Introduction

A University as an Ecosystem

Teaching and Learning in an Additional Language

A Key Development Indicator Matrix

A KDI Development Indicator Matrix for Introducing Teaching through an Additional Language (TAL)

Governance

International Strategy

International Ranking Systems

Research Strategy and Development

Investment Resourcing

Administrative Staff Resourcing

Language Policy

Language Policy Action Plan

Quality Assurance Processes

Academic staff incentives

Management

Staff Selection Processes

Staff Language Competences

Teaching and Learning Resources Support

Coordinated Staff Teamwork

ICT Ease of Access, Speed and Usability

International Networking

Partnerships and Ventures

Academic Staff Professional Development

Systemized Student Intake

Praxis

Identifiable Language and Content Objectives

Alignment of Additional Language Teaching

Use of Language and Conceptual Scaffolding

Use of Dialogic Methods

Use of Active Feedback

Plagiarism Management

Performance Outcomes

Student Satisfaction

Teaching Staff Satisfaction

Course Grades

University International Profile

Postscript

References

In the past two decades globalization and advanced technologies have placed higher education at a crossroads. A unique combination of circumstances continues to bring substantial challenges that will determine the face of higher education within the next two decades. (1)

There are six critical factors in this chain of circumstances. These are competition, competences, consolidation, commitment, communication and capabilities.

Competition is driven by a combination of factors. These include the expansion of private sector universities, supply and demand of fee-paying students, and the pressure of national and international university ranking systems.

Competence building (combining knowledge and skills), a concept previously associated with developing basic skills in vocational and professional education, has now deeply permeated higher education. Combining knowledge and skill is now a key goal expected and demanded from higher education.

Consolidation is often driven by economies of scale and a prevailing view that larger organizations are stronger. It involves the unification of previously separate organizations. Consolidation results in university education being closely geared to the current and forecast needs of working life, which, in turn, promotes the formation of innovative inter-disciplinary programmes.

Commitment often requires a personal view that something is worthwhile. In some countries investment in higher education is no longer seen as providing easy access to preferred career and working life options, or anticipated financial returns in terms of income. In these cases there is an ongoing shift in the perceived status of participating in higher education alongside a decline in the perceived value of certain types of degree.

Communication modes and patterns have been deeply affected by advanced technologies. Processes for information transfer, interaction platforms systems, and the human expectations and dynamics of how and when we communicate have changed. Communication in higher education also concerns language. Establishing a university in a global context requires the ability to partly function in a global language. And until instant translation technologies enable real time communication, in the majority of countries this means providing education in more than one language.

Capability, may be present within an individual or organization, but not active. Higher education faces the need to innovate, re-organize, and re-establish itself but this cannot be easily achieved without capability. There are recent examples of attempts to do this particularly by introducing business models to introduce change. The potential to harness higher education capability declines if the autonomy of academics and faculties are diminished. In the past a problem has been a reluctance to change the status quo. If universities are to be recognized as valued and relevant professional learning communities that transform people’s lives and advance the frontiers of knowledge, then latent capabilities, and new capabilities need to be utilized.

Universities are complex organizations that can be resistant to change. They may be examples of long-term incremental change, inertia and stagnation. Even if they have structured systems governed by rules and processes, the departments and faculties can work in isolation from each other. Intellectual power within departments may not be interacting in ways that support perspectives, aspirations and directions of interest for the university as a whole.

Rather than operating as engines for progress combining education, research and value creation for the wider societies, they can be reduced to evolving through first order change. First-order change is where small adjustments are made slowly over time that do not have a significant impact on existing power structures, teaching and learning traditions, and attitudes. Second-order change involves transformative actions that require new ways of thinking and interacting, and the exploration of new vistas of opportunity. (2)

This brings us to the concept of the university as an ecosystem. The term ecosystem was introduced by Arthur Tansley in 1935 to describe the interaction of living and non-living factors that enable an environment to be balanced, or out-of-balance. Like an ecosystem, a university is an environment usually consisting of a network of interdependent living and non-living entities that interact to a greater or lesser extent. The term is helpful in looking at the broader picture when considering introduction of innovative practices. (3)

In an ecosystem competition often competes against collaboration. Think of the metaphor of a fish farm in a natural lake. Competition for food between fish in dysfunctional enclosures may satisfy short-term gain, but work against the needs and advantages of long-term sustainability and balance. History is full of cases where human interference with natural ecosystems has led to long-term degradation and imbalance.

