CLIL Learning: Achievement Levels

and Affective Factors

Jaana Seikkula-Leino
Faculty of Education, Teacher Training School, Turku University,
Finland

The aim of the study was to investigate how successfully pupils had learned content
in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and to assess pupils’ affective
learning factors, such as motivation and self-esteem, in CLIL. Learning was presented
in terms of achievement level, which was described as the relationship between mea-
sured levels of intelligence and school success. The study indicated that there were
no major differences in learning, whether the language used in instruction is the
pupils’ mother tongue or a foreign language; pupils of different intelligence levels
had similar chances to succeed in both cases. However, it was discovered that there
may not be as many overachievers among the pupils in CLIL as among the pupils in
the Finnish language instruction group. Achievements in the Finnish language, i.e.
the mother tongue, were not negatively affected by CLIL. In terms of the affective fac-
tors, the study indicated that CLIL pupils had a low self-concept in foreign languages,
although pupils had a strong motivation to learn.

doi: 10.2167/le635.0

Keywords: achievement levels, affective factors, content and language inte-

grated learning (CLIL), content learning

Introduction
CLIL teaching has been increasing rapidly in Finland and in some other
countries as well, due to European integration and internationalism. This has
created major challenges for language teaching and there is also a greater need
for communicative competence. To meet these requirements some new solutions
for language teaching have been developed, to enable a pupil to spend more time
for language learning and to develop his communicative skills intentionally. In
CLIL, a pupil usually studies some subject or a content theme in a foreign
language. English is the most popular foreign language in Finland, but German,
French and Russian are also used as languages of instruction. Finland’s two
official languages are Finnish and Swedish, the latter being a minority language
in Finland. This gives, in addition to CLIL, the opportunity to offer traditional
immersion teaching where pupils whose mother tongue is Finnish study subjects
and themes in Swedish.
The differences between CLIL and immersion are the following factors: in
CLIL pupils usually learn to read and write through their mother tongue
whereas in immersion the foreign language has a role in this cognitive de-
velopment. This is maybe the most noticeable difference between these two
types of instruction (Malmström, 1993). Immersion teachers are bilingual and
0950-0782/07/04 328-14 $20.00/0

C 2007 J. Seikkula-Leino
LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION Vol. 21, No. 4, 2007

328
CLIL Learning: Achievement Levels and Affective Factors 329

their mother tongue is the language which is foreign for their pupils (Swain
& Lapkin, 1982: 5). When pupils start their school in immersion, any former
knowledge of this foreign language is not required. It is even recommended for
pupils not to have any previous knowledge of the foreign language in question.
Thus, all pupils would have the same starting level (Vesterbacka, 1991b: 64–65).
In CLIL, there are no common requirements for pupils’ and teachers’ foreign
language skills. In immersion, at least 50% of teaching should be through the
foreign language whereas in CLIL, according to the European Union, at least
25% of teaching should be carried through a foreign language. Immersion in-
cludes the objective for pupils to become fluent in both languages. In CLIL,
there is variation according to the goals concerning foreign language learning.
Both immersion and CLIL focus primarily on foreign language learning, which
is perhaps the greatest similarity between these two teaching types.
Immersion teaching was developed in Finland during the 1980s. CLIL teach-
ing was introduced most noticeably in the 1990s. This was made possible by the
new Finnish school laws in the 1980s and 1990s. The proliferation of different
forms of CLIL and immersion has raised some questions. Could the combina-
tion of a foreign language and the language which is the pupils’ mother tongue
(that are both used as a media for learning) have some impact on the learning
of content or the mother tongue, for example?
The following article will present research results that are linked to the learn-
ing, self-esteem and motivation of the pupils in CLIL. As CLIL has not been
widely studied, research on immersion teaching is also included to support the
analysis and observations.

Learning in immersion teaching

Pupils who have attended immersion have demonstrated even better perfor-
mance than those who have studied in their native language. Studies conducted
in Spain and Catalan have focussed on the immersion pupils’ success in a for-
eign language, their mother tongue and mathematics. Immersion pupils were
compared to a so-called normal class. All pupils had a low social background.
The skills of the immersion pupils exceeded those of the normal-class pupils in
both mother tongue and mathematics (Sampera, 1994: 13). Some other studies
have also shown that immersion pupils may be better in verbal and non-verbal
communication skills, cognitive skills and divergent thinking than so-called
normal-class pupils (Vesterbacka, 1991a: 24).
Pupils have also been reported demonstrating similar success in both immer-
sion classes and classes that are studying in their native language. According to
Canadian immersion studies, the children’s mother tongue, English, does not
suffer from French immersion. It has also been observed that the immersion
pupils were not weaker in the subject taught than the other pupils (Cummins,
1995; Genesee, 1988). It has also been shown that immersion has not disturbed
the intellectual development of the pupils (Genesee, 1976).
Results that are not in line with the above studies have, however, been
obtained in studying the mathematical skills of pupils. For instance Ribes
(1993), who studied ten-year-old immersion pupils, pointed out that immer-
sion pupils did not manage worse than so-called normal-class pupils as regards
330 Language and Education

