MARIA ROSARIA FRANCOMACARO

Changing the Language, Changingthe Genre? The English-mediumLecture among Non-native Speakers

Introduction

Following the Bologna Declaration in 1999,European universities have been offeringan increasing number of English-taughtprogrammes –mainly at postgraduate level-aimed to reach an audience of non-nativespeakers (Wilkinson, 2004). In the case ofItaly, where the use of a non-nativemedium language is not widespread yet(Maiworm / Wächter, 2008), universitieshave taken up the challenge of usingEnglish as an Additional Language (EAL)especially at scientific faculties torespond to the need forinternationalization (Coleman, 2006).However, English-medium teaching in HigherEducation can be an added value also forthe Faculties of Humanities where EnglishLinguistics is both the subject and the

1

means of instruction. In particular, thepresent study, through a qualitativeanalysis, aims at comparing teaching through aforeign language (which is also named CLIL1

teaching approach) to teaching in a foreignlanguage by analysing how and in whichrespect English-medium teaching influencesstudents’ perceptions and goals oflearning. Moreover, it seeks to understandwhat changes and adaptations occur whendesigning an English-medium lecture in theHumanities.

For this purpose, questionnaires havebeen delivered to two different groups ofstudents – the CLIL-group (learning through aforeign language) and the Control-group(learning in a foreign language). Thequestionnaires were designed to describethe courses with regard to students’biographical data, instructionalmaterials, teaching methods, coursestructure and organization. The comparisonof the results showed many similaritiesbut also underlined a few peculiarities ofthe CLIL-group with regard to the learningskills involved.

1. Previous studies

1 CLIL is the acronym of Content and Language Integrated Learning

2

For many years, CLIL research has mainlyfocused on primary and secondary level ofinstruction; however, as a consequence ofthe Bologna Declaration2 in 1999 and of theimplementation of the European HigherEducation Area (EHEA), teaching through aforeign language has become an increasinglyraised issue also among academicresearchers (Wilkinson, 2004; Wilkinson /Zegers / Van Leeuwen, 2006; Coleman, 2006;Carrió-Pastor, 2009; Ricci-Garotti, 2009;Sisti, 2009).

Notwithstanding, it seems stilldifficult to provide a complete view ofCLIL teaching in Higher Education (HE) asthe implementation forms are verydifferent from one country to another andalso among institutions in the samecountry (Fortanet, 2009). The choice ofcourses on offer ranges from teaching throughEnglish courses to merely teaching in Englishcourses3, according to a varying degreescale of attention paid either to languageor subject contents or both.

2 The official website can be found at the followingaddress:http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/3 Often, teaching in English courses are also known as code-switching programmes as they consist in a mere change ofthe language of communication.

3

The growth and interest in CLILand/or English as a Medium of Instruction(EMI) projects in HE is thus surely linkedto the Bologna process. It set thefoundations for the EHEA:

The Bologna Process is an intergovernmentalinitiative, which aims to create a EHEA by 2010and to promote the European system of highereducation worldwide. It now has 46participating countries and it is conductedoutside the formal decision-making framework ofthe European Union. Decision-making within theProcess rests on the consent of all theparticipating countries. It was launched in1999 when Ministers from 29 European countries,including the UK, met in Bologna and signed adeclaration establishing what was necessary tocreate a EHEA by the end of the decade. Thebroad objectives of the Bologna Process became:to remove the obstacles to student mobility across Europe; toenhance the attractiveness of European higher educationworldwide (italics is mine); to establish a commonstructure of higher education systems acrossEurope, and; for this common structure to bebased on two main cycles, undergraduate andgraduate4.

Some of the Bologna objectives, i.e. toimprove students’ mobility and to makeEuropean higher education more attractiveworldwide, are closely related to

4 http://www.europeunit.ac.uk/sites/europe_unit2/bologna_process/index.cfm

4

international language policies(D’Angelo / Garcia Pascual, 2009) as bothmobility and acceptance of foreignstudents and staff imply the use oflanguages different from the participants’first languages.

As a result the number of English-medium programmes and courses -mainly atpostgraduate level- offered by EuropeanHigh Education institutions have beenincreasing since 1999 (Wilkinson, 2004).In particular, Ezeiza Ramos (2009) offersan analysis of the reasons andimplications of the implementation of aEuropean Space of Higher Education (ESHE).These reasons and implications concernboth the content and the language learningas ‘higher education cannot be reduced tothe atomized transmission of contents. Nordoes it seem logical to separatediscipline-specific learning from languageand social learning’ (p.166).

Education, in fact, plays a major rolein today’s society. Not to acknowledge it,it is like to bury one's head in the sand.Educational stakeholders face newchallenges and one of them is the rolethat the knowledge of different languagesplays in the new educational/socialscenario. The CCN Foresight Think Tank5 has

5 Published by CLIL Cascade Network (CCN): University of

5

set out “to identify needs and generateideas for re-shaping languages ineducation over the next decade […] TheThink Tank explored present and futuredynamics of languages in educationidentifying related issues and possiblecourses of action” (2010:3). Among thefactors which are driving innovation theyconsidered also “private and public sectoreducational and resources providers” asimportant stakeholders in an age where the“added value of learning languages” isfundamental, when “language educationincreasingly holds the potential to havean impact on many dimensions of social andworking life”, and where “educationalproprieties emphasise the development ofkey competences for lifelong learning manyof which are language-based” (p.4). Overthe past decades English as a foreignlanguage has played a major role inlanguage instruction and it is still so.What seems to be new it is the status ofELF in academic settings. However, it is auniversity responsibility to face thechallenge (Ezeiza Ramos, 2009).

1.1 The lecture and the lecturer

Jyväskylä, Finland - March 2010

6

If in the past, most of the studies onacademia focused on written discourse, anew interest has recently risen aroundspoken academic genres like the lecture,which is actually the most common spokengenre and it is the one, which is peculiarto teaching at university level(Flowerdew, 1994). The lecture, which hasbeen considered in this paper is theEnglish-medium lecture among non-nativespeakers and belongs to a discipline-specific domain, i.e. linguistics.

In an overview of the state-of-the-artof research on English-medium lecture,Fortanet and Bellés Fortuño (2005) havereviewed previous studies on lecturingstyle, syntax of lectures and lecturestructural patterns. They have alsodiscussed the contributions of the GRAPE6

research team, based in Spain and to whichthe paper’s authors belong, which devolvedmuch attention to lecture related aspectssuch as the use of pronouns, discoursemarkers, stance expression, backgroundknowledge and delivery strategies. Theirfinal remarks point out to the necessityto provide tools both for lecturers andstudents involved in English-mediumprogrammes especially when they are non-

6 Group of Research on Academic and Professional English- Spain

7

native speakers. Needless to say, teachingthrough/in a foreign language in not aneasy task; it is instead a complex matter,which implies the interplay of differentfactors. In particular, not few studieshave concentrate on the elements andfactors that can favour or preventunderstanding and comprehension oflectures delivered by non-native speakers(Flowerdew, 1994; Othman, 2007; Smit,2009; Hellekjœr, 2010). Many of theseresearches highlight that thecomprehension issues are related both tolanguage proficiency and deliverystrategies. In particular, Hellekjœr foundout that some problems in comprehensionare present in L1 too, and that the changeof the language can even make them worst,as “effective lecturing behaviour is justas necessary in L1 as well as in EM(English medium) lectures” (p.26). Theneed for a more effective lecturingtraining is also underlined by Klaassen(2008) whose research is based on theanalysis of a supportive module forEnglish-medium staff run for about 5 yearsin the Netherlands. However, these resultsdo not imply that language proficiency isof less importance. Klaassen and Bos acouple of years later write that:

at present, students see the need for high

8

levels of academic English proficiency. And ifwe are to prepare our local students for globalcitizenship we have to offer them theopportunity to listen to lecturers with a C2level of English and provide the opportunity toacquire the languages at an acceptable levelthemselves. How to achieve this objectivedepends on the particular context, vision andambitions of any university within the EuropeanUnion (2010:75).

If a support is needed both for lecturersand students, it must be both linguisticand methodological. A group of researchersbased in Belgium has conducted aqualitative research over a two yearsperiod aimed to verify the assumption thatadaptations of teaching and learningprocedures are necessary when a CLILenvironment is implemented (Bartika etal., 2010): “and should HE contentteachers remain unaware of the necessarymethodological approaches required by CLILthere is a clear risk that the quality ofteaching and learning may suffer” (p.12).The awareness is, indeed, a key issue ofother researches on English-mediuminstruction (Airey / Linder, 2007): bothstudents and lecturers should be aware ofthe changes their learning and teachingprocesses respectively undergo in order tocope with English successfully(Ingvarsdóttir / Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2010).Both students and lectures manage to cope

9

in some way with the new challenge;however, raising awareness activities,like language difference discussions andexemplifications, extra time for students’questions and doubts, pre-lecturereadings, and use of complementaryrepresentations such as visuals, handout,etc. are highly recommended (Ingvarsdóttir/ Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2010:7-8). Anexperience of good practice implemented atthe Faculty of Applied Sciences of theUniversité Libre de Bruxelles, evensuggested the design and distribution of aCLIL guide, which would contain usefulrecommendations both for students andlecturers, and which indirectlyacknowledges the need of adaptations bothin learning and lecturing styles (Bartikaet al., 2010: 13-14). Thus, repetitions(Dafouz Milne / Llinares García, 2008),lecturer speaking rate, role ofinteraction (Van Dijk / Jochems, 2002),use of discourse markers (Bellé Fortuno,2006; Smit, 2006), pragmatic discoursefeatures (Núñez Perucha / Dafouz Milne,2007) are all elements that English-mediumlecture participants should be aware of inorder to deliver effective lectures and tocomprehend them properly.

2. The case study

10

The English Language and Linguistics courses atthe Faculty of Foreign Languages of theUniversity of Naples L'Orientale(www.unior.it) are delivered in English.The contents are English Linguisticsissues throughout the three-year degreeprogramme in Mediazione Linguistica e Culturale.However, each year contents vary accordingto a general plan whose aim is to providean as much complete as possible overviewof the English language from a descriptiveand sociolinguistic point of view. Thefirst-year course, in particular, providesthe foundations of English by focusing thethree main branches of linguistics:sounds, words and sentences7. It can beconsidered a meta-language approach as theteaching content is not English but it isabout English: the language is described andanalysed, but not used and practiced as ina language class context. Theseconsiderations allow us to classify it asan example of Teaching through a Foreign Language(Mehisto et alii, 2008:9-12). But in orderto be named a CLIL approach, as theacronym clearly states, it has to assurethat both aspects of the teaching, i.e.

7 http://docenti2.unior.it/index2.php?user_id=mrfrancomacaro&content_id_start=1

11

subject and language content deserveequal, or almost equal, attention (Mehistoet alii, 2008:9-12).

The pilot CLIL implementation wasaimed to first-year students as it is atlower levels that more language support isneeded (Hellekjör, 2005, 2010;Ingvarsdóttir, 2010; Airey 2009). Italianstudents enter university with very littleor none experience of learning throughanother language, which is not theirnative language, as “in Italy CLIL isfound both in pilot projects and as partof existing educational provision”, but itis not yet compulsory8 (Eurydice, 2008:42).Consequently, CLIL proves to be moreuseful to novice students who most needguide, tools and advice to approachcontent through a foreign language.

2.1 CLIL implementation issues

The implementation of CLIL in Italy is,consequently, even more complex than inthe rest of Europe. However, in HE the

8 The recently approved Reform has now brought in Italianschool system an obligation by law to provide Englishmedium teaching in the fifth year of all high schools(D.p.R. 15 marzo 2010). The first implementation willtake place in the scool year 2014-15.