In the 21st century efficiency and sufficiency are dependent on collaboration, which is as true of the natural world ecosystems as with universities. In a period of change, the forces of human collaboration, and recognition of dependency, need to be recognized and integrated for long-term progress to be achieved that is balanced, strong and sustainable. Some universities have long-standing processes which prevent collaboration, and which encourage internal and other forms of competition which lead to systemic dysfunction.

The change iceberg presented by Wilfrid Krüger offers a classic description of why change management can be difficult to achieve within an ecosystem, and why inertia can block innovation and progress. Above the surface of the water are the visions, missions, issues that need to be adapted, adopted or otherwise introduced. Underneath the surface are the attitudes, behavior, perceptions, beliefs, motivation and sometimes hidden power agendas that can ultimately lead to failure of even the most obvious and sensible initiatives. In universities it is the potential below the waterline that needs to be realized for innovation, progress, and ultimately change management to be successful.

If we see a university as an ecosystem then interaction depends on language. If interaction is to be extended to academics in other parts of the world there is likely to be a demand for use of more than one language.

As universities face the demands of the emergent forces of competition, competences, consolidation, commitment, communication and capabilities, the need for international engagement requires a re-conceptualization of the role of language within the ecosystem. International engagement requires a common language, a lingua franca, and at present this is invariably English.

When English is introduced as a language of teaching, learning, research and collaboration it affects the dynamics and ultimately the balance of an ecosystem. Eventually use of an additional language such as English enables a system to become bi- or trilingual in a smooth and balanced way.

But the introduction of an additional language invites shifts within and threats towards the established structures that can lead to positive or negative consequences. It can also open windows of opportunity. Drawing on psychological Gestalt theory, the introduction of an additional language in higher education has an impact that may be greater than ‘the sum of its parts’.

If we experience first-order change through slow moving, incremental ‘tinkering’ of a system, then we manage the parts, not the ‘whole’. If we implement second-order change processes when introducing an additional working language in a university then the ‘whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts’. This means consideration of all the interacting entities, interests, needs, and attitudes that characterize the university as a professional ecosystem. To achieve this a holistic framework is necessary if efficiency, consistency and sufficiency are to be enabled.

A matrix is considered as a visual representation of a social environment (ecosystem) in which multiple factors that enable something to develop intersect and are embedded with one another. The use of key performance Indicators (KPI) to measure performance has a long and sometimes controversial history, particularly in management and industry. One typical weakness is to record what has been done but not what is actively developing, or in need of development. (4)

This is why the tool described in this publication is referred to as a Key Development Indicator Matrix (KDI).

The use of KDI’s is to articulate and show the inter-relatedness of key development areas in order to enable systemic change to materialize as a recognized strength. The need to identify progress on separate if inter-linked issues is useful in highlighting what is absent, emergent, developing or advanced. It is particularly useful when introducing innovation into a large and complex ecosystem such as a university. This is because it can act as a single matrix which does not simply rank performance, but which identifies and communicates all development issues to the entire community involved. (5)

The KDI matrix is formed by first identifying the goal (e.g. quality education through English which complements teaching through the first language and achievement of the university strategy). Next is the identification of key factors that can support or hinder progress being achieved (e.g. governance, management, praxis, and outcomes). Then, finally, selection of the key development questions. On the basis of these, the indicators are formed to gain deeper understanding of the answers to these questions.

For those wishing to effectively and efficiently introduce English taught courses and programmes in higher education, the matrix is a navigation tool. It is intended to simplify understanding of what needs to be considered when introducing programmes in an additional language.

In this KDI Matrix the indicators are:

• Considered to be development indicators

• Grouped according to four categories: Governance, management, praxis and outcomes

• Time-sensitive (a value is given to each for a specific period, usually one year)

• Modified for different university contexts (when a key development area is fully operational then the indicator is kept but made passive)

Next we give examples of the categories.

Governance

Governance concerns decisions that are usually made in the central administration of the university.

Governance at the university enables alignment to:

International Strategy

A common type of university international strategy focuses mainly on staff and student exchange, and is managed by non-academic staff within administration. This presents a scenario where the international office may be an administrative unit that supports specific types of international cooperation. In a case like this a strategy may exist in theory, but in practice is limited to basic mobility processes. If TAL is not active the scope and potential impact of internationalization may be severely limited.