mathematical reasoning skills, but the immersion pupils showed relatively

weaker mechanical skills and understanding of mathematical concepts. Corre-
spondingly, a wide scope mathematics study conducted on second grade pupils
showed that immersion pupils fared worse than other classes in mathematics
(Gaya, 1994: 30–35).
I have presented studies that show that the children’s mother tongue skills
are very similar both in immersion classes and in so-called normal classes. For
example, in Catalonia, the pupils in immersion did not differ from the group
that studied in its mother tongue as regards their skills in their mother tongue,
i.e. Spanish. However, what was notable was that during the first three years, the
skills of the immersion pupils were slightly lower in their mother tongue than
those of their peers in the so-called normal class. By the end of the third year, the
differences had been levelled out. According to a study conducted in Barcelona,
the immersion pupils in the fourth grade (9–10-year-olds) demonstrated the
same skills in their native language as other Spanish pupils of their age (Gaya,
1994: 38–42). Dodson and Thomas (1988) have also observed in their studies on
Welsh immersion pupils that they generally developed their skills similarly to
their peers. However, the capacity to grasp concepts was not as strong among
immersion pupils as among the pupils who studied only in their mother tongue.
Vesterbacka (1991a: 166–168) has conducted immersion research in Finland
and noted that the Finnish skills of immersion pupils have not been weaker than
those of the pupils who are taught in Finnish. As a typical feature of linguistic
development it can be said that immersion pupils who were taught in Swedish
were able to write even more creatively than those who were taught in Finnish.
Meriläinen (2002) has also reached similar results: fourth-graders who were
studying in English had a good grasp of basic concepts of biology in Finnish.
According to Elomaa (1996), immersion pupils in the fourth grade had lower
Finnish skills than those who studied in Finnish. Let us state that immersion
pupils were slightly more skilled in some fields than pupils studying in their
mother tongue. Immersion studies often point out that the pupils who may be
lagging behind tend to reach the same level as their peers at some point (cf.
Laurén, 2000).

Learning in CLIL
Research on CLIL is relatively young. However, some studies in this field
have been conducted. The pupils’ mother tongue skills have been studied in the
first and second grades. The language class succeeded better than the so-called
normal class in the reading speed test. However, in the sections testing mechan-
ical writing skills, reading comprehension and vocabulary, the language class
did not do as well as the class studying in Finnish (Koivumäki & Stara, 1994).
Hämäläinen (1998) has reached similar results when studying the development
of vocabulary in the pupils’ mother tongue from the second to fifth grades. Espe-
cially the pupils in upper classes demonstrated remarkably weaker vocabulary
skills than their peers in Finnish language classes. It has to be noted that these
results are important as the research group was fairly large. The study included
139 pupils in CLIL and 170 pupils in Finnish language teaching. The vocabulary
test included mainly vocabulary connected to nature and the environment.
CLIL Learning: Achievement Levels and Affective Factors 331

The study conducted by Qiang (2000) observed the development of the cog-
nitive skills of Tibetan children in bilingual teaching. It showed that the pupils
who were taught in their mother tongue succeeded better in it than those who
had participated in bilingual teaching. Moreover, especially older pupils study-
ing in a foreign language lagged behind their peers as regards content, i.e.
mathematics. It has to be noted that it is somewhat difficult to compare the re-
sults concerning teaching in a foreign language in this case because the cultural
starting point varies from the Western and Finnish background. However, the
study was wide as it included altogether 508 pupils who were in the second
and fourth grade. The pupils’ potentially different backgrounds were taken into
consideration.
Pupils have been observed to learn very well in teaching content in a foreign
language. For example a continuing study made by Merisuo-Storm (2000) in-
dicated that the development of the pupils’ reading and writing skills during
their first year at school did not show any remarkable difference between those
who were taught in Finnish and those who were taught in a foreign language.
The study also aimed at surveying how weaker and more skilled pupils devel-
oped in these different teaching methods, and no remarkable differences were
noticed. The study included 80 pupils who were studying in a language class.
The comparison group included 59 pupils who were studying everything in
Finnish.
Merisuo-Storm (2002) reached similar results in a more comprehensive study
which monitored pupils during their first two years at school. Pupils studying
in a foreign language developed better reading skills than those who were
studying in Finnish. This study included 134 pupils in CLIL. It is to be noted
that teaching in a foreign language accounted for approximately 20% of all
teaching. Moreover, the pupils had studied a few years in CLIL. The research
made by Rahman (2001) also supports the above conclusion that the pupils’
skills in their native language develop well in CLIL. The study looked into the
spelling of compound nouns of sixth graders in CLIL. Pupils in CLIL succeeded
better than pupils learning in their mother tongue when they had to write essays
in which the focus was on the correct spelling of compound nouns.

Affective factors
The self-concept of pupils in language-oriented classes has been studied with
7–10-year-old pupils and it has been observed to be very positive. The study also
looked into the linguistic self-concept of the pupils, which was very positive as
well. Gender differences were minimal (Hyvönen & Lahdenranta, 1994: 112–
116).
School motivation has been studied in immersion classes, pupils in CLIL and
in so-called normal classes. The pupils’ foreign language was Swedish and they
were in the second or third grades. The immersion pupils showed the most
motivation. Pupils in CLIL were more motivated than the pupils being taught
in Finnish. All classes explained success mainly with internal factors. Pupils
in CLIL attributed their success to competence whereas those in immersion
and in Finnish classes emphasised the will to try. Pupils in Finnish-speaking
classes often linked success to the task being easy, which indicates feelings of
332 Language and Education

helplessness and low motivation (Filppula, 1996). Heinilä and Paakinen (1997)
have reached similar results as well. Pupils in CLIL enjoyed studying in a foreign
language and they were motivated to study a foreign language.
It is worth noting that the studies on immersion and CLIL are not wholly
comparable, as these teaching methods are somewhat different. CLIL practices
also vary by school and research results concerning immersion are not totally
applicable to CLIL, even though there are similarities. The results cannot be
aligned to situations in which a child is learning in a different language but
where no attention is paid to the development of his mother tongue skills.
Many researchers in the USA, the Scandinavian countries and Germany have
observed that when children participate in bilingual teaching as immigrants or
as members of a linguistic minority group, their performance is not as good as
that of their peers (cf. Hoffmann, 1991). However, these pupils can reach the
same level as pupils learning in their native language. This requires that pupils
have obtained bilingual teaching for 4–7 years (Thomas & Collier, 2002).

The Purpose of the Study

This study (Seikkula-Leino, 2002) had two major purposes. The first aim was
concerned with answering the following question: ’How well have CLIL pupils
learned content compared to non-CLIL pupils and how well specific subjects
such as mathematics and Finnish language as a mother tongue, were learned
viewing content from this standpoint?’ Learning was presented in terms of
achievement level, which was described as the relationship between measured
levels of intelligence and school success. The purpose for adjusting school suc-
cess to intelligence was to look at learning more individually. The second objec-
tive of this study was to examine the affective factors of learning. The aim was
to assess CLIL pupils’ affective learning factors like motivation and self-esteem.
Motivation was presented in terms of causal attributions as well as instrumen-
tal, integrative and cognitive orientation towards foreign language learning. In
addition, the general self-esteem of the pupils and their academic and foreign
language self-concept were taken into consideration.

Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of the study first focused on general learning
and then on different aspects of foreign language and CLIL. Learning in CLIL
was seen in this study mainly as a constructive learning process (Julkunen,
2002; Meriläinen, 2002; Rauste von Wright, 1997) where the acquisition of a
foreign language and the communicative use of it formed the basis for language
learning (e.g. Ellis, 1985; Krashen & Terrell, 1984). Learning was presented in
terms of achievement level, which is described as the relationship between
measured levels of intelligence and school success. If a pupil does not reach
the level of school success predicted by his intelligence, he could be defined
as an underachiever and in the opposite situation he could be defined as an
overachiever. A pupil whose achievements are in line with his intelligence level
can be called an achiever according to his abilities. In this study, intelligence
was seen as theoretically grounded to the traditional intelligence theories such
CLIL Learning: Achievement Levels and Affective Factors 333

as Spearman (1904, 1927) and Thurstone (1938) but also to some new theories
like Sternberg (1986) who stresses more on the active process of intelligence.
Moreover, the theoretical framework was built on the affective factors of
learning, like Borba’s (e.g. 1989, 1994) self-esteem theory, Burns’ (1979, 1982) and
Shavelson et al.’s (1976) self-concept theory, Laine and Pihko’s (1991) self-concept
theory of language learning and Weiner’s (1974, 1984, 1992) causal attribution
theory. According to Borba (e.g. 1989, 1994), self-esteem consists of five basic
building blocks: security, selfhood, affiliation, mission and competence. The
study sought for the self-concept of the pupils in the said sectors of self-esteem.
Thus, it was possible to demonstrate what kind of self-esteem pupils in CLIL
have.
Self-esteem is closely linked to self-concept. The main difference between
self-concept and self-esteem is that the latter is also connected to the individual
emotional factors. As opposed to self-esteem, self-concept is a more objective
description of oneself. Self-concept includes, for instance, social, physical and
emotional self-concept as well as a learning self-concept (Burns, 1979, 1982;
Shavelson et al., 1976). The section of the learning self-concept included in this
study is the foreign language self-concept. The foreign language self-concept
includes all the knowledge, ideas, ideals and evaluation of oneself as a language
learner – the instrumental, integrative and cognitive orientation towards foreign
language learning (Laine & Pihko, 1991: 15–16). In addition to self-esteem, the
aim was, hence, to highlight the foreign language self-concept of the pupils in
CLIL in more detail.
The causal attribution theory of Weiner (1974, 1984, 1992) is based on the in-
terpretation of an individual’s way to explain his successes and failures. These
successes and failures can be explained through various causal attributes. Suc-
cess at school can be evaluated in the following ways: I succeeded because I
was good; I failed because I did not try hard enough. Especially, if the outcome
is unexpected, people tend to look for reasons and explanations. An individual
attributes his success/failure mainly to four different factors: competence, at-
tempt, the level of difficulty or facility of the task and coincidence. The various
models of explanation of failure and success have an impact on the goal-oriented
performance and hence, on the lowering, maintenance or rise of motivation. This
study aimed at assessing the motivation of pupils in CLIL from the standpoint
of causal attribution.

Methodology
The study subjects included 217 pupils from grades 5 and 6 in a Finnish
comprehensive school; 116 of them were enrolled in CLIL classes. There were
ten classes in this study. In the CLIL classes, 40–70% of instruction was carried
out in English. The starting point for defining under- and overachievers was
to highlight how well the pupils fared in different teaching methods in view
of their competence (i.e. their potential intelligence). Thus, it was possible to
control the way pupils may have been selected to the CLIL classes (the majority
of pupils had been selected to the CLIL classes through entrance examinations
and thus, it is probable that their school performance is higher than average).
Regression procedures have been carried out in this study, in order to make
334 Language and Education

accurate inferences about achievements on the basis of intelligence. Hence, the

pupils were aligned and their actual learning could be studied more accurately.
The intelligence tests used were Raven’s non-verbal intelligence test and
Wechsler’s vocabulary test, which measures mainly verbal intelligence. Tests
concerning school success were tests on mathematics and Finnish as a mother
tongue. The mathematics test was based on the national mathematics assess-
ment aimed at sixth graders and it was modified to suit the purposes of this
study to be appropriate also for fifth graders. The school success test of Finnish
as a mother tongue was drafted on the basis of the international reading skill
assessment of the IEA. Since this study aimed at looking into the writing skills
of the pupils as well, the fairly wide-scope open question section of the read-
ing comprehension test was used for that purpose. In order to assess overall
school performance, the pupils’ grades both in Finnish as a mother tongue and
mathematics were also taken into consideration.
The indicators for self-esteem, lerning self-concept and foreign language self-
concept were drafted in the Likert form (scales 1–5). The self-esteem indicator
was based on the theory of Borba. The learning self-concept indicator was based
on the self-concept indicator created by Burns and Shavelson. The foreign lan-
guage self-concept indicator was created by adjusting the indicator drafted by
Laine and Pihko (1991: 124).

Results
Grouping individual achievement levels and content learning in CLIL
Pupil’s individual achievement levels were classified in this study and pupils
were divided into three different groups: underachievers, achievers and over-
achievers. Differences in achievement levels between CLIL and non-CLIL classes
can be seen in Figure 1.
In conclusion, it can be said that there were no significant differences in general
learning between the two groups, CLIL and non-CLIL classes, when comparing
them on the basis of their achievement levels. A CLIL pupil could just as well

Figure 1 Pupils’ different achievement levels in CLIL and in non-CLIL classes

CLIL Learning: Achievement Levels and Affective Factors 335

Figure 2 Pupils’ different mathematical achievement levels in CLIL and in non-CLIL

classes (n = 217)

be an underachiever as a pupil who had attended teaching where the mother

tongue had been used as the language of instruction. However, some differences
could be detected, for example, CLIL classes were more heterogeneous than non-
CLIL classes. Moreover, the results also indicate that intellectually weak, quite
weak, good and excellent pupils could perform as well in both forms of teaching.
On the other hand, significant differences existed when comparing the pupils’
mathematical achievements, which is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 illustrates the significant difference ( p = 0,000***) between the groups.
There were more mathematical achievers in CLIL classes than in non-CLIL
classes. Furthermore, CLIL pupils tended to overachieve less than pupils in
non-CLIL classes. According to this study, pupils in CLIL classes could learn
mathematics according to their intelligence but in non-CLIL classes pupils are
more likely to perform above their potential intelligence.
There was no significant difference between CLIL and non-CLIL pupils in
their learning of their mother tongue. However, data on tests demonstrated that
in non-CLIL classes, pupils were strongly overachievers, meaning that pupils
overachieved in both subjects – Finnish language and mathematics, whereas in
CLIL classes pupils who overachieved were either overachievers in the mother
tongue or in mathematics, but not in both subjects.
Affective factors
Self-esteem
No significant differences were found in measured self-esteem between the
two groups. However, CLIL pupils felt that they had worse knowledge of foreign
languages than pupils in non-CLIL classes. CLIL pupils also evaluated them-
selves as weaker foreign language learners than pupils in non-CLIL classes
( p = 0,000***).
Motivation
CLIL pupils demonstrated strong motivation to learn in general, including
the learning of foreign languages despite their low self-esteem in relation to that
336 Language and Education

of pupils in non-CLIL classes. Pupils in CLIL still wanted to achieve more exter-
nal goals than internal ones ( p = 0,040*) even though motivation for reaching
internal objectives seemed to develop by age.

Discussion
The learning of CLIL pupils did not differ significantly from the way pupils
learn when they study in their mother tongue. Yet some differences can be
observed: the results seem to indicate that pupils who are taught in their native
language tend to overachieve more strongly than those in CLIL. Moreover, it
can be observed that the pupils who are strongly overachievers, i.e. both in
Finnish as a mother tongue and in mathematics, are hardly present among CLIL
pupils. Hence, teaching in a pupil’s mother tongue provides the pupil with more
opportunities to reach maximum results. However, one must bear in mind that
CLIL pupils learn a foreign language to a very high standard, which is unlikely
to happen to such extent in teaching conducted only in Finnish.
When the learning results are separately observed in Finnish as a mother
tongue and mathematics, this study shows that as regards Finnish as a mother
tongue, the pupils’ learning results were similar in both Finnish and CLIL
classes. CLIL pupils overachieved even more strongly than those in Finnish
teaching, even though the difference was not remarkable. Another outcome
worth mentioning is that in one class where more than 75% of all teaching was
conducted in a foreign language, 29% of the pupils were overachievers. The
class in question was very large and the pupils had not been selected on the
basis of general competence; the requirement for enrolment had been a good
knowledge of the English language. The classroom teacher of this class was a
native speaker of English who never addressed the pupils in Finnish. The for-
mal teaching of Finnish as a mother tongue was given by a specialist teacher of
Finnish as a mother tongue. Hence, the results of this study strongly support
the idea that the mother tongue skills of pupils learning in a foreign language
were not weaker than the skills of those learning in their mother tongue. More-
over, it must be noted that both weak and highly intelligent pupils had learned
Finnish as a mother tongue to a fairly similar level: there were no great differ-
ences between underachievers, those learning according to their competence
and overachievers in the groups of intellectually weak, quite weak, quite good
and very good pupils. In view of previous research on the development of a
pupil’s mother tongue skills either in CLIL or in Finnish teaching, it can be said
that this study supported the results obtained by, for instance, Cummins (1995),
Genesee (1988), Gaya (1994: 38–42), Meriläinen (2002) and Vesterbacka (1991b:
166–168) in their research on immersion as well as the research conducted by
Merisuo-Storm (2000, 2002) and Rahman (2001) on CLIL, which showed that
the learning of a pupil’s mother tongue is not disturbed by the participation in
CLIL.
The previous paragraph brought into consideration the research results con-
cerning one class, showing that some pupils may demonstrate very strong de-
velopments in their mother tongue even though their teaching is conducted
mainly in a foreign language. Such results remind us of those obtained by
Sampera (1994) and Vesterbacka (1991a: 24) according to which the skills of
CLIL Learning: Achievement Levels and Affective Factors 337

immersion pupils in their mother tongue may even generally speaking exceed
those of other pupils. It is possible that the pupils’ thinking and metalinguistic
skills have developed as they have had to operate between two languages (cf.
Cummins, 1995). However, we must note that the class in question also included
slightly more underachievers than other classes in average. This provides a rea-
son to suspect that some pupils may not have had linguistics skills strong enough
to cope with such a wide scope teaching in a foreign language. On the other
hand, several other reasons can be traced behind such underachievement
(cf. Butler-Por, 1987), wherefore, in this case, it is difficult to draw any con-
clusions as regards the underachieving pupils in question.
The results indicate that pupils in CLIL had fairly good mathematical skills.
Both weak and talented pupils had learned relatively well according to their
level. However, it is possible that the teaching of mathematics in a foreign lan-
guage has an impact on how well the pupils manage to proceed in the subject
and hence, it may not be possible to reach top results in relation to the poten-
tial competence of the pupils. Such results are supported by earlier studies on
immersion which have shown that the mathematical skills of the pupils were
almost similar in the immersion classes and in the so-called normal classes
(cf. Cummins, 1995; Genesee, 1988). Nevertheless, this study does not sup-
port the assumption that pupils studying in a foreign language would succeed
better in mathematics than pupils who study maths in their mother tongue
(cf. Sampera, 1994). To some extent, it can be assumed that CLIL pupils do
not reach maximum results in mathematics (cf. Gaya, 1994: 30–35; Qiang 2000).
Pupils themselves report to have experienced problems in understanding the
teaching of mathematics (Julkunen, 1999, 2000). Moreover, the teachers’ section
of this study indicated that the teachers sometimes feel they have problems
reaching the basic goals. Since the medium of teaching is a foreign language, the
way in which a pupil learns the foreign language may have an impact on their
ability to learn mathematics also. The affective filter has an impact on learning a
foreign language (Krashen, 1982, 1985; Ellis, 1990): when teaching is conducted
in a foreign language, it is probable that the affective filter has also an impact in
the learning of content. In addition, pupil’s skills in the foreign language itself
steer the learning of content.
Even though the pupils in CLIL did not differ from their peers studying
in their mother tongue, Finnish, as regards self-esteem, it was notable that
their self-evaluation was more clearly marked by self-criticism. Learning in a
foreign language may have steered the development of the pupils’ self-esteem
to some extent, especially as the foreign language self-concept of the pupils was
significantly weaker in relation to that of the pupils studying in Finnish.
The pupils in CLIL felt much weaker in their understanding, reading, writing
and speaking skills of the foreign language than the pupils who were studying
in Finnish. Moreover, they felt that they were generally weaker as language
learners than the pupils who were taught in Finnish. These results are remark-
able especially when we take into consideration that in CLIL classes the pupils
indeed have a good knowledge of the foreign language.
Pupils in CLIL are forced to face the difficulties involved in learning content in
a foreign language. As the teachers involved in this study have described, CLIL
is very demanding for the pupils. Hence, learning in CLIL is in principle different
338 Language and Education

in the way that the so-called meaningful learning, which is one starting point for
constructivism (cf. Engeström, 1981; Novak & Govin, 1995: 182), steers the way
learning is constructed when taught in a foreign language. This means that at the
same time as the pupil is learning content, he is also resolving communicative
problems which are linked to operating in a foreign language. For the process
to function, the pupil needs to be extremely active in the learning situation.
It can also be seen that CLIL inevitably involves plenty of language that is
above the current competence of the pupil (‘input-hypothesis’, cf. Ellis, 1990;
Krashen, 1982; 1985: 2–3). Hence, the pupils may not typically always know
all the words used in teaching. This makes CLIL a complicated and demanding
situation for the pupil, requiring a good ability to concentrate (cf. Räsänen, 1994).
It is possible that the pupils may sometimes feel incompetent and inadequate,
which surely affects their ideas of themselves as learners of a foreign language
(cf. Laine & Pihko, 1991: 15–16). The experiences of failure in a certain specific
field correlate significantly to a certain section in one’s self-concept (cf. Gage &
Berliner, 1979). Thus, the pupils create a self-concept that is somehow biased in
relation to the real self and illustrates the individual’s cognitive beliefs of himself
(cf. Mc David & Harari, 1968). This leads to successful individuals considering
themselves failures (Epstein, 1980: 96; Kagan & Havemann, 1980).
The self-esteem of pupils in CLIL has not been studied much. Hyvönen and
Lahdenranta (1994) have conducted a study related to this area and it has yielded
results different from the current study. Their work observed that pupils in CLIL
had a very strong self-concept and especially their foreign language self-concept
was remarkably positive. However, the pupils involved in their research were
7–10-year-olds, which means that their results are not totally comparable to the
results of the current study. The pupils in the study of Hyvönen and Lahdenranta
were still clearly in their childhood, whereas the current study included pupils
who were already in their early adolescence, which has an impact on their
feeling of self and the development of their self-esteem. In addition, Hyvönen
and Lahdenranta used a fairly small study group.
All in all, this study indicates that pupils in CLIL were somewhat more mo-
tivated to study and to use a foreign language than pupils learning in Finnish.
However, let us note that their enthusiasm was relatively moderate. The research
results on the motivation of pupils in CLIL are more or less aligned to those ob-
tained in some previous studies (cf. Filppula, 1996; Heinilä & Paakkinen, 1997).

Conclusion
There are good opportunities to learn in CLIL, as pupils with an under or
above average level of intelligence have learned content, even though CLIL
teaching was implemented extensively in a foreign language. The results in this
study did not support the conclusion that the development of one’s mother
tongue could be negatively affected through the use of foreign languages.
On the other hand, learning in CLIL can be so challenging that the maximal
outcome of content learning is not always reached. It is a matter of choice
for a student to study in CLIL because in content and language integrated
learning there are rather good possibilities to develop the knowledge of a foreign
language.
CLIL Learning: Achievement Levels and Affective Factors 339

The integration of a foreign language with content learning creates special

challenges for learning. Furthermore, affective factors influence learning situa-
tions differently in CLIL than in non-CLIL classes. Pupils in CLIL had relatively
low self concept in foreign languages. Therefore, CLIL teachers should be aware
of the possibility of a weak self-concept in foreign languages among CLIL pupils
and pay attention to giving some positive feedback about the pupils’ knowledge
of a foreign language etc., thus, possibly strengthening pupils’ motivation for
foreign language learning, even though in this study the results of motivation
were rather positive.
Besides this work, other studies have provided positive results concerning
CLIL education in Finland in general. They have given an impetus to develop
CLIL education both administratively and practically in Finland. CLIL and
immersion teaching will be an official part of the Finnish comprehensive school
system, following the new curriculum reform, which was in process during
2004 – 2006 and provides the formal norms for arranging content and language
integrated teaching and immersion teaching. The curricula that are drafted
locally have to be based on the national norms. In Finland, this curriculum
reform will give a view of the future where content and language integrated
teaching will be continued in the comprehensive school system and where its
position is also administratively supported.

Suggestions for Further Study

Especially from the point of view of CLIL it would be interesting to study the
way pupils’ general thinking and metaskills develop in content and language
integrated learning. This would yield more information about how pupils learn
in CLIL. Moreover, possible research on pupils’ overall learning including a
deeper perspective on the involvement of affective factors would complement
on the results of this work.

Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Jaana Seikkula-Leino, Faculty
of Education, Teacher Training School, Turku University, PL 13, Annikanpolku
9, 20611, Turku, Finland (jaana.seikkula-leino@utu.fi).

References
Borba, M. (1988) A K-8 Self Esteem Curriculum for Improving Student Achievement, Behavior
and School Climate. Torrance: Jalmar Press.
Borba, M. (1994) Home Esteem Builders: Activities Designed to Strenghten the Partnership
between Home and School. Torrance: Jalmar Press.
Burns, R.B. (1979) The Self-Concept Theory Measurement, Development and Behavior. New
York: Longman.
Burns, R.B. (1982) The Self-Concept Development and Education. London: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Butler-Por, N. (1987) Underachievers in School. Issues and Intervention (pp. 18–24). Bath:
Bath Press.
Cummins, J. (1995) Canadian French immersion programs: A comparison with Swedish
immersion programs in Finland. In M. Buss and C. Laurèn (eds) Language Immersion:
Teaching and Second Language Acquisition from Canada to Europe (Research No. 192,
Linguistics 30) (pp. 7–20). Vaasa: Vaasa University.
340 Language and Education

Dodson, C.J. and Thomas, S.E. (1988) The effect of total L2 immersion education on
concept development. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9 (6), 467–
485.
Ellis, R. (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (1990) Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 57–59). Oxford: Blackwells.
Elomaa, M. (1996) Kielikylpylasten ensikieliset kirjoitelmat neljännellä luokalla. In M.
Buss and C. Laurén (eds) Kielikylpy: Kielitaitoon Käytön Kautta (Research No. 13) (pp.
71–80). Vaasa: Vaasa University.
Engeström, Y. (1981) Mielekäs oppiminen ja opetus (pp. 8–9). (Publication Series B: 17).
Helsinki: Government Stationary Office.
Epstein, S. (1980) The self-concept: A review and the proposal of an integrated theory of
personality. In E. Staub (ed.) Personality: Basic Aspects and Current Research (pp. 81–132).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Filppula, H. (1996) Koulumotivaatio kieliluokassa ja kielikylpyluokassa. Unpublished
EdMa thesis, University of Turku, Teacher Training School.
Gage, N.L. and Berliner, D.C. (1979) Educational Psychology (pp. 187–189). Chicago: Rand
Mc Nally.
Gaya, A.B. (1994) Evaluating immersion programmes: The Catalan case. In C. Laurén
(ed.) Evaluating European Immersion Programs: From Catalonia to Finland (Research No.
185, Linguistics 27) (pp. 24–27). Vaasa: Vaasa University.
Genesee, F. (1976) The role of intelligence in second language learning. Language Learning
26, 267–280.
Genesee, F. (1987) Learning through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual
Education (p. 180). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Heinilä, H. and Paakkinen, J. (1997) Vieraskielisen opetuksen arviointi peruskoulun ala-
asteella: Kielenoppimisen näkökulma. Unpublished EdMa thesis, University of Turku,
Teacher Training School.
Hoffman, C. (1991) An Introduction to Bilingualism (pp. 118–119). London: Longman.
Hyvönen, T. and Lahdenranta, P. (1994) Puolalan ala-asteen kieliluokan oppilaiden
minäkuva ja asenteet. Unpublished EdMa thesis, University of Turku, Teacher Training
School.
Hämäläinen, M. (1998) Äidinkielen kehittyminen vieraskielisessä opetuksessa.
Sanavarastotutkimus. Unpublished EdMa thesis, University of Turku, Teacher
Training School.
Julkunen, K. (2000) Pupils’ opinions on content and language integrated learning (CLIL).
In K. Julkunen and A. Haapala (eds) Learning and Instruction in Multiple Context and
Settings II. Proceedings of the Third Joensuu Symposium on Learning and Instruction. Faculty
of Education (Research No. 79, Faculty of Education) (pp. 134–145). Joensuu: Joensuu
University.
Julkunen, K. (2002) Sisältöjen oppiminen ja opettaminen vieraalla kielellä. In M-L
Julkunen (ed.) Opetus, Oppiminen ja Vuorovaikutus (pp. 97–108). Helsinki: WSOY.
Kagan, I. and Havemann, E. (1980) Psychology, an Introduction (p. 452). New York: Har-
court Brace Jovanovich.
Koivumäki, K. and Stara, P. (1994) Puolalan koulun kieliluokkien opetuksessa
käytettävän englannin kielen määrä ja tilanteet sekä oppilaiden äidinkielen taidot.
Unpublished EdMa thesis, University of Turku, Teacher Training School.
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 30–32). Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications (p. 3). New York: Longman.
Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1984) The Natural Approach. Language Acquisition in the Classroom
(2nd edn). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Laine, E. and Pihko, M-K. (1991) Kieliminä ja sen mittaaminen. Publication Series of
Institute of Educational Research A No. 47. Jyväskylä: The University of Jyväskylä.
Laurèn, C. (2000) Kielen taitajaksi. Kielikylpy käytännössä◦ (pp. 128–134). Jyväskylä: Atena.
Malmström, P. (1993) Språkbadet/Svenska Språkklassen i Abo. En kartläggning. Avhandling
10 sv. Flerspråkighet och didaktik (pp. 20–22). Vasa: Vasa Universitet.
CLIL Learning: Achievement Levels and Affective Factors 341