12

call for internationalisation after theBologna Declaration9 which Italy signedtogether with other 29 European countries,has pushed the Italian academicinstitutions to pursue the followingquestions: how can CLIL be implemented?How could the language of the students besupported in order to facilitate theirlearning of the subject content? How couldusing a vehicular language develop thediscipline knowledge?

In the learning/teaching process oneof the key words is scaffolding10:teachers/lecturers try to support thelearning process by providing tools which

9 The Bologna Process is a European reform process aimingat establishing a European Higher Education Area by 2010.The Process officially started in 1999, with the signingof the Bologna Declaration. Twenty-nine countries havesigned the declaration on 19 June 1999 in Bologna (hencethe name of the whole Process)(http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/)10 Scaffolding is the temporary support that surrounds abuilding under construction. The term is usedmetaphorically to describe the temporary interactionalsupport that is given to learners while their languagesystem is ‘under construction’. It is this support – fromteachers, parents or ‘better others’ – that enables themto perform a task at a level beyond their presentcompetence.’ (from An A-Z of ELT in Scott Thornbury’s blog,http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/). For more onscaffolding in language learning: Applebee andLanger ,1983.

13

help the understanding, the use and re-useof the learnt content. However, teachingthrough a foreign language has to implyeven more specific scaffolding as theteaching methodology and the learningprocess is due to change inevitably(Gibbons, 2002).

2.2 Methodological aspects

In the academic year 2010-11, four firstyear courses in English Linguistics havebeen offered: this research concentrateson two of them -one is the CLIL-group andthe other one is the Control-group. Thefirst is made of 138 students, the secondone of 113. The same questionnaire hasbeen distributed to all the studentsattending the two courses: they have beenquestioned about age and gender, self-evaluated competences in English, numberof years of formal exposure to English,personal attitude towards the teachingthrough a foreign language, preferredinput presentation techniques, perceptionof most needed skills to better follow thecourse, previous experience of CLIL atsecondary school level, and generalexpectations about the course. A finalquestionnaire was distributed, too.However, while the initial questionnaire

14

was the same for the two groups, the finalone was slightly different as the CLIL-group students had to answer some specificCLIL-oriented items. Both courses had thesame programmes and were taught by non-native speaker lecturers. Lecturers hadpreviously agreed on some methodologicalaspects of the course: contents, use of anon-line forum, exam requirements, use ofEMI. What was peculiar to the CLIL-group,was the increased conscious attention tothe scaffolding devices employed in aforeign language-medium lecture context(see paragraph 3.3).

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Initial questionnaires

The questionnaires were edited in Italianas the students were in their first yearand there was no chance to previouslydetermine students’ competence level. Inboth groups female students were morenumerous than male colleagues, which is arather common datum at the Faculty ofLanguages and, generally, at thehumanistic faculties (Arcidonna, data fromCentro Statistico del Ministero

15

dell'Università e della Ricerca, 2008). Themajority of the students were all Italiannative speakers but there were two non-native speakers of Italian in the CLIL-group and one in the Control-group.

Most of the students, from bothgroups, stated to have been exposed to anEnglish formal instruction for a periodbetween 8 and 12 years, which correspondsto the regular course of primary andsecondary education in Italy (5 yearsprimary school plus 8 years secondaryschool). However, a relevant number ofstudents from both groups stated that theyhad followed English classes for a periodbetween 5 and 8 years, as they wereprobably referring to low and highsecondary school (3 plus 5 years) only.

As for the competence level of thelanguage, the results were similar in bothgroups. A high percentage of studentsassessed their competence at B1 level(CEFR), while a relevant number ofstudents assessed their language skills atB2 level and only a few at C level. It isworth noting that, although the requiredminimum level to enrol on this course isB1, a relatively high percentage ofstudents stated to own an A1 or A2competence.

