Abstract
This introductory chapter states the motivation underlying the present volume, describes its goals and structure, and examines the challenges posed by the Bologna Process with regard to the encouragement of lifelong competencies in English-medium instruction within the European Higher Education Area. In addition, the editors justify their choice of critical thinking, creativity, learner autonomy and motivation as essential competencies, highlight their interconnection, and explain the educational premises that bind the collection together, which is intended to inform and inspire not only European lecturers, but also university teachers all over the world. Finally, the implications of fostering lifelong competencies in English as a second language or lingua franca are discussed. These include, along with linguistic proficiency, mastering the genres and discourses of the discipline and their associated stylistic conventions and rhetorical variants, as well as methodological changes for ensuring interactive learning and making language more salient that when teaching in the first language. Lastly, a closing reflection on pedagogical options and dilemmas is provided.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Following Thornbury (2006, pp. 38–39), by ‘competency’ we understand the framework or combination of knowledge, abilities, mindsets and behaviours needed to teach or train in a specific practical skill and that lead to successful performance, whereas ‘competence’ denotes our internalised knowledge of a certain field or concept.
- 2.
The European Reference Framework (European Parliament and the Council 2006) defines in its Annex eight key competences to be pursued throughout life in order to keep learning over one’s lifetime: communication in the mother tongue, communication in foreign languages, mathematical competence and basic competences in science and technology, digital competence, social and civic competences, sense of initiative and entrepreneurship, cultural awareness and expression, and learning-to-learn, which underpins all the others.
- 3.
For a more detailed definition of this concept, namely of its CBL and CLIL patterns, see footnotes 3 and 4 in this introduction.
- 4.
CBL teaching is defined as teaching content in language lessons. Content is used by the teacher as a motivational backdrop to help students acquire language (Dale and Tanner 2012, pp. 4–5).
- 5.
According to Coyle et al. (2000), p. 1), CLIL is a dual-focus educational approach used for the learning and teaching of both content and language, which are interwoven. Depending on the teaching/learning goal, each may receive more or less emphasis.
- 6.
References
Airey, J. (2012). “I don’t teach language”, the linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. In U. Smit & E. Dafouz (Eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education. Gaining insights into English-medium instruction at European universities. AILA Review, 25, 64–79.
Allison, D., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse organisation in lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 14(2), 157–173.
Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40, 39–58.
Arnó Maciá, E., & Manchó Barés, G. (2015). The role of content and language in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at university: Challenges and implications for ESP. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 63–73.
Baer, J., & Garrett, T. (2010). Teaching for creativity in an era of content standards and accountability. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 6–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bain, K. (2006/2004). Lo que hacen los mejores profesores universitarios. Transl. Óscar Barberi. Valencia: Universitat de València.
Ball, P., & Lindsay, D. (2013). Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education. Learning from a specific context. In A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges (pp. 44–61). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Basturkmen, H., & Shackleford, N. (2015). How content lecturers help students with language: An observational study of language-related episodes in interaction in first year accounting classrooms. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 87–97.
Bologna Declaration. (1999). European Union. Retrieved from http://www.magna-charta.org/resources/files/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.pdf.
Cowan, J. (2006). On becoming an innovative university teacher. Reflection in action. Maidenhead/New York: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2000). CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Craft, A. (2010). Possibility thinking and wise creativity: Educational futures in England? In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 289–312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2005). Adjusting a business lecture for an international audience. A case study. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 183–199.
Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Toronto: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Dafouz, E., & Núñez, B. (2009). CLIL in higher education: Devising a new learning landscape. In E. Dafouz & M. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational secondary and tertiary contexts (pp. 101–112). Madrid: Richmond Publishing.
Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities. A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Delors, J., Al Mufti, I., Amagi, I., Carneiro, R., Chung, F., Geremek, B., Gorham, W., Kornhauser, A., Manley, M., Padrón Quero, M., Savane, M. A., Singh, K., Stavenhagen, R., Won Suhr, M., & Zhou, N. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. Paris: UNESCO.
Dezutter, S. (2011). Professional improvisation and teacher education: Opening the conversation. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Structures and improvisation in creative teaching (pp. 27–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31(3), 117–135.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., Muir, C., & Ibrahim, Z. (2014). ‘Directed Motivational Current’: Energising language learning through creating intense motivational pathways. In D. Lasagabaster, A. Doiz, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), Motivation and foreign language learning: From theory to practice (pp. 9–29). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (Eds.). (2009). Language as a complex adaptive system. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
European Parliament and the Council. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (2006/962/EC). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXTn/?uri=celex:32006H0962.
Fairweather, E., & Cramond, B. (2010). Infusing creative and critical thinking into the curriculum. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 113–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feynman, R.P. (2000/1999). El placer de descubrir. Transl. Javier García Sanz. Barcelona: Crítica.
Fortanet, I. (2004). The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 45–66.
Fredericks, A. D. (2005). The complete idiot’s guide to success as a teacher. New York: Alpha.
Frensch, P. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Expertise and intelligent thinking: When is it worse to know better? In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 5, pp. 157–188). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267–293.
Halpern, D. F. (2010). Creativity in college classrooms. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 380–393). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. Maximizing impact on learning. London/New York: Routledge.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. First published 1979, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to A. Bruton. CLIL: Some of the reasons why…and why not. System, 41(2013), 587–597. System, 44, 160–167.
Leicester, M. (2010). Teaching critical thinking skills. London: Continuum.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
Mason, A. (1994). By dint of: Student and lecturer perceptions of lecture comprehension strategies in first-term graduate study. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic listening. Research perspectives (pp.199-218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, T. J. (2011). Critical thinking and language. The challenge of generic skills and disciplinary discourse. London/New York: Continuum.
Morell, T. (2004). Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 325–338.
Morell, T. (2007). What enhances EFL students’ participation in lecture discourse? Student, lecturer and discourse perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(3), 222–237.
Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross purposes? Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 286–325.
Nikula, T. (2005). English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects and pragmatic implications. Linguistics and Education, 16, 27–58.
Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness. A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20.
Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2011). Structures and improvisation in creative teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494.
Skiba, T., Tan, M., Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. J. (2010). Roads not taken, new roads to take: Looking for creativity in the classroom. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 252–269). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smit, U., & Dafouz, E. (2012). Integrating content and language in higher education. An introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices across Europe. In U. Smit & E. Dafouz (Eds.), Integrating content and language in higher education. Gaining insights into English-medium instruction at European universities. AILA Review, 25, 1–12.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind. A theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking.
Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Teaching for creativity. In R. A. Beghetto & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 394–414). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: The Free Press.
Thornbury, S. (2006). An A-Z of ELT. A dictionary of terms and concepts used in Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan.
Ushioda, E. (2003). Motivation as a socially mediated process. In D. Little, J. Ridley, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Learner, teacher, curriculum and assessment (pp. 90–103). Dublin: Authentik.
Weston, A. (2009). A rulebook for arguments (4th ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Student Handbooks.
Williams, W. M., & Yang, L. T. (1999). Organizational creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 373–391). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Guinda, C.S., Breeze, R. (2017). Introduction: Making Essential Competencies Visible in Higher Education. In: Breeze, R., Sancho Guinda, C. (eds) Essential Competencies for English-medium University Teaching. Educational Linguistics, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40956-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40956-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40954-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40956-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)