This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
LOOKING AT CLIL:
TEACHERS’ VIEWS, LEARNERS’ ATTITUDES AND
Supervised by Rosa María Jiménez Catalán
By Mario Arribas García
Table of contents
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………..………...…………2 2. Implementation of CLIL in Spain: The case of La Rioja………………..………..…………5 3. Objectives……………………………………………………………………..……………..9 4. Review of the literature………………………………………………………..…………….9 4.1. Working definitions…………………………………………………………..……………9 4.2 Evidence on the effect of CLIL………………………………………………..………….12 4.2.1. Beliefs, motivation and attitudes towards CLIL: empirical evidence………..………...13 4.2.2. Motivation and language achievement………………………………………..………..13 4.2.3. Studies on attitudes towards language learning……………………….……………….13 4.2.4 Views and attitudes related to CLIL…………………………………….……………...15 4.2.5. Studies on the effect of CLIL on learners’ language competence………….………….17 4.3. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..……………20 5. Research questions……………………………………………………………..…………..21 6. Method………………………………………………………………………….………….22 6.1. Informants…………………………………………………………………….………….22 6.2. Data collection instruments…………………………………………………..…………..25 6.3. Type of research…………………………………………………………..……………...26 6.4. Procedures…………………………………………………………………..……………26 7. Results………………………………………………………………………..…………….27 7.1. Students’ views on CLIL……………………………………………….….……………..27 7.2. Students’ attitudes towards English……………………………………..………………..28 7.3. Students’ vocabulary outcomes…………………………………………..………………29 7.4. Relation between students’ attitudes and vocabulary outcomes……………..…………..31 7.5. Teachers…………………………………………………………………..………………31 7.6. Discussion……………………………………………………………..………………….35 8. Conclusion……………………………………………………………..………………...…39 Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………..…………….41 References………………………………………………………..…………………………...41 Appendixes……………………………………………………………………………………45
Nowadays one of the trendiest terms in the European educational scenarios is CLIL, an acronym for ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning’ that refers to the use of a second or foreign language as a vehicle to learn the content of a school curricula subject. Yet CLIL is only a relatively new term, which accounts for an old educational method. Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols (2008) remark how some centuries ago Latin was the language used for instructional purposes at universities. But, as these authors note, the use of Latin was not CLIL in its purest form, since little attention was paid to vernacular languages, and the will to integrate vernacular and national languages in the school curricula is regarded as one of the main innovations of CLIL in comparison to old methodological approaches. Again, this idea is not new either since, in Canadian and USA schools, CLIL methodology had already been implemented by means of immersion programs as early as 1960, although under the label of Content-based language teaching (CBI). In the last decades CLIL has merged with force due to its attractive tenets but also due to the international climate enjoyed by Europe at the present time. As to the former, most proponents of CLIL mention the following (see Coyle et al. 2010, Marsh and Wolff 2007, Mehisto 2008, Mohan 1986): • • • The language is regarded as an instrument to learn the content of a subject in the school curricula. The focus is on content (meaning) rather than on structures, functions or rules of grammar. The language is learnt in a natural way in the classroom setting. There is real purpose: to acquire subject knowledge “Language ceases to be taught in isolation” (Mohan, 1986: 18); ” …it combines different concepts that have been treated as separate entities for a long time: CLIL is the point where language learning and subject learning converge” (Coyle et al., 2010). • It is learner-centred rather than teacher-centred: “[T]he teacher pulls back from being the donor of knowledge and becomes the facilitator […]” (Coyle et al., 2010: 6). Accordingly, CLIL empowers students to acquire knowledge while they develop their communicative skills at the same time that they activate their cognitive abilities (Mehisto et al. 2008).
It relates learning and language learning to the real world as maths, history or music are real things for learners: these are part of their lives through the subjects they have to learn in the school curricula.
• • •
It increases learners’ exposure to the target language in a dramatic way. CLIL prepares students for living in a society which is becoming more and more internationalised, increasingly global and multilingual. CLIL also aims to strengthen the respect towards other nationalities by means of learning other languages and cultures (Eurydice, 2006).