In the initial questionnaire, one ofitems was about students’ feelings with

16

respect to the English-medium course theywere about to start. The range of possibleanswers included options from interest tofear. The results were similar in bothgroups. The only different datum was thecuriosity attitude that was higher in theCLIL-group where, on reverse, the challengeattitude was lower compared with theControl-group. This difference wasprobably due to the fact that the CLIL-group was aware of the new pedagogicalenvironment, as a raising awarenessdiscussion had preceded the questionnairedistribution. The discussion was meant tofavour and enhance students’ participationto the course by sharing responsibilityfor active learning (Sullivan, 1996). TheControl-group, where no prior discussionhad taken place, was more anxious aboutthe English-medium teaching that was felt,in some way, as a challenging enterprise,while the CLIL-group showed a more open-minded attitude towards it.

Only a small number of students (15%-CLIL group- and 18% -Control group) hadexperienced CLIL projects at secondaryschool level and the disciplines involvedranged from Science (Biology – Chemistry -Math) to Humanities (Foreign Literatures -Arabic) and Social Sciences (History andPhilosophy -Geography - Law – Tourism).

17

The range of preferred teachingtechniques, from which they could choose,were the following: traditional frontallesson -typical of the Italian academicsystem (Ricci Garotti, 2009); group works;interactive class; listening and note-taking. A high percentage from the CLIL-group highlighted the interactive class;however, a consistent number seemed toprefer the listening plus note-takinglearning method. As far as the skill needsrequired for this course are concerned,both groups pointed to listening andspeaking skills.

A final open question gave thestudents the opportunity to express theirfeelings, doubts, and opinions on theincoming course. In both groups the mostcommon expectations were improving thelanguage and improving speaking skills.Following behind, they listed listeningskills improvement and vocabularyenrichment.

Altogether, it seems that, at theinitial stage, the two groups were ratherhomogeneous in their structural features(numbers, gender, educational background)and also in their expectations about thecourse. The criterion used fordistributing students into the two groupswas the alphabetical order, which is acasual one. Thus, the similarities between

18

the two groups seem to suggest ahomogenous panorama within Italian first-year students.

3.2 End-of-course questionnaires

The questionnaires collected at the end ofthe courses were less numerous than theinitial questionnaires as the number ofstudents attending the classes usuallydecreases towards the end of the coursedue to the incoming exam sessions.However, the resulting data were convertedin percentage to be more easily compared.The two groups showed many similaritieswith regard to:

class attendance frequency: most ofthe students who filled in thequestionnaire attended the classesregularly;

language used for classroom talk: inboth groups the language used was English;

note-taking: both groups used totake notes during the lessons and theyused to do it in English;

lack of problems in following thelessons: the majority faced no problems infollowing the English-medium lessons.However, a little number of studentsacknowledged to have experienceddifficulties for the following reasons:

19

new concepts understanding; pacing up withlecturer’s speaking rate; low languageproficiency level.

In both groups the students perceivedthat their level of English had improvedand a high proportion of them attributedsuch improvement to the use of thevehicular language (69% CLIL-group and 73%Control-group). The areas where theimprovement was higher were listening andspeaking for both groups. These resultsare consistent with the initialquestionnaire responses where the studentspredicted that the most needed skills inan English-medium environment would havebeen listening and speaking.

According to students from bothgroups, listening and speaking were, infact, the most used skills during thecourse; however, only the CLIL-groupstated that also writing skills were usedas much as speaking. The Control-group didnot experience any improvement in writing.The reason for such a difference might liein the structure and principles of CLILprogrammes; actually, in such a learningenvironment it is important to pursue theintegral development of all thecompetences (Mehisto et alii, 2008). IfCLIL in Higher Education has to provide asound knowledge of the subject; thisexpertise is to be gained not only through

20

the listening and reading of thematerials, but also by discussing andelaborating the learned ideas andconcepts: “the added value of universityCLIL is the fostering of deep, specific,lexical disciplinary knowledge, and theskills in oral and written production,especially in setting out arguments, asregards the topic dealt with” (RicciGarotti, 2009:219). That is why, withinthe CLIL methodological framework of thisresearch, students from the CLIL-groupwere regularly asked to do lesson-relatedhomework that implied writing works mostof the time and they were also asked toperform a final oral presentation withwritten report on a freely chosen topic.

