Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused educational approach whereby an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language. In the Netherlands, this takes place in bilingual secondary education (tweetalig onderwijs). Policy guidelines, teaching handbooks, research and teacher education primarily focused on how subject teachers implement CLIL. Little was known about the nature and range of the pedagogical and collaborative practices of language teachers in this context. Exploring formal and practical theories of teaching, this dissertation reports on four studies; a literature review, focus group study, survey, and multiple-case study. These generated building blocks for a knowledge base for Teachers of English in Bilingual streams (TEBs) including a theoretical framework for language teaching in CLIL contexts, a set of practices which emerged as a professional development tool for TEBs, eight case descriptions of prototypical practices, and a model of the dynamic interaction of TEBs’ beliefs and practices. Reviewing the findings in the light of developments in conceptualizing what CLIL means for teachers in practice, the discussion highlights four points. Firstly, language teaching in CLIL contexts is not the same as foreign language teaching. Secondly, CLIL achieves integration through subject-specific language. Thirdly, CLIL contexts can lead to transformative change in language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Fourthly, collaboration between language and subject teachers can be beneficial. It concludes that teacher education and policy guidelines can and should do more to support, encourage and enable language teachers to be both creators and agents of change.
LINK
The advantages and drawbacks of components of flexible assessment have been studied mostly from the standpoint of students and, to a lesser extent, teachers. A gap persists in understanding the collective perspectives of teachers and students concerning flexible assessment. This study aimed to explore experiences and perspectives of students and teachers regarding flexible assessment within the specific context of nursing education. Seven focus groups comprised four sessions with teachers and three with students, each involving 5-8 participants. Results showed that students and teachers have a predominantly positive perspective towards flexible assessment. They acknowledge the opportunities that flexible assessment provides for diverse forms to present evidence. However, concerns were raised regarding the design of flexible assessments, issues of fairness in rating evidence, and the understanding among teachers and students regarding the assessment processes. Additionally, discussions focused on the perceived benefit of flexible assessments, particularly concerning the time investment required for their implementation and evaluation. In conclusion, the success of flexible assessments is contingent on the careful consideration of its design, ensuring equitable evaluation of evidence, and fostering comprehensive understanding among both teachers and students. Recognizing potential disparities in views of students and teachers offers valuable insights into the effectiveness of flexible assessment. Achieving a balance between the flexibility of assessment formats, aligned forms of evidence, and an appropriate rating methodology is crucial for effective implementation.
DOCUMENT
Purpose: This study explores limitations in communication in daily life of children with developmental language disorder (DLD) from their parents' perspective as well as communicative abilities and social functioning in the classroom from their teacher's perspective. Furthermore, differences between children with mixed receptive–expressive disorder and children with expressive-only disorder in communication in daily life and social functioning are studied. Method: Data were collected through questionnaires completed by parents and teachers of children (5–6 years old) who attended schools for special education for DLD. Language test scores were retrieved from school records. Parents of 60 children answered open-ended questions about situations and circumstances in which their child was most troubled by language difficulties. Teachers of 83 children rated communicative abilities, social competence, and student–teacher relationship. Results: Parents reported communication with strangers as most troublesome and mentioned the influence of the mental state of their child. Parents considered limitations in expressing oneself and being understood and not being intelligible as core difficulties. Teachers rated the children's communicative abilities in the school context as inadequate, but their scores concerning social competence and the quality of teacher–child relationships fell within the normal range. Children with receptive–expressive disorder experienced limitations in communication in almost all situations, whereas those with expressive disorder faced limitations in specific situations. Children with receptive–expressive disorder were also significantly more limited in their communicative abilities and social competence at school than children with expressive disorder. No differences were found between the two groups in the quality of the teacher–child relationship. Conclusions: The results confirm that children with DLD face significant challenges in a variety of communicative situations. We found indications that children with receptive–expressive disorder experience more severe limitations than children with expressive disorder. The involvement of parents and teachers in evaluating a child's communicative ability provides valuable and clinically relevant information.
DOCUMENT
