It’s summer! This is a good time to have a rest, ‘reset the system’ and start thinking about what we would like to do in the new course. One of my summer resolutions is to devote more time to this blog, and to try to share resources, ideas and experiences I’ve used or had during the academic year which has just finished.
To start with, let me just make a quick comment one of the last Bilingual Events I have attended: the II Foro de Enseñanza Bilingüe at the Universidad Nebrija (Madrid). This is a yearly event which takes place during one day, and offers plenary sessions as well as parallel workshops for anyone interested in the field of Bilingual Education. This year I had the pleasure to contribute to this event on bilingual education as one of the plenary speakers. I would like to thank the Organisation Team (M. Teresa Martín, Marta Genís and their colleagues) for their kind invitation to contribute with my experience to this Foro.
My session focused was on the need to rethink Teacher Training University Degrees to fit the reality education is shaping right now, that is, we should work to train our students (future teachers) to be ready to meet the requirements of a highly-demanding professional profile. Obviously, I mentioned my experience as Coordinator of the Bilingual Project at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros, and the steps we have made in relation to three aspects: the training of University lecturers, Curriculum design and Research. I highlighted the importance of considering this situation both as a Challenge and as an Opportunity to improve the quality of education provided by Higher Education. You can find the powerpoint I used here.
From this II Foro I gathered that teachers are still trying to find out a magic recipe, some of them still demand for a single definition of CLIL that can fit any educational context. I’m afraid that this is not possible and, what is more, it can be dangerous. If CLIL is defined as an unique equation, we run the risk of discriminating those who try hard to innovate and be flexible with their students, provided they fulfill some basic quality standards. Even now, I see that there is a tendency to label teaching practices as CLIL and NON-CLIL at ease, highlighting the second one as non-professional. We should be aware of the dangers of this behaviour. If a teacher is honestly wondering if he’s CLIL-ing his classroom, we cannot react with horror. Asking ourselves about what we do and what we pursue with our teaching practices is part of our professional development, and it is precisely what leads us to change and to improve education. Wouldn’t it be better to say “This is what I do and how it works. Let’s share!”?
The second conclusion I drew from the Foro was the difficulties teachers are finding when a) assessing language and content in an integrated one, b) considering the role of literacy in their subject. Although I’ll try to give some clues in future posts to this blog, I’d like to advance that there is a need to increase collaborative work between content and language teachers. This hasn’t been articulated yet, but it is essential. The EFL subjects we know should be modified, as they cannot work as such in a bilingual context (they may work, but not as efficiently as they could). The role of the English subject has to be rethought and reshaped urgently if we want our bilingual projects to succeed.
To sum up, I found the Foro a good opportunity to exchange ideas and find out what teachers demand most. I really think we should shape in-service teacher training to make it closer to teachers’ reality, answering their questions and helping them find their way to CLIL. There isn’t only one “yellow brick road” to reach it, don’t feel afraid to say: This is my map!
Image taken from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net