3.3 Some remarks on CLIL methodology

As concerns the course structure, the twocourses were similar as the lecturers hadpreviously agreed on contents and studyingmaterials. Both lecturers made use ofslides and both groups were members of anon-line forum where it was possible torecover information about courseorganization, textbooks, lesson slides,etc. A peculiarity of the CLIL-group,however, was a greater attention tolanguage and methodology support that

21

could make easier English-medium lectureattendance (Striker / Leaver, 1993;Sullivan, 1996; Van Dijk / Jochems, 2002;Landolfi, 2009; Pavon Vazquez / Rubio,2010). In particular, the CLIL-groupbenefited from extra teaching sessions andin-class practice on the following topics:

Reading skills* Listening skills Reading materials note making Lecture note taking Dictionary* Oral presentation skills

*The Control-group worked on thesesame topics, too.

The selection of these topics was based onthe needs analysis data resulting from theinitial questionnaires and end-of-courserequirements (oral presentation and finalwritten report). The selected skills weremeant to favour acquisition andimprovement of lecture comprehension andstudy skills competence. Actually,students’ needs analysis (Ruiz-Garrido /Fortanet-Gómez, 2009) proved to be asuccessful one with regard to lecturestructure and scaffolding devicesselection.

22

Students from the CLIL-group were,then, asked to point to the supportingstrategies –among the ones stated above-that best helped them to follow thelessons and to grasp the new contents. Themost useful strategy, according tostudents’ perception, was the one aimed atimproving listening skills; secondly,almost ranked the same, lecture notetaking –also linked to listening- and oralpresentation skills.

In a CLIL context a most relevantissue is subject learning as the use of avehicular language should never imply adecrease of quality in knowledgeimprovement. For this reason students werequestioned on their perception of learningin terms of contents acquisition. Inparticular, they were asked whether theirknowledge in English Linguistics was thesame as if they had studied the samecontents in their mother tongue. In theCLIL-group only a percentage of 10answered that they would have learnt morecontent if the lessons would have beendelivered in Italian, their mother tongue.However, the remaining and majority of thestudents stated that their disciplineacquisition was the same or even betterand the English-medium instruction hadbeen an added value to their learning. Inparticular, some students underlined that

23

learning through a foreign language hadgiven more competence and awareness of thecontents. Finally, many studentsemphasized the better improvement ofselected English competencies (listening,writing, vocabulary).

Results in the Control-group wereslightly different in this respect as ahigher percentage (17%) stated that theirlevel of subject knowledge was penalizedby the use of English as a means ofinstruction; the remaining students, thatwere the majority, commented that thevehicular language was, instead, animprovement; in particular, some statedthat the need for more concentration ledto, as an indirect outcome, a betterlearning of the content.

In order to understand how thestudents coped with the English-mediumteaching, more questions were asked about:

the speed of lecture delivery the language of tuition the relation between contents and

language the lecturer non-native like

proficiencyCLIL-group students reported that thelecturer’s speed of delivery wasappropriate and that following the lessonsin Italian would have not made it better.They had never paid less attention to the

24

contents because of language comprehensionproblems and they had not regretted nothaving a native speaker lecturer. In theControl-group, though the numbers weredifferent, the results were the same.

As a final question, both groups wereasked to express any further free commentson the English-medium teaching so farexperienced. The CLIL-group provideddifferent comments, which were positive inalmost all the cases. In particular, thehighest percentage of students commentedthat CLIL learning was a successfulexperience and that it had considerablyimproved their listening skills.

4. Conclusion

This study reported a pilot CLILexperience in an undergraduate course inLinguistics at the Faculty of ForeignLanguages. The qualitative method appliedaimed to compare both students’ perceptionof learning goals and lecture styleadjustments, when two different learningenvironments are implemented: teaching throughEnglish on one side, and teaching in English onthe other. The results mainly confirmed

25

previous research findings on CLILmethodology in Higher Education.

In particular, it provided evidencefor the following issues: higher educationstudents have a general positive attitudetowards CLIL teaching approach, as theyperceive it as an extra opportunity toincrease both contents and languageknowledge; the use of a foreign languageas a medium of instruction implies a majorfocus on integrated learning where all thecognitive and pragmatic skills areinvolved; CLIL can be a successfulopportunity also in the Humanities as itenhances awareness in the learningprocess; the lecturing style needs toadapt to the new learning environment byproviding a selected set of scaffoldingdevices. In particular, it is worthunderlining that the comparison betweenthe two courses proved how a CLIL approachis more feasible to favour the developmentof writing skills, which are of mostimportance for higher education studentscompared to a mere teaching in a foreignlanguage. Though this study is based on alimited amount of data, it can still be ofrelevance to all stakeholders dealing withthe implementation of CLIL programmes inHigher Education.

26

References

1. Airey, John 2009. Science, Language and Literacy.Case studies of Learning in Swedish University Physics.PhD dissertation. Uppsala: ActaUniversitatis Upsaliensis.

2. Airey, John / Linder, Cedric 2007.Disciplinary Learning in a secondlanguage: a case study from SwedishUniversity Physics. In Researching Content andLanguage Integration in Higher Education.Maastricht: Maastricht UniversityLanguage Centre, 161-171.

3. Bartika, Kristin et al. 2010. A DiscussionBrief of Content and Language Integrated Learning(CLIL) at the faculty of Applied Sciences. UniversitéLibre de Bruxelles.

4. Bellés Fortuno, Begoña 2006. DiscourseMarkers within the University Lecture Genre. PhDdissertation. Universitat Jaume 1 –Spain.

5. Carrió-Pastor, Maria Luisa (ed.) 2009.Content and Language Integrated Learning: CulturalDiversity. Bern: Peter Lang.

6. CNN Foresight Think Tank 2010. Talking theFuture 2010-2020. University of Jyväskylä,Finland: CLIL Cascade Network (CCN).

7. Coleman, James A. (2006). English-medium teaching in European HigherEducation. Language Teaching. 39/1, 1–14.

27

8. Dafouz Milne, Emma / Llinares García,Ana 2008. The Role of Repetition in CLILTeacher Discourse: A Comparative Study atSecondary and Tertiary Levels. InternationalCLIL Research Journal. 1, 50-59.

9. D’Angelo, Lauretta / Garcia Pascual,Enrique 2009. CLIL and the EuropeanHigher Education Area. In Sisti, Flora(ed.) CLIL Methodology in University Instruction:Online and in the Classroom. An Emerging Framework,Perugia: Guerra Edizioni, 133-142.

10. Eurydice 2008. Key data on Teachinglanguages at school in Europe. Bruxelles:European Commission.

11. Ezeiza Ramos, Joseba 2009.Integrating Languages, Contents andCultures in the European Space for HigherEducation: from Theory to Practice. InCarrió-Pastor, Maria Luisa (ed.) Contentand Language Integrated Learning: Cultural Diversity.Bern: Peter Lang, 149-171.

12. Flowerdew, John (ed.) 1994. AcademicListening: Research Perspectives. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

13. Fortanet-Gomez, Inmaculada / BellésFortuño, Begoña 2005. Spoken AcademicDiscourse: an Approach to Research onLectures. Volumen Monografico. 161-178.

14. Fortanet-Gomez, Inmaculada / Ruiz-Garrido, Miguel 2009. Sharing CLIL inEurope. In Carrió-Pastor, Maria Luisa

28

(ed.) Content and Language Integrated Learning:Cultural Diversity. Bern: Peter Lang, 47-75.

15. Gibbons, Pauline 2002. ScaffoldingLanguage Scaffolding Learning. Teaching ESL childrenin the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth NH:Heinemann.

16. Hellekjœr, Glenn Ole 2010. LectureComprehension in English-Medium HigherEducation. Hermes – Journal of Language andCommunication Studies. 45, 11-34.

17. Ingvarsdóttir, Hafdís /Arnbjörnsdóttir, Birna 2010. Coping withEnglish at Tertiary Level: Instructors’Views. Rá stefnurit Netlu∂ – Menntakvika. 1-11.

