Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia

Vicerrectoría Académica y de Investigación

Course: Didactics of Social Science
Code: 551034

Activity Guide and Evaluation Rubric – Task 3 Contrasting Teaching approaches

1. Activity Description

Type of activity: Collaborative

Evaluation moment: Intermediate Unit 2
Highest score of the activity: 115 points
The activity starts on: Thursday, The activity ends on: Thursday, October
September 28, 2023 26, 2023
With this activity, you are expected to achieve the following learning
outcomes:

To contrast approaches in language teaching that are beneficial for the inclusion of
social science in the language teaching process.

The activity consists of:

Collaboratively present a comparative chart comparing CLIL and EMI, to do so, please
follow these steps:

Step 1: Carefully read the information presented for Unit 2. Especially regarding:
“When Culture Is Content: Applications for Content-Based Instruction in the World
Language Classroom”, “English-Medium Instruction and Pronunciation: Exposure and
Skills Development. Multilingual Matters” and “Innovations and Challenges in CLIL
Teacher Training. Theory into Practice”

Step 2: Individually present in the collaborative forum the main ideas related to EMI
(English Medium Instruction), CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) and
CBI (Content-Based Instruction) This information should be a thorough description of
each of the approaches in a comparative chart or a mind map, this will allow you to
have the ideas already organized for the collaborative part of the task.

Step 3: Read and comment on at least one of your classmates’ posts. Please read
carefully and comment on the post regarding the ideas gather from of the
information requested regarding the teaching methods and approaches suggested.

1
Step 4: Based on the collected information, collaboratively create a comparative
chart among the given approaches. Remember to select the main ideas that could
help to compare CBI, EMI, and CLIL, the presented ideas should clearly state and
define each of the approaches.

For the development of the activity consider that:

In the Initial Information Environment, you must:

Periodically check the News forum to keep updated regarding the course and the
program’s latest information.

In the Learning Environment, you must:

Check the Bibliographical references suggested for Unit 2. Download the activity
guide for this task. Actively participate in the collaborative forum by posting the
requested evidence of individual work on time and participating in the discussion
actively regarding the others’ work.

In the Evaluation Environment, you must:

Deliver a single PDF. document compiling all the group’s task.

Evidences of individual work:

The individual evidence to be submitted is:

Presentation of the requested information regarding CBI; CLIL and EMI in the
collaborative forum and comments on the other members’ summaries.

Evidences of collaborative work:

The collaborative evidence to be submitted is:

A PDF. document with all the participant students’ information on the cover page,
that contains the final comparative chart built based on the collected information by
all the students, evidence of the forum participation (comments on each other’s
work), and a reference page following the APA style.

2
2. General Guidelines for the Development of Evidences to Submit

For Collaborative evidences, consider the following:

• All members of the group must participate with their contributions in the
development of the activity.

• In each group a single member will be chosen to submit the requested product in
the environment indicated by the teacher.

• Before submitting the requested product, students should check that it meets all
the requirements mentioned in this activity guide.

• Only the members of the group that participated with contributions during the
time assigned for the activity should be included as authors of the submitted
product.

Please keep in mind that all individual or collaborative written products must comply
with the spelling rules and presentation conditions defined in this activity guide.
Regarding the use of references, consider that the product of this activity must
comply with APA style.
In any case, make sure you comply with the rules and avoid academic plagiarism.
You can review your written products using the Turnitin tool found in the virtual
campus.

Under the Academic Code of Conduct, the actions that infringe the academic order,
among others, are the following: paragraph e) Plagiarism is to present as your own
work all or part of a written report, task or document of invention carried out by
another person. It also implies the use of citations or lack of references, or it
includes citations where there is no match between these and the reference and
paragraph f) To reproduce, or copy for profit, educational resources or results of
research products, which have rights reserved for the University. (Acuerdo 029 - 13
de diciembre de 2013, artículo 99)

The academic penalties students will face are:

a) In case of academic fraud demonstrated in the academic work or evaluation, the
score obtained will be zero (0.0) without any disciplinary measures being derived.
b) In case of proven plagiarism in academic work of any nature, the score obtained
will be zero (0.0), without any disciplinary measures being derived.

3
3. Evaluation Rubric Template

Type of activity: Collaborative

Evaluation moment: Intermediate Unit 2
The highest score in this activity is 115 points
High level: There is evidence of individual posting of relevant
ideas that contribute to building the definition of CBI, CLIL, and
EMI. The information posted is relevant to the topic, and is well
written in terms of grammar, style, and spelling. The individual
contribution is posted at least two weeks before the due date of
First evaluation the task.
criterion: If your work is at this level, you can get between 25 points
and 40 points
Post the individual
contribution for the Average level: There is evidence of individual posting of ideas
comparative chart. that in some ways are repetitive, and do not contribute to
building the definition of CLIL, CBI, and EMI. The information
posted is partially relevant to the topic, it presents mistakes in
This criterion terms of grammar, style, and spelling. The individual
represents 40 contribution is posted later than two weeks before the due date.
points of the total If your work is at this level, you can get between 10 points
of 115 points of and 24 points
the activity.
Low level: The information posted individually is not relevant,
nor related to the definition of CLIL, CBI, and EMI. Or there is no
evidence of the individual contribution posting.
If your work is at this level, you can get between 0
points and 9 points.
Second evaluation High level: The student gives topic-centered and relevant
criterion: feedback to at least two of the classmates’ contributions to the
collaborative task.
Provide topic- If your work is at this level, you can get between 12 points
centered, time- and 20 points
bounded, and
relevant forum Average level: The student gives feedback on only one of the
participation. classmates’ contributions to the collaborative task. The given
feedback is not relevant, or topic-centered.

4
 If your work is at this level, you can get between 6 points
This criterion and 11 points
represents 20
points of the total Low level: There is no evidence of feedback given to any of the
of 115 points of other participants in the collaborative group. Or the given
the activity. feedback does not contribute to the final work.
If your work is at this level, you can get between 0
points and 5 points
High level: The comparative chart presented by the group
contains relevant information regarding the CLIL, CBI, and EMI
approaches. The information presented is strongly supported
with theoretical foundations, these supports are appropriately
referenced using APA style. There is evidence of well-structured
and organized ideas. The information presented in the document
is well written regarding grammar. Style and spelling.
Third evaluation If your work is at this level, you can get between 25 points
criterion: and 40 points

Create a well- Average level: The comparative chart presented by the group
proposed and contains information regarding the CLIL, CBI, and EMI
supported approaches. The information presented is strongly supported by
comparative chart. theoretical foundations, but it is not appropriately referenced.
There is partial evidence of well-structured and organized ideas.
This criterion The information presented in the document contains some
represents 40 written mistakes regarding grammar, style, and spelling.
points of the total If your work is at this level, you can get between 10 points
of 115 points of and 24 points
the activity.
Low level: The comparative chart does not contain any relevant
information regarding CLIL, CBI, and EMI. There is evidence of
repetitive language use mistakes. The information presented in
the comparative chart is not theoretically supported. Or there is
no evidence of comparative chart development.
If your work is at this level, you can get between 0
points and 9 points
Fourth evaluation High level: The final delivered document contains: A
criterion: comparative chart built with all the group members’
contributions, evidence of individual comments and feedback to
Present a document other group members given in the collaborative forum,
with accurate use of Reference page according to APA style.

5
 the language in If your work is at this level, you can get between 10 points
terms of structure, and 15 points
grammar, and
spelling. Average level: The final delivered document is missing one of
the following features or any of these is not complete: A
This criterion comparative chart built with all the group members’
represents 15 contributions, evidence of individual comments, and feedback to
points of the total other group members given in the collaborative forum,
of 115 points of Reference page according to APA style.
the activity. If your work is at this level, you can get between 5 points
and 9 points

Low level: There is no evidence of the final document delivered

in the Evaluation environment.
If your work is at this level, you can get between 0
points and 4 points