Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Językoznawstwo baner

No. 1/22 (2025)

Articles

Assessment issues in CLIL and the Polish perspective

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25312/j.9494  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2025-03-26

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss selected CLIL assessment issues, which are juxtaposed with the Polish perspective. To achieve the aforementioned aim, first brief characteristic of CLIL is provided, including the role of non-linguistic content, the use of L1 and L2. Then, the shift is made to assessment in a CLIL setting. The final part of the paper is finished with a discussion concerning the Polish perspective on CLIL assessment. The reference is made to selected legal documents describing the way CLIL courses are organized. The author of this paper hopes that this paper will stimulate further discussion and empirical research in the field.

References

  1. Ariffin K., Susanti Husin M. (2011), Code-switching and Code-mixing of English and Bahasa Malaysia in Content-Based Classrooms: Frequency and Attitudes, “Linguistics Journal”, vol. 5(1), pp. 220–247. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arthur J., Martin P. (2006), Accomplishing lessons in postcolonial classrooms: Comparative perspectives from Botswana and Brunei Darussalam, “Comparative education”, vol. 42(02), pp. 177–202. [Google Scholar]
  3. Babocká M. (2015), Assessment in CLIL classes, [in:] S. Pokrivčáková (ed.), CLIL in Foreign Language Education: E-textbook for Foreign Language Teachers, Nitra: Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, pp. 176–188, [Google Scholar]
  4. Barbero, T. (2012), Assessment tools and practices in CLIL, [in:] F. Quatarpelle (ed.), Assessment and Evaluation in CLIL, European Commission: AECLIL-EACEA, pp. 38–56, http://www.alsdgc.ro/userfi les/2827-10627 -1-PB.pdf [accessed: 20.12.2024]. [Google Scholar]
  5. Briggs M., Woodfield A., Swatton P., Martin C. (2008), Assessment for learning and teaching in primary schools, Exeter: Learning Matters. [Google Scholar]
  6. Borowiak A. (2019), Nauczanie dwujęzyczne w Polsce, [in:] M. Woźnicka, A. Stolarczyk-Gembiak, M. Trojszczak (eds.), Zbliżenia 5. Językoznawstwo – Literaturoznawstwo – Translatologia, Konin: Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa w Koninie, pp. 157–170. [Google Scholar]
  7. Borowiak A. (2021), Exploring the role of individual variables in the success of CLIL as an approach to EFL learning, rozprawa doktorska, Łódź: Repozytorium Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. [Google Scholar]
  8. Borowiak A. (2024), The role of individual differences in Content and Language Integrated Learning success, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  9. Crawford J., Krashen S.D. (2007), English learners in American classrooms: 101 questions, 101 answers, New York: Scholastic. [Google Scholar]
  10. Del Pozo Manzano E. (2024), Assessment in CLIL: the pending subject in bilingual education? A case study, “Revista de Educación”, vol. 403, pp. 231–257, https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2024-403-605 [Google Scholar]
  11. Coyle D., Hood P., Marsh D. (2010), Content and language integrated learning, Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dupuy B. (2011), CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework, “Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning”, vol. 4(2), pp. 21–32. [Google Scholar]
  13. Eurydice (2006), Content and language integrated learning at school in Europe, Brussels: Eurydice European Unit. [Google Scholar]
  14. Garcia O. (2008), Multilingual language awareness and teacher education. Encyclopedia of language and education, [in:] J. Cenoz, N.H. Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, vol. 6, New York: Springer, pp. 2130–2145. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hönig I. (2009), Assessment in CLIL. A Case Study, Vienna: University of Vienna. http://othes.univie.ac.at/7976/1/2009-11-21_0107764.pdf [accessed: 12.08.2018]. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lewis G., Jones B., Baker C. (2012), Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond, “Educational Research and Evaluation”, vol. 18(7), pp. 641–654. [Google Scholar]
  17. Llinares A., Morton T., Whittaker R. (2012), The roles of language in CLIL, Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen. [Google Scholar]
  18. Massler U. (2011), Assessment in CLIL learning, [in:] S. Ioannou-Georgiou, P. Pavlou (eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education, Nicosia: PROCLIL, pp. 114–136. [Google Scholar]
  19. Massler U., Ioannou-Georgiou S., Steiert C. (2011), Effective CLIL teaching techniques, [in:] S. Ioannou-Georgiou, P. Pavlou (eds.), Guidelines for CLIL Implementation in Primary and Pre-primary Education, Nicosia: PROCLIL, pp. 66–97. [Google Scholar]
  20. Marsh D. (2002), CLIL/EMILE-The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. [Google Scholar]
  21. Marsh D., Marsland B. (eds.), (1999), Learning with Languages: A Professional Development Programme for Introducing Content and Language Integrated Learning: English Upper Secondary Education, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. [Google Scholar]
  22. McConnell D. (2006), E-learning groups and communities, New York: McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar]
  23. Merritt M., Cleghorn A., Abagi J.O., Bunyi G. (1992), Socialising multilingualism: Determinants of codeswitching in Kenyan primary classrooms, “Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development”, vol. 13(1–2), pp. 103–121. [Google Scholar]
  24. Milroy L., Muysken P. (1995), Introduction: Code-switching and bilingualism research, [in:] L. Milroy, P. Muysken (eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mohan B.A. (1986), Language and content (Vol. 5288), Reading: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  26. Muszyńska B., Borowiak A., Leek J. (2024), Overview of curricular demands of disciplinary literacies. An Exploratory Survey: A Report by CLILNetLE Working Group 3 Deliverable 7, doi: 10.25365/phaidra.532_20 [Google Scholar]
  27. Navarette C., Wilde J., Nelson C., Martinez R., Hargett G. (1990), Informal assessment in evaluation of educational programs: Implications for bilingual education programs, Arlington: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. [Google Scholar]
  28. Navés T. (2009), Effective content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes, [in:] Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, R.M. Jimenez (eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 22–40. [Google Scholar]
  29. Numrich C. (1989), Cognitive strategies for integrating ESL and content area instruction, ERIC Document Reproduction Service (No. ED314959). [Google Scholar]
  30. O’Dwyer F., De Boer M. (2015), Approaches to assessment in CLIL classrooms: Two case studies, “Language Learning in Higher Education”, vol. 5(2), pp. 397–421. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pawlak M. (2013), Principles of instructed language learning revisited: Guidelines for effective grammar teaching in the foreign language classroom, [in:] K. Droździał-Szelest., M. Pawlak (eds.), Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives on second language learning and teaching. Studies in honor of Waldemar Marton, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 199–220. [Google Scholar]
  32. Rea-Dickens P., Germaine K. (2003), Evaluation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Reierstam H. (2024), Assessment of content and language: The case of CLIL, EMI, and multilingual contexts, “Transnational Approaches to Bilingual and Second Language Teacher Education. Routledge”, pp. 197–218, doi: 10.4324/9781003348580-14 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schwartz M., Asli A. (2014), Bilingual teachers’ language strategies: The case of an Arabic–Hebrew kindergarten in Israel, “Teaching and Teacher Education”, vol. 38, pp. 22–32. [Google Scholar]
  35. Skopinskaja L. (2003), The role of culture in foreign language teaching materials: An evaluation from an intercultural perspective, [in:] I. Lázár (ed.), Incorporating intercultural communicative competence in language teacher education, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, pp. 39–68. [Google Scholar]
  36. Thomas W.P., Collier V. (1997), School effectiveness for language minority students, Washington: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. [Google Scholar]
  37. Trumbull E., Lash A. (2013), Understanding formative assessment. Insights form learning theory and measurement theory, San Francisco: WestEd. [Google Scholar]
  38. Williams M. (2003), Assessment of portfolios in professional education, “Nursing Standard”, 18 (8)/2003, pp. 33–37, doi: 10.7748/ns2003.11.18.8.33.c3485 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wolff D. (2005), Approaching CLIL, [in:] D. Marsh (ed.), Project D3 – CLIL Matrix. The CLIL quality matrix, Graz: Central Workshop Report, pp. 10–25. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.