As said above, in the last decade, CLIL has experienced a great expansion in primary and secondary schools all over Europe. Several are the causes for its rapid spread. Firstly, it is the need of knowing languages to communicate with other citizens in Europe, a continent in which monolingual countries and regions are the exception rather than the rule. Secondly, it is the impact of thousands of immigrants’ coming to Europe; together with their motivation to find better job opportunities, they also bring their own home languages, which in turn, get in contact with vernacular languages. Moreover, in order to integrate in the new community, immigrants and, above all, immigrants’ children, need to learn the language of the community. This phenomenon has painted the European landscape in a complex but rich multilingual shade making a natural association with CLIL. Thirdly, there is the urge of improving the teaching of foreign languages and increasing learners’ competence in foreign languages. Classroom settings impose great limitations regarding exposure to the language, and CLIL is regarded as a way to mitigate this limitation. As Sylvén (2010) notes:
“Many people argue that an effective way to achieve competence in another language is through the CLIL method, because when a language is learned as a separate subject, only two to three hours per week are devoted to it. By using CLIL, students are exposed to the target language to a much larger degree, which is vital for linguistic competence to develop.” (13)
Last but not least, there is the idea of Europe as a union of cultural and educational concerns depicted by business transactions as well as by educational exchanges of ERASMUS students among European universities. In a multilingual Europe the need for understanding others’ languages is a reality, and some recent initiatives and projects have been created (Eurydice, 2006) in response to this reality.
They aim at helping European citizens to acquire at least two languages different from their mother tongues. CLIL is one of these initiatives; within it education is regarded as the natural scenario where multilingualism can be spread by means of using “a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language” (Mehisto et al. 2008:9). In 2006 The European Network on Education Systems and Policies published Eurydice, a report on the development of CLIL across Europe. According to this source, with the exception of Portugal, Iceland, Greece or Denmark, at present CLIL is found in a great number of European countries. In most cases a foreign language is learnt together with a minority language. English, French, and German hold an outstanding position in the ranking of foreign languages acquired by means of CLIL compared to the less predominant position of other languages such as Spanish, Italian or Russian. Most countries implement CLIL all along the compulsory primary and secondary education, few offer CLIL instruction in pre-primary or kindergarten education. CLIL in Europe is characterised by a great diversity in its implementation. Experiences differ among regions within a country but also along schools in a single town. According to Eurydice’s report, this situation is closely linked to the autonomy given to countries and schools. However, the diversity of experiences also has to do with the lack of regulation or official guides regarding its implementation, on particular as far as the following aspects are concerned: teachers’ language level competence, teachers’ training, language level to be achieved by learners under a CLIL program, and distribution of number of hours of CLIL allotted to each grade. For instance, in France, Poland or Hungary prospective CLIL students are selected on the basis of their performance on entrance exams both on the target language and on subject knowledge. In contrast, in Spain, Germany, Finland or Sweden, CLIL is opened to every single student. As a result, there are many differences as to how CLIL is put into practice. The purpose of this dissertation is to look at CLIL implementation in a school in La Rioja. We will do this by asking teachers and learners about their views on CLIL and by exploring learners’ attitudes towards this educational approach. In addition, we will look at the effect of CLIL on learners’ receptive vocabulary. There are few studies on learners’ and teachers’ views on CLIL or learners’ attitudes towards CLIL, let alone research on the effect of CLIL on the different dimensions of learners’ communicative competence. Particularly scarce are 4
vocabulary knowledge has proved to be a predictor of success or failure in language education (see Agustín Llach 2006. Galician or Valencian. as it is the case of Catalan. Agustín Llach 2007). Implementation of CLIL in Spain: the case of La Rioja In our account we will follow one of the most recent and up-to-date books on this issue: CLIL in Spain. In addition. in our review of CLIL in La Rioja we will fall back on Fernandez Fontecha 2009’s and 2010’s (in Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe 2010) accounts. 5 . Concerning languages. 2. whereas in bilingual communities they are L3 or even L4.the studies that look at the effect of CLIL instruction on learners’ lexical competence in the foreign language. this is provided in Section 2. Catalonia. an edited collection published in 2010 by Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe that addresses the implementation of CLIL in different parts of Spain. There are monolingual regions in which Spanish is the official language as for instance La Rioja. In order to present the different implementations of CLIL in Spain we will firstly devote our attention to those bilingual communities that have implemented some kind of CLIL instruction and secondly we will shift our focus onto the monolingual communities. In order to provide the context for our research. Madrid. The present study aims to contribute to research on CLIL and foreign language learning in the secondary education setting. with a special emphasis on the last. the foreign languages being boosted by CLIL are L2. Regarding the bilingual communities. Regarding the monolingual communities we will set our eyes on the cases of Andalusia. and Galician. This situation affects the position of foreign languages in CLIL programs: in monolingual communities. Murcia or Madrid as well as bilingual regions where Spanish coexists with the language of the community. and La Rioja. Basque. However. we deem necessary to give an account of the situation of CLIL in Spain with particular attention to La Rioja. As far as we know so far these are the only studies published on the issue on La Rioja community. we mean to present a brief summary of the situation of CLIL in the Basque Autonomous Community (henceforth BAC). as it has been mentioned above. as well as to vocabulary research in non-native languages. the main idiosyncratic feature of Spain as a country is its linguistic diversity.
the issue of globalisation. they can learn Basque or Spanish as a subject itself or. and the immigration. B2+ for Basque and Spanish. Having pictured the CLIL situation in three Spanish bilingual communities. depending on the school. 6 .e. in Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe 2010. This Spanish region has traditionally been a monolingual community but. B1+ for English. if Basque coexists with Spanish in the BAC. Students may study subjects either through Basque or Spanish. Another case of CLIL implementation in a bilingual region is the Catalonian one –pictured by Navés and Victori in Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe 2010-. it is Catalan the language coexisting with Spanish in this North-eastern Spanish region. in Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe 2010. The situation of CLIL in Galicia is depicted by San Isidro. for instance-. who posits that CLIL started in Galicia back in 1999 by means of pioneering programmes. According to Navés.Firstly. This formal regulation involved implementing CLIL in all educational levels in primary and secondary education whether through English or French. the effectiveness of CLIL relies on the stability of the programmes together with other important factors like parental support. we are now focusing on how CLIL is being implemented in some monolingual Spanish communities. in Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe 2010. made a turning point in Andalusian linguistic policies. according to Lorenzo. The main aim of CLIL in this community as reported by San Isidro is to motivate teachers and students to learn more additional languages. the importance of tourism. in the BAC there are different linguistic instructional programmes as Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe (2010) note. and A2 for French. Let us begin with Andalusia. Since then. it has kept on increasing its presence –from 12 pioneer schools to 200 schools nowadays. they can even study some subjects through Basque and others through Spanish. CLIL began in Catalonia as early as the 1980s where 24 schools took place in the first pilot programmes and the number kept increasing until reaching 135 schools in 2009.due to its neighbouring side related to its Mediterranean climate and its closeness to North-Africa-. which are as follows: it is intended that students reach different Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels at the end of the compulsory education i. This distribution of subjects is a response to the objectives pursued by the linguistic policies in the Basque region. and the growing of international educative exchange programmes –Erasmus.as it happened in other regions a formal regulation took place in 2008.
the CAM Bilingual Project offers methodology and language courses for teachers throughout the academic year. At the very same time.From Lorenzo’s point of view Andalusian PISA results in 2009 proved the existence of a worrying low level in linguistic competences in students’ mother tongue. in Lasagabaster and Ruiz de 7 . some subjects were to be also taught in foreign languages following the same communicative methodologies. and furthermore schools also enjoy an increase in funding. This picture of the CLIL situation in Madrid allows us to be aware that a great effort is being put into spreading CLIL. whereas at the same time a great investment in bilingual education was giving good results and this situation led to a change in educational policies. The key aspects of this new orientation are i) Genre-based approach. iii) Centrality of texts and iv) Continuous assessment. the CAM (Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid) Bilingual Project. summarise the situation of CLIL in this region and they point out that there exist two different CLIL programmes: on the one hand the MEC/British Council Project and. bilingual UK teachers. Integrated Curriculum of Languages) which was meant to change the bases of mother tongue teaching by making it more communicative. The key points that characterize it are the usage of authentic English materials. Regarding the former. because it is being implemented on primary and secondary education. Should it be also taken into account the emphasis that is being put on tertiary education. We deem this review necessary in order to place the context for our study. and English native assistants from the UK who provide extra exposure to students. This section on the implementation of CLIL in Spain will be completed by an account of CLIL in La Rioja. Accounting for the case of Madrid. it began in 1996 and this project features the cooperation among Spanish native teachers. which is reported in section 4. and students and staff collaboration and exchanges with English schools. there are converging and diverging points between both projects. As stated by Fernández Fontecha. on the other hand. However. some universities in Madrid also offer a number of bilingual degrees where courses are taught completely in English. Nevertheless there are differences too. being above 300 the total number of schools involved in both projects. mainly for ICT and materials. as the authors point out. for instance. common to them it is the fact that there are native assistants involved and also the exchanges among teachers and students.e. it inspired the CIL document (Curriculum Integrado de Lenguas i. Dafouz and Llinares. ii) Taskbased methods. the CLIL offer is not limited to primary and secondary education. also in Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe 2010. However.
However. particularly research that looks at CLIL in a more comprehensive way: that is. as well as how it is being implemented in Europe and more specifically in La Rioja. This is what we have attempted by means of the study reported in this dissertation. School Language Innovation Projects) