Abstract:

Much work has been developed related to the theory and practice of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) in all educational levels, from primary school to higher education. As Do Coyle says, CLIL involves learning to use language appropriately whilst using language to learn effectively [1], she developed the 4Cs Framework, an important tool for mapping out CLIL activities.

When we first begun to hear about this new educational concept we were reluctant practitioners and little by little our mind was changing. In 2012 our faculty started a Bilingual Program in order to offer courses in foreign languages for their undergraduate and postgraduate students. Then, with this institutional support we faced this task in the belief that always we must renew and adopt the best strategies to improve the students outcomes related to both, language and content skills and competences [2].

As teachers of computer sciences and engineering subjects we found that all the previous teaching years in cooperative work, active learning, etc. could be just the start point to develop new bespoke material and learning strategies based on the CLIL approach. In our case, practitioners who are in the early stages of CLIL development, we have started as suggested in [3], by experimenting with a few lessons. Besides the requirement of the technical background needed to appropriately follow the contents of subjects belonging to the 3rd and 4th course of the Computer Sciences Engineering Degree, a new handicap appeared, the English linguistic level. When the students were interviewed they admitted that none of them had an official certification about the English linguistic level, more than 75% of them said to be around level A2 while the rest thought they can get B1 or B2 accreditation.
This work aims to describe the methodologies we have applied, specially focused on dealing with students with low proficiency in English and in two different subjects, Fuzzy Logic Systems and Software Evolution and Maintenance. Rubrics are used as useful tools to assess the student’s outcomes [4,5,6], other activities focused on content and cooperative work, listening and speaking activities have been considered, and exercises to manage mathematical terms and technical vocabulary.

References:
1. Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL – a pedagogical approach. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl, & N. Hornberger, Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd edition (pp. 97-111). Springer
2. Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
3. Coyle D., Hood P., Marsh D. (2010). CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning, Cambridge University Press
4. F. Quartapelle (2012) Assessment and evaluation in CLIL. AECLIL- EACEA http://www.aeclil.net
5. http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php
6. Walvoord B. E. & Anderson V.J. (2010). Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco.

Keywords:

CLIL, Bilingual Teaching, Active Learning.