative competencies and/or proficiency for academic purposes. Programmes at the primary level are the most prolific (Howard et al., 2007) but EMI degrees at the tertiary level are also expanding in Spain rapidly (Macaro et al., 2017). Spanish provinces set the requirements for teachers’ language proficiency to teach in CLIL programmes, which range, depending on the region, from Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) level B1 to C1. Accreditation is typically shown by acquiring certification through such agencies as Cambridge exams or state language schools.
Perhaps because of their exponential growth or perhaps because of how top-down their implementation has been, bilingual programmes in Spain, while generally greeted with enthusiasm (Cenoz et al., 2014) have also been the source of debate and polemic. Whether or not bilingual programmes offer adequate education for primary and secondary education has been questioned within the educational community at large, as well as by society in general. Unfortunately, often the teachers themselves are targets, with their language skills and linguistic pedagogical expertise called into question (Menárguez, 2018). In Spain, public institutions are responsible for studying the implications, requirements, and expected results for these institutionalized bilingual programmes in order to provide students and families with quality public education, where teacher training is of primary importance. So, in response to the aforementioned criticism, a good number of evaluation reports in primary education in Spain (Laorden & Peñafiel, 2010; Lasagabaster, 2001; Lova et al., 2013; Lorenzo et al., 2009; Pavón & Ellison, 2013; Pavón & Rubio, 2010; Pavón & Méndez García, 2017; Ramos, 2007) have investigated the positive and negative aspects of these programmes, offering alternatives to enhance them (Bobkina & Domínguez, 2015).
Bilingual Programmes in Higher Education: The EMI Experience
Studies seem to indicate a high level of overall student satisfaction with EMI programmes at the tertiary level, although that satisfaction can vary, for example when comparing undergraduate and graduate students, sciences versus the humanities, or when comparing home students to international ones (Macaro et al., 2017) in programmes in Sweden, Korea, and Japan, respectively. Overall satisfaction of students of EMI programmes in Spain is also high, for example, Madrid and Julius (2020) (n=216) report a satisfaction level of 70% of students, which is similar to other studies looking at this factor in Spain (Aguilar & Rodríguez, 2012; Fernández-Costales, 2016; Martín et al., 2018; Sierra & López Hernández, 2015; Toledo et al., 2012).
Despite satisfaction generally being positive for EMI programmes, issues have been noted, many of which are associated with linguistic concerns (Jiang et al., 2019), in particular in bench-marking and making sure linguistic standards are met before content-in-foreign language classes begin, one of the most important lacunae in teacher training for EMI and CLIL (Pérez-Cañado, 2020). For example, Madrid and Julius (2020) found students indicated the need to improve their teacher’s linguistic competence as one of their most frequent concerns about their EMI programmes. Linguistic competence has also been found to be an issue for concern in terms of students’ competence for enrolling in such programmes (Madrid & Julius, 2020; Wilkinson, 2013; Huang, 2015), in particular in listening and speaking skills needed to follow their lessons in English and do tasks such as give oral presentations or participate in class discussion. Madrid and Julius (2020) noted that their students reported an increased ability to follow classes after the first trimester, where beforehand they found EMI classes difficult to follow. Yet, students also seem to see linguistic progress in English as one of the benefits of undertaking EMI programmes (Doiz et al., 2014; Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Madrid & Julius, 2020). This is part of the overall benefit that EMI students perceive to their programmes as a professional advantage (Doiz et al., 2014; Groblinger, 2017).
However, teacher training programmes, in particular, have noted a need to improve pedagogical training for bilingual teachers (Lasagabaster, 2019; Perez-Cañado, 2016, 2020; Pons Seguí, 2020; Toledo et al., 2012), since content in foreign language classes means a considerable shift in methodological terms (Perez-Cañado, 2020) from teaching in one’s L1. This shift requires not only solid linguistic competence but also an awareness of how language learning functions and the ability to use language both as a tool and a vehicle, taking advantage of such strategies as code-switching in class (Papaja, 2015). Early teacher training programmes in tertiary education in Spain have been analysed (Alonso et al., 2019; Breeze et al., 2014; Dafouz et al., 2007; Dafouz, & Núñez, 2009; Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Ramos, 2007; Ramos, 2013; Ramos & Villoria, 2012; Delicado y Pavón, 2015, 2016), however, at present, and despite the overwhelming numbers of Spanish public and semi-public institutions delivering bilingual instruction across the country, there is still no common national policy for action or specific evaluation protocols for bilingual programmes, though there have been attempts to create good practice guidelines (Bazo et al., 2016). One reason for this lack of policy coherence on bilingual programmes in tertiary education may be a need for further information from the field. Data continues to be limited with regard to university students in Spanish bilingual programmes, including knowledge about their motivations, expectations, and their satisfaction overall.
Background: University of Extremadura Teacher Training Bilingual Programme
The study presented in this paper is contextualized in a central region in Spain, Extremadura, with 966 preschool, primary and secondary schools, 328 of them operating some type of bilingual programme where curricular content is taught in a foreign language (Junta de Extremadura, 2018). In these schools, at least half (50%) of the subjects of the curriculum are taught in English and the other half in Spanish, where the content courses taught in English may be areas like science, art, and in many cases, music and physical education (Junta de Extremadura, 2014). To work as a teacher in the region, instructors are required to have a “B2 or vantage language proficiency certification” (High Intermediate) and a “CLIL certification”, which requires 50 hours of CLIL training. This CLIL certification requisite is unique in Spain since, in the rest of the regions, only linguistic accreditation (mostly CEFR B2, High Intermediate) is required. This is the scenario the pre-service teachers in the BA in Primary Education in Extremadura face as they become professional teachers after graduation from the programme.
The context of this research addresses the evaluation of a bilingual track in the Bachelor’s Degree in Primary Education at the University of Extremadura in Spain, inaugurated in the 2015-16 school year. The bilingual track BA, the first of its kind in the region, is innovative in that it offers education majors instruction in an EMI programme, where they receive 50% of their curricular content courses in English, as well as specific training in bilingual methodologies, termed CLIL training, for their future teaching. To address the pedagogical training, the programme is taught not only by university professors but also by primary education teachers actively working in bilingual programmes in primary schools, called “advisor teachers”. This cooperative teaching model between university professors and primary CLIL teachers active in the field is pioneering among Spanish universities and has been endorsed by the regional government through a number of funded initiatives that served to pilot the model before the BA’s inauguration.
Advisor teachers participate throughout the four years of the degree in a number of workshops offered within normal programme courses for up to a maximum of 7-10 workshop sessions (15 total hours) per semester so that students receive 30 hours per academic year of training in collaboration with advisor teachers. Their collaboration is intended to enhance the specific, bilingual pedagogical training for undergraduates, an area in need of attention (Pérez-Cañado, 2020) by offering pre-service teachers their experience and advice on methodology, language teaching, and resources. In short, the pre-service teachers in primary education receive from these advisors a concrete, practical, and authentic vision of their field from the very beginning of their degree. This cooperative model aims to prepare students to be professionals who are well-adapted to the individualities of bilingual programmes with a unique, insider’s vantage point onto how they operate. It complements the linguistic and pedagogical training provided by university professors in the programme. Likewise, it offers an educational dimension that beforehand could only be obtained a posteriori outside university programmes through different professional training and educational orientation training for in-service teachers.
One objective in this paper is to offer further data that can contribute to the improvement of bilingual programmes in higher education in Spain, given the absence of implemented common policies. Improving these programmes for pre-service teachers, in particular, will inevitably have a positive effect on the bilingual programmes of primary and secondary levels, as students graduate and move out into their professions in schools nationwide. It will also aid in filling the need for better-trained professionals overall (Morales & Aldana, 2010; Lachance, 2017). To obtain this data, the authors investigate the profile of current pre-service teachers’ who opted to enrol in an EMI programme rather than the regular programme in their L1. The goal was to examine the sort of pre-service teacher who chooses this challenging option, as well as to understand more about their perceptions of their own EMI classes, their expectations for linguistic progress, and their satisfaction with its progress. In particular, and due to specific gaps in research about the bilingual pedagogical training needs for pre-service teachers, the paper addresses the unique model of this program, the training with active, primary school advisor teachers, to gauge students’ satisfaction with this model. The results may be of particular interest to the educational community since research into pre-service teachers is an under-developed area (Guo et al., 2019; Banegas & Del Pozo Beamund, 2020). It will also obtain detailed information crucial for university stakeholders who are undertaking or wish to implement EMI programmes to prepare future teachers for similar challenges. At the same time, such information will be of vital importance for the continued improvement of EMI programmes in and beyond Spain.
Objectives and Research Questions
The goal of this research was to focus on pre-service teachers studying in the field of education in an EMI programme in their first year of the bilingual BA in Primary Education, where they took 50% of their classes in English and the other 50% in their native language of Spanish. In order to look in-depth at this objective, the following research questions were formulated:
For examining the profile of student enrolling in a bilingual education degree:
- RQ1: Are entering students high achievers in terms of their university admission scores for university entrance? (this score is further described on page 8).
- RQ2: Is the linguistic accreditation of respondents related to their expectations for their language training upon finishing the degree?
- RQ3: Are respondents who studied in bilingual schools before coming to the university also the ones with the highest levels of certified linguistic competence in the program?
- RQ4: What motivates students to enrol in the bilingual degree in terms of the program’s characteristics or students’ goals (novelty, professional opportunities, etc.)?
- For examining the current progress of the bilingual programme and its model:
- RQ5: Do students believe that the advisor teachers’ contribution is useful, linguistically, and/or pedagogically?
- RQ6: How satisfied are students with the bilingual programme?
- RQ7: How satisfied are students with the methodologies used to teach in English?
The first four questions address the profile of entering students to better understand their backgrounds, motivation to study, and expectations, in particular in terms of linguistic progress, which has been a key feature of other studies. The last 3 questions look to the progress of the first year of the programme itself, inquiring specifically about this unique feature of the bilingual BA, its cooperation with advisor teachers, to address another key area in need of attention in bilingual education (Pérez-Cañado, 2020; Lasagabaster, 2019): methodological training for future bilingual teaching. The last two questions examine overall satisfaction and satisfaction with the methodologies used.
Study Structure: Materials, Methods, and Background
Population Sample
The sampling was intentional (non-random) since the participants were the class of freshmen students (n=63) enroled in the bilingual programme of the BA in Primary Education. Taking into account the data from the sample, 76% of the participants (n = 47) were women and 24% were men (n = 15). Regarding the age of the respondents, 83.1% were between 18 and 20 years old, while 10% were between 21 and 30 years old and only 3% of the respondents were over 30 years of age.
Instruments
An opinion questionnaire (Appendix 1) was created in students’ native Spanish to query students on their experience in the program, composed of 23 items, among which there were: six written questions, two multiple-choice questions, six categorizing questions, one classification question, and seven questions on a Likert scale to measure attitudes or opinions. With this last question type using a Likert scale, the respondents were asked to rate each item based on a level of agreement. The variability in the type of questions allowed for the review of the respondents’ answers from different perspectives. Where it was used, the Likert scale was also easily quantified.
In Table 1, the dimensions, descriptions, and variables of the questionnaire are shown:
Table 1. Questionnaire Dimensions
| Dimensions | Description | Variable | RQs |
| Dimension 1: Sociodemographic facts | Sex | Sex | RQ1, RQ3 |
| Age | Age | ||
| Level of attendance to class | Attendance to class | ||
| University admission score | University admission score | ||
| Options when choosing the modality | Bilingual modality option | ||
| Background | Background | ||
| Dimension 2: Linguistic level | Previous bilingual schooling | Previous bilingual schooling | RQ2, RQ3 |
| Linguistic certification | Type of certification | ||
| Level of certification | |||
| Perception of the linguistic level: speaking, reading, listening, writing | Speaking competence level perception | ||
| Reading competence level perception | |||
| Listening competence level perception | |||
| Writing competence level perception | |||
| Formative expectation at linguistic level | Level expected in the first year | ||
| Level expected in the final year | |||
| Dimension 3: Motivation towards the bilingual modality | Motivation | Motivation | RQ4 |
| Dimension 4: Cooperation with CLIL (content & learning integrated learning) primary teachers | Linguistic cooperation | Linguistic training by CLIL primary teachers | RQ5 |
| Methodological cooperation | Methodological cooperation by CLIL primary teachers | ||
| Dimension 5: Satisfaction level | Faculty | Linguistic level | RQ6, RQ7 |
| Bilingual teacher’s methodology | |||
| Non- Bilingual teacher’s methodology | |||
| Individual capacities | Capacity to follow classes in English | ||
| Bilingual modality | General satisfaction |
Regarding the questionnaire elaboration, Gehlbach and Brinkworth’s (2011) recommendations were followed to ensure validity and reliability. First, a deep literature review was undertaken to facilitate item creation (Soltero, 2004; Howard et al., 2007; Proctor & Mo, 2009; Pérez Cañado, 2012, 2017; Babino & Stewart, 2018; Johannessen et al., 2016). Secondly, an external experts’ review was completed by three scholars from the United States and Spain who analysed the questionnaire’s characteristics with one specialist in research methods and the other two in bilingualism and bilingual education specialties, respectively.
The questionnaire’s validation by experts was performed on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest and 5 the highest value) in terms of concept singularity (clarity in the description of the item, so all potential informants understand the same concept), relevance (adequacy to the objectives of evaluation of the questionnaire), importance (ability to identify or discriminate the most relevant information in relation to the questionnaire evaluation objectives) and observations (clarifications from the experts on the previous areas).
After validating the items, inter-rater reliability was used to score how much homogeneity, or consensus, there was in the ratings given the various experts’ judgements. The results included a concept singularity score of 4.4, a relevance score of 4.9, and an importance score of 4.7. After reviewing the observations, some terms were modified in the description of thirteen items, an item was deleted and the responses for two items were modified. Finally, a cognitive pretesting phase (Gehlbach & Brinkworth, 2011) provided a structured approach to understand how respondents interpreted items. The questionnaire was modified with a section reserved for comments and questions and a pilot study was conducted with 15 students enroled in the degree who did not participate in the larger survey later on.
Procedure
After verifying the suitability of the questionnaire, the respondents individually and voluntarily filled out the written questionnaire at the end of one of their classes in the bilingual programme at the end of their first academic year. The information was later entered into the statistical programme SPSS and the results of that analysis are presented in this article.
Results
In this section, the results will be examined for each dimension of the survey, where general results will be discussed as well as those specific results that address the concrete research questions proposed. When a research question is based on the results of more than one dimension, it will be discussed following the last of those dimensions, such as the case of RQ2 and RQ3.
Dimension 1: Socio-demographic Information. In the first dimension, factors related to age and gender were studied. Additionally, we investigated frequency of class attendance, university admission scores, degree programme preferences, as well as the English level of the students. The university access score (calificación de acceso a la universidad, or CAU) for the purpose of university entrance is a weighted average of two elements: the average of the grades earned in central subjects upon graduating high school on a ten-point scale, weighted at 60%, and the mark on the university entrance exam taken at the end of high school called EvAU, also calculated on a ten-point scale, which is weighted at 40%. EvAU, also known as selectividad, is both a finishing exam, in that it takes into account everything learned in the core subjects taken in the last two years of high school, at the same time that it is an entrance exam for going to university. The university access score, or CAU, is then used to calculate the admission grade, (nota de admission) which is on a 14-point scale and determines what degrees are available for enrolment, i.e., more difficult study programmes such as medicine require higher admission grades for entrance than other programmes. Degree programmes in education have a five as the cut-off for admission entrance, which is also the lowest score necessary to enter university as a whole.
When applying to university in Spain, students select and prioritise five choices for degree programmes. Students in this study were asked if the bilingual track BA in Primary Education at the University of Extremadura was their first, second, or third choice in terms of programme admittance. It is interesting to note that a large majority, 79%, of the students stated that they selected this bilingual degree as their first choice, while in 15% it was their second choice, and for 6% it was their third.
RQ 1: Are entering students high performers in terms of their university admission scores?
As mentioned previously, in Spain, the minimum university admission score (nota de admisión) with which students can be accepted to a university is five out of 14. It was detected, once the data was analyzed, that the average university admission score of students admitted to the bilingual track BA was 8.78, with a standard deviation of 1.91 (Table 2), which was very high compared to the non-bilingual programme average university admission score of 5.91.
Table 2. Averages and Typical Deviations of Sociodemographic Factors
| N | Average | DT | |
| University admission score when applying to the bilingual programme | 55 | 8.79 | 1.919 |
| Attendance percentage | 53 | 95.34 | 4.93 |
Dimension 2: Linguistic Level. In order to study the linguistic level dimension, the following considerations were taken into account: whether respondents came from bilingual programmes in primary or secondary school if they had some type of certification in English, and at what level; their personal perception of their speaking, reading, listening and writing abilities; if they intended to complement their language training with further pedagogical training later; and their expectations of the level of English to be reached at the end of the first year of study and then upon graduating (Figure 1).
In terms of previous bilingual programme experience, the results show that sixty-three percent of students indicated that they had not been part of any bilingual school or programme prior to university. The courses in the BA programme were their first bilingual experience. Thus, these students can be said to have actively chosen this new path because they believed bilingual programmes were a good choice for their future. Half of the respondents reported having previous contact with the language in extracurricular activities (outside of school) and said that they held a certification of English language competence.
Among those who said they held English language certification (51%), 45.16% indicated that their accredited level was CEFR B1 (Low Intermediate) and 48.39% CEFR B2 (High Intermediate), which could mean that the students with certification had achieved an intermediate level of English language competence. Most of the students perceived their levels of speaking, reading, listening, and writing as between B1 and B2 (Low to High Intermediate). Their perceptions coincided with their stated accreditation levels, overall. Speaking competence was found to be the perceived lowest area of competence and the one most needing to be reinforced.
Students’ expected language level at the end of the first academic year and at the end of the degree was a bit higher (Figure 1): 46-48% expected to have acquired a CEFR B2 (High Intermediate) level while 28-34% expected to have acquired a level of CEFR C1 (Advanced). According to the Regional Decree 39/2014 on the accreditation and linguistic competency of bilingual teachers, teachers are required to have at least a B2 (High Intermediate) level. This shows that students’ expectations were appropriate, taking into account the official requirement.
Figure 1. Language Competence: Perceived, Expected, Accredited
Data from the survey dimensions 1 and 2 feed research queries 2 and 3 on students’ backgrounds, linguistic levels, and expectations, which leads to Research Question 2:
RQ2: Is the linguistic accreditation of respondents related to their expectations for their language training upon finishing the degree?
In order to determine the nature of the test to apply, we first asked if the population adjusted to a normal curve, for which the Kolmogolov-Smirnov was used. Values higher than 0.05 (0.33 and 0.28) were found, confirming the sample’s normality. For this reason, the Pearson chi-square test was applied to determine the hypothesis of covariation. A level of significance of 0.157 was found (95% confidence level), showing that there was no significant linear relationship between the variables and that English levels are not related to students’ expectations for linguistic progress in the degree.
Table 3. Correlations between the Level of Accredited Certification and the Level Expected at the End of the Degree
| Elements | Level expected by students once graduated |
| Certified English level | 0.157* |
* Correlation was significant at a 0.05 level
RQ3: Are respondents who studied in bilingual schools before coming to the university also the ones with the highest levels of certified linguistic competence in the programme?
To test this, Pearson chi-square was applied to the data for participants who studied in bilingual programmes prior to university (n = 31) and those who did not (n = 29) in relation to those who were accredited with linguistic competence (n = 22) and those that did not have a language proficiency certificate (n = 38) (Table 4). The Pearson chi-square applied showed a confidence rating of 95%, and the value of significance obtained was 38.1. This indicated that despite the existence of a positive relationship between the few respondents who studied in bilingual schools and those who had certificates of linguistic competence, this relationship was not significant. It shows that, in this sample, having studied in primary and /or secondary bilingual schools was not related to having a certificate accrediting linguistic proficiency.
Table 4. Correlations between Prior Study Experience and Certified English Level
| Elements | Certified English level |
| Studied in a bilingual school prior to university | 0.381* |
* Correlation was significant at a 0.05 level
Dimension 3: Motivation towards the bilingual programme. This dimension (Table 5) analysed the motivation that led respondents to choose primary education as a career and the University of Extremadura bilingual programme in particular. The frequencies of answers were studied, and a matrix was developed to agglutinate them by order of priority (Table 5).
Table 5. Reasons to Enrol in a Bilingual Programme
| Frequencies | |||||||
| Motivation | Op.1 | Op.2 | Op.3 | Op.4 | Op.5 | Op.6 | Tot. |
| I aspired to become a primary school teacher and be admitted into a bilingual programme. | 31 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 55 |
| I was not interested in becoming a primary school teacher, but this innovative programme made me change my preferences. | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 13 | 13 | 39 |
| I mainly selected this programme due to its dual-language programme. | 4 | 13 | 7 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 39 |
| I believe this BA can offer better professional opportunities. | 10 | 14 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 45 |
| I chose this programme because it was innovative and novel. | 1 | 7 | 15 | 10 | 8 | 4 | 45 |
| Other factors | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | |||
| Total | 54 | 45 | 43 | 36 | 31 | 20 | 229 |
RQ4: What motivates students to enrol in the bilingual degree?
Students (n = 31) indicated as a first option that their motivation for choosing the programme was that they wanted to be primary school teachers and be admitted to this particular bilingual program, with a total sum of frequencies (n = 55). The second most valid criterion (n = 14) and the second most valued option in the total computation (n = 45) was the consideration that the degree could offer better professional opportunities for students’ futures. This was followed, in third place, by the innovation and novelty preference for the programme (n =15), total computation (n = 45).
Dimension 4: Cooperation with CLIL primary teachers. In this dimension (Table 6), the intervention of primary school teachers who collaborated as advisor teachers in the bilingual programme was studied and assessed. As mentioned previously, this is an innovative part of the programme in particular, where active CLIL primary teachers working in programmes in English in Spanish public schools came into the faculty regularly to work with pre-service teachers. Pre-service teachers had 30 total hours of training with them annually. Two perspectives were analysed: the advisor teachers’ impact on their linguistic training and their pedagogical training. Students considered that the advisor teachers’ contributions were necessary to their language training, with an average satisfaction score of 4.35 out of 5. Likewise, and with an average value of 4.62 out of 5, students considered the collaboration with advisor teachers essential in the methodological aspect of their training as teachers.
Table 6. Average and Typical Deviations of Teachers’ Collaboration
| N | Average | DT | |
| Consider teachers’ collaborations in regular classes useful for your linguistic learning | 62 | 4.3548 | 0.62977 |
| Consider teachers’ collaborations in regular classes useful for your methodological learning | 62 | 4.6290 | 0.48701 |
RQ5: Do students believe that the advisor teachers’ contribution is useful, linguistically, and/or pedagogically?
Once the descriptive data of dimension four were analysed, it was confirmed that students believed that the advisor teachers’ contribution was essential to their language training (4.35 out of 5). This perception was shared by most of the students, as the low standard deviation of 0.62 indicates. Data show the high contribution of CLIL primary teachers to methodological training as future teachers (4.62 out of 5). Little dispersion in the standard deviation of 0.48 suggests that this was a common view among students.
Dimension 5: Level of Satisfaction. Student satisfaction in a number of areas was examined here. We looked at their satisfaction with the programme overall, with the English level of the faculty, with class methodology in classes given in Spanish and with classes given in English, and finally with their satisfaction in terms of having been able to follow classes in English generally (Figure 2). The highest marked item was students’ satisfaction with their ability to understand lessons in English (4.03 out of 5, Standard Deviation = 0.9), followed by students’ satisfaction with the bilingual programme in general (3.98 out of 5, Standard Deviation = 0.85). It can be said that students showed positive levels of satisfaction with the programme overall, based on the results being higher than 3 (Likert scale) and dispersions of data being low (less than 1 point) (Cubo et al., 2011). Nevertheless, results also indicated that faculty teacher training methodologies for teaching in English, the lowest marked area here at 3.16, were an area that could be improved in the degree.
Figure 2. Average Levels of Satisfaction towards the Bilingual Programme
In Dimension Five, two concrete research questions were addressed concerning students’ satisfaction with the program. In the following section, these results are discussed in more detail in terms of the research questions established.
RQ6: How satisfied are students with the bilingual programme?
Students showed a positive level of satisfaction regarding the bilingual degree. After analysing the fifth dimension it was observed that respondents were quite satisfied with the bilingual programme as a whole. Results show an average score of 4 out of 5 and a Standard Deviation of 0.85 (which demonstrates little disagreement among students).
RQ7: How satisfied are students with the methodologies used to teach in English?
After reviewing the levels of satisfaction for teaching methodologies described for the fifth dimension, it could be said that students were mostly satisfied with the way teachers taught courses in the BA in English, with an average score of 3.16 out of 5. Results also indicated that faculty teacher training methodologies for teaching in English were lower than their opinion about class methodology in Spanish at 3,46. At this point, the Standard Deviation of 0.93 indicated low dispersion of the students’ answers. Although results showed a positive response, they also indicated that faculty teacher methodologies were an area that could be improved.
Discussion
In terms of the profiles of students entering bilingual teaching programmes, there are several important areas to highlight for future considerations for bilingual programmes for pre-service teachers. Firstly, from RQ1 we have seen that bilingual tracks themselves may attract higher-performing students than standard monolingual education degrees, since a significantly high university admission score (nota de admisión) was noted for this group, of 8.78 (in Spain this score is on a 14-point scale), in contrast to the last decades where the average university admission score of the entering class did not go beyond 6. Some critics of CLIL programmes (Bruton, 2011; 2013) have wondered if they funnel “elite” students into selective groups a priori, but this would not be the case here, since these students overall indicated on the survey when asked (see Appendix, page 1, Question 2) that they did not have previous bilingual programme experience. It seems that higher-performing students were simply attracted to the degree, which may be due to the greater challenge a bilingual programme supposes, or the benefits they perceived they would have upon finishing it. This challenge benefits students not simply because it offers them the possibility to hone their language skills, but also because bilingual classrooms offer complex interaction between content and language, including critical thinking and interaction skills (Onoda, 2019). Future language teachers need, as Lachance (2017) notes, to be adept at managing these complex situations.
Secondly, linguistic skills and progress in those skills are an area of principal concern for students in bilingual teaching programmes (Madrid & Julius, 2020) and in general for the future of EMI programmes (Pérez-Cañado, 2020; Lasagabaster, 2019). The results here showed that students seemed to feel positively about their own skills and progress in English in the program, and hold extraordinary expectations for the degree and for their own future linguistic progress, which echoes previous research on pre-service students’ focus on linguistic gains as motivation to study (Martí & Portolés, 2019). In fact, students expected their level of English to increase considerably by the end of the degree, and close to 50% of respondents expected to finish the degree at the highest level of language proficiency, CEFR C2 (Proficient). This may not be very realistic and points to Peréz-Cañado’s concern about the lack of proficiency “benchmarking” for pre-service teachers (2020). However, no relationship was found between linguistic levels, in terms of certifications held, and those expectations for progress (RQ2), or between certified levels and previous bilingual experience (RQ3). On the one hand, this result initially seems to indicate that previous linguistic experience may not inform student expectations. This may mean that for these students an EMI programme is perceived as a sort of blank slate from which to begin, which could erroneously mislead students to feel that the bilingual programme will give them a linguistic level they are not actually prepared to develop. However, research does show that once students begin EMI they usually feel they can resolve any issues they have following class in English with time (Madrid & Julius, 2020).
Thirdly, in terms of motivation (RQ4), students’ views seemed to echo previous research in CLIL/bilingual education that points to its ability to motivate students (Doiz et al., 2014; Banegas, 2012; Navarro & García, 2018). Most students were highly motivated towards the program. Concretely, the results showed that bilingual tracks are a preference for individuals already committed to the teaching profession, since the frequency of results represented 78% of the responses. This result is interesting when considering that 63% of the students were identified as arriving having no previous bilingual school experience, although they clearly were already at work on their linguistic proficiencies since 51% said they already possessed some type of linguistic certification in English from a low intermediate (CEFR B1) level. A second choice for motivation to enrol in the programme was for professional development opportunities, which supports the first option (commitment to the teaching program), and echoes other findings from Doiz et al. (2014) and Groblinger (2017). Finally, students’ third most frequently chosen motivation for enrolment was because of the novelty of the programme itself, which points to the fact that despite the now long track record of bilingual programmes in Spain, EMI is still new to many. This is a call to higher education programmes to highlight the unique professional opportunities and novelty that EMI degrees in teacher training can offer to future bilingual teachers.
Finally, in general, the results (RQ5-7) show that the implementation of the BA at this public university has been successful in its initiation, though it only represents the first year, where one of the most important areas of success for students was the collaboration with advisor teachers from the local primary schools who contributed both to students’ methodological training as well as to their linguistic advancement (RQ5). This points to the need to continue with this unique model which hopes to contribute to closing the gap for pedagogical skills in bilingual teaching where previous research indicates lacunae (Pérez-Cañado, 2020). In terms of levels of satisfaction in the methodologies used in the programme (RQ7) and overall (RQ6), although students positively value both the level of English of the faculty as well as the teaching methodologies employed in the program, the need to improve English teaching methodologies was the lowest marked item of this section (3.1 over 5). This seems to point to the need to revise EMI teaching methodologies in-house, which the programme is already doing through a series of Group Teaching Innovation projects (Fielden et al., in progress). Future evaluations should look deeper at this point to gauge its progress. This result in particular highlights the direction for future work to further improve the program since the Authors firmly believe there is a need to continue working to help instructors improve their courses by offering resources aimed at helping them adopt approaches, methods, and strategies needed in the EMI field.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Concerns about the need to prepare pre-service teachers are well established (Babino & Steward, 2018; Lachance, 2017; Morales & Aldana, 2010). Many universities have their content-in-FL programmes located in humanities and education colleges, but often they are far removed from the rowdy playgrounds their education graduates may face in the future. This means that the old paradigm of top-down university-based teacher education, particularly heavy in Spain and some parts of Europe, where theoretical knowledge is viewed as the authoritative source on teaching, needs to consider where there is a non-hierarchical interplay between academic, practitioner, and community expertise (Zeichner, 2009). This was one of the goals of including advisor teachers in this bilingual track degree, and students’ positive responses to the model in their first year underline their importance. Taking into account the findings of this article, and notwithstanding the need to further examine teaching methodologies from the faculty in the degree, the use of advisor teachers may have positive implications in similar contexts around the world. Other EMI teacher training programmes may benefit from this model, since advisor teachers can support faculty members in their linguistic as well as theoretical objectives for students, highlighting important practical concerns students may have about bilingual teaching.
This study sheds light on the strengths and weaknesses of an existing EMI model by examining the progress of the first year of a new teacher training program with a unique model in Spain, as well as the profiles and satisfaction of its students. It may also contribute to public policies in Spain (Bazo et al., 2016) and other international contexts (Babino & Steward, 2018). International professional organizations, including state education departments and accreditation agencies that are successful in using standards to design and evaluate programmes that prepare pre-service teachers (Nevárez-La Torre, 2015), may also find the results applicable to future teaching training programmes, as education departments preparing university students for content-in-FL education “realize the call for action central to critical and transformative teacher preparation” (Joseph & Evans, 2018, 52), a call that may be answered, in part, through such innovative mentoring programs (Riley et al., 2017).
The pioneering implementation of this programme with the integration of teaching by university professors and public school teachers and the positive results of its evaluation in the first year by students may serve as a new model for teacher training. In this context, designing bilingual programmes from an innovative perspective can attract academically high-performing students with a strong commitment to bilingual education and education in general. Based on the data collection and literature review it is recommended that future programmes:
- Consider students’ expectations for the curriculum, especially regarding future linguistic achievements.
- Note the potential of EMI teacher training programmes to attract academically high-performing students
- Note the potential of these programmes to attract committed future educators
- Keep in mind that what attracts future students may not be their previous experience in bilingual programmes, but their novelty and professional opportunities
- Monitor EMI faculty’s needs for continuing methodological training
- Consider cooperative models from active teachers in the field that offer bilingual teaching training from a practical perspective
Finally, although the scientific literature sheds light on the evaluation of bilingual programmes in non-university areas, particularly in primary education, and although there are some studies at the tertiary level (Dafouz & Nuñez, 2009; Madrid & Julius, 2020; Ramos & Villoria, 2012; 2013; Salaberri, 2010), there is still a dearth of evaluation of these degrees in higher education. For this reason, and because we are in a process of analysis for a relatively young BA, in this article we examine students’ perspectives as an initial glimpse onto the success of the first year of the programme for its primary stakeholders. At the same time, we acknowledge the limitation of not offering the perspective of the faculty and other stakeholders, as well as qualitative methodologies, to provide a general view of the implementation of the programme. This will be undertaken in future research as we continue to improve our programme.
About the Authors
Gemma Delicado-Puerto is an Associate Professor in the English Department of the University of Extremadura. She holds a PhD from the University of Chicago, EE.UU. Her research topics include languages in ICTs, bilingualism and internationalization. She was awarded for teaching excellence in Humanities in 2017.
Laura Alonso-Díaz is an Associate Professor in the Educational Sciences Department of the University of Extremadura in Caceres, at the Teacher Training College. Her research topics include e-learning, teachers and social educators’ training, and bilingualism. She was awarded for teaching excellence in Social Sciences in 2014.
Laura V. Fielden Burns holds a Ph.D from the University of Extremadura in English Studies and a Masters in Hispanic Literature from UNC-Chapel Hill. She teaches in the bilingual degree at the UEx in the Department of Didactics of Language and Literature, and her current research interests include CLIL in higher education, the role of technology in language learning and metaphor in L2 learners.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this research was provided by the Teacher Training Service of the University of Extremadura.
To cite this article
Delicado-Puerto, G, Alonso-Díaz, L & Fielden Burns, L. V. (2022). Teaching students, creating teachers: Focusing on future language teachers and their education for bilingual classrooms”. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 25(4). https://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej100/a10.pdf
References
Alonso, L., Delicado, G. & Ramos, F. (2019). A comparative study of bilingual teacher preparation programmes in California and Spain. In G. Guzman (Coord.) Bilingualism and Bilingual Education: Politics, Policies and Practices in a Globalized Society (pp. 81–101). Springer.
An, J. & Murphy, V. (2018). English as a medium of instruction in primary schools in South America: A review of the evidence. A report commissioned by the Oxford University Press.
Babino, A. & Stewart, M.A. (2018). Remodelling dual language programmes: Teachers enact agency as critically conscious language policy makers. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(3), 272–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2018.1489313
Banegas, D. L. (2012). CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 5(1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2012.5.1.4
Banegas, D.L. & del Pozo Beamud, M. (2020). Content and language integrated learning: A Duo-ethnographic study about CLIL pre-service teacher education in Argentina and Spain. RELC Journal, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0033688220930442
Bazo, P., Centellas, A., Dafouz, E., Fernández, A., González, D. & Pavón, V. (2016). Documento Marco de Política Lingüística para la Internacionalización del Sistema Universitario Español [Framework document for linguistic policies in the internationalization of the Spanish university system]. CRUE Universidades Españolas.
Belver, M. (February, 2020). El Consejo Escolar cuestiona el bilingüismo en Madrid: casi el 60% de los que estudian en inglés sacan peores notas que la media [The school board questions bilingualism in Madrid: Nearly 60% of those that study in English get worse than average grades]. El Mundo. https://www.elmundo.es/madrid/2020/02/21/5e4ed5d9fdddffb9bf8b4612.html
Bobkina, J. & Domínguez, E. (2015). English language and literature: Towards a model for implementation of the English/Spanish bilingual curriculum in Spain. English Language Teaching, 8(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n2p1
Breeze, R., Llamas, C., Martínez Pasamar, C. & Tabernero, C. (2014). Integration of theory and practice in CLIL. Rodopi.
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39, 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why…and why not. System 41, 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied linguistics 35(3), 243-262. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt011
Cooze, M. (2017). Approaches to learning and teaching English as a second language. Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
Cubo, S., Martín, B. & Ramos, J. L. (2011). Métodos de investigación y análisis de datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud [Investigation methods and data analysis in social and health sciences]. Pirámide.
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586312
Cummins, J. (2016). Reflections on Cummins (1980), The cross‐lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 50 (4), 940-944. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44984725
Dafouz, E. & Núñez, B. (2009). CLIL in Higher Education: devising a new learning landscape. In E. Dafouz and M. Guerrini (eds.), CLIL across educational levels: Experiences from primary, secondary and tertiary contexts (pp.101-112). Santillana.
Dafouz, E., Núñez, B., Sancho, C., & Foran, D. (2007). Integrating CLIL at the tertiary level: Teachers’ and students’ reactions. In D. Wolff & D. Marsh (Eds.), Diverse contexts, converging goals. Content and language integrated learning in Europe (pp. 91–102). Peter Lang.
Delicado, G. & Pavón V. (2015). La implantación de titulaciones bilingües en la educación superior: el caso de la formación didáctica del profesorado bilingüe de primaria en la Universidad de Extremadura [The implementation of biligual degrees in terciary education: the case of teacher training for bilingual teachers in higher education]. Educación y futuro, 32, 35-64.
Delicado, G. & Pavón V. (2016). Training primary student teachers for CLIL: Innovation through collaboration. Pulso, 39, 35-57.
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (Eds.). (2014). Motivation and foreign language learning: From theory to practice. Revista Espanola de Linguistica Aplicada 28(2), 641-646
Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2019). An introduction to content and language integrated learning (CLIL) for teachers and teacher educators. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 7-19.
Fernández J., Fernández, A. & Arias, JM. (2019). Analysing students’ content-learning in science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 22(6), 661-674. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142
Fielden Burns, L., Delicado Puerto, G., & Alonso Díaz, L. EMI in higher education: Pre-service teachers’ perspectives on effective teaching. In progress.
Finardi, K., Leão, R. & Melina, L. (2016). English in Brazil: Insights from the analysis of language policies, internationalization programmes and the CLIL approach. Education and Linguistics Research 2(1).
Guo, Q., Tao, J., & Gao, X. (2019). Language teacher education in System. System 82(1), 132– 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.04.001
Gabillon, Z. (2012). Revisiting foreign language teacher beliefs. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3, 190-203.
Gehlbach, H. & Brinkworth, M. E. (2011). Measure twice, cut down error: A process for enhancing the validity of survey scales. Review of General Psychology, 15(4), 380–387. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0025704
Hanesová, D. (2015). History of CLIL. In S. Pokrivcakova et al. (Ed.), CLIL in foreign language education: E-textbook for foreign language teachers (pp. 7-16). Constantine the Philosopher University Press.
Herrada, R. I. & Herrada, G. (2012). Fin de las diplomaturas de magisterio: motivaciones, dificultad y satisfacción con la formación de sus últimos alumnos [The end of teaching certificate programmes: motivations, difficulties and satisfaction with the teaching of its last students]. Tendencias Pedagógicas, 19, 175-188.
Howard, E. R., Sugarman, J., Christian, D., Lindholm-Leary, K. J. & Rogers, D. (2007). Guiding principles for dual language education (2nd ed.). Center for Applied Linguistics.
Huang, D. F. (2015). Exploring and assessing effectiveness of English medium instruction courses: The students’ perspectives. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 173, 71-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.033
Hüttner, J. Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,16(3), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777385
Jacobs, J. (2019). To bring back bilingual ed, California needs teachers. Education Next, 19(3). Retrieved from: https://www.educationnext.org/bring-back-bilingual-ed-california-needs-teachers-districts-offer-bonuses-talent/
Jiang, L., Zhang, L. J., & May, S. (2019). Implementing English-medium instruction (EMI) in China: Teachers’ practices and perceptions, and students’ learning motivation and needs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2),107-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1231166
Johannessen, B., Thorsos, N., & Dickinson, G. (2016). Current conditions of bilingual teacher preparation programmes in public universities in the USA. Education and Society, 34(2), 27-48.
Joseph, T. & Evans, L. M. (2018). Preparing preservice teachers for bilingual and bicultural classrooms in an era of political change. Bilingual Research Journal, 41(1), 52–68. http://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1415237
Junta de Extremadura (2014). Regional Decree 39/2014 for the accreditation and linguistic training of bilingual teachers.
Junta de Extremadura (2018). Bilingual centres in Extremadura. https://www.educarex.es/centros-bilingues.
Krulatz, A. (2019). Content based instruction in teacher education: Reshaping pre-service teachers’ beliefs about language teaching. ELTED 22, 9-16.
Lasagabaster, D. (2001). Bilingualism, immersion programmes and language learning in the Basque Country. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 22(5), 401-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630108666443
Lasagabaster, D. (2019). The impact of the spread of English-medium instruction on Spanish universities. Language Teaching, 52(2), 241-24.
Lasagabaster, D. & Doiz, A. (2017). A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on affective factors. Applied Linguistics, 38(5), 688-712. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv059
Lasagabaster, D. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (eds.) (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishers.
Lachance, J. (2017). A case study of dual language programme administrators: The teachers we need. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation,12(1).
Laorden, C. & Peñafiel, E. (2010). Proyectos bilingües en los centros de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid: Percepción de los equipos directivos [Bilingual projects in the autonomous Region of Madrid]. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 28(2), 325-344. https://revistas.um.es/rie/article/view/98101
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., Moore, P. & Alfonso, Y. M. (2009). Bilingüismo y Educación: Situación de la Red de Centros Bilingües en Andalucía [Bilingualism and Education: the Situation of the System of Bilingual Schools in Andalucía]. Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
Lova, Mellado, M., Bolarín J. & Porto, M. (2013). Programas bilingües en educación primaria: Valoraciones de docentes [Bilingual programmes in primary education: Teacher opinions]. Porta Linguarum, 20, 253-268.
Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun., J., An, J. & Dearden, J. (2017). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching 51(1), 36-76.
Madrid, D. & Julius, J. (2020). Profiles of students in bilingual university degree programmes using English as a medium of instruction in Spain. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 22(2), 79-94.
Marsh, D. (1994). Bilingual education and content and language integrated learning. International Association for Cross-cultural Communication and Language Teaching in the Member States of the European Union (Lingua). University of Sorbonne.
Marsh, D. (Ed.) (2002). CLIL/EMILE the European Dimension. University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., Pérez-Cañado, M.L. & Padilla, JR. (2015). Introduction and overview. In (D. Marsh, M.L. Pérez-Cañado, & J.R. Padill (Eds.) CLIL in action: Voices from the classroom, (pp.1-14). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Martí, O. & Portolés, L. (2019). Spokes in the wheels of CLIL for multilingualism or how monolingual ideologies limit teacher training. English Language Teaching, 12(2), 17-36.
MECD & British Council (2013). Collaboration agreement for curricular projects and educational activities. https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/gobierno/news/Paginas/2021/20210225bilingual-ed.aspx
Menárguez, A. (18 December, 2018). Why Spain’s bilingual schools are full of teachers with poor English skills. El País. https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2018/12/17/inenglish/1545052143_282469.html
Morales, P.Z. & Aldana, U. (2010). Learning in two languages: Programmes with political promise. In P. Gándara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 159-174). Teachers College Press.
Navarro, M. & García, E. (2018). Are CLIL students more motivated? An analysis of affective factors and their relation to language attainment. Porta Linguarum, 29, 71–90.
Nevárez-LaTorre, A. A. (2015). Professional standards for bilingual educators P-12. NYSABE’s Bilingual Educators Standards Project Document.
Onoda, S. (2019). Effects of CLIL-based approaches on pre-service teachers’ learning in teacher education programmes. ReiDoCrea – Monográfico sobre Perspectivas transnacionales en la enseñanza de lenguas, 8(3), 238-267.
Papaja, K. (2015). Curricular models of CLIL education in Poland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 321-333.
Pavón Vázquez, V. & Ellison, M. (2013). Examining teacher roles and competences in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Linguarum Arena, 4, 65-78.
Pavón, V. & Gaustad, M. (2013). Designing bilingual programmes for higher education in Spain: Organizational, curricular and methodological decisions. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(5), 82-94.
Pavón, V. & Rubio, F. (2010). Teacher’s concerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes, Porta Linguarum, 14, 45-58.
Pavón Vázquez, V., & Méndez García, M. C. (2017). Analysing teachers’ roles regarding cross-curricular coordination in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Journal of English Studies, 15, 235-260. http://doi.org/10.18172/jes.3227
Pladevall-Ballester, E. & Vallbona, A. (2016). CLIL in minimal input contexts: A longitudinal study of primary school learners’ receptive skills, System, 58, 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.009
Pérez Cañado, M.L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: past, present and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 15(3), 315-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017). CLIL teacher education: Where do we stand and where do we need to go? In M.E. Gómez Parra, & R. Johnstone (Eds.), Bilingual Education: Educational Trends and Key Concepts (pp.129-144). Spanish Ministry of Education.
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL teacher training. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1492238
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2020). Addressing the research gap in teacher training for EMI: An evidence-based teacher education proposal in monolingual contexts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 48, 1475-1585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100927
Pérez-Vidal, C. (2013). Perspectives and lessons from the challenge of CLIL experiences in C. Abello Contesse, P. Chandler, M. D. López Jiménez, and R. Chacón Beltrán (eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education in the 21st century. Building on experience. Multilingual Matters, 59-82.