Mc David, J. and Harari, H. (1968) Social Psychology Individuals, Groups, Societies (p. 222).
New York: Harper and Row.
Meriläinen, M. (2002) Biologian peruskäsitteiden omaksuminen suomen kielellä englan-
ninkielisessä kielikylpyopetuksessa. Tapaustutkimus Hollihaan koulun 4. e-luokassa.
Unpublished EdLic thesis, The Institute of Applied Linquistics, University of
Jyväskylä.
Merisuo-Storm, T. (2000) Ensiluokkalaisen äidinkielen lukemisen ja kirjoittamisen taito-
jen kehittyminen kielirikasteisella luokalla. Unpublished EdMa thesis, University of
Turku, Teacher Training School.
Merisuo-Storm, T. (2002) Oppilaan äidinkielen lukemisen ja kirjoittamisen taitojen ke-
hittyminen kaksikielisessä alkuopetuksessa (Publication Series C: 185). Turku: Paino-
salama.
Novak, D. and Gowin, D.B. (1995) Opi oppimaan. (P. Lehto-Kaven, trans.) Tampere:
Tammer-Paino. Original work published 1984.
Qiang, Y. (2000) Bilingual Education, Cognitive Development and School Achievement.
A Study of the Bilingual Programs for Tibetan Children. Institute of International
Education. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Gotab.
Rahman, H. (2001) Kaksikielisen (suomi-englanti) ja suomenkielisen kuudennen luokan
äidinkielen kirjoitelmien vertailua yhdyssanojen oikeinkirjoituksen osalta. Unpub-
lished EdMa thesis, University of Helsinki, Teacher Training School.
Rauste von Wright, M. (1997) Opettaja Tienhaarassa. Konstruktivismia Käytännössä
(pp. 17–19). Jyväskylä: Atena.
Räsänen, A. (1994) Nyt opitaan vierailla kielillä. Opettaja 21, 16–17.
Sampera, J.A. (1994) The Catalan immersion programme: Assessment and recent results.
In C. Laurén (ed.) Evaluating European Immersion Programs. From Catalonia to Finland.
(Research No. 185, Linguistics 27) (pp. 13–26). Vaasa: Vaasa University.
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2002) Miten oppilaat oppivat vieraskielisessä opetuksessa? Oppi-
laiden suoriutumistasot, itsetunto ja motivaatio vieraskielisessä opetuksessa. (Publi-
cation Series C:190). Turku: Painosalama.
Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J.J. and Stanton, G.C. (1976) Self-concept: Validation of construct
interpretations. Review of Educational Research 46 (3), 407–441.
Spearman, C. (1904) General intelligence, objectively determined and measured. Ameri-
can Journal of Psychology 15, 201–293.
Spearman, C. (1927) The Abilities of Man. London: Macmillan.
Sternberg, R.J. (1986) A triarchic theory of intellectual giftedness. In R.J. Sternberg and
J.E. Davidson (eds) Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 233–243). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1982) Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian Case Study.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Thomas, W.P. and Collier, V.P. (2002) A national study of school effectiveness for
language minority students’ long-term academic achievement. http://www.crede.
org/research/llaa/1.1es.html-46k. Accessed 10.04.06.
Thurstone, L. (1938) Primary Mental Abilities. Psychological Monographs, 1. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Vesterbacka, S. (1991a) Elever i Språkbadskola, Social Bakgrund och Tidig Språkutveckling
[Summary, children in immersion programme, home-background and early language
development: Issues and strategies]. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Vesterbacka, S. (1991b) Kielen omaksuminen kielikylpyluokassa. In C. Laurén
(ed.) Kielikylpymenetelmä: Kielen Käyttö Mielekkääksi (Tutkimuksia No. 1,
Täydennyskoulutuskeskus) (pp. 64–77). Vaasa: Vaasa University.
Weiner, B. (1974) Achievement Motivation and Attribution Theory. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press.
Weiner, B. (1984) Principles for a theory of student motivation and their application within
an attributional framework. In E.E. Ames and C. Ames (eds) Research on Motivation in
Education (pp. 15–68). London: Academic Press.
Weiner, B. (1992) Human Motivation. Metaphors, Theories and Research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.