Posición del TJCE: Sentencias de 19 de mayo de 2009

associated   with   greater   advantages   in   cognitive   control   and   higher   language   proficiency’   with   respect   to   the   age   at   which   the   subjects   had   become   actively   bilingual  2011:  594).    Similar  findings  with  respect  to  age  and  executive  control  can   be   found   in   a   range   of   similar   studies   such   as   Carlson,   S.   M.,   &   Meltzoff,   A.   M.  

(2008).    Approaching  issues  of  language  awareness  is  therefore  in  the  domain  of  a   diverse   set   of   experimental   fields   some   of   which   are   more   focused   on   cognition   than  language  per  se.      

3.2  Teacher’s  Language  Awareness  

Approaching   Language   Awareness   with   respect   to   language   teachers,   Andrews   (2007)  describes  the  impact  of  Teacher  Language  Awareness  (TLA)  on  pedagogical   practice   with   particular   emphasis   on   grammar.     However,   the   main   tenets   of   the   argument   here   extend   beyond   grammar   towards   looking   at   learning   from   the   learner’s   perspective   (Andrews   2007:28)   which   has   been   essential   in   developing   CLIL   pedagogies   (see,   for   example,   Coyle,   Hood   &   Marsh   2010).     Looking   at   teachers’   subject-­‐matter   cognitions   with   respect   to   language   teaching   has   been   broadened  within  CLIL  to  examine  language  and  content  cognitions  with  respect  to   both   language   and   non-­‐language   teachers.     Mehisto   observes   ‘(...)   maintaining   a   focus  on  multiple  factors  influencing  bilingual  education  is  both  a  challenge  at  the   individual  and  systemic  levels.  For  example,  (...)  content  teachers  in  particular,  and   by  implication  education  systems  as  a  whole,  find  it  a  challenge  to  maintain  a  dual   focus   on   content   and   language   learning’   (2011:   68).     How   both   of   these   teacher   types   handle   the   simultaneous   handling   of   content   and   language   and   the   subsequent  impact  on  pedagogy  has  been  a  major  factor  in  the  CLIL  development   trajectory  (see,  for  example  Montague  1997;  Marsh  et  al.  2010).  

Andrews   argues   that   the   pedagogical   content   knowledge   of   a   language   teacher   is   unique   because   in   some   contexts,   in   this   case   Hong   Kong,   the   inter-­‐relationship   between   content   and   the   medium   of   instruction   is   so   close   (see,   Andrews   2001,   2003).   In   CLIL,   this   dimension   is   not   only   broader,   but   also   involves   differing   teacher   subject   disciplines.     In   his   review   of   Andrews   (2007),   Llurda   comments   that   teacher   language   awareness   requires   ‘also   a   metacognitive   dimension   that   enables   teachers   to   plan   and   teach   their   lessons’   (Llurda   2010:323).     This   metacognitive   understanding   has   been   found   to   be   an   essential   competence   for   CLIL  teachers  whether  language  or  non-­‐language  (see,  for  example,  Mehisto  2011).  

The  issue  of  whether  or  not  the  learner’s  first  language  should  be  used  in  language   teaching   classrooms   has   been   a   problematic   area   within   language   teaching   for   many  years  (see,  for  instance  Cook  2001;  Marcaro  2005).    The  situation  found  in   different   countries   varies   enormously   but   the   use   of   the   first   language,   or   otherwise  reference  to  it,  is  now  being  promoted  because  of  the  potential  benefits   for  nurturing  metalinguistic  awareness  and  additive  bilingualism.  Horst,  White  and   Bell   (2010)   describe   this   in   terms   of   Cross-­‐linguistic   Awareness   (CLA)   and   argue   that  Krashen’s  (1985)  emphasis  on  exposing  learners  to  comprehensible  input  has   had  a  profound  influence  on  teacher  education  (2010:332)  leading  to  an  emphasis   on   not   allowing   use   of   the   first   language   in   teaching   and   learning   environments.    

The   renewed   focus   on   use   of   more   than   one   language   in   language   teaching   is   of   direct   relevance   to   the   use   of   CLIL   and   its   impact   on   developing   language   awareness.    

CLIL   contexts   require   linguistically-­‐aware   teachers,   whether   they   are   specifically   working  on  language  or  content.    Thus  they  need  to  have  knowledge  and  skills  as   language   users,   analysts   and   as   language   facilitators   (see   Edge   1988).     In   their  

continually   to   aspects   of   language.     Such   competences,   realized   though   teaching,   enable  the  teacher  to  ensure  that  the  learning  environment  has  enriched  forms  of   discourse   (see,   for   instance,   Sinclair   &   Coulthard   1975;   James   and   Garret   1991;  

Mercer  &  Dawes    2008;  Edmondson  2009).    Considering  the  role  of  language  as  a   conduit   for   understanding   it   is   vital   that   any   teacher,   whether   using   the   first   language   of   the   students,   or   an   additional   language,   be   highly   skilled   in   the   use,   understanding,  and  ability  to  actively  use  language  for  teaching  and  learning.  James   and   Garret   (1991:8)   define   language   awareness   as   ‘a   person’s   sensitivity   to   and   conscious  awareness  of  the  nature  of  language  and  its  role  in  learning.’      

Although   much   of   the   work   on   language   awareness   has   been   on   developing   language   teachers   and   language   teaching,   as   is   seen   in   the   work   of   Edmondson   (2009),  the  field  is  so  broad  that  it  will  apply  to  the  use  of  language  in  settings  such   as   found   in   CLIL.   However,   it   is   argued   that   CLIL   can   be   a   poor   environment   if   teachers,  and  consequently  students  to  a  large  extent,  are  not  actively  supporting   development   of   language   awareness.     Work   by   Gajo   (2007:578);   Genesee   (2008:34);   Mehisto   (2008:98)   all   indicate   the   problems   where   teachers   in   CLIL-­‐

type   provision   are   required   to   take   responsibility   for   both   content   and   language   learning,  and  in  consequence,  the  development  of  language  awareness.    

The  European  Framework  for  CLIL  Teacher  Education  (Marsh  et  al.  2010)  embeds   language   awareness   across   a   range   of   competence   fields   that   are   featured   in   the   target   professional   competences   under   content   and   language   awareness.   It   is   considered   one   of   the   pillars   for   success   and   is   cross-­‐functional   in   that   it   is   a   feature  of  CLIL  which  needs  to  be  embedded  in  teaching  resources  and  activities.    

In   relation   to   knowledge   the   Framework   requires   that   teachers   have   a   thorough   knowledge  of  discourse  (everyday  and  classroom-­‐specific);  the  strategic  repertoire   which   characterizes   informal,   formal,   and   classroom   discourse;   the   relationship  

between   concepts   and   thinking   in   the   vehicular   language;     models   of   linguistic   interaction  and  rhetoric.    

Wolff   (2012)   observes   that   ‘   In   order   to   be   able   to   develop   and   use   this   target   professional  competence  the  future  content-­‐subject  and  CLIL  teacher  will  have  to   acquire  a  basic  knowledge  of  how  learners  learn  languages  in  a  CLIL  context.    She   needs   to   be   acquainted   with   the   developmental   stages   of   language   learning,   with   the  main  SLA  theories  (Second  language  acquisition),  with  the  factors  influencing   second   language   learning,   and   with   the   differences   between   first   and   second   language  learning.    He  also  needs  to  know  how  learners  are  able  to  store  and  retain   the  new  language  in  their  brain,  how  they  are  able  to  separate  it  from  their  first  or   any   other   language   they   speak.     And,   finally,   he   or   she   will   have   to   know   how   language  is  used,  how  humans  comprehend  and  produce  language  either  orally  or   in  written  form.  This  background  knowledge  is  necessary  to  be  able  to  understand   and   deploy   the   strategies   necessary   to   promote   language   learning   in   a   content   class’  (2012:  112).  In  terlation  to  use  of  more  than  one  language  in  the  classroom,   Garciá  and  Pavón  Vázquez  (2012)  commenting  on  research  conducted  in  Andalusia   state   that   `…   teachers   clearly   perceive   the   benefits   of   linguistic   comparisons   as   a   means  to  strengthen  the  use  of  two  or  three  languages.  They  welcome  the  process   by  which  languages  help  each  other  and  assist  in  the  assimilation  and  consolidation   of  academic  content  (2012:  16).