Chapter 11

Teacher Training for CLIL in Higher

Education Through Blended Learning

María del Carmen Arau Ribeiro, Margarida Morgado, Marcelo Gaspar,

and Mónica Régio

Abstract  This chapter describes the challenges in planning, preparation, imple-

mentation, and results of a blended learning course in teacher training for Content
and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Higher Education from the point of
view of the teacher trainers and teacher trainees involved in the process. The pilot
study covers partial results of this b-learning course of 61+ hours, carried out in the
2nd semester of 2016–2017. The collaborating researchers are themselves English
teachers  – from a combination of areas  – English literature, Linguistics, English
teacher training, English as a foreign language, English for specific purposes,
Terminology, and Translation studies  – in the same higher education institutes
(HEIs) where the teachers in training volunteered to participate in this innovative
training course across Portugal. The opportunities and challenges afforded by this
pilot experience, analyzed through careful data collection instruments, provide
deeper understanding and interpretations of key issues when peer training shifts
from face to face to a blended model, while they suggest innovative solutions for the
design and management of similar training courses. The cohesion of the participants
as a group and the challenges they encountered, the value of the work developed for
their classes, the effectiveness of their experience and their satisfaction together
contribute to a better understanding of just how the CLIL approach and accompany-
ing classroom management styles can make a difference in the professional and
academic quality of life of teachers who choose to expand their horizons. The main
focus of the chapter will be on how trainees creatively assimilated the use of sug-
gested online materials and resources as concrete practice they could integrate in
their own classes.

M. del Carmen Arau Ribeiro (*)

Polytechnic Institute of Guarda, Guarda, Portugal
M. Morgado · M. Gaspar · M. Régio
Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, Castelo Branco, Portugal

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 203

M. L. Carrió-Pastor (ed.), Teaching Language and Teaching Literature in Virtual
Environments, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1358-5_11
204 M. del Carmen Arau Ribeiro et al.

11.1  Learning in a Digital Era

Many governments across the world have invested a large amount of resources to
develop and support Information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastruc-
ture in Higher Education Institutions (HEI), mainly through the integration of
Moodle platforms into standard teaching and learning routines that continue to rely
on face to face interaction. An assessment of teaching language in a virtual environ-
ment requires a clear understanding of a virtual environment and how language
learning can take place within that ecology. Also important is the understanding that
the description of digital natives (Prensky 2001a) does not imply that this genera-
tion will be naturally equipped to deal with electronic media resources. Instead,
regardless of age and thus eliminating the temporal perspective, learners who have
fully embraced digital tools (Jonassen 2000) will expect that their learning experi-
ences include practice in the full range afforded by these existing resources, as
conveyed in the expression, Engage me, don’t enrage me (Prensky 2005). While his
denominations of the digital natives and digital immigrants have launched a tide of
debate (cf. Prensky 2001b, 2005; ISTE 2008; Karaoğlu 2009), learning with
recourse to electronic resources is a reality throughout most of Europe today.
The mission statement of the International Society for Technology in Education
(ISTE, 5), founded in the U.S.A. in 1979, reads “ISTE provides leadership and ser-
vice to improve teaching and learning by advancing the effective use of technology
in education” (ISTE 2008, 5). Jarrett (ISTE 2008) suggested that “You can’t spell
teach without T-E-C-H”, which related STEM education programs adopted for their
events as “You can’t spell T-E-C-H without teach”. STEM – Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Maths – is a widely-used umbrella term that describes the areas of
many of the teachers who have participated in the ReCLes.pt. CLIL communities of
practice (Arau Ribeiro and Morgado 2015; Morgado et al. 2015a). However, this is
still far removed from learning exclusively in a virtual environment or from facing
the challenges announced by philosopher Pierre Lévy (2013) of learning to deal
with a big anthropological change, caused by “massively distributed automata in the
digital realm”. This requires, according to the author, novel cultural institutions
capable of exploiting “the computational power, the capacity of memory and the
ubiquity of the Internet”. In his article, “The Next Platform”, Lévy (2017, 4) claims
that “In the new public sphere, every netizen has the rights of an author, an editor,
an artist, a curator, a critique, a messenger, a contractor and a gamer”. This is a
notion many educators are already attempting to work with.
According to The New York Times, 2012 was the “year of the MOOC” (Pappano
2012), and Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) or Truly Open Online Courses
(TOOCs) or even Small Open Online Courses (SOOCs) have since contended for
students online, in competition with other derivations like small private online
courses (SPOC) and even – selective open online courses (SOOC3). Taking learning
as actionable knowledge, the learning ecology will cover the creation, preservation,
and use of information flow. And in this context, learning will reflect the way learn-
ers can connect unrelated artifacts, concepts, and/or components, be they social,
11  Teacher Training for CLIL in Higher Education Through Blended Learning 205

economic, political, or technical, Siemens (2005) forged the basis of how learning
models could be configured within the context of the Digital Era could be addressed
in learning models for artifact creation. Together, George Siemens and Stephen
Downes, considered to be the fathers of MOOCs (Siemens 2005; Downes 2010),
recognized the contributions of Jay Cross, blogger and advocate of informal learn-
ing (formalized in his The Real Learning Project at http://www.jaycross.com/wp/
[accessed 30 September 2017]), who supported the importance of storytelling and
of keeping in touch with your learners while valuing “big messy ideas” (cf. poster
on informal learning at http://jaycross.com/Informal%20Learning%20Poster.jpg
[accessed 30 September 2017]).
Until more recently, there have been few Language MOOCs (LMOOCs) on sites
related to renowned universities, like Coursera, EdX and Udacity. Now, for exam-
ple, the Universidad Oberta de Catalunya (Catalan Open University) offers
LMOOCs for all levels despite the high dropout levels registered for foreign lan-
guages reported at less than 15%, based on data from the U.S.A.’s Assistant
Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs registering 8000 passing out
of a total 55,000 students (Ryan 2014) and less than 6%, based on the Miríada X
platform with 1120 students passing out of a total 19,076 (Bárcena et al. 2015).
Arau Ribeiro et  al. (2015) outlines some of the principles behind LMOOCs,
including the gamified nature, which aims to make language learning fun and addic-
tive with repetition allowing you to improved your “score”. Nevertheless, the lexical
strategy of teaching “one word at a time” translates into missed opportunities for
formulaic grouping, or chunking, of the lexicon as well as a visual approach
included, for example, in student-made bilingual glossaries. Another claim is that
LMOOCs really work because they reflect the real world; nevertheless, the diffi-
culty of substituting moments of feedback and feedforward to promote ongoing
critical thinking and self-assessment is crucial. Blended learning may offer the best
of both worlds by affording moments of face-to-face learning.
The discussion and analysis of the partial results of this pilot study will draw on
research sustaining the creation of a Community of Practice (Wenger 1998; Wenger
and Snyder 2000; Wenger-Traynor and Wenger-Traynor 2015; Arau Ribeiro 2015a)
and liminality and communitas (Turner 1966) as improvements are made to future
editions of this blended learning experience. The particular community of practice
this chapter focuses on was created in response to changes originating in a CLIL
approach among English teachers and teachers of other subjects who wished to
teach through English. The core of this community was the CLIL enthusiasts and
trainers who, through repeated training actions, energized a peer community across
several national HEIs. The rationale behind the national community of practice was
that HE teachers would voluntarily take part in it actively, share ideas, resources and
materials, partner their classes, and share research results on student feedback and
their own engagement with the CLIL approach in a continuous process of teaching
and learning that would keep the community of practice going for as long as teach-
ers felt the need to better understand how the CLIL approach works in their own
contexts and across contexts. The infrastructure chosen to support this community
206 M. del Carmen Arau Ribeiro et al.

of practice was a Moodle platform based on one of the training HEIs and a shared
space on Google Drive for resources and materials.
Ideally, within a community of practice and learning, as a member of a commu-
nity that is structured for optimum interaction, members of the community will
neither be alone nor progress without feedback. Hangouts are one way to promote
this interaction in LMOOCs, providing opportunities for interacting within the fil-
tered environment of fellow members of the community. Nevertheless, the interac-
tion requires planning and personal learning environments (PLEs) may seem to be
at odds with any kind of contact.
Perifanou (2014) examines the challenging connection between Personal
Learning Environments (PLEs, cf. http://edtechpost.wikispaces.com/PLE+Diagrams
[accessed 30 September 2017] for an exhaustive list of models and their respective
diagrams) and MOOCs in a language learning context. These PLEs can involve
aspects of Personal Learning and Thinking Skills (PLTS) (Fiehn and Fettes 2008)
but fundamentally, a PLE system, in which the objectives are determined and man-
aged by the participant so that it reflects which describes as reflecting learners’
personality, learning characteristics and preferences (Wheeler 2012), includes com-
munication through Web 2.0 tools.
In 2010, the International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments
(IJVPLE) was launched and the annual Personal Learning Environments (PLE)
conference has been held in Barcelona, Southampton, Aveiro-Melbourne (simulta-
neously), Berlin, Tallinn, and most recently in Prague in 2015. Academic and tech-
nological consortia, like the collaborative European project ‘Responsive Open
Learning Environments’ (ROLE  – Ambientes de Aprendizagem Abertas e
Responsivas, http://www.role-project.eu/), are working to overcome the psycho
pedagogical and technical challenges in these constructs (cf. Arau Ribeiro et  al.
2015). These are also closely connected with the needs of young adults as learners,
who have been described as learners who prize freedom of choice, customization of
contents and practices, are keen on collaborative and cooperative learning yet criti-
cal of the status quo, are lovers of speed and committed to innovation (Tapscott
2008: 6–7).
Siemens (2005) claims that including technology and connection-making as
learning activities will help educators better reach the digital generation.
Furthermore, effective learning is being currently described as interactive, self-­
learning, and of a personalized nature, which all require adaptive digital environ-
ments and experiences (Twyman 2014). Growing digital interconnectivity promotes
new business and industry contexts, fostering communication beyond geographical
borders and preventing physical constraints, being that over one-third of skills that
are considered important in today’s workforce will have changed. They require col-
laborative ICT-based learning methodologies to promote digital cooperation net-
works amongst academia, companies and enterprises (Régio et al. 2017).
Within web-based telecollaboration (Guth et al. 2014) or virtual online exchanges,
for example, the development of information management skills can be contextu-
ally integrated with learning to use a foreign language authentically. While informa-
tion management skills are developed two-fold – not only through familiarization
11  Teacher Training for CLIL in Higher Education Through Blended Learning 207

with the tools and digital platforms and apps used for the telecollaboration (which
may even be customized to specific company needs), but also through the acquisi-
tion and development of new skills required for the twenty-first century work envi-
ronments, such as the digital research and information fluency skills described by
the International Society for Technology and Education (ISTE) (Carloni 2013).
These include skills for guided inquiry, selecting, processing and managing diverse
sources and media as well as for evaluating information sources and digital tools for
specific end uses, data processing and reporting results (Régio et al. 2017).
When considering the principles for Industry 4.0 scenarios, plurilingual skills are
highlighted as one of the main principles to guarantee the Interoperability of
Industry 4.0 (Hermann et  al. 2016). In this context, multilingualism means that
Industry 4.0 should support multiple languages for effective delivery of information
and knowledge in cyber physical systems (cf. Lu 2017). As such, the ability to com-
municate amongst workers and students, using digital resources to promote effec-
tive and efficient cooperation networks, is a key issue on which to plan pre-service
and in-service linguistic programs that should also take into consideration the basic
skills students and workers already possess, their perceptions on how they are
accustomed to learning foreign languages, how they have managed to learn through
their FLs, and suggestions on Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 technologies to enhance learn-
ing (Régio et al. 2017).

11.2  Research Design – Purpose, Approach, Strategy

The authors and teacher trainers wrote the ReCLes.pt CLIL Training Guide: Creating
a CLIL Learning Community in Higher Education (Morgado et al. 2015b) and have
been dedicated to the topic of CLIL in Higher Education for more than 5 years, with
publications in a variety of journals and books as well as papers and posters
(Morgado and Coelho 2013, 2014, 2015; Morgado et al. 2013, 2015a, 2016; Arau
Ribeiro 2014, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c; Silva and Albuquerque 2014; Abreu et al. 2015;
Arau Ribeiro et al. 2014, 2016; Coelho and Arau Ribeiro 2018; Arau Ribeiro and
Silva forthcoming).
ReCLes.pt. is the network Association of Language Centers in Higher Education
in Portugal, co-founded by 13 universities and polytechnics in 2009. The collaborat-
ing ReCLes.pt. researchers in the study at hand are primarily English language and
culture teachers who are invested in creating transformational learning experiences
that engage students in intercultural activities that will address the development of
twenty-first century skills. Concern over leaving learners behind in classes using
English as a medium of instruction (EMI) to promote internationalization in higher
education led to a careful exploratory study to determine the administrations’ expec-
tations around the country and to perform a needs analysis to properly gauge what
teacher did and did not understand and/or apply in their EMI classes.
The research team made the decision to focus on what Marsh (1994), from the
University of Jyväskylä, Finland, coined as Content and Language Integrated
208 M. del Carmen Arau Ribeiro et al.

Learning (CLIL) in his plenary session with the title Bilingual Education & Content
and Language Integrated Learning on Language Teaching in the Member States of
the European Union (Lingua Project) for the International Association for Cross-­
cultural Communication at the Sorbonne. As such, the terms English as a Medium
for Instruction (EMI) or Integrating Language and Content in Higher Education
(ILCHE) were discarded in favor of the preservation of the designation bridging
primary and secondary education through to university, adult, and vocational educa-
tion. Most especially, the option for CLIL explores the fundamental support explic-
itly offered to both teachers in the teaching process and learners in their learning
process using Marsh’s (1994) definition that “CLIL refers to situations where sub-
jects, or parts of subjects, are taught through a foreign language with dual-focused
aims, namely the learning of content and the simultaneous learning of a foreign
language.”
The aacademic cultures of and for learning targeted through the CLIL teacher
training b-learning course should be envisaged as reinforcing familiarity with the
uses of English (whether as a foreign language or a lingua franca) and on participa-
tory methodologies for learning and articulating learning. These objectives require
student involvement with other students, teachers, and eventually prospective
employers in order to develop common international projects or communicate
across geographical distance with online technologies through virtual online
exchanges or telecollaboration (Lewis and O’Dowd 2016).
A summary of baseline approaches to teaching intercultural communicative
competence and a foreign language simultaneously, arrived at through research-­
based and inquiry-based research funded by the European Union (2015–2017)
ICCAGE (Intercultural Communicative Competence: A Competitive Advantage for
Global Employability) partnership highlights the need for HE students to be able to
use English for authentic purposes as well as academic participation and in their
own field of working expertise, which can be facilitated by web-based learning and
through scenario building, solving critical incidents, and experiential collaborative
learning (Régio et al. 2017).

11.3  T
 he ReCLes.pt CLIL Teacher Training Course
in B-Learning

The innovation of teaching and learning face-to-face (F2F) and online implies a
significant change from the 2014–2015 pilot study by the same authors (cf. Morgado
et al. 2016), which offered exclusively F2F sessions over 10+ hours followed by a
monitoring period during implementation. The teachers in training for the new
b-learning course come from content areas in the sciences, technology, and manage-
ment with self-assessed English levels of B1 or higher from a diverse range of
subjects. The synchronous and asynchronous sessions develop the participants’
teaching competences via a holistic concept of Community of Practice (Wenger
11  Teacher Training for CLIL in Higher Education Through Blended Learning 209

1998; Wenger-Traynor and Wenger-Traynor 2015; Arau Ribeiro et al. 2016), which
contributes to interdisciplinary learning as a group and to breaking down the affec-
tive barriers so that teachers can move beyond being constrained by their perceived
language difficulties to promote dynamic learning environments amongst them-
selves as teachers and with their respective students.
Online learning environments incorporate digital tools and resources to support
the learning process. E-learning offers participants of a blended course a cumulative
delivery of information, communication, education and training online (Chang
2015). However, blended learning combines both in-class face-to- face learning
methods with e-learning contents and processes. Based on the proportion of content
that is derived online, Allen et al. (2016) classify “blended instruction” as between
30% and 80% online delivery such that a course can be classified as “traditional”
when absolutely no web-based contented is delivered, and “web-facilitated” when
online content is used at less than 30%. Designated “online courses” reflect more
than 80% web-based content, which was the case of the blended course in question.
With only an initial and a middle FTF course session, 80% of the content was shared
online through a Moodle platform. The b-course design foregrounded the advan-
tages of face-to-face feedback with the tools and advantages associated with digital
virtual environments, namely flexibility, easy learner access, on-the-job access and
learning, and the possible integration of sophisticated technological and multimedia
resources that enable the exploration of virtual learning spaces.
The e-strategies of the blended approach integrate the learning of both foreign
language (English) and content, as well as opportunities to openly negotiate a vari-
ety of common teacher assumptions regarding formal structures of knowledge and
common practices, while simultaneously reinforcing knowledge production and
communication through and the teachers’ and learners’ own home languages.
The units progressively build their toolbox of strategies and build up their under-
standing of the CLIL approach, from preparing the teachers’ language to be used for
CLIL to the importance of questioning in class and to the urgency of multimodality
in teaching so that diverse forms of learning can be supported.
The creation of materials for scaffolding the learning process – centered on the
learner  – with recourse to useful ICT resources is encouraged throughout the
b-learning training course, through tutorial sessions so that the English trainers can
assist the teachers in training as they plan activities that will activate previously-­
acquired knowledge in their own students. The electronic media that is suggested,
integrated into a terminological orientation, can result in beneficial efforts at extract-
ing and managing the specialized terminology that allows students to participate
fully within a given area of study with the full extension of their communicative
competences.
The pilot experience showcases a blended learning course for HE lecturers, the
instructional design framework of which was adapted from a face-to-face course. It
integrates content production and communication for specific academic fields
(Engineering, Mathematics, and Agriculture) in English with examples of integrat-
ing English with specific academic content, scaffolding techniques in learning and
communicating knowledge in a foreign language, classroom language (such as
210 M. del Carmen Arau Ribeiro et al.

questions) and reflection on learning and teaching (learning and teaching styles), as
well as researching for linguistic monolingual, pictorial, and multilingual glossaries
to support specialized learning.
The case studies presented in this chapter examine aspects of instructional design
and consider the way the teachers in training looked at technology as they plan to
introduce web-based learning through a CLIL approach in their classrooms. The
focus is on the technology the participating teachers planned to use with their stu-
dents for their specialized CLIL modules, designed to include the suggested tech-
nology from the b-learning course. These multimedia resources represented
opportunities to improve their teaching and support their learners through a CLIL
approach and would enable better participation, integrate authentic resources in the
classroom, and purposefully address the need to familiarize students with effective
online communication strategies in English and through English.
As expected, the introduction of new technologies at the planning stage involves
actively challenging a variety of common assumptions among teachers regarding
structures of knowledge and widespread practices, while simultaneously reinforc-
ing knowledge production and communication through a foreign language (English)
and the students’ own home languages.

11.4  C
 ase Study: STEM Teachers at the Castelo Branco
Polytechnic

Training at Castelo Branco Polytechnic (IPCB) involved five experienced teachers

(4 males, 1 female), aged 40–60, three from the School of Engineering (these teach-
ers are coded as DG, PP, and RD) and two (CR and MM) from the School of
Agriculture. Among these and on their own time, four concluded most e-learning
assignments while one (RD) did no assignments. They were all familiar with the
Moodle platform, the concept of e-learning, and blended courses.
Data from piloting their CLIL modules with students are not yet available, but it
is interesting to consider the teachers’ options at the planning stage. During
e-­training, in unit 2, lesson 3, trainees were asked to choose three different elec-
tronic media resources that they could imagine themselves working with and to list
them in a table with a description of what they thought could be done in their areas
with the respective resources. Responses collected among the four participant lec-
turers who did the assignments highlighted visual digital resources, such as video
clips and Youtube; academic resources (b-on); social media apps such as Facebook,
Blogger, or Glogster to display and share work; educational platforms like Moodle;
Wikis for collaborative writing and other forums for interactive sharing of their work
and opinions. They also used mind mapping tools to work with ideas and concepts.
Tables 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 list some examples of what three of the above partici-
pating teachers (coded as CR, DG, and MM) proposed to do with some of the
­suggested electronic media resources across their fields. Note that the proposed
project is expressed in the English of the participants.
11  Teacher Training for CLIL in Higher Education Through Blended Learning 211

Table 11.1  Activities proposed by a School of Agriculture teacher (CR)

Potential electronic
media resource Proposed project
Video clips Visualization of video clips in the classroom. There is also the possibility to
produce small video clips with students on plant physiology (ex. Plant
tropisms, seed germination…)
Internet Create a Facebook page with plant physiology contents (ex. Plant
physiology group); students should be encouraged to publish in this page.
Utilization of the Moodle platform
Internet B-on; understand its importance and learning its utilization.

Table 11.2  Activities proposed by a School of Engineering teacher (DG)

Potential electronic media
resource Proposed project
Youtube To show videos that show the use of construction techniques
Facebook Very effective way for sharing resources with students
Forum, discussion board To enable interaction between students

Table 11.3  Activities proposed by a School of Agriculture teacher (MM)

Potential electronic media resource Proposed project
You tube video Observe the functioning of the heart and its
electrical activity
Graphic representations and images of heart Relate heart activity and ECG
activity on the internet
Moodle Create a forum

One of the teachers did not submit this assignment because she did not intend to
use any electronic media resources in her CLIL module. A brief appreciation of the
media resources selected highlights a focus on web-resources that require reading
or viewing only (Web 1.0) and some slight move towards Web 2.0, with active com-
munication involved or information exchange between the user and creator (Twyman
2014). The use of discussion boards/forums or Facebook foreground the importance
of user-generated content that is published online.
In unit 3, lesson 3, the teachers were asked to list their “Top 3 Electronic Media”
choices for their CLIL modules, including a related activity, as shown in the three
versions of Table 11.4.
Comparing the results from CR in Tables 11.1 and 11.4, the suggested activities
place a slightly stronger emphasis on content production by the students. In a simi-
lar comparison, another teacher (DG) focused more on interactivity and sharing
resources and opinions among students (see Table 11.5).
212 M. del Carmen Arau Ribeiro et al.

Table 11.4  A teacher’s “Top 3 Electronic Media” (CR)

TOP 3 Electronic Media Activity suggestion
Youtube http://www.youtube. Students will perform a small video to upload in YouTube. For
com/ example, the video could explore the plant hormones and
tropisms subject and the results of the previous experiments
could be used (assignment 2, activity 2).
Blogger https://www.blogger. Create a blog about plant biology in collaboration with students.
com/about/?r=1-null_user
Glog® interactive This website will be used by students in order to produce and
multimedia posters http:// understand the contents of a scientific poster. Students will work
www.glogster.com/ in pairs. Teacher will give a subject to explore and develop.
Students will present the content of the poster in the classroom.

Table 11.5  A teacher’s “Top 3 Electronic Media” (DG)

TOP 3 Electronic Media Activity suggestion
Wiki – Collaborative Used for making activities. It requires collaborative work. Very good
writing for students to synthetize ideas and do some research to add more
content to the wiki. It enables reflective thinking.
Suggested activity – Make a wiki on cool pavements.
Mind mapping Faster than wikis. Can be made individually or in small groups. It
requires students to understand and organize the main concepts
about a topic. Good for class activities.
Suggested activity – Make a mind map on urban heat island.
Videos Not an activity but is a very good aid for learning. In some cases
images are very important to understand topics. Videos can be a
simple, non-boring and effective way to learn. Not good to detail
information but showing a video and ask some questions about is a
very effective way to introduce a topic.
Suggested activity – Watch a video on urban heat island and discuss
(brainstorm some ideas on how pavements could help – Introduce
cool pavements).

Table 11.6  A teacher’s “Top 3 Electronic Media” (PP)

TOP 3 Electronic Media Activity suggestion
Smart draw Draw the mind map of a PV system design
Graph words It explains the interactions of the words but also de devices.
Visual thesaurus To listen how the words are spoken

As in Table 11.5, Table 11.6 demonstrates that some electronic media is used for

a purpose already recognized in non-electronic media. By basically promoting the
display and correction features, such as drawing mind maps, links between con-
cepts/words can be established and learners can listen to the pronunciation of words
that may not seem familiar.
11  Teacher Training for CLIL in Higher Education Through Blended Learning 213

As the units of the b-learning course reinforce the need for a shift in teaching
approaches from top-down lectures to more interactive web-based teaching styles,
an underlying aim is to transform “the main figure of knowledge-provider to that of
facilitator in the learning process” (Dafouz-Milne and Sánchez García 2013). It is
interesting to note that the suggestion to incorporate recent technology in planning
their CLIL module throughout the teacher training course was often interpreted as
promoting a student-centered approach.
These data show that education is not keeping up with a rapidly changing world
when it comes to web-based resources and their integration into education. The uses
documented above do not speak of a radical change in education. Nevertheless, the
use of tools and apps designed to improve learning through content production,
distributed learning, interactivity, and collaboration demonstrate a willingness of
these participating teachers to engage with change. Based on Twyman (2014: 25),
technology seems to have influenced these teachers’ plans and practices: they are
cautiously adopting technology; teaching is both teacher and student-led; learning
takes places online and physically in buildings; learning is based on some online
sources, though guided by the teacher; students’ roles are emerging as increasingly
more active as they are progressively required to gain ownership on what they are
learning.

11.5  C
 ase Study – STEM Teachers at the Polytechnic
of Guarda

Of the initial 12 participants in the community of practice and learning at the

Polytechnic of Guarda (IPG), this case study will look at just three, all female, with
two in Computer Engineering and the third in Mathematics. All are highly moti-
vated teachers with involvement in directing the Computer Engineering Department,
participating on the Pedagogical Council of the School of Technology and
Management (ESTG), and collaborating in the Data Center of the IPG.
One of the participants (NG) is a Computer Engineering specialist. Her proposed
projects in Table 11.7 related to her selection of potential electronic media resources

Table 11.7  A teacher’s proposed projects for electronic media (NG)

Potential electronic
media resource Proposed project
Powerpoint, Powtoon Ask students to prepare a presentation about the information society
or Animoto and social aspects of using computers
YouTube playlists Ask students to find academic presentations/videos related to the above
areas.
Moodle Publish information for students, set events and deadlines
Google drive Collaborate in some activities (collaboration activities). Example:
Create a list of resources for the topics discussed in class
214 M. del Carmen Arau Ribeiro et al.

Table 11.8  A teacher’s proposed projects for electronic media (FG)

Potential electronic
media resource Proposed project
Powtoon and animoto Asking students to do a brief presentation of their objectives of the final
project.
YouTube playlists, Ask students to find academic presentations related to their areas.
TedTalks
Moodle To keep forum group messages from students, to publish information to
students, to set events and deadlines on students’ agendas

focus on activities that involve communication of information, either imposed by

the teacher via the Moodle platform or discovered by the learners. In the case of the
Youtube playlists, the learners substantiate what they have learned previously in
their preparation of presentation on aspects of the Information Society and Social
Aspects of Using Computers. Their awareness of these aspects was reinforced by
having interacted with their selection of attributes to create their respective multi-
media presentations – using not exclusively PowerPoint but possibly Powtoon or
Animoto. Last but not least, NG recommended the collaborative creation of a list of
resources for the topics discussed in class to be accessed via Google Drive.
Yet another Computer Engineering teacher (FG) proposed the potential elec-
tronic media resources in Table 11.8. Comparing the two tables, the similarities are
striking; both are highly computer literate and their proposals are quite similar. By
including TedTalks as a suggested media resource in addition to YouTube, FG is
directing the learners to topics that have been vetted for quality of communicative
expression and include transcripts in over 100 languages so that they can be more
thoroughly understood. This teacher, FG, is responsible for the final projects of the
degree in Computer Science Engineering. Her class is taught in an intensive module
following the final semester and focuses on how to plan for, prepare, and execute the
final project.
In interviews with NG and FG, they both commented on their interest in encour-
aging communication and interaction amongst the learners since they teach in a
degree that attracts students who may not have extensive communicative compe-
tences. FG particularly noted that she was interested in the reaction that the learners
might have to introducing a comic strip as an ice-breaker or conversation starter
since it would not be the expected multimedia approach but rather “old school”.
In contrast with the responses from the Computer Engineering teachers, a
Mathematics teacher (CF) recommended other electronic resources, including
Geogebra, SPSS, and Microsoft Excel, to be applied to some topics with the sugges-
tion that this software selection could help learners to garner new perspectives.
Table 11.9 lists the top electronic media selected by the Computer Engineering
teachers. Flowcharts, organizational charts, floor plans, Gantt charts, network and
UML diagrams, and mind maps are all highlighted in their selections, making the
potential activities carry a professional “look” and motivating students to learn
through the attractive visuals.
11  Teacher Training for CLIL in Higher Education Through Blended Learning 215

Table 11.9  “Top 3 Electronic Media” (Computer Engineering teachers NG and FG)
TOP 3 Electronic Media (all accessed
30 September 2017) Activity suggestion
http://www.smartdraw.com Create my own drawings or suggest students to create
their drawings.
https://creately.com/diagram-examples Same as previous.
https://visuwords.com/ Very interesting tool to visually learn new vocabulary.

The attraction of these students to these specific tools that focus on the visual
reflect Paivio (1986), whose dual coding theory – which gives equal weight to ver-
bal and non-verbal processing – provides an explanation of bilingual processing and
reinforces acquisition of the specialized vocabulary. Learners who become familiar
with creating and interpreting information in a visual format may also more readily
recognize a visual feedback paradigm. This can be added to their traditional toolkit
of dealing with explicit articulatory instruction and/or metalinguistic explanations
or even an ad-hoc feedback collected in real time. The latter, more short-term and
reactive feedback may not have the characteristics of feedforward suggestions,
which aim for greater overall strategic understanding through balanced suggestions
for further development.
The third most popular electronic media resource was Visuwords, which has
adopted the slogan, “Not your granddad’s dictionary”. Because of its dual focus on
visual and creative features, this tool corresponds with exercising higher order
thinking skills (HOTS) through the tip of the triangle of new Bloom’s taxonomy (cf.
Bloom et al. 1956; Anderson and Krathwohl 2001). Learning the color coding of the
nodes and links by which the representation is constructed can reveal, for example,
attributes and or derivations across domains, whether of topic, region, or usage.
Anderson and Bower (in Sternberg 2003), however, reject the idea that knowl-
edge is represented in the form of images, words, or even symbols. Instead, the
images are rather the result of propositions, or the meaning belying the relationship
between concepts. Further inquiry into the theory of representation knowledge,
though beyond the realm of this case study, would also cover the Max Planck
Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, whereby Prinz’s (1997, 2005)
common coding theory has conflated cognition in perception and actions as they are
observed, executed and imagined by the learner.
Another part of the Viewing Task Worksheet asked participants to select and
identify assessment instruments and propose related activities. In Table 11.10, to
involve evaluation that is not just paper testing, NG proposes instruments for evalu-
ation paired with ways to use them. Note that she has suggested one assessment
instrument that would be co-constructed with the class, similar to the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), which necessarily
affords learners more contact with this valuable format for self-assessment pro-
moted by the Council of Europe.
In recent conferences not only in Portugal at the Lisbon New University in (Little
2014) but also before for the European Association of Language Centers in Higher
216 M. del Carmen Arau Ribeiro et al.

Table 11.10  Ways to use assessment instruments (NG)

Assessment instruments Ways to use them
Self-assessment Create a chart similar to the CEFR to adapt to the final report.
Peer assessment After presenting their projects, students submit evaluation and must
mention ONE positive aspect and ONE area of improvement for each
of their colleagues.
Graphic guidelines Students submit new information, weekly, about their project. This
information must be obligatorily used in their final projects.
Portfolios Students must use, for example googledrive or onedrive, and upload
all the information used in their project.

Table 11.11  Ways to use assessment instruments (FG)

Assessment instruments Ways to use them
Self-assessment It would be interesting to have a grid similar to the CEFR to adapt
to the final written report.
Peer assessment Students submit evaluation notes that mention ONE positive aspect
and ONE area of improvement for each of their colleagues. This
takes a max of 2 min for each student. Peers assessing a small group
would need no more than 10 min to assess 5 colleagues…
Graphic guidelines Students submit a weekly log based on the evolution of their work
Language and content Students have intermediate presentations, which already have a
portfolios date, and a goal set.

Education (CercleS), which represents over 300 universities and polytechnics, at the
University of Calabria, Italy (Little 2016), David Little, author of the CEFR (Little
2001), has reported on his concerns that self-assessment must be encouraged as a
prerequisite for learner autonomy. By bringing the CEFR – ostensibly a language
learning tool – into the classroom for a Computer Engineering subject and subse-
quently modeling a new and different self-assessment grid for a specific activity on
it, this under-valued competence of knowing yourself so that you can know others
and other things is actively reinforced.
Other selections proposed include graphic guidelines and portfolios  – both of
which emphasize further learner involvement with their ongoing progress rather
than settling for final assessment. The opportunity to build a portfolio, using a
medium that is designed for gathering and constructing like googledrive or one-
drive, allows learners to acquire the skills for compiling their proposed information
and even organizing it by type, whether data, text, formal, or informal.
Peer assessment, as proposed by NG in Table 11.10, can be final or ongoing; per-
haps most notable here is the emphasis on constructive criticism, with one p­ ositive
aspect and one suggestion for an area that needs improvement. The ­valuable compi-
lation and analysis of what other people think of their work can be a rich source of
constructive development for current and future projects and assignments.
While both Tables 11.10 and 11.11 for NG and FG suggest portfolios, FG has
included language explicitly so that her students will be simultaneously considering
11  Teacher Training for CLIL in Higher Education Through Blended Learning 217

language and content, a key objective of the CLIL approach. The Mathematics
teacher (CF) submitted very similar range of suggestions emphasizing the process
of understanding whether her learners are taking the steps required for successful
completion of the assignments over time, with recommendations for monthly dis-
cussions to analyze this progress.
All three teachers in training demonstrated their growing responsiveness about
providing appropriate scaffolding, helping learners to uncover their previously
acquired knowledge and progressing into new and relevant concepts within their
target fields of knowledge. Their recognition of the importance of ongoing assess-
ment building on learner awareness, responsibility, and potential autonomy aim to
contribute to their citizenship and interculturality as they play the various profes-
sional and personal roles in their lives.

11.6  Some Reflections on Further Use of Technology

Considering that online learning environments as educational spaces differ from

traditional teaching and learning methodologies, the unavoidable redesign of learn-
ing activities takes time, especially given the teaching strategy of negotiating “the
new” with what they have been doing thus far in their respective classrooms. In each
of the observations below, the perspectives of all the learner agents are considered,
the teacher trainers, the teachers in training, and the students in the CLIL modules.
There is no evidence in the case studies presented of examples of Education 3.0,
first introduced by Keats and Schmidt (2007), or the semantic web, described by
Twyman (2014: 23–24) as the use of computers to add meaning to what we do, the
“Internet of Things”, the communication between human and machine, or the use of
interconnected devices (such as smart phones) or the use of big data. Inclusion of
these potential drivers of learning that could contribute to breaking down barriers
will be a future objective.
From the point of view of the instructional design of the blended learning CLIL
course described, it would be important to introduce novel pedagogical concepts,
such as those of the inverted classrooms, also known as flipped classrooms. Bergman
and Sams (2012), published by the aforementioned ISTE – International Society for
Technology in Education, outlined their previous 5 years of research and applica-
tion into their solution to engaging more students more frequently. While students
of literature have long been familiar with having to read the designated writing
before class to be able to participate in the subsequent Socratic discussions and
activities, flipped classrooms also invert traditional teacher and student roles in
other areas by adjusting the sequence of the lesson. Rather than “sage on the stage”,
the teacher is the “guide on the side”: learners watch short video lessons before
class so that class time can be dedicated to exercises, projects, and debate. The video
lesson, which can be pre-existing, like those found at Khan Academy, or created
specifically by the teacher and made available online, is part of the flipped approach
although there is no single model for the flipped classroom – the term is used to
218 M. del Carmen Arau Ribeiro et al.

describe almost any class structure that requires watching pre-recorded video les-
sons followed by in-class activities (Hao 2016; Hao and Lee 2016). Access to infor-
mation before meeting in class with colleagues and the teacher may increase
motivation for student participation and, in turn, provide underlying incentive for
the teacher. Flipped classrooms support more autonomous learning rather than the
conventional focus on teacher distribution of content to students through in-class
lectures. Teachers are free to create more time for relevant classroom discussions
and establish their classes as places for creating, collaborating, and practicing what
they have learn before coming to class. (Brown 2016; Gikas and Grant 2013; Song
and Kong 2017; Viberg and Grönlund 2013). Besides, flipped classrooms create
Education 3.0 conditions for teacher and student to student and teacher
interactions.
Accompanying commercial accessibility and learning development in higher
education is the bring-your-own-device (BYOD) movement. The spontaneous
implementation of BYOD allows students to follow face-to-face classes with their
laptops, tablets, or smartphones, visualizing the contents presented by the teacher in
real time. The consequent potential for opportunity to create innovative blended
learning contexts to support student know-how on campus is an area for further
exploration as is social learning through networking, or increased personalization
with concurrent improved outcomes for each learner. Personalized learning sup-
ports differentiated learning as well as students’ interests and motivation while pro-
moting ubiquitous learning – any place and at any time.
A further area to look into would be that of adaptive learning, long part of the
education process, although adaptive learning technologies now focus more on
meeting the individual needs of each student. Considering the advantages of current
online digital technology, data can be managed, for example, to reflect the number
of times a given student has applied a given concept or piece of information. While
research shows that a student should encounter these target ideas three times
(Nuthall 2007), data for successful student learning may reveal that another student
works best after five encounters. Gathering information on the outcomes of the
students learning processes can provide valuable information for customization of
both the teaching and learning processes although, in face of Big Data, there are
genuine concerns about the overloading and actual use of data in general (Lindstrom
2016).
In sum, it is important to train higher education lecturers not only to make the
best use of emerging ICT tools and educational change dictated by technology but
also to adapt to the various mindsets and the way they relate to digital learning
environments and collaborative approaches. Teachers and students have to learn to
use technology for their own benefit; it is not enough to recognize that they are
available. To guarantee their efficient use in educational contexts, ICT tools have
to be not only directly related to the learning content of the subject at hand (Duţă
and Martínez-Rivera 2015) but also relevant for the diverse learning cultures and
competences of the multiple communities involved across specific contexts and
domains.
11  Teacher Training for CLIL in Higher Education Through Blended Learning 219

