Aviso: para depositar documentos, por favor, inicia sesión e identifícate con tu cuenta de correo institucional de la UCM con el botón MI CUENTA UCM. No emplees la opción AUTENTICACIÓN CON CONTRASEÑA
 

Language testing and the role of CLIL exposure in constructing student profiles: Stakeholders' views on streaming in the transition from primary to secondary education

dc.contributor.authorHidalgo Mc Cabe, Elisa Ana
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-09T09:27:12Z
dc.date.available2025-01-09T09:27:12Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractThis study examines stakeholders’ views on the streaming of students into one of two strands of differing CLIL exposure (High versus Low) in the transition from primary to secondary in the context of Madrid’s Bilingual Education Program. To this end, three groups of stakeholders – primary school leaders, parents and secondary school teachers – were interviewed so as to gather their perspectives on streaming as pertains to: (1) a high-stakes English language test that determines access to the High- and Low-Exposure strands; and (2) the profiles of students participating in these strands. Findings indicate that school leaders prioritise students’ ongoing language learning progress over the high-stakes context of the test, whilst they acknowledge families’ favourable views of the test. Parents’ affective stances reveal that some students experience a certain degree of anxiety in preparation for the test. In addition, participating in the High- or Low-Exposure strands seems to influence teachers’ perceptions of these students as either high or low achievers. These findings are further discussed in terms of the potential implications of streaming and student selection for (in)equity in CLIL programs.
dc.description.departmentDepto. de Didáctica de las Lenguas, Artes y Educación Física
dc.description.facultyFac. de Educación
dc.description.refereedTRUE
dc.description.sponsorshipMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (España)
dc.description.statuspub
dc.identifier.citationHidalgo-McCabe, E. (2022). Language testing and the role of CLIL exposure in constructing student profiles: Stakeholders’ views on streaming in the transition from primary to secondary education. AILA Review, 35(2), 250-274. https://doi.org/10.1075/AILA.22021.HID
dc.identifier.doi10.1075/aila.22021.hid
dc.identifier.essn1570-5595
dc.identifier.issn1461-0213
dc.identifier.officialurlhttps://doi.org/10.1075/aila.22021.hid
dc.identifier.relatedurlhttps://produccioncientifica.ucm.es/documentos/64e2a6b34a4f093d56e7516c
dc.identifier.relatedurlhttps://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/aila.22021.hid
dc.identifier.relatedurlhttps://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85166416933&origin=resultslist
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/113408
dc.issue.number2
dc.journal.titleAILA Review
dc.language.isoeng
dc.page.final274
dc.page.initial250
dc.publisherJohn Benjamins Publishing Company
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MINECO//FFI2014-55590-R/ES/TRANS-CLIL: INTEGRACION Y EVALUACION DE CONTENIDOS CURRICULARES Y LENGUA EXTRANJERA EN LA TRANSICION DE LA EDUCACION PRIMARIA A SECUNDARIA EN CONTEXTOS BILINGUES/
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
dc.subject.cdu81'33
dc.subject.cdu800.73
dc.subject.cdu373.3
dc.subject.cdu373.5
dc.subject.cdu371.3
dc.subject.keywordCLIL
dc.subject.keywordStreaming
dc.subject.keywordStakeholders
dc.subject.keywordLanguage testing
dc.subject.keywordStudent profiles
dc.subject.keywordTransmisión
dc.subject.keywordGrupos de interés
dc.subject.keywordPruebas lingüísticas
dc.subject.keywordPerfil de los estudiantes
dc.subject.ucmLingüística
dc.subject.ucmEnseñanza de la lengua y la literatura
dc.subject.ucmMétodos de enseñanza
dc.subject.ucmEnseñanza primaria
dc.subject.ucmEnseñanza secundaria
dc.subject.unesco5701 Lingüística Aplicada
dc.subject.unesco5801 Teoría y Métodos Educativos
dc.subject.unesco5701.11 Enseñanza de Lenguas
dc.titleLanguage testing and the role of CLIL exposure in constructing student profiles: Stakeholders' views on streaming in the transition from primary to secondary education
dc.typejournal article
dc.type.hasVersionAM
dc.volume.number35
dcterms.referencesReferencias bibliográficas: • A2 Key for schools. Cambridge Assessment English. Retrieved on 21 February 2023 from https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/key-for-schools/ • B1 Preliminary for schools. Cambridge Assessment English. Retrieved on 21 February 2023 from https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/preliminary-for-schools/ • Bachman, L. F., & Purpura, J. E. (2008). Language assessments: Gate-keepers or door openers? In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 456–468). Blackwell. • Baker, E.L. (2012). Mandated tests: Educational reform or quality indicator? In B.R. Gifford (Ed.), Test policy and test performance: Education, language and culture (pp. 3–24). Kluwer. • Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, ed.; G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Polity Press. • Bower, K. (2020). School leaders’ perspectives on Content and Language Integrated Learning in England. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(4), 351–367. • Brinkmann, S. (2020). Unstructured and semistructured interviews. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. • Cross, R. (2013). Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach to teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools. Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood. • 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. • Dalton-Puffer, C., Hüttner, J., Schindelegger, V., & Smit, U. (2009). Technology-geeks speak out: What students think about vocational CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 17–26. • Du Bois, J.W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins. • European Commission. (1995). Teaching and learning: Towards the learning society. White Paper on Training and Education. Retrieved on 21 February 2023 from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d0a8aa7a-5311-4eee-904c-98fa541108d8/languageen • Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman. • Fernández-Agüero, M., & Hidalgo-McCabe, E. (2020). CLIL students’ affectivity in the transition between education levels: The effect of streaming at the beginning of secondary education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 21(6), 363–377. • Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Basil Blackwell. • Gumperz, J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (1982). Introduction: Language and the communication of social identity. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge University Press. • Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (1999). Raising standards: Is ability grouping the answer? Oxford Review of Education, 25(3), 343–358. • Jaworski, A., & Thurlow, C. (2009). Taking an elitist stance: Ideology and the discursive production of social distinction. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp. 195–226). Oxford University Press. • Kensler, L.A.W., Caskie, G.I.L., Barber, M.E., & White, G.P. (2009). The ecology of democratic learning communities: Faculty trust and continuous learning in public middle schools. JournalofSchoolLeadership, 19, 697–735. • Llinares, A., & Evnitskaya. (2021). Classroom interaction in CLIL programs: Offering opportunities or fostering inequalities? TESOL Quarterly, 55(2), 366–397. • Madrid, Comunidad Bilingüe. (2016–17). Portal de transparencia, Comunidad de Madrid. Retrieved on 21 Fecruary 2023 from: http://www.madrid.org/bvirtual/BVCM016362.pdf • Martín Rojo, L., & Molina, C. (2017). Cosmopolitan stance negotiation in multicultural academic settings. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 21(5), 672–695. • Massler, U. (2012). Primary CLIL and its stakeholders: What children, parents and teachers think of the potential merits and pitfalls of CLIL modules in Primary teaching. International CLIL Research Journal, 1, 36–46. • Mediavilla, M., Mancebón, M.J., Gómez- Sancho, J.M., & Pires, L. (2019). Bilingual education and school choice: A case study of public secondary schools in the Spanish Region of Madrid. IEBWorking. http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/134081/1/IEB19-01_Mediavilla%2bet.al.pdf • Mehisto, P. (2012). Excellence in bilingual education: A guide for school principals. Cambridge University Press. • Mosteller, F., Light, R., & Sacher, A. (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: Lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 797–842. • Pavón Vázquez, V., & Rubio, F. (2010). Teachers’ concerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes, Porta Linguarum, 14, 45–58. • Ráez-Padilla, J. (2018). Parent perspectives on CLIL implementation: Which variables make a difference? Porta Linguarum, 29, 181–196. • Rumlich, D. (2017). CLIL theory and empirical reality – Two sides of the same coin? Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5(1), 110–134. • Regional Education Government (2017). Orden 972/2017, de 7 de abril, de la Consejería de Educación, Juventud y Deporte, por la que se regulan los institutos bilingües español-inglés de la Comunidad de Madrid. Retrieved on 21 February 2023 from http://www.madrid.org/wleg_pub/secure/normativas/contenidoNormativa.jsf?nmnorma=9744#noback-button • San Isidro, X. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL implementation in Europe. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 185–195. • Shohamy, E. (2001a). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing, 18(4), 373–392. • Shohamy, E. (2001b). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the use of language tests. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge • Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge. • Snell, J., & Lefstein, A. (2018). “Low ability,” participation, and identity in dialogic pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 40–78. • Somers, T., & Llinares, A. (2021). Students’ motivation for content and language integrated learning and the role of programme intensity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(6), 839–854. • Tompkins, F. L. (2022). Socioeconomic status, English exposure and CLIL motivation in high and low exposure CLIL groups. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 5(1), 41–52. • Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for discourse analysis. Oxford University Press
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication37d89b71-a6b1-41fd-8943-7218853ef94f
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery37d89b71-a6b1-41fd-8943-7218853ef94f

Download

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Language testing and the role of CLIL exposure. 2023.pdf
Size:
744.71 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections