CLIL for science lectures

Raising awareness and optimizing input in a Malaysian university

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Marsh (2008) rightly pointed out that there is a marked difference between teaching in English and teaching through English. The pedagogical stance and application differ and such differences must be made clear to the 'practitioners'. The question is, are they? This paper is motivated by the implementation of English as the medium of instruction for the sciences at a Malaysian university. This shift in language policy in 2003 and implemented on a 'gradual' basis throughout the education system by the (previous) government was done to ensure that Malaysia remains an economic 'powerhouse' with qualified human resources, who are able to participate competitively in the global market. As such the theory for the implementation of English cannot be disputed. However, while the theory is sound, the practicalities of implementation may not be so. Several issues have been highlighted. Are the science lecturers 'equipped' to engage in Content and Language-Integrated Learning (CLIL)? Do they have the appropriate methodology to be both content and language lecturers? Are they aware of the appropriate strategies in class? Are they willing to employ these strategies during lectures? This paper reports on the preliminary findings of an on-going in situ research that looks into the 'strategies' adopted by science lecturers in response to the change in the medium of instruction. This paper will conclude with some recommendations for best practices gleaned from the study.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)93-101
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Journal of Social Sciences
Volume10
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2009

Fingerprint

university teacher
university
language
science
instruction
learning
language policy
Teaching
human resources
education system
best practice
Malaysia
methodology
market
economics

Keywords

  • Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
  • Language policy
  • Medium of instruction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

@article{76eed9fec6084de28f7a1f74bbe61890,
title = "CLIL for science lectures: Raising awareness and optimizing input in a Malaysian university",
abstract = "Marsh (2008) rightly pointed out that there is a marked difference between teaching in English and teaching through English. The pedagogical stance and application differ and such differences must be made clear to the 'practitioners'. The question is, are they? This paper is motivated by the implementation of English as the medium of instruction for the sciences at a Malaysian university. This shift in language policy in 2003 and implemented on a 'gradual' basis throughout the education system by the (previous) government was done to ensure that Malaysia remains an economic 'powerhouse' with qualified human resources, who are able to participate competitively in the global market. As such the theory for the implementation of English cannot be disputed. However, while the theory is sound, the practicalities of implementation may not be so. Several issues have been highlighted. Are the science lecturers 'equipped' to engage in Content and Language-Integrated Learning (CLIL)? Do they have the appropriate methodology to be both content and language lecturers? Are they aware of the appropriate strategies in class? Are they willing to employ these strategies during lectures? This paper reports on the preliminary findings of an on-going in situ research that looks into the 'strategies' adopted by science lecturers in response to the change in the medium of instruction. This paper will conclude with some recommendations for best practices gleaned from the study.",
keywords = "Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Language policy, Medium of instruction",
author = "Noraini Ibrahim and {Delip Singh}, {Saran Kaur} and Nambiar, {Radha M.K.} and Tan, {Kim Hua}",
year = "2009",
month = "10",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "93--101",
journal = "European Journal of Social Sciences",
issn = "1450-2267",
publisher = "EuroJournals, Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - CLIL for science lectures

T2 - Raising awareness and optimizing input in a Malaysian university

AU - Ibrahim, Noraini

AU - Delip Singh, Saran Kaur

AU - Nambiar, Radha M.K.

AU - Tan, Kim Hua

PY - 2009/10

Y1 - 2009/10

N2 - Marsh (2008) rightly pointed out that there is a marked difference between teaching in English and teaching through English. The pedagogical stance and application differ and such differences must be made clear to the 'practitioners'. The question is, are they? This paper is motivated by the implementation of English as the medium of instruction for the sciences at a Malaysian university. This shift in language policy in 2003 and implemented on a 'gradual' basis throughout the education system by the (previous) government was done to ensure that Malaysia remains an economic 'powerhouse' with qualified human resources, who are able to participate competitively in the global market. As such the theory for the implementation of English cannot be disputed. However, while the theory is sound, the practicalities of implementation may not be so. Several issues have been highlighted. Are the science lecturers 'equipped' to engage in Content and Language-Integrated Learning (CLIL)? Do they have the appropriate methodology to be both content and language lecturers? Are they aware of the appropriate strategies in class? Are they willing to employ these strategies during lectures? This paper reports on the preliminary findings of an on-going in situ research that looks into the 'strategies' adopted by science lecturers in response to the change in the medium of instruction. This paper will conclude with some recommendations for best practices gleaned from the study.

AB - Marsh (2008) rightly pointed out that there is a marked difference between teaching in English and teaching through English. The pedagogical stance and application differ and such differences must be made clear to the 'practitioners'. The question is, are they? This paper is motivated by the implementation of English as the medium of instruction for the sciences at a Malaysian university. This shift in language policy in 2003 and implemented on a 'gradual' basis throughout the education system by the (previous) government was done to ensure that Malaysia remains an economic 'powerhouse' with qualified human resources, who are able to participate competitively in the global market. As such the theory for the implementation of English cannot be disputed. However, while the theory is sound, the practicalities of implementation may not be so. Several issues have been highlighted. Are the science lecturers 'equipped' to engage in Content and Language-Integrated Learning (CLIL)? Do they have the appropriate methodology to be both content and language lecturers? Are they aware of the appropriate strategies in class? Are they willing to employ these strategies during lectures? This paper reports on the preliminary findings of an on-going in situ research that looks into the 'strategies' adopted by science lecturers in response to the change in the medium of instruction. This paper will conclude with some recommendations for best practices gleaned from the study.

KW - Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

KW - Language policy

KW - Medium of instruction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350144758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350144758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 93

EP - 101

JO - European Journal of Social Sciences

JF - European Journal of Social Sciences

SN - 1450-2267

IS - 1

ER -