Monog á ico iii 2018 89-102
Teache A i udes o Language in Uni e si y
Bilingual Educa ion
ancisco ubio cuenca
Uni e dad de Cádiz
Pa Moo e
Uni e sidad Pablo de Ola ide, Se illa
Recei ed: 10 h Sep embe 2017 / Accep ed: 15 h Feb ua y 2018
ISSN: 1697-7467
ABSTRACT: The main goal o his a icle is o explo e he a i udes (opinions, belie s, e c.)
ega ding ‘language’ o uni e si y eache s engaged in bilingual educa ion. The con ex o
his esea ch is an on-going eache de elopmen p og amme a he School o Enginee ing
(Escuela Supe io de Ingenie ía) a he Uni e si y o Cadiz. A his s age in ou esea ch,
we a e looking a eache a i udes o language om h ee pe spec i es: o be e unde s and
wha hey hink abou language in hei ‘no mal’ i.e. Spanish/monolingual eaching; how hey
concei e o language pe se in lea ning and how hey eel abou bilingual class ooms. P io
o hei in ol emen in bilingual educa ion, hese eache s we e likely encou aged o hink
o hemsel es as specialis s in Á eas No Lingüís icas, bu i would appea ha hey a e in
he p ocess o econcep ualising bo h he oles o language in lea ning and he con ibu ions
ha eache s can make. In he bilingual class ooms, mos o hei s uden s a e locals wi h
limi ed language skills and he eache s a ou an app oach gea ed o de eloping bo h
con en and languages (L1 and L2) concu en ly and pe cei e o hemsel es as bo h models
and acili a o s in he p ocess. We in e p e his as a good example o In e na ionaliza ion a
Home (IaH).
Keywo ds: eache a i udes, L1/L2, language awa eness, monolingual/bilingual class ooms,
in e na ionaliza ion a home.
Ac i udes de los docen es hacia el papel de la lengua en la educación bilingüe en la
uni e sidad
RESUMEN: El obje i o p incipal de es e a ículo es esboza las ac i udes (opiniones,
c eencias, e c.) espec o a la lengua del p o eso ado uni e si a io pa icipan e en planes
de enseñanza bilingüe. El con ex o de es a in es igación es un p og ama de o mación
pe manen e de docen es en la Escuela Supe io de Ingenie ía de la Uni e sidad de
Cádiz. En es a e apa de nues a in es igación, hemos analizado las ac i udes de los
docen es hacia el lenguaje desde es pe spec i as di e en es. Po un lado, comp ende
mejo lo que piensan sob e la lengua en su enseñanza “no mal”, es deci , español /
monolingüe. Po o o lado, cómo conciben el papel de la lengua en sí en el p oceso de
ap endizaje. Po úl imo, cuál es su opinión ace ca de la enseñanza bilingüe. An es de
su pa icipación en el p og ama de enseñanza bilingüe, es os docen es se conside aban
Monog á ico iii mayo 2018
90
a sí mismos especialis as en á eas no lingüís icas, pe o as un pe íodo ex enso de
o mación, pa ecen inme sos en el p oceso de e-concep ualización an o del papel de
la lengua en el ap endizaje como de las apo aciones que ellos mismos pueden hace
desde es a nue a pe spec i a didác ica. En la clase bilingüe, la mayo ía son es udian es
locales con capacidades lingüís icas limi adas, de ahí que la labo de los docen es se
base en un en oque o ien ado al desa ollo in eg ado de con enidos y lenguas (L1 y L2),
y se pe ciban a sí mismos como modelos y acili ado es en el p oceso de ap endizaje.
Es e es un buen ejemplo de in e nacionalización en casa.
Palab as cla e: ac i udes de los docen es, L1/L2, conciencia lingüís ica, clase monolingüe/
bilingüe, in e nacionalización en casa.