Pons Seguí, L. (2020). Are pre-service foreign language teachers ready for CLIL in Catalonia? A needs analysis from stakeholders’ perspective. Porta Linguarum, 33, 279-295.
Pourhosein, A. & Banou, N. (2017). Teachers’ beliefs in English language teaching and learning: A review of the literature. English Language Teaching, 10(4), 78-86.
Proctor, P. & Mo, E. (2009). The relationship between cognate awareness and English comprehension among Spanish-English bilingual fourth grade students. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1),126-136. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27784991
Ramos, F. (2007). Programas bilingües y formación de profesores en Andalucía [Bilingual programmes and teacher training in Andalucía]. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 44, 133-146.
Ramos, A. M. (2013). Higher education bilingual programmes in Spain. Porta Linguarum, 19, 101-112.
Ramos, A. M. & Villoria, J. (2012). La enseñanza bilingüe en la educación superior. In M. E. Fernández Fraile y J. Villoria (eds.), Enseñanza de la lengua y la literatura en la universidad: innovación y calidad (pp.19-28) [Language and literature teaching in the univeristy: innovation and quality]. Comares.
Riley, J., Muñoz, A., Green, L. C. & Kim, J. (2017). ¡Guiamos!: A university-based programme for pre-service bilingual and ESL teachers. Bilingual Research Journal, 40(4), 406–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2017.1385547
Salaberri, M. S. (2010). Teacher training programmes for CLIL in Andalusia. In D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds.), CLIL in Spain. Implementation, Results and Teacher Training (pp.140-159). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Soltero, S. W. (2004). Dual language: Teaching and learning in two languages. Pearson.
Toledo, I., Rubio, F. & Hermosín, M. (2012). Creencias, rendimiento académico y actitudes de alumnos universitarios participantes en un programa plurilingüe [Beliefs, academic results and attitudes of university participants in a pluralingual program]. Porta Linguarum, 18, 213-229.
U.S. Department of Education: Office of English Language Acquisition. (2015). Dual language education programmes: Current state policies and practices. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/resources.html
Walsh, S. & Mann, S. (Eds.) (2020). The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education. Routledge.
Wilkinson, R. (2013). English-medium instruction at a Dutch university: Challenges and pitfalls. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra. (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 3-26). Multilingual Matters.
Wilson, D. (March/April 2011). Dual language programmes on the rise. Harvard Education Letter, Vol. 27, (2). https://www.hepg.org/hel-home/issues/27_2/helarticle/dual-language-programmes-on-the-rise
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671
Appendix
QUESTIONNAIRE. DEGREE IN PRIMARY EDUCATION (BILINGUAL): STUDENTS, MOTIVATIONS, EXPECTATIONS AND INITIAL SATISFACTION
We have contacted you as a student of the Degree in Primary Education: Bilingual Track.
Through this questionnaire we propose to carry out a pilot study that allows us to know the characteristics of the students who have enrolled in the Primary Education Degree in its Bilingual Modality, their motivations, expectations and level of satisfaction with respect to the degree and the track.
This survey requires only about 15 minutes of your time. Your responses will be completely anonymous.
We are very grateful for your collaboration, if you have any comments or questions you can contact:
| 1. Mark your sex:
□ M. □ F |
| 2. Please indicate your age: |
| 3. From 5-14, what was your university admission score when you entered the program? |
| 4.Indicate your class attendance as a percentage: |
| 5. Studying in the primary education degree, bilingual track was:
□ Your first preference |
| 1. If your previous education is other than high school indicate which one:
□ FP modules □ Two, three or four-year degree (undergraduate) □ Post-graduate (Masters, Specialization course o Doctorate) □ Others |
| 2. Were you in a bilingual track programme in primary or secondary school?
□ Yes, I studied in a bilingual section in both Secondary Education and Primary Education |
| 3. If you have a certificate that accredits your linguistic level in English, indicate which one and what level it accredits
□ Institute for Modern Languages (ILM): □B1 □B2 □C1 □C2 □I’m not sure. □ Official School of Languages (EOI): □B1 □B2 □C1 □C2 □ I’m not sure. □ Cambridge Certificate: □B1 □B2 □C1 □C2 □ I’m not sure. □ Other certificates (indicate which): ________________________________ □B1 □B2 □C1 □C2 □ I’m not sure. |
| 1. Express the level of English you think you have according to your own assessment:
Spoken competence: □B1 □B2 □C1 □ I’m not sure |
| 2. If you plan to complement your language training for the degree with external training, indicate how you are going to do it:
□ Through the Modern Languages Institute (ILM): |
| 3. What level do you hope to achieve at the end of the first year of studies?
□B1 □B2 □C1 □C2 □ I’m not sure |
| 4. What level do you hope to achieve at the end of your undergraduate education in the Primary Education Degree, bilingual track?
□B1 □B2 □C1 □C2 □ I’m not sure |
| 5. Prioritize what your motivations were when you choose to study the Primary Education Degree bilingual track, indicating a value next to the options below “1” = the highest motivation, “10” = the least high motivation
__ I wanted to do Primary Education and preferred to do it in a bilingual mode. |
| 6. Indicate the extent to which you consider the collaboration of the advisory teachers (teachers who come from schools to present their experience in the seminars) interesting for your language training:
□ Very necessary |
| 7. Indicate the extent to which you consider the collaboration of the advisory teachers (teachers who come from schools to present their experience in the seminars) necessary for your teacher training as a future teacher:
□Very necessary |
| Although you are still studying an initial phase of the DEGREE, we would like you to offer us your first impressions regarding: |
| 8. Regarding the degree teachers who teach their subjects in English, indicate the extent to which you are satisfied with their level of English:
□ Very satisfied |
| 9. With regard to the degree teachers who teach their subjects in English, indicate to what extent you are satisfied with their way of teaching the subjects:
□ Very satisfied |
| 10. With regard to the professors in the programme who do not teach their subjects in English, indicate the extent to which you are satisfied with the methodology used to include English in their classes
□ Very satisfied |
| 11. Indicate the extent to which you are satisfied with your ability to follow the classes in English
□ Very satisfied |
| 12. Regarding the bilingual track that I am studying in, my level of satisfaction is
□ Very satisfied |
| Now, give us your opinion regarding the following questions: |
| 13. What do you expect from this bilingual track programme of the Primary Education degree? |
| 14. What do you consider to be the advantages of this bilingual track degree? |
| 15. What do you consider to be the greatest difficulties you are encountering? |
| 16. How do you think we can improve the bilingual degree in general? |
| Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately. Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations. |