A corpus linguistics application in the analysis of textbooks as national teaching instruments of English as a Second Language in Chile
The Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) bases the instruction of English in Chile in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFRL), however its guidelines have not been systematically considered in the practice of creating instructional material in the...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Online |
| Lenguaje: | spa |
| Publicado: |
Universidad de Costa Rica
2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/aie/article/view/31807 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | The Ministry of Education (MINEDUC) bases the instruction of English in Chile in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFRL), however its guidelines have not been systematically considered in the practice of creating instructional material in the EFL context of this country. To analyze this issue, this article presents the comparison of the vocabulary about Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) used in the CEFRL and the English textbooks used in Chile regarding the categories of curriculum design, language teaching methodology and language assessment. The methodology was mixed, not experimental, cross-sectional and descriptive, including the analysis of the CEFRL document and the 8 English textbooks used in Chile in the public sector. Firstly, the data was compared quantitatively using the software Nvivo9 and later some key words (learners / students - teachers) were analyzed quantitatively in terms of frequency and qualitatively using collocations. Results suggest that similar vocabulary is used in both, the CEFRL and Chilean textbooks in terms of “language teaching methodology” (36% and 33% respectively), but it varies highly in the category of “curriculum design” (22% and 48% respectively) and mostly in “language assessment” (42% and 19% respectively) while showing different frequencies in the key words and their associated verbs between “students” (1,33%) and “teacher” (0,18%). These results show a constructivist approach in both, but with a minor behaviorist aspect especially in textbooks, indicating relevant differences in the emphasis and coherence between different areas of the instruction. |
|---|