11.7  Discussion and Conclusions

This b-learning pilot study aimed to place the teacher training course in the space in
between created by blending face-to-face classes and e-learning. Borrowing a con-
textual description from Turner (1966), the liminal space afforded by the “betwixt
and between” notion of simultaneously wanting to effectively teach in English but
becoming aware that, to teach effectively, the participating teachers would have to
teach through English which makes the projected time of training worthwhile. The
participants, in this liminal context, were encouraged to consider the training course
as a community; in this community of practice (Wenger 1998; Wenger-Traynor and
Wenger-Traynor 2015), the spirit of communitas (Turner 1966) was promoted in
every perspective to recognize that the teachers in training were voluntarily reject-
ing the mere use of English as a Medium of Instruction in favor of participating in a
community of practice and learning to discover more about teaching strategies and
their learners’ behavior when required to learn through a foreign language. Turner’s
characteristic anti-structure of communitas, where in this case the teacher trainers
themselves were always learning along with their teachers in training, meant that
the potential for hierarchy was eliminated. The foreign language teachers were har-
nessing their specialization in language teaching and what they collectively under-
stand about language learners based on their experience, formal education, and
ongoing action research and inviting fellow teachers of other subjects to meet and
learn from each other. The Community of Practice, as introduced by Wenger (1998)
was the ideal structure to avoid interpretation of the teacher training course as an
imposition or a top down hierarchy or a teacher-led imparting of CLIL. Although
the need for internationalization can be seen as political and top-down, the initiative
itself, while approved by the local authorities on each campus, was cultivated as a
bottom-up activity, with an emphasis on its voluntary nature.
In clear opposition to marginal, inferior, or powerless, the liminality of the com-
munity of practice and learning promoted therein aimed to support the learner. This
support would correspond to their expectations and motivation to learn to teach their
respective classes using English and teaching strategies that support learning
English simultaneously with the target content, re-envisioning and re-dimensioning
the planning of the content and language so that both are in fact targets. While the
liminality of the blended learning pilot study provided freedom of movement to the
teacher trainers, the lack of more F2F sessions also translated into a lack of stability
for the participant, who regularly confronted their language teacher colleagues ask-
ing for more time together to complement the e-learning component, asking for
clarification or requiring some kind of F2F encouragement to proceed with the
related tasks.
In keeping with the enthusiasm of volunteering for the communities of practice
and learning, more frequent weekly CLIL cafés can make the participants feel more
engaged with the material. Expansion of the e-learning component to include online
participation in discussion forums is a possible action for improvement. The context
of blended learning intended for this teacher training course, in fact, affords the
220 M. del Carmen Arau Ribeiro et al.

most likely inclusion of face-to-face sessions which can help learners discover and
test their pronunciation and sentence structure as well as determine more subtle
semantic distinctions. These moments for interaction in English are valuable not
just for the teacher-student time but also for reinforcing the community amongst the
language learners themselves.
Planning for future editions of the teacher training course and for CLIL modules
also involves telecollaboration through virtual online exchanges among students
from different countries as part of the CLIL approach. Almeida (2017) and Arau
Ribeiro and Silva (forthcoming) have suggested recently that, rather than a dual
approach, CLIL is in fact a triptych because of the ecology vital for including the
overarching intercultural component. Intercultural communicative competence can
include the ability to interact appropriately and effectively with a different culture
and perception of the world, be it cognitive or affective. These cultures can be
understood as the culture of a given subject as well, such that the terminological and
semantic specificity of Agricultural Sciences, for example, is new and different for
the learners and must be taught.
Given the research on e-learning a foreign language, learner success is based on
motivation and actual participation in the chat and online interaction activities pro-
posed with colleagues and/or with the teacher. The teachers in training received
activities to practice and apply the concepts as Viewing Task Worksheets for each
lesson, aiming to consolidate previously acquired competences and explore new
skills from a variety of perspectives and often in collaboration with other learners.
With the addition of the weekly F2F sessions at a local level, or the inclusion of
recordings – visual and/or audio – would be appropriate in future editions to provide
evidence and material on which to base assessment of individual and/or group
progress.
Other efficient learning strategies, which can be either digital or not, will involve
learners in interaction with the important concepts and terminology using spaced
repetition, memory retrieval, and active recall as well as working with problems that
include simulations, chunking or interleaving, and “desirable difficulty” (Brown
et al. 2014). Embracing code-switching between L1 and L2 and inviting translation
has proven to be important for all the learners involved as has the empowering con-
cept of the language user (Cook 2002; Arau Ribeiro 2015a).
In the “year of the MOOC”, Bass (2012) reported that:
[o]ur understanding of learning has expanded at a rate that has far outpaced our conceptions
of teaching. A growing appreciation for the porous boundaries between the classroom and
life experience…has created not only promising changes but also disruptive moments in
teaching.

Grappling with the “desirable difficulty” implied by these “disruptive moments

in teaching” may just make learning better and more enriching for the students
involved as teachers discover how to make virtual environments work and how to
work better within virtual environments.
11  Teacher Training for CLIL in Higher Education Through Blended Learning 221

References

Abreu, R., Almeida, J.  C., Arau Ribeiro, M.  C., Coelho, T., & Ricardo Gonçalves, R. (2015).
Aprender noutra Língua [Learning in another language]. Roundtable at the IPG Março das
Línguas, Instituto Politécnico da Guarda, Guarda, Portugal.
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online edu-
cation in the United States. Sloan Consortium, 1–4. Available at http://onlinelearningsurvey.
com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Almeida, M. A. (2017). Content and language integrated learning in tourism vocational education
and training in Portugal. Unpublished M.A. dissertation at the in tourism and communication
from the Escola superior de Hotelaria e Turismo do Estoril (Estoril Higher Institute for Tourism
and Hotel Studies).
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revi-
sion of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Arau Ribeiro, M.  C. (2014). ReCLes.pt without barriers. In M.  C. Arau Ribeiro & I.  Chumbo
(Coord), Communication without borders – Selected papers from the international conference
languages 2011: X meeting of Aprolínguas and II meeting of ReCLes.pt (pp. 167–170). Guarda:
Instituto Politécnico da Guarda [online]. Available at http://paol.iscap.ipp.pt/~paol/docentes/
recles/CommunicationwithoutBarriers.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Arau Ribeiro, M.  C. (2015a) Apresentamos o Utilizador da LE: Considerações sobre o Perfil
Psicopedagógico do Ensino em LE [Presenting the L2 user: Considerations on foreign language
psychology and teaching]. Revista de Estudios e Investigación en Psicología y Educación:
Lenguaje, Comunicación y sus Alteraciones, 9, 34–38 [online]. Available at http://revistas.udc.
es/index.php/reipe/article/view/347/pdf_239. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Arau Ribeiro, M. C. (2015b). Crossing disciplines: Interdisciplinary practice in higher education.
CASALC Review, 5(1) [online]. Index at https://www.cjv.muni.cz/cs/casalc-review-115-16/.
Available at: https://www.cjv.muni.cz/cs/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/02/cr-11516-ri-
beiro.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Arau Ribeiro, M. C. (2015c). Some lessons learned: The ReCLes.pt CLIL project in higher educa-
tion. e-TEALS – An e-journal of Teacher Education and Applied Language Studies, 6, 20–37.
Available at https://doi.org/10.1515/eteals-2016-0002. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Arau Ribeiro, M. C., & Morgado, M. M. (2015). A national teacher training project to promote
CLIL in Portuguese higher education. Poster presented at the 5th Bremen symposium on lan-
guage learning and teaching – Content & diversity: New challenges for language teaching and
learning in higher education, University of Bremen, 20–21 February.
Arau Ribeiro, M.  C., & Silva, M.  M. (forthcoming). Building and defending a space for lan-
guage centers in higher education in Portugal: The ReCLes.pt story. Paper presented at the II
Congresso Internacional de Línguas Estrangeira, Escola Superior de Educação de Bragança,
12–13 October.
Arau Ribeiro, M. C., Silva, M. M., & Gonçalves A. (2014). Five years of ReCLes.pt: Building a
national network in higher education. Poster presented at the ReCLes.pt 2014 international
conference on languages and the market: Competitiveness and employability, Escola Superior
de Hotelaria e Tourismo de Estoril, Estoril, Portugal, 27–28 October [online]. Available at
http://recles.pt/. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Arau Ribeiro, M. C., Brito, E., & Rodrigues, F. (2015). Uma avaliação dos MOOC ao serviço
do ensino e aprendizagem das Línguas Estrangeiras [An Assessment of MOOCs for Foreign
Language Learning and Teaching]. In T. M. Estrela, C. Cavaco, M. J. Cardona, P. R. Pinto,
B. Cabrito, F. A. Costa, J. Pinhal, J. Ferreira, P. Rodrigues, & P. Figueiredo (Eds.), Diversidade
e Complexidade da Avaliação em Educação e Formação. Contributos da Investigação
[Diversity and Complexity in Assessment for Education and Training: Research contribu-
tions] (Atas do XXII Colóquio da AFIRSE Portugal, pp.  1252–1262). Lisbon: EDUCA/
AFIRSE Portugal.
222 M. del Carmen Arau Ribeiro et al.

Arau Ribeiro, M. C., Silva, M. M., Morgado, M., & Coelho, M. (2016). Promoting dynamic CLIL
courses in Portuguese higher education: From design and training to implementation. CASALC
Review, 5(2) [online]. At https://www.cjv.muni.cz/cs/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/cr-2-
15-16-arau.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Bárcena, E., Read, T., Marín-Monje, E., & Castrillo, M. D. (2015). Analysing student participation
in foreign language MOOCs: A case study. In U. Cress & C. D. Kloos (Eds.), Proceedings of
the European MOOC stakeholder summit 2014 (P.A.U. Education, S. L.) [online]. At http://
www.emoocs2014.eu/sites/default/files/Proceedings-Moocs-Summit-2014.pdf. Accessed 30
Sept 2017.
Bass, R. (2012). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of learning in higher education [online]. At
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/disrupting-ourselves-problem-learning-higher-education.
Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Bergman, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every
day. n/l: ISTE – International Society for Technology in Education.
Bloom, B.  S., Engelhardt, M.  D., Furst, E.  J., Hill, W.  H., & Krathwohl, D.  R. (Eds.). (1956).
Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational objectives, handbook 1:
The cognitive domain. White Plains: Longman.
Brown, M.  G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on
instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. Internet and Higher
Education, 31, 1–10 [online]. At https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001. Accessed 30
Sept 2017.
Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful
learning. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Carloni, G. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: A blended model in higher educa-
tion. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 9, 61–71.
Chang, V. (2015). Review and discussion: E-learning for academia and industry. International
Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 476–485 [online]. At https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2015.12.007. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Coelho, M., & Arau Ribeiro, M. C. (2018). Internationalization strategies in Portuguese higher
education institutions  – Time to move on and to move beyond. In A.  Curado (Ed.), LSP in
Multi-disciplinary contexts of teaching and research. Papers from the 16th international
AELFE conference (EPiC series in language and linguistics. EasyChair, pp. 33–39) [online].
At https://doi.org/10.29007/dcmw. Accessed 14 Feb 2018.
Cook, V. (Ed.). (2002). Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dafouz-Milne, E., & Sánchez García, D. (2013). ‘Does everybody understand?’: Teacher questions
across disciplines in English-mediated university lectures: An exploratory study. Language
Value, 5, 129–151.
da Silva, M.  M., & Albuquerque, A. (2014). TERMINOCLIL: Terminology-based approach to
CLIL. Paper presented at the CLAVIER14 workshop on LSP research, teaching and translation
across languages and cultures, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Downes, S. (2010). New technology supporting informal learning. Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Web Intelligence, 2(1), 27–33.
Duţă, N., & Martínez-Rivera, O. (2015). Between theory and practice: The importance of ICT in
higher education as a tool for collaborative learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences,
180(November 2014), 1466–1473 [online]. At https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.294.
Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Fiehn, J, & Fettes, T. (2008). Developing personal, learning and thinking skills (PLTS) through
post-16 citizenship research report. Learning and Skills Improvement Service, Qualifications
and Curriculum Development Agency.
Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspec-
tives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. Internet and Higher Education,
19, 18–26 [online]. At https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
11  Teacher Training for CLIL in Higher Education Through Blended Learning 223

Guth, S., Helm, F., & O’Dowd, R. (2014). Telecollaborative foreign language networks in European
universities: A report on current attitudes and practices. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching &
Learning Language & Literature, 7(4), 1–14.
Hao, Y. (2016). Exploring undergraduates’ perspectives and flipped learning readiness in their
flipped classrooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 82–92 [online]. At https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.032. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Hao, Y., & Lee, K.  S. (2016). Teaching in flipped classrooms: Exploring pre-service teachers’
concerns. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 250–260 [online]. At https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2015.12.022. Accessed30 Sept 2017.
Hermann, M., Pentek, T., & Otto, B. (2016). Design principles for industry 4.0 scenarios.
Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, March,
3928–3937.
ISTE  – International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). Convene connect trans-
form: 2007–2008 annual report [online]. At http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/iste_annual_
report_2007-2008.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Jonassen, D.  H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking.
Columbus: Prentice-Hall.
Karaoğlu, O. (2009). The future of education: Is it web 2.0 or not? January 28 [online]. At https://
www.teachingenglish.org.uk/blogs/%C3%B6zge-karao%C4%9Flu/future-education-it-web-
20-or-not. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Keats, D., & Schmidt, J. P. (2007). The genesis and emergence of education 3.0 in higher education
and its potential for Africa. First Monday, 12(3) [online]. At http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.
php/fm/article/view/1625/1540. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Lévy, P. (2013). My research in a nutshell. Pierre Lévy’s Blog [online]. At https://pierrelevyblog.
com/my-research-in-a-nutshell/. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Lévy, P. (2017). The next platform. Pierre Lévy’s Blog. 6 October [online]. At https://pierrelevy-
blog.com/. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Lewis, T., & O’Dowd, R. (2016). Foreword: The virtual internationalization turn in language
study. In Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice (pp.  3–20). London:
Routledge.
Lindstrom, M. (2016). Small data: The tiny clues that uncover huge trends. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Little, D.  G. (2001). European language portfolio: A guide for teachers and teacher trainers.
Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 2001Book.
Little, D. G. (2014). Learning, teaching, assessment: An exploration of their interdependence in
the CEFR. Paper presented at the 5th international conference on teaching English as a for-
eign language assessment in ELT: Opportunities and challenges, FCSH, Lisbon new university,
Portugal, 21–22 November.
Little, D. G. (2016). Agency and voice: Towards a new synergy between university language teach-
ing/learning and research. Paper presented at the XIV CercleS International Conference 2016
on enhancing learners’ creative and critical thinking: The role of university language centres,
University of Calabria, Italy, 22–24 September.
Lu, Y. (2017). Industry 4.0: A survey on technologies, applications and open research
issues. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 6, 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jii.2017.04.005.
Morgado, M., & Coelho, M. (2013). CLIL vs. English as the medium of instruction: The Portuguese
higher education polytechnic context. Egitania Sciencia, 7(12), 123–145.
Morgado, M., & Coelho, M. (2014). Learning different subjects by using other languages… or the
other way round? The relevance of the CLIL approach. In M. C. Arau Ribeiro & I. Chumbo
(coord), Communication without borders – Selected papers from the international conference
languages 2011: X meeting of Aprolínguas and II meeting of ReCLes.pt (pp. 153–162). Guarda:
Instituto Politécnico da Guarda.
224 M. del Carmen Arau Ribeiro et al.

Morgado, M., & Coelho, M. (2015). CLIL: Practical approaches of higher education teachers. In
M. C. Arau Ribeiro & L. Guerra, A. C. Gonçalves, M. M. Silva, A. A. Silva, O. Gonçalves &
S. Llinás (Eds.), Proceedings of the international meeting on languages, applied linguistics,
and translation – LALT 2012 (pp. 129–142). Évora: Universidade de Évora [online]. At http://
paol.iscap.ipp.pt/~paol/docentes/recles/LALT2012Proceedings.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Morgado, M.  M., Coelho, M.  M., Arau Ribeiro, M.  C., Chumbo, I., & Cordeiro, M.  J. (2013).
CLIL in higher education polytechnic institutes in Portugal. Poster presented at the 3rd ICLHE
(Integrating content and language in higher education) conference, Maastricht University,
Maastricht, Netherlands, 11–13 April 2013.
Morgado, M.  M., Coelho, M.  M., & Arau Ribeiro, M.  C. (2015a). CLIL (Aprendizagem
Integrada de Língua e Conteúdo) no Ensino. Paper presented at CNaPPES2015 (Congresso
Nacional de Práticas Pedagógicas no Ensino Superior), Polytechnic Institute of Leiria,
Portugal, 3 July.
Morgado, M., Coelho, M. M., Arau Ribeiro, M. C., Albuquerque, A., Silva, M. M., Chorão, G.,
Cunha, S., Gonçalves, A., Carvalho, A. I., Régio, M., Faria, S., & Chumbo, I. (2015b). CLIL
training guide: Creating a CLIL learning community in higher education. Santo Tirso: De
Facto Editores and ReCLes.pt [online]. At http://paol.iscap.ipp.pt/~paol/docentes/recles/
CLILTrainingGuide.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Morgado, M. M., Coelho, M. M., Arau Ribeiro, M. C., Silva, M. M., & Gonçalves, A. (2016).
CLIL no Ensino Superior Português: uma experiência pedagógica inovadora. In S. Gonçalves,
P. Fonseca, and C. Malça. (coords.), Estratégias de Ensino e Sucesso Académico: Boas Práticas
no Ensino Superior, Vol 2: Inovaçao no Ensino Superior (pp, 188–194). Coimbra: CINEP/
IPC [online]. At http://www.cinep.ipc.pt/attachments/article/186/Livro%20-%20Volume2%20
MIOLO+CAPA%20online.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Nuthall, G. (2007). The hidden lives of learners. Wellington: NZCER.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. New York Times, 02.11 [online]. At http://www.
nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-
rapid-pace.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Perifanou, M. A. (2014). PLEs & MOOCs in language learning context: A challenging connection
[online]. At http://pleconf.org/2014/files/2014/06/paper-34.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Prensky, M. (2001a, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(5), 1–6
[online]. At https://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20
Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Prensky, M. (2001b, November). Digital natives, digital immigrants, part II: Do they really think
differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6. December [online]. At http://www.marcprensky.com/
writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf.
Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Prensky, M. (2005). Engage me or enrage me”: What today’s™ learners demand. Educause, 40(5),
60–65 [online]. At https://er.educause.edu/articles/2005/1/engage-me-or-enrage-me-what-
todays-learners-demand. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2),
129–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/713752551.
Prinz, W. (2005). Experimental approaches to action. In J. Roessler & N. Eilan (Eds.), Agency and
self-awareness (pp. 165–187). New York: Oxford University Press.
Régio, M., Gaspar, M., Farinha, L., & Morgado, M. (2017). Industry 4.0 and telecollabora-
tion to promote cooperation networks: A pilot survey in the Portuguese region of Castelo
Branco. International Journal of Mechatronics and Applied Mechanics, 1, 243–248
[online]. At http://ijomam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/243-248_INDUSTRY-4.0-
AND-TELECOLLABORATION-TO-PROMOTE-COOPERATION-NETWORKS.pdf.
Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
11  Teacher Training for CLIL in Higher Education Through Blended Learning 225

Ryan, E. M. (2014). Massive open online course helps English language learners improve writ-
ing skills [online]. At http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2014/01/06/massive-open-online-course-
helps-english-language-learners-improve-writing-skills (US Department of state official blog).
Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10 [online]. At http://www.itdl.org/
journal/jan_05/article01.htm. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Song, Y., & Kong, S. C. (2017). Affordances and constraints of BYOD (Bring your own device)
for learning and teaching in higher education: Teachers’ perspectives. The Internet and Higher
Education, 32, 39–46 [online]. At https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.08.004. Accessed 30
Sept 2017.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Cognitive theory (3rd ed.). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital. How the net generation is changing your world. McGraw-­
Hill Professional.
Turner, V. ([1966] 1994). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual (Chapter 3: The rit-
ual process: Structure and anti-structure). Ithaca: Cornell University Press [online]. At http://
www.iupui.edu/~womrel/Rel433%20Readings/SearchableTextFiles/Turner_RitualProcess_
chaps3&5.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Twyman, J. S. (2014). Envisioning education 3.0: The fusion of behavior analysis, learning science
and technology. Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis, 40(2), 20–38 [online]. At https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/287013986_Envisioning_education_30_The_fusion_of_behav-
ior_analysis_learning_science_and_technology. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis of users’ attitudes toward the use of
mobile devices in second and foreign language learning in higher education: A case from
Sweden and China. Computers & Education, 69, 169–180 [online]. At https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2013.07.014. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New  York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., & Snyder, W.  E. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier.
Harvard Business Review [online]. At https://hbr.org/2000/01/communities-of-practice-the-
organizational-frontier. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Wenger-Traynor, E., & Wenger-Traynor, B. (2015). Introduction to communities of practice: A
brief overview of the concept and its uses [online]. At http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-
to-communities-of-practice/. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
Wheeler, S. (2012). Limitless learning. EduTech Update. At http://www.edtechupdate.com/
ple/?open-article-id=1557811&article-title=limitless-learning&blog-domain=blogspot.
com&blog-title=learning-with--e-s. Accessed30 Sept 2017.