18. Klaassen, Renate / Bos, Madeleine2010. English Language Screening forScientific Staff at Delft University ofTechnology. Hermes – Journal of Language andCommunication Studies. 45, 61-75.

19. Klaassen, Renate 2008. Preparinglecturers for English-medium instruction.In Wilkinson, Robert / Zegers, Vera(eds.) Realizing Content and Language Integration inHigher Education. Maastricht: UniversitairePers Maastricht, 32-42.

20. Landolfi, Liliana 2009. CLIL in theClass of English. In Sisti, Flora (ed.)CLIL Methodology in University Instruction: Online andin the Classroom. An Emerging Framework, Perugia:Guerra Edizioni, 175-188.

21. Maiworm, Friedhelm / Wächter, Bernd2008. English-Taught Programmes in European

29

Higher Education. The Picture in 2007. Bonn:Lemmens

22. Mehisto, Peeter et al. 2008.Uncovering CLIL. Oxford: MacmillanEducation.

23. Núñez Perucha, Begoña / DafouzMilne, Emma 2007. Lecturing Through theForeign language in a CLIL UniveristyContext: Linguistic and PragmaticImplications 1. Smit, Ute / Dalton-Puffer, Christine (eds.) Vienna EnglishWorking Papers. 16/3, 36-42.

24. Othman, Zarina 2007. The academicLectures of native English speakers: itscomplexities. Jurnal Pengajian Umun Bil. 9,125-138.

25. Pavon Vazquez, Victor / Rubio,Fernando 2010. Teachers’ Concerns andUncertainties about the Introduction ofCLIL Programmes. Porta Linguarum. 14, 45-58.

26. Ricci Garotti, Federica 2009.Potential and problems of UniversityCLIL. In Sisti, Flora (ed.) CLIL Methodologyin University Instruction: Online and in the Classroom.An Emerging Framework, Perugia: GuerraEdizioni, 215-222.

27. Ruiz-Garrido, Miguel / Fortanet-Gómez,Inmaculada (2009). Needs Analysis in aCLIL context: A Transfer from ESP. InMarsch, David et al. (eds.) CLIL Practice:Perspectives from the Field. University ofJyväskylä (Finland): CCN. 179-188.

30

28. Sisti, Flora (a cura di) 2009. CLILMethodology in University Instruction: Online and in theClassroom. An Emerging Framework. Perugia:Guerra edizioni.

29. Smit, Talita 2006. ListeningComprehension in Academic Lectures: A Focus on theRole of Discourse Markers. PhD Dissertation.University of South Africa.

30. Smit, Talita 2009. The AcademicLecture: Learn to Listen or Listen toLearn?. Nawa Journal of Language andCommunication. 3/1, 1-18.

31. Stryker, Stephen, / Leaver, Betty L.1997. Content-based instruction in foreign languageeducation. Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press

32. Sullivan, Richard 1996. DeliveringEffective Lectures. JHPIEGO Strategy Paper. 5,1-14.

33. Van Dijk, Liesbet A. / Jochems, Wim2002. Changing a Traditional LecturingApproach into an Interactive Approach:Effects of Interrupting the Monologue inLectures. International Journal Engng. 18/3,275-284.

34. Wilkinson, Robert (ed.) 2004.Integrating Content and Language. Meeting theChallenge of Multilingual Higher Education.Maastricht: Universitaire PersMaastricht.

35. Wilkinson, Robert / Zegers, Vera(eds.) 2007. Researching Content and Language

31

Integration in Higher Education. Maastricht:Universitaire Pers Maastricht.

36. Wilkinson, Robert / Zegers, Vera(eds.) 2008. Realizing Content and LanguageIntegration in Higher Education. Maastricht:Universitaire Pers Maastricht.

37. Wilkinson, Robert / Zegers, Vera /Van Leeuwen, Ch 2006. Bridging the AssessmentGap in English-Medium Higher Education. Bochum:AKS Verlag.

32