1. InTRoduCTIon
The ocus o his esea ch is eache a i udes, ye we se he scene by looking a
language, s uden s and demand. Language, om a medium o ins uc ion pe spec i e, is
ob iously a c ucial ac o in decision-making o p ospec i e in e na ional s uden s, be hey
sho - e m c edi , o longe - e m deg ee-seeking; incoming o ou going. And a s e eo ypical
iew o in e na ionaliza ion would ha e i ha , o a ac in e na ional s uden s (and s a ),
uni e si ies need o adop English as a Lingua F anca ia English-Medium Ins uc ion (EMI).
Tha is ce ainly wha has been happening in he No h and Wes o Eu ope. Wäch e
and Maiwo m (2014) ound ha 60.6% o he e ia y ins i u ions in he No dic coun ies
in hei s udy we e o e ing English Taugh P og ammes (ETPs) compa ed o only 17.2%
in he Sou h-Wes (F ance, I aly, Po ugal and Spain). Conside ing ha he local languages
o he No dic coun ies: Danish, Finnish, Icelandic, No wegian and Swedish, a e no widely
spoken, coupled wi h he ac ha English is al eady e y p esen in hese coun ies, he e
is a ce ain logicali y in hei adop ing EMI o a ac in e na ional s uden s.
Spanish is a e y widely-spoken language, bo h as L1 and L2. In e na ional s uden s
coming o Spain may well be doing so because o he language. Da a om an E asmus
S uden Ne wo k (ESN) S udy (2014) ound ha s uden s choosing coun ies whe e F ench,
Ge man, I alian and Spanish ( he “Big Fou ” Eu opean Fo eign Languages (FLs)) a e spoken,
a e mo e likely o ha e chosen hei coun y p ecisely because o he local language and a e
also mo e likely o epo p og ess in ha language a e hei s ay. This was ue o 68.3%
o E asmus s uden s coming o Spain in he academic yea 2013-14. Along he same lines,
a ound 50% o longe - e m deg ee-seeking in e na ional s uden s in Spain a e om La in
Ame ica and so al eady speak Spanish (Oli ella Nadal, 2016).
Rega ding c edi -seeking unde g adua es, i should be emembe ed ha mos a e
exchange s uden s and E asmus da a (Eu opean Commission, 2015) con i ms ha Spain no
only ecei es he mos in-coming s uden s; i also sends he mos ou -going. This means
ha in e na ionalizing local/home s uden s is also e y impo an . This was ecognised in he
ecen se o guidelines published by he Con ede ación de Rec o es de las Uni e sidades
Españolas (CRUE) (2017), which ac i ely p omo es In e na ionaliza ion a Home (IaH) as
a key s a egy.
F. Rubio CuenCa and P. MooRe Teache A i udes o Language in Uni e si y Bilingual Educa ion
91
2. ConTexT
The immedia e con ex o his expe ience is he Plu ilingual Educa ion P og amme
(PEP) a he School o Enginee ing, Uni e si y o Cádiz, ini ia ed in 2012 as a by-p oduc
o he PEP p e iously s a ed a he School o Educa ion (Rubio Cuenca & Domínguez,
2016). The idea o de eloping a PEP o he School o Enginee ing is a esponse o he
communica ion needs o a globalized socie y in which in o ma ion and communica ion come
in many o ma s and con ex s, especially when i comes o he academic and p o essional
con ex o enginee ing. In his sense, he PEP’s main objec i e is he imp o emen o
language skills o s uden s wo king in Spanish and English (‘ he language o Enginee ing’).
Bo h eache s and s a a he School o Enginee ing a e e y engaged wi h educa ional
inno a ion in gene al. As hos s o he 2016 CUIEET (Cong eso Uni e si a io de Inno ación
Educa i a en las Enseñanzas Técnicas) hey in i ed Plácido Bazo Ma ínez (coo dina o o
he CRUE’s Sub-commission o In e na ionaliza ion and Coope a ion) o gi e he opening
plena y: a Linguis ic Policy o 21s cen u y Enginee s.
Wi h he de elopmen o a PEP, he School o Enginee ing is con ibu ing on a leas
h ee le els: by u he ing he in e na ionaliza ion o he Uni e si y o Cádiz, h ough he
p omo ion o in e na ional mobili y o ou going and incoming s uden s and eache s; by
p o iding con inui y o he s uden s who a e coming (in inc easing numbe s) om bilingual
seconda y educa ion and, no leas , ega ding he gene al equi emen o s uden s o ce i y
a minimum le el (in line wi h he CEFR) in a Eu opean language o ob ain g adua ion
ce i ica es and diplomas.
The eaching and awa eness o English in and o Enginee ing amongs eaching s a
a he School o Enginee ing in Cádiz has expe ienced an exponen ial de elopmen in he
las 30 yea s, going om con en eache s compiling lis s o echnical e ms in English
(wi hou any planning o coo dina ion), o speci ic/ echnical English augh by a language
specialis (since he beginning o he 90s). New ends in English o Speci ic Pu poses
(ESP) a he ime (e.g. Huckin & Olsen, 1983; Hu chinson & Wa e s, 1987) we e g adually
adop ed acco ding o lea ne needs. The 2010s (wi h language policy egula ions issued
a he Uni e si y men ioning CLIL o he i s ime in an o icial documen ) ha e seen
signi ican changes in how we iew language lea ning and acquisi ion. ESP cou ses a e
now mo e con en -o ien ed and a e inc easingly becoming subsidia y o con en subjec s
augh h ough a o eign language. ESP specialis s a e s a ing o coo dina e he con en s
o hei cou ses wi h con en eache s, and language and con en , a leas in he School o
Enginee ing, is inc easingly in eg a ed.
3. MeThodology And pARTICIpAnTS
The eache s in ol ed in he PEP a e all pa icipa ing on a olun a y basis, which o cou se
signals in e es and mo i a ion. In line wi h Lo ie’s (1975) “app en iceships o obse a ion”,
eache s a e likely o be in luenced by hei own p e ious expe iences as lea ne s (see also
Flo es & Day, 2006). Discussion con i med ha he eache s in ou s udy had li le, i any,
expe ience as s uden s in bilingual/o he language con en class ooms. Teache de elopmen
wi hin he PEP has he e o e been based on wo key goals: language ein o cemen and he
Monog á ico iii mayo 2018
92
in oduc ion and de elopmen o new ‘language awa e’ eaching s a egies. This is in line
wi h esea ch in o s uden ou comes in uni e si y bilingual classes, sugges ing ha a en ion
o language is necessa y i linguis ic gains a e on he agenda (Aguila & Muñoz, 2013;
Amen & Pe ez Vidal, 2015).
The da a we p esen he e comes om wo eache de elopmen sessions (conduc ed in
2015 and 2017) and consis s o wo se s o eache e lec ions (w i en) – one om each
session. Du ing he i s session, eache s pa icipa ed in a anslanguaging ac i i y, designed
o gi e hem expe ience wi h planned use o he L1 in he bilingual class oom (while also
p o iding us wi h da a). In small, sel -selec ed g oups o wo o ou , hey we e p esen ed
wi h a se ies o p omp s and ins uc ed o i s ansla e hem in o and discuss hem in Spanish
be o e d a ing a ‘ eac ion’ in English. Thei eac ions we e composed, collabo a i ely in
hei g oups, on sc een and e-mailed anonymously o us a he end o he session along wi h
demog aphic in o ma ion ia Su ey Monkey. We hen classi ied he esponses in o ou
ca ego ies: Ag ee/Disag ee/Nei he /Vague. In many cases, he whole g oup ei he ag eed o
disag eed wi h he p omp ; a imes, howe e , he g oup as a whole did no ag ee and old
us so ( hus Nei he ). On a couple o occasions, he esponses we e a he ague, and we
we e no con iden enough o align hem wi h any pa icula a i ude. See Appendix o a
b eakdown o esponses o each p omp .
In he second session, a educed numbe o eache s (12) pa icipa ed in a ound- able
deba e du ing which we e- isi ed some o he indings om he p e ious session and
discussed some o he ques ions hey had h own up. A he end o he session hey we e
gi en i een minu es o w i e a ex (by hand) elling us ‘whe e hey hough hey we e and
whe e hey hough hey we e going’. All bu one o he eache s in he second session we e
also p esen in he i s . In bo h sessions he eache e lec ions we e submi ed anonymously.
This p e en s compa ison o indi idual a i udes and hus he discussion o he esul s below
is la gely quali a i e.
Apa om wo om he Business depa men , he eache s we e in ol ed in a ange o
Enginee ing, In o ma ion Technology (IT) and science- ela ed subjec s: Ae ospace Enginee ing
(1); Applied Ma hema ics (1); Biomedical enginee ing (1); Chemis y (1); Compu a ion
(3); Compu e A chi ec u e (2); Compu e Science (4); Design Me hodology (1); Elec ical
Enginee ing (1); Image P ocessing (1); In o ma ion Technology (2); Ope a ing Sys ems (2);
Physics (1) and So wa e Enginee ing (3). Mos o hem we e eaching in he Compu e Science
Deg ee, bu o he deg ees a e in ol ed o a lesse ex en , such as Ae ospace Enginee ing,
Indus ial Technology Enginee ing, Design and P oduc De elopmen Enginee ing, and
Mas e s in Compu ing Enginee ing and IT Secu i y.
The g oup o esponden s comp ised 15 men and 11 women; aged be ween 28 and
56 (mean age 43.9); wi h om one o wen y-nine yea s o uni e si y eaching expe ience
(a e age leng h o se ice 14.5 yea s). The age a which mos o hem became uni e si y
eache s sugges s ha ca ee academics domina e. Many o hem s a ed eaching in hei
mid- wen ies (a e age 26.6) – p esumably du ing o sho ly a e doc o al s udies. Ele en o
he eache s we e al eady in ol ed in bilingual eaching, en had commi ed hemsel es o
i in he nex e m and i e we e in e es ed in he possibili y and wan ed o ind ou mo e.
All we e Spanish L1 speake s and, al hough we can see a clus e a ound B2, English le els
F. Rubio CuenCa and P. MooRe Teache A i udes o Language in Uni e si y Bilingual Educa ion
93
we e he e ogeneous, anging om A2 (pa icipan s who openly decla ed hey we e doing his
aining as much o hei English as o hei eaching) o a ce i ied C2. One esponden
did no answe . We should poin ou ha he eache s who we e al eady in he p og amme
we e all a B2 o highe .
Table 1. Teache English Le els
M W TOTAL
A2 1 1 2
B1 2 5 7
B2 8 3 11
C1 2 2 4
C2 1 0 1
4. ReSulTS And dISCuSSIon
A his s age in ou esea ch, we a e looking a he eache a i udes om h ee
pe spec i es: we a e ying o be e unde s and wha hey hink abou language in hei
‘no mal’ i.e. Spanish/monolingual eaching; wha hey hink abou he lea ning p ocess
in i sel and wha hey hink abou bilingual class ooms. These a e, o cou se, eno mous
ques ions. This is e y much an explo a o y s udy: Ra he han looking o answe s, we a e
s ill only ine- uning ou ques ions.
4.1. Teache a i udes ega ding L1/monolingual lea ning
On he assump ion ha he mo e we knew abou how hey ope a ed when eaching
in ‘no mal’ classes (i.e. in Spanish), he mo e we would be able o help hei ansi ion o
L2, we began by asking hem abou L1 p axis. We i s asked o wha ex en hey hough
monolingualism was he no m in Eu opean uni e si y class ooms (see Appendix, p omp
1). The ange o esponses was qui e di e se and seemed o indica e ha ‘monolingualism’
was no a concep o which he eache s de o ed ha much a en ion. O cou se, he e is a
po en ial double en end e o ‘monolingual’. We glossed i as ‘e e yone sha es he same L1’,
bu i could equally be in e p e ed as no-one in he class speaks mo e han one language.
O e en as ‘e e yone in he class speaks he same language, he i s and only language
hey e e lea n ’. Since we assume ha 21s cen u y uni e si y s uden s ha e a leas some
knowledge o o he language(s), we we e ying o ocus on sha ed L1.
One g oup de ended L1 monolingualism: “We hink i is usual, because no mally people
a e mo e com o able in hei mo he ongue, and i is easy o lea n new concep s in L1.”;
ano he g oup was p o-monolingual bu open o i being an L2: “E en uni e si ies wi h
in e na ional s uden s, hey choose only one. This language doesn’ ha e o be he na i e
language.” Howe e , many o he eache s in e p e ed he ques ion mo e om a Medium
o Ins uc ion pe spec i e: “The majo i y o he Eu opean uni e si ies o e hei deg ees,
especially mas e ´s deg ees, in English. The eason o his is double: i s , because hey
a ac mo e s uden s om he in e na ional ma ke , and second, because hey help hei
s uden s de elop hei English language skills o hei p o essional wo ld.”

Monog á ico iii mayo 2018
94
Teache s also acknowledged sociolinguis ic ac o s, poin ing ou ha Eu ope con ains
mul ilingual egions. Fo example: “In some coun ies wi h mul iple o icial languages, many
g oups o s uden s ha e some language di e si y.” O he s we e mo e geog aphically posi ioned,
o example “[F] om my expe ience in o he coun ies, o example, Denma k, No way,
and so on… cou ses we e gi en in English.”; and one g oup obse ed ha monolingualism
“occu s especially in sou he n Eu opean uni e si ies.”
Despi e a gene al (Eu opean-led) mo e owa ds compe ence-based eaching and assessmen ,
and he ac ha one o he key compe ences is ‘linguis ic’, he e is a endency in Spain o
g oup echnical and scien i ic subjec s unde he banne o Á eas No-Lingüís icas (ANL). A
he e y leas , his beli les he impo ance o language in lea ning. To an applied linguis ,
language is incon o e ibly co e o he endea ou , bu should we be su p ised i science and
echnology eache s do no subsc ibe o he same iew? Acco ding o Halliday (2004: 78),
when asked o conside hei subjec om a linguis ic pe spec i e, mos science eache s end
o concep ualise he ques ion o language om he pe spec i e o ocabula y (ja gon) a he
han g amma . Aguila (2017) ound a simila iew ega ding glossa ies amongs Spanish
enginee ing lec u e s unde aking EMI. When in e iewing Swedish physics lec u e s, Ai ey
(2012) ound ha al hough hey all ag eed ha eaching language pe se was no pa o hei
emi hey did eel ha i was hei esponsibili y o help s uden s become mo e luen in he
‘language o ma hema ics’, in o he wo ds o de elop disciplina y discou se. So, we asked
he eache s whe he hey conside ed language when hey a e eaching in Spanish and how
impo an hey hough gene al language abili ies we e in lea ning (see Appendix, p omp 2).
The ac ha mos o he pa icipan s in he ac i i y had al eady had some aining
in bilingual eaching me hodology likely in luenced hei pe cep ions, ende ing hem mo e
language awa e han subjec -ma e eache s wi h no speci ic bilingual aining (on his poin
see also Da ouz, Hü ne and Smi , 2016: 128). A ew o he g oups s ill el ha language
is less impo an in hei con en domain: “We belie e ha he ele ance o he language
abili ies depends on he subjec . In echnical s udies ha is less han o he s udies.” o “We
a e mo e in e es ed in lea ning he subjec han he co ec use o he language.” Tha said,
mos o he g oups ecognized he impo ance o language: “Language abili ies allow s uden s
o unde s and wha hey a e augh and asked, so s uden s lacking in hese abili ies ake much
longe o lea n a subjec and sol e a p oblem only because i ’s ha d o hem o unde s and
he explana ions and ques ions.” None heless, and in line wi h Ai ey’s (2012) obse a ion
ha eache s would be unlikely o co ec s uden language e o s, se e al g oups appea ed
o sides ep esponsibili y o he language side o hings: “We hink ha hese abili ies a e
e y impo an , bu he eache s suppose ha s uden s al eady ha e hese abili ies and hey
a e no aken in o accoun in he lea ning p ocess.”; “ he p o esso is no esponsible o
hings such as g amma mis akes.”
When p omp ed abou he issue o eaching new e minology (see Appendix, p omp
3), mos o he g oups ag eed ha his issue should be a p io i y o con en eache s: “The
speci ic e ms used in a subjec should be in oduced by he eache o ha subjec .” “In L1
lea ning, eache s a e esponsible o new e minologies.” Howe e , wo g oups iewed con en
eache s as models and esponsible o co ec language use in he subjec ma e hey each:
“The eache s o any subjec also ha e o each hei s uden s gene ic compe ences, such as
o al and w i en exp ession.”; “Lec u e s a e no only esponsible o eaching e minology
bu also o using he language co ec ly and making p ecise s a emen s.” Finally, he e was
F. Rubio CuenCa and P. MooRe Teache A i udes o Language in Uni e si y Bilingual Educa ion
95
one g oup who saw con en eache s as language acili a o s: “… he eache can also help he
s uden s imp o e hei language skills.” In conclusion, al hough he main esponsibili y o
con en eache s is eaching con en , hey belie e hey a e also esponsible o bo h eaching
e minology and, o a lesse ex en , se ing as a model o co ec use o hei L1 oge he
wi h eaching and/o helping s uden s wi h speci ic language skills.
One o he decla ed aims o he CRUE guidelines men ioned abo e (published a e
he session we a e discussing), p oposed unde he heading o ‘s uden aining’, is o
“imp o e[s] uni e si y s uden s’ communica ion skills bo h in he mo he ongue (L1) and
in he o eign language (L2)” (2017: 7, ou i alics). We ake his as con i ma ion ha we
we e igh o wan o ac o L1 in o he equa ion. Ou eading o ela ed esea ch sugges s
ha he adop ion o L2 eaching could be uelling a gene al e-e alua ion o language ac oss
he cu iculum (LAC) a e ia y le els (see o example Ai ey, 2012; Hughes, 2016). Along
hose lines, Ai ey e al. (2017: 17) a gue ha
eache s should be able o mo i a e he language choice in he cou ses hey each,
desc ibe he (linguis ic) skills ha a e cul i a ed and de ail how hese skills a e
de eloped and assessed. Mo eo e , he e should be a clea unde s anding o how he
skills de eloped in a pa icula cou se ela e o he o e all goal— he de elopmen
o disciplina y li e a e g adua es.
4.2. Teache a i udes ega ding lea ning in gene al
Con en eache s a e p obably no used o hinking abou language om a skills pe spec i e,
al hough since all he eache s in ol ed ha e some o m o FL ce i ica ion, hey will ha e
done exams which we e delinea ed by skills. We asked whe he hey hough any o he
skills we e mo e impo an han he o he s (see Appendix, p omp 4). Du ing discussion,
se e al g oups asked abou he di e ence be ween skills and compe ences, he eby sugges ing
ha hey a e hinking abou he mo e away om ac -based and owa ds compe ence-based
p axis. The media o downplayed concep ual di e ences.
Hyland (2013: 69) con incingly a gues ha w i ing is he backbone o academic
de elopmen : “We a e wha we w i e, and we need o unde s and he dis inc i e ways ou
disciplines ha e o iden i ying issues, asking ques ions, add essing a li e a u e, c i icising
colleagues and p esen ing a gumen s”. Tha said, none o he esponden s op ed o w i ing.
App oxima ely hal o hem el ha all ou skills we e equally impo an , and se e al
poin ed ou ha di e en skills will be mo e impo an a di e en momen s: “We canno
selec an op ion since we hink ha all o hem ha e he same impo ance. I depends on
he ask we a e doing”. One g oup op ed o eading bu did no p o ide any jus i ica ion.
As pa o he ongoing de elopmen p ocess, hese eache s a e being encou aged o
econside adi ional eache - on ed monologic eaching modes and o expe imen wi h co-
ope a i e, collabo a i e and dialogic modes. This is pa ly uelled by he ac ha esea ch
has pinpoin ed a se ies o po en ial p oblems wi h lec u ing in an L2, anging om a sel -
assessed lack o luency (Aguila , 2017), o a educed use o p agma ic s a egies (Bjö kman,
2011) and me a-discu si e de ices (Da ouz & Nuñez Pe ucha, 2010). I also con la es wi h
a endency in he sciences o p omo e a gumen and discussion as pa hs o lea ning (e.g.
Monog á ico iii mayo 2018
96
Jonassen & Kim, 2010; Phelps Walke & Sampson, 2013). I was he e o e in e es ing ha
ou o he pai s el ha lis ening and speaking we e mo e impo an “speaking and lis ening
a e mo e di icul o lea n bu maybe mo e use ul o communica e wi h o he people.”
Talking abou skills led us o he ques ion o inpu and ou pu (see Appendix, p omp
5). F om a simplis ic pe spec i e, he dis inc ion could be in e p e ed as a con as be ween
eache -cen ed (inpu ) and s uden -cen ed (ou pu ) app oaches, bu mos o he eache s
in e p e ed i mo e li e ally. Some o he g oups ook a p agma ic s ance: “ he in o ma ion
ha hey ecei e is mo e impo an han wha hey p oduce, because i ini ial in o ma ion
is w ong he esul s will be bad.”; “To p oduce in o ma ion abou some opic, we hink ha
i s i is necessa y o lea n o ecei e in o ma ion om some sou ce.”
Th ee g oups op ed o ou pu : “We hink i is mo e impo an wha hey a e capable
o p oduce han wha hey ecei e.” One pai wen a s ep u he by asse ing ha wi hou
ou pu he e can be no eedback “which is essen ial in lea ning.” A couple o he g oups
placed mo e emphasis on he gloss o inpu in pa en hesis in he p omp – he in o ma ion
hey ecei e – wi h a de ence o sel -di ec ed lea ning and he alue o s uden s looking
o hei own in o ma ion. “In ac , we hink ha eache s should p o ide less inpu so ha
s uden s a e encou aged o ind ou on hei own.”
4.3. Teache a i udes o bilingual lea ning/class ooms
Rega ding he con en and language mix, and he impo ance acco ded o each (see
Appendix, p omp 6), he eache s na u ally lean owa ds con en as hei main p io i y,
bu mos a e also hinking abou language: “We a e no language eache s. We use bo h
languages (L1 o L2) o each concep s ela ed wi h he subjec we each. So, he con en
is mo e impo an han he language.”; “The subjec o he cou se is mo e impo an han
he language, e en i i is augh in a second language.”; “Con en is mo e impo an han
language, as you ha e o de elop he p o essional skills o you ca ee . Language is a plus.”
The e we e also people who insis ed on ull in eg a ion - a 50/50 app oach. A a ie y
o easons we e p o e ed. F om he pe spec i e o s uden need, o example: “Bo h he
con en and he language a e impo an since s uden s need o know he meaning o he wo ds
as well as he con en o he cou se.” One g oup s a ed: “When s uden s chose bilingual
lea ning, hey expec o lea n bo h, con en s and language.” In some cases, i was clea ha
language = languageS, ha he eache s we e also ac o ing L1 in o he pic u e: “ he s uden
mus lea n he opic in hei na i e language.” and also om a mo e concep ual iewpoin :
“I i is uly bilingual hen bo h should be equally impo an .”
Resea ch in o English- augh p og ammes has lagged a lack o he e ogenei y amongs
pa icipan s as a key p oblem (S o mann e al., 2014: 96; Wäch e & Maiwo m, 2014:
22), bu he Cadiz eache s we e no as wo ied abou mixed le els as hey we e abou
low le els. This echoes indings om wo o he Spanish s udies: Doiz, Lasagabas e &
Sie a (2011) and Fo ane -Goméz (2012), bo h o which ound ha eache s el ha low
L2 compe ence amongs hei s uden s was hinde ing hei p og ess. The e did seem o be
a eeling among he eache s ha some s uden s we e applying a ‘ wo bi ds, one s one’
app oach o con en in English in he belie ha signing up o bilingual classes would,
in i sel , magically anspo hem o he B1 hey know hey a e going o need in o de o
F. Rubio CuenCa and P. MooRe Teache A i udes o Language in Uni e si y Bilingual Educa ion
97
g adua e, and ha his could be coun e -p oduc i e. In gene al, howe e , he eache s did
no see mixed le els as p oblema ic; in ac , hey expec ed hem and we e lea ning o deal
wi h hem. They discussed g ouping s uden s o a ou pee lea ning and some appea ed o
app ecia e ha he nego ia ion o meaning be ween g oups made up o mixed le els could
con ibu e o he de elopmen o communica i e skills “i is mo e impo an o be open o
lis en o and unde s and people wi h mo e o less L2 le els.” Abou hal o hem idealized
he eache ha ing a highe le el o L2 compe ence han he s uden s. A some le el, hen,
hey also see hemsel es as ‘model’ L2 use s, and indeed ha e been encou aged o do so
du ing he aining p og amme.
I all he s uden s in a class oom a e locals, and hey sha e a language o he han he
s ipula ed Medium o Ins uc ion, unless he e a e s ic p ohibi ions, i is logical and ine i able
ha his o he language will come in o play. Resea ch in supposedly L2 monolingual se ings
has epea edly ound class oom p ac ice which sub e s medium o ins uc ion no ms and
‘allows’ L1 ( o example in EMI, Doiz & Lasagabas e , 2017; in CLIL, Moo e & Nikula,
2016; and in EFL, S o ch & Wiggleswo h, 2003). The eeling amongs he eache s seemed
o be ha while an English-only policy migh be easible in an EMI- ype se ing, wi h he
p o iso ha all he pa icipan s be a a high le el, ha did no e lec hei eali y.
Unde lining he ac ha he e a e di e se po en ial app oaches, and ha each implies
a ange o decisions (on his poin see also Aguila and Muñoz, 2013), eache s we e
p esen ed wi h, and we discussed, a heu is ic model ou lining a con inuum o (uni e si y)
bilingual eaching anging om EMI o EFL as se ou in he Figu e 1. A ei he end o he
con inuum we p esen ‘ha d-line’ (supposedly) English-only op ions: EMI as English-only
con en eaching and EFL as English-only Fo eign Language eaching. We also included
English o Speci ic Pu poses (ESP) and English o Academic Pu poses (EAP) since, as
Amen and Pé ez Vidal (2015: 51) a gue, hey can be in e p e ed as p ima y mo es in he
in e na ionaliza ion o highe educa ion.
Rega ding a ‘name’ o an app oach which explici ly in eg a es con en and language, we
ha e s uggled wi h a decision be ween CLIL (Con en and Language In eg a ed Lea ning)
and ICLHE (In eg a ing Con en and Language in Highe Educa ion) (See Rubio-Alcalá
& Moo e, his olume). CLIL is la gely associa ed wi h p ima y and seconda y educa ion
and we wan ed o emphasize he con ex ual di e ence and so in he igu e we use ICLHE.
Figu e 1. Con inuum o Te ia y Bilingual Educa ion
L2 monolingual Bilingual L2 monolingual
con en - ocused con en /language in eg a ion language- ocused
EMI (weak) ICLHE (s ong) ICLHE ESP/EAP EFL