Language Errors in an English-Medium Instruction University SettingHow do Language versus Content Teachers Tackle them?

  1. David Lasagabaster 1
  2. Aintzane Doiz 1
  1. 1 University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU
Revista:
Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

ISSN: 1697-7467

Año de publicación: 2018

Número: 30

Páginas: 131-148

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.30827/DIGIBUG.54043 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

Resumen

En las clases en inglés del ámbito universitario el contenido prima claramente sobre la lengua, lo que ha podido motivar que sean relativamente escasos los estudios sobre la atención que presta el profesorado de contenido a la cuestión lingüística. Ante este vacío este estudio pretende (i) comparar la actitud del profesorado de contenido y de lengua ante los errores cometidos en trabajos escritos; (ii) identificar los tipos de errores de lengua más frecuentes en dichos trabajos y (iii) determinar si existe una correlación entre la nota dada por el profesor de contenido y el número/tipo de errores de las composiciones. Para dar respuesta a las cuestiones planteadas se analizaron 20 composiciones de alumnos del curso de “World economic history” de la Universidad del País Vasco y se compararon las correcciones del profesorado de contenido y el de lengua. Los resultados confirmaron que la postura con respecto a la lengua del profesorado de contenido y de lengua difiere de manera significativa, que los errores más comunes son los de gramática y que no existe una correlación entre el número de errores y la nota de los trabajos escritos. Este trabajo contribuirá a la mejora de la competencia escrita de los alumnos

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

This article falls within the work carried out in the following research projects: FFI2016- 79377-P (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness; AEI/FEDER, EU) and IT904-16 (Department of Education, University and Research of the Basque Government).

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aguilar, M. (2017). Engineering lecturers’ views on CLIL and EMI. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 722-735.
  • Airey, J. (2012). ‘I don’t teach language.’ The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25, 64-79.
  • Amrhein, H. R. & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95-127.
  • Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322-329.
  • Busse, V. (2013). How do students of German perceive feedback practices at university? A motivational exploration. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 406-424.
  • Costa, F. (2012). Focus on form in ICLHE lectures in Italy: Evidence from English-medium science lectures by native speakers of Italian. AILA Review, 25, 30-47.
  • Costa, F. & Mariotti, C. (2017) Differences in content presentation and learning outcomes in English-medium instruction (EMI) vs. Italian-medium instruction (IMI) contexts, in J. Valcke & R. Wilkinson (Eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education: Perspectives and professional practice (pp. 187-204). Frankfurt am main: Peter Lang.
  • Cumming, A. and others (2018). Students’ practices and abilities for writing from sources in English at universities in China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 1-15.
  • Dafouz, E. (2011). English as a medium of instruction in Spanish contexts, in Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra & F. Gallardo (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning (pp. 189-209). Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Dafouz, E., Camacho, M. & Urquia, E. (2014). ‘Surely they can’t do as well’: A comparison of business students’ academic performance in English-medium and Spanish-as-first-language medium programmes. Language and Education, 28, 223-236.
  • Dimova, S., Hultgren, A. K. & Jensen, C. (Eds.) (2015). English-medium instruction in European higher education. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3-18.
  • Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371.
  • Elola, I. & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback, Foreign Language Annals, 49, 58-74.
  • Garrett, P. & Shortall, T. (2002). Learners ’evaluations of teacher-fronted and student-centred classroom activities. Language Teaching Research, 6, 25–57.
  • Han, Y. & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31-44.
  • Hernández-Nanclares, N. & Jiménez-Muñoz, A. (2017). English as a medium of instruction: Evidence for language and content targets in bilingual education in economics. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20, 883-896.
  • Housen, A & Kuinen, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461-473.
  • James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. Harlow: Longman.
  • Kartchava, E. & Ammar, A. (2014). Learners’ beliefs as mediators of what is noticed and learned in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 86-109.
  • Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Fostering team teaching: Mapping out a research agenda for Englishmedium instruction at university level. Language Teaching, 51, 400-416.
  • Lasagabaster, D. (in press). The impact of the spread of English-medium instruction on Spanish universities. Language Teaching.
  • Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14, 112-127.
  • Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365.
  • Linn, A. (Ed.) (2016). Investigating English in Europe: Contexts and Agendas. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • 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.
  • Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 167-184.
  • Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). State-of-the-art article: oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
  • Macaro, E. (2018). English Medium Instruction: Content and Language in policy and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Manchón, R. (Ed.) (2009). Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching and researching. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Mantello, M. (1997). A touch of ... class! Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 127-31.
  • Milla, R. (2017). Corrective feedback episodes in CLIL and EFL classrooms: Teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and classroom behavior (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.
  • Milla, R. & García Mayo, M. P. (2014). Corrective feedback episodes in oral interaction: A comparison of a CLIL and an EFL classroom. International Journal of English Studies, 14, 1-20.
  • Mills, N. A., Pajares, F. & Herron, C. (2007). Self-efficacy of college intermediate French students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language Learning, 57, 417-442.
  • Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P. & Smit, U. (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  • Roberts, M. A. (1995). Awareness and the efficacy of error correction, in R. Schmidt (Ed.) Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 163–82). Honolulu, Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i.
  • Symon, M. & Weinberg, L. (2015). Introducing EMI instruction in an EFL context: Can the integration of content and language in higher education improve students’ English proficiency?, in R. Wilkinson & M. L. Walsh (Eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education: From Theory to Practice. Selected papers from the 2013 ICLHE Conference (pp. 309-322). Frankfurt am main: Peter Lang.
  • Valcke, J. & Wilkinson, R. (Eds.) (2017). Integrating content and language in higher education: Perspectives and professional practice. Frankfurt am main: Peter Lang.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet