Language Value http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue December 2013, Volume 5, Number 1 pp. i-iv ISSN 1989-7103 Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2013.5.1 i From the Editors CLIL AT UNIVERSITY: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTS In recent times, the relevance of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) at most educational levels, especially in the university world, has experienced an exponential increase, as recent publications show (Doiz et al. 2013, Fortanet-Gómez 2013, Llinares et al. 2012, or Smit and Dafouz 2012a, among others). Teaching in English seems to be a popular topic nowadays, but it is also a need. The articles included in this issue show three main common features of CLIL and its role in today’s higher education: the process of internationalization of the educational system, the need for a language policy, and the fact that English for Specific Purposes (ESP) as a field of research and teaching as well as ESP practitioners are all very much concerned with CLIL. The internationalization of the university is one of the reasons pointed out by much of the research conducted on the topic, as can be seen in the present volume. Becoming an international university requires attracting foreign students and this can only be implemented by using a lingua franca for communication; this is the case of the English language, though any other language should also have the same opportunity. A second issue which seems to be closely connected to the integration of English as the language of instruction is the need to develop a university language policy. Apparently, this seems to be already happening in most universities, but CLIL appears to have been implemented in the Spanish university before such a policy is established. A third interesting common key issue which can also be appreciated in the following articles is that applied linguists and ESP (English for Specific Purposes) practitioners are especially concerned with the teaching of content subjects in English as well as in the teacher training of content teachers. Through the following articles, an explicit connection between CLIL and ESP (in any of its variants) seems to be clear. http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue� From the Editors Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2013.5.1 ii As a whole, this issue on CLIL at University tries to provide more insights on the topic and become a contribution to the field, which is in continuous evolution and development. The term CLIL is understood as a synonym for EMI (English as the Medium of Instruction) all through this issue, although our deciding on the first one was because it is probably the most widely used term among teachers regardless of the educational level they belong to. Nonetheless, we do admit that the term which is becoming more popular in Higher Education settings is EMI (see Smit and Dafouz 2012b: 4-5 for further terminological considerations), and that is the reason why we have accepted both terms in the research articles included in this issue, respecting each author’s decision. As Dafouz Milne and Sánchez García say in their article (2013: 130), there is a “diversity of interests and concerns amongst scholars and practising teachers […] from studies on classroom discourse and school practices, teacher cognition and beliefs, to the role of English as an international language or lingua franca in multilingual institutions”. This is shown in this fifth issue of Language Value. The six articles included deal with beliefs and concerns that CLIL teachers and practitioners have, as well as collaboration between language and content teachers, or the analysis of some specific aspects of the language used in the classroom. The first article, written by González and Barbero, makes a thought-provoking proposal of ideas Higher Education teachers should bear in mind in order to implement a CLIL programme. Their proposal is based on a research project developed with pre- university teachers who had wide experience in CLIL settings and, therefore, in CLIL pedagogical features. In the second article, González Ardeo deals with a common question many ESP practitioners have frequently considered. Through an exploratory study carried out at the University of the Basque Country, he tries to explain whether CLIL and ESP are compatible or not. Although the study focuses only on engineering degrees, it can be taken into consideration for further research in order to prove the possible compatibility of both teaching models. Language Value http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue December 2013, Volume 5, Number 1 pp. i-iv ISSN 1989-7103 Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2013.5.1 iii Following an ESP perspective, Argüelles Álvarez presents a holistic experience in Telecommunication Engineering degrees. She shows how initially conceptualized ESP courses have been moved into a course integrating not only language and (professional and academic) content, but also other skills and capacities, such as IT literacy and the development of the learner’s autonomy. Teacher education is the focus of Sancho Guinda’s contribution. She moves into teacher training and how CLIL teachers face it. By analysing engineering teachers’ perceptions and their performances, she shows the mismatch that exists between what teachers believe and know and what they actually do in their own teaching. Sancho Guinda concludes by proposing a teacher-target model which makes the reader aware of the different discourses involved in a CLIL setting, complemented by the recommendation to CLIL teachers to prepare their classes from a didactic and a linguistic standpoint. Also dealing with teachers’ perception and the experience of CLIL teachers, Wozniak presents a study carried out within the context of a Pharmacy degree. She identifies the impressions, expectations, concerns and needs of more and less experienced content teachers in the degree in Pharmacy. In her article, Wozniak proposes a close and continuous collaboration between content teachers and language teachers as a complement to the teacher training implemented in many universities. Finally, Dafouz Milne and Sánchez García focus on a different ‘macro research concern’, as they call it, which is teacher discourse. In fact, considering that interaction is one of the promoted aims of CLIL, dealing with questions in the CLIL classroom is an essential tool. They analyse some lectures from different disciplines and look at the kind of questions used, their discourse functions, if there are differences between disciplines and how those questions promote students’ participation. Their main objective is to raise awareness of teachers’ questions in EMI settings. This issue finishes with a couple of reviews of books related to CLIL and a multimedia material review on a tool for translators. The first review of Multilingual Higher Education. Beyond English Medium Orientations by Ana Bocanegra-Valle shows how that volume can illustrate the intricacies of learning and teaching in multilingual Higher http://www.e-revistes.uji.es/languagevalue� From the Editors Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/LanguageV.2013.5.1 iv Education settings. Simone Smala, the author of the second review, CLIL in Higher Education. Towards a Multilingual Language Policy, highlights the excellent contribution to the field made by this book and its suggestions for further research areas. Finally, Laura Ramírez Polo goes over one of the most widespread tools for professional translators, SDL Trados Studio 2011. She focuses on its use within the world of translation throughout the whole translation process, and provides some alternatives to this tool and adds some final suggestions for teaching purposes. Miguel F. Ruiz-Garrido Mª Carmen Campoy-Cubillo Editors Universitat Jaume I, Spain References Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J.M. 2013. English-Medium Instruction at Universities. Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Fortanet-Gómez, I. 2013. CLIL in Higher Education. Towards a Multilingual Language Policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Llinares, A. Morton, T. and Whittaker, R. 2012. The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smit, U. and Dafouz, E. (Eds.) 2012a. Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education. Gaining Insights into English-Medium Instruction at European Universities. Special Issue of AILA Review 25. Smit, U. and Dafouz, E. 2012b. “Integrating content and language in higher education. An introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices across Europe”. In Smit, U. and E. Dafouz (Eds.) Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education. Gaining Insights into English-Medium Instruction at European Universities. Special Issue of AILA Review 25, 1-12.