The recommendation is to examine the strategy, and even if it only comprises some general and superficial objectives, identify how TAL can enable parts of the strategy to be realized. For example, this may be through reaching out to continents and countries, engaging with alternative stakeholders, providing joint academic courses, and exploring opportunities for cross-sector and other research and development.

The key issue is to identify where TAL can contribute to the development of the university’s core values and mission, and communicate this to university governance. This requires close collaboration between staff involved with international affairs, and faculties.

International Ranking Systems

International ranking systems can have a profound impact on university life. Just as in the case of international credit rating agencies that can have an extraordinary influence on a country’s ability to manage its own affairs, international higher education ranking systems are controversial and unduly powerful. The theoretical underpinning and methods used to collect information and rank complex higher education institutions in league tables differ according to the organizations responsible.

There are more than 20 ranking systems operating globally. Comparisons between universities may be based on a range of interpretations and data. Some of these are about ‘International outlook’. International outlook can involve a wide range of activities from recruiting students and faculty from other countries to joint research and development projects.

As TAL is essential for activating many of these processes, the steps are to identify which ranking system is of importance for the university (e.g. THE, ARWU, QS, U-Multirank), the criteria required for identification of high performance, and to communicate how TAL can enhance these and other activities such as in research and publishing.

Research Strategy and Development

One of the pressures affecting higher education relates to focusing on selected specializations that sustain excellence and world-leading research. This often involves developing new interdisciplinary fields such as nanotechnology, translational research, technology and materials science. One single university may not have the capacity to foster a new field alone, and networking with other centres can be essential. Introducing TAL may be one component in enabling this to happen, particularly with respect to attracting students and faculty from other countries to participate in PhD and post-doctoral research programmes.

Governance at the university enables availability of:

Investment Resourcing

A case needs to be made for committing financial resources for TAL. This may be for professional development, infrastructure or other shorter-term needs. Investment is essential for capacity building, and earmarking specific capital through university governance is usually required.

Administrative Staff Resourcing

TAL can require that administrative staff able to work in the additional language is available to handle technical issues relating to student and faculty mobility, and other logistics related to international engagement.

Language Policy

A university international strategy is served through availability of a recognized language policy. This is a declaration of intent on the position of all languages in the university as a professional community. The policy serves to encourage that multilingualism is fostered in the university environment, and communicate the principals of additional language planning, management and practice including TAL throughout the academic community.

Language Policy Action Plan

A university language policy needs to include an action plan that sets out objectives and processes and is linked to the internationalization strategy. This action plan is reviewed periodically and updated accordingly. It describes sub-actions concerning aims (what is intended); actions (what is done to realize the aims); and intended outcomes (what is realized within the university as a result of these actions).

Quality Assurance Processes

Introducing change can be disruptive to standard operating processes. TAL introduces new processes to which students and faculty need to adapt and accommodate within standard practices. This period of adaptation may require agile quality assurance processes which operative pro-actively to foster innovation, and which provide an evidence-base upon which to make future decisions on the scale and scope of TAL.

Academic staff incentives

Embarking on TAL can be a demanding task for faculty. Academics may have intrinsic motivation because of a perceived personal gain, but decisions need to be considered with respect to nurturing extrinsic motivation. This can be through reduced teaching loads, remuneration, or other forms of special support such as budgets for resources and equipment.

Management

Management concerns decisions that are usually made at faculty level within the university.

Management at the university involves consideration of:

Staff Selection Processes

Academic staff involvement in contributing to TAL needs to be voluntary. Recruitment of new staff may include consideration of prior experience, or otherwise readiness to teach through an additional language, but existing faculty need to make their own individual decisions on if and how to participate.

There can be situations where a staff member over-estimates their skills in both the language and methodologies. In others staff may be pressurized to participate in TAL. Both scenarios can be problematic. Management needs to be involved with whom, where, and how TAL provision is offered to students.

Individual academics may wish to introduce TAL in their own respective courses. This can lead to successful if isolated outcomes. However, launching TAL programmes that are aligned with the international strategy of a university requires teamwork involving individual staff members in providing specific TAL learning modules.

Staff Language Competences

University faculty may be reluctant to participate in language skills testing and assessment. Teaching academic content in an additional language requires specialized use of language alongside use of appropriate methodologies. Procedures for ensuring that individual staff is competent to teach their subjects in the additional language are needed, but these do not need to be in the form of language tests. They can be managed internally and can be particularly successful when conducted through peer review. One option is to use the purpose-designed Teaching through English in Higher Education certification test administered by the University of Jyväskylä in Finland.

Teaching and Learning Resources Support

TAL inevitably involves accessing teaching and learning resources in the additional that may not be readily available through the university library or other resource repositories. Faculty-based decisions on securing resources, or assistance in sourcing these resources, need to be supported through management.

Coordinated Staff Teamwork

Faculty members can benefit from each other when working in teams on existing or new TAL programmes. Different subjects within and across disciplines may differ substantially, not just in terms of content, but also in how content is taught, learnt and applied. Sharing understanding of the genre and culture of different subjects, and how these can be taught and understood by students, can be the basis for developing significant methodological solutions and overall readiness for TAL. For this to happen, management needs to ensure that individual faculty members are able to work in teams through alignment of work schedules, and in some cases, physical location of offices and services on campus.

ICT Ease of Access, Speed and Usability

TAL requires the same ease of access to Internet and technology infrastructure as when teaching through the first language. It is not technology itself that is driving change in higher education. It is changes in the concept of learning that affect how teaching and learning is conducted in modern universities. Weaknesses with Internet connection speed, firewalls, or WiFi strength, can challenge the successful implementation of TAL.

International Networking

Implementing TAL can increase the number of opportunities available for establishing cooperative ventures inside and outside the country. These may range from new contacts in universities to others in the private sector and multinational organizations. When faculty become involved with teaching through an additional language their enhanced professional profiles may lead to an increase in global networking. This provides added value to the university and is best served by acknowledgement and support by management.

Partnerships and Ventures

As international networking expands, opportunities for partnerships and ventures increase. These may be through co-sharing of course design and implementation; joint degrees; exchange partnerships; research alliances with the public and private sectors; and greater fusion of research and development interests.

Academic Staff Professional Development

There is a need for a significant change of methods to suit the needs of the Information Age in some faculties and universities. The predominance of lecture monologue, originating in Europe during the Middle Ages when printing was unfeasible, remains a chief methodology in some universities.

Students in universities have had long-term experience of learning through media-rich environments. Activities in these environments are based on multifaceted types of interaction, and over the past decades there has been a profound shift in how these students approach and construct knowledge. There is a place for lecturing, but also for other types of interactive learning forums.

The interactional basis of digital literacy strengthens the case for interactional techniques to be used in higher education. In addition, TAL benefits from using bilingual methods, whereas teaching in a first language can largely rely on monolingual methods. Staff development in interactive bilingual methodologies bring substantial benefits in TAL.

Systemized Student Intake

Student intake, both domestic and international, is pivotal for ensuring the success of TAL. When a selection process is flawed then a range of negative effects can ensue. These may result in extra teaching workload, reduced student satisfaction, low rates of morale, and inefficient use of resources.

Student selection needs to involve comprehensive procedures that involve checks on language and prior education, motivation to study, and academic readiness to enter higher education programmes.

Praxis

Praxis involves putting an idea into practice. Teaching in an additional language introduces an extra layer of complexity when compared to teaching through the first language. Therefore, to achieve success, teaching and learning practices require attention.

Identifiable Language and Content Objectives

There is a significant difference between teaching in an additional language (where little explicit attention is given to language and communication), and teaching through an additional language (where extra language support is provided through integrated forms of scaffolding).

Higher education teaching and learning through what is the first language for the majority of students and faculty can be successfully conducted through largely monolingual frames of reference if the methods used align with the learning preferences of digitally astute students. Teaching and learning through an additional language requires both alignment to digital needs, but also methods applied through a bilingual frame of reference. This type of teaching and learning is a feature of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).

If a course has identifiable content and language objectives then it is an indicator revealing that the extra language dynamics resulting from introduction of the additional language (for teaching through not just in) have been taken into account in design and implementation.

Alignment of Additional Language Teaching

Additional language teaching has been subject to considerable change over the past decades. One development has been to integrate language learning closely with subject learning. This means that rather than having two subjects running parallel in the curriculum, the two are integrated with dual intended learning outcomes.

When TAL is introduced it changes the dynamics of when and how the additional language should be taught as a subject. It provides a significant opportunity for language departments to re-conceptualize their positioning within the university. If faculty works in isolation from language teaching expertise then dysfunction and inefficiency can result. If they work together then the impact can be considerable for both in implementing TAL.

Use of Language and Conceptual Scaffolding

Concept formation is at the heart of teaching and learning in higher education. Scaffolding is a set of support mechanisms that enable students to progressively move towards successful understanding of content. Content scaffolding is essential when teaching complex content in the first language. TAL requires both a blend of content and language scaffolding if success is to be achieved.

Use of Dialogic Methods

Students entering university have generally had long experience of using media-rich environments, for learning, communication, entertainment, and networking. Activities in these environments revolve around use of multi-faceted types of interaction. The interactive basis of digital literacy strengthens the case for interactional techniques to be used in education.

Dialogic methods enable students and teachers to participate in co-creating learning through language. This is particularly important for TAL. Put simply, whilst use of monologue to transmit information has been a long-standing traditional standard, it is being replaced by a different professional outlook that focuses on student agency and learning through dialogue.

Use of Active Feedback

One aspect of innovative interactive teaching and learning processes is feedback. Feedback is evaluative information that enables the student to understand aspects of a learning situation so that they can make choices on how to achieve desired outcomes.

In traditional higher education feedback to an individual student has been largely summative (at the end of a course), minimalist (use of grades, numbers, a few words), and infrequent. In interactive educational environments feedback is largely formative (throughout a course), maximalist (qualitative and quantitative through different types of communication), and frequent.

Plagiarism Management

As a general principle when academics read student work in their first language they are able to detect plagiarism and other anomalies more readily than working in an additional language. In the past original sources were more easily recognized through established publications and forums, but now the parameters have changed. Access to information, factual with recognizable sources or inconsistent through irregular sources, has made the issue of plagiarism an increasingly important issue for students and faculty alike.

In TAL faculty face extra demands in ensuring that student work has not been sourced in an inappropriate way. This is because student output will comprise greater individual diversity in the additional language, than in the first language, in terms of differing levels of fluency, and discourse styles.

Performance Outcomes

Performance outcomes are generally described using metrics and measures to benchmark performance and impact. These processes are used to a greater or lesser extent in higher education.

TAL requires special attention to be given to certain types of evaluation processes and results because it introduces a non-standardized professional sub-culture into the university. In time, measuring outcomes through TAL can be scaled up into standardized processes, but during the TAL early implementation phases careful interpretation of certain metrics is necessary.

The KDI outcome indicators relate to faculty and student attitudes, learning performance goals, and university strategic objectives.

Student Satisfaction

Levels of satisfaction toward the overall learning experience provided through a course.

Teaching Staff Satisfaction

Levels of satisfaction toward teaching and student learning outcomes experienced during a course.

Course Grades

Metrics on student grades as compared to other courses past or present.

University International Profile

Metrics and reporting on TAL-linked outcomes on international engagement, collaboration, mobility, and outreach.

Postscript

Shaping the Future: A KDI Framework for Building CLIL Environments in Higher Education is the result of multiple collaboration in developing higher education TAL in Europe and North America. This Key Development Indicator matrix serves to enable systemic and consistent development of TAL within a university’s ecosystem. Specific attention is given to the forces of competition, competences, consolidation, commitment, communication and capabilities.

(1) Strathdee,R., (2008) Tertiary Education in the 21st Century. Palgrave Macmillan US.

Wildavsky,B., Kelly, A., Carey,K. (eds) (2011) Reinventing Higher Education: The promise of innovation. Harvard Education Press.

Gilbert, C., Grow, M., Anderson, D. (2018) Design Thinking for Higher Education. Winter 2018. Stanford Social Innovation Review.

(2) Ertmer, P. (1999) Vol. 47, 4, pp 47-61, Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology innovation. Educational Technology Research and Development

(3) Tansley, A.G. (1947) The Early History of Modern Plant Ecology in Britain. Journal of Ecology, 35,1, pp130-137

Willis, A.J. (1997) The Ecosystem: An evolving Concept Viewed Historically. Functional Ecology, 11, 2 pp268-271

(4) Star, S., Russ-Eft, D., Braverman, M. (2016). Performance Mangement and Performance Indicators: A literature review and a proposed model for practical adoption. Human Resource development Review, 15,2.

Badaway, M., Abd. El-Aziz, A., Idress, A., Hefny,H. Hossam, S. (2016). A Survey on key performance Indicators. Future Computing and Informatics Journal, 1, 1-2, 47-52.

Areana, M., Arnabaldi, M., Azzone, G. Carlucci, P. (2009) Developing a Performance Measurement System for University central Administrative Services. Higher Education Quarterly 63, 237-263.

(5) Aubrey, B. (2016). Measure of Man: Leading human development. McGraw Hill Education

David Marsh Ph.D, Hon.D. is Director, Innovation & Outreach, at EduCluster Finland, University of Jyväskylä Group. He has experience of tasks in over 40 countries, contributed to over 150 publications, presented over 300 invited keynotes at international conferences, and received 5 degrees from the United Kingdom, Finland and Spain. Long-term experience of working across the European Union has been complemented with assignments in Africa, Central, East & Southeast Asia, the GCC countries, North and South America. His work has been recognised through various awards including the English-speaking Union (2008), the Estonian Educational Sciences (2009), Doctor honoris causa at Valencian International University (2013), and Honorary Chair, Catedrático Extraordinario de Educación Bilingüe, UCAM, Spain (2017). Having been instrumental in developing processes for transforming language learning, and teaching academic subjects through English, he co-launched Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) under the auspices of the European Commission. Since the 1990s, he has been involved with designing competence-building solutions, and quality assurance mechanisms, for higher education academics to teach through English. He is author of The CLIL Trajectory: Educational Innovation for the 21st Century iGeneration, 2013, CAP; and lead author of The Higher Education English Language Landscape: Ensuring Quality in English Language Degree Programmes, 2011, VIU. He is co-author of Uncovering CLIL, Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education, 2008, Macmillan; Content and Language Integrated Learning, 2010, Cambridge University Press; and co-editor of Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions, 2012, Eichstätt Academic Press; and CLIL in Action: Voices from the Classroom 2015, Cambridge Scholars. Recently he has co-authored Teaching through English in Higher Education: Realizing Internationalization in Practice, 2017, Montreal: Inter-American Organization for Higher Education. His current work-in-progress is The Children of Cyberspace: Towards a New Understanding, due for publication in 2019.

davidmarsh@education

Dr. Wendy Díaz Pérez holds a PhD in International Relations (Universidad Autonoma de Madrid) having specialized in Asian Studies and Pacific Rim International Economic Relations. As a Professor at the University of Guadalajara, Mexico, she focuses on public policy and internationalization of higher education. She teaches at doctoral level on management higher education, and is responsible for the University’s Foreign Languages Institutional Programme (FLIP) and recently Coordinator of Foreign Languages. Previously responsible for creating and managing academic programmes on International Business, academic services, and the university curriculum development, she has experience of longer-term studies in Kansai Gaidai University, Japan (1999), and Georgetown University, USA (2009).

Since 2012 she has been instrumental in consulting and co-creating professional development solutions on the internationalization of the curriculum at the University of Guadalajara, and exploring methodological innovation in teaching learning environments. In 2014 she started working with an international team based in Finland (University of Jyväskylä) on developments specific to internationalizing academia through the introduction of English as a medium of communication for teaching, research, and other higher education activities. This has involved working in close collaboration with experts from the Institute of Education, University of London (UK), and the University of Córdoba (Spain). The main focus of these activities has been to scope research and development in this field from across Europe, and use this to build effective solutions at the University of Guadalajara. Her most recent publications are Díaz Pérez, W. & Marsh, D. (2017) Teaching through English in Higher Education: Realizing Internationalization in Practice, Inter-American Organization for Higher Education (IOHE): Montreal, and Díaz Pérez, W., Fields, D. & Marsh, D. Innovations and Challenges:  Conceptualizing CLIL Practice in Theory Into Practice (2018).

Wendy.diaz@redudg.udg.mx

Derechos reservados ©

© David Marsh

© Wendy Díaz

Universidad de Guadalajara

Juárez 976, Colonia Centro

Guadalajara, Jalisco

México

2018

ISBN 978-607-547-110-5

Diseño y maquetación: Alicia Cataño Eldridge y Laura Contreras para TYPE

Shaping the Future: A KDI Framework for Building CLIL Environments in Higher Education se terminó de editar en junio de 2018 por Alicia Cataño Eldridge,

Av. del Reno Pte. 8-27, Bugambilias,

Zapopan, Jal., C.P. 45238. MÉXICO

type.editorial@gmail.com