Timing of pedagogical intervention: Oral error treatment in EFL vs. CLIL contexts in primary education in Spain

3Citations
Citations of this article
40Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

This study stresses the major circumstances in terms of timing of pedagogical intervention in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) contexts within the same school setting in Madrid (Spain). The rationale of the research lies in the EFL and CLIL Primary Education teachers' preferences for online and offline correction (Pawlak, 2014). In order to gather significant data, classroom observation took place to list teachers' timing of error correction in oral communication –i.e., whether EFL and CLIL teachers perform immediate, delayed, or postponed correction. As for content and language integration, recent literature (Coyle, 2010; Wewer, 2017) stands out that CLIL practice should reflect upon alternative teaching methods different to EFL instruction (i.e. focus on language forms). Contrary to the expectations, the results highlight that there are no major differences of the timing of pedagogical intervention between EFL and CLIL teachers: Mostly all oral errors committed during EFL and CLIL courses were immediately intervened. In light of the results, some recommendations are proposed concerning the focus on language functions; i.e., being able to develop communicative competence and collaborative work along with language teachers.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Estrada, J. L., & Otto, A. (2019). Timing of pedagogical intervention: Oral error treatment in EFL vs. CLIL contexts in primary education in Spain. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 578–586. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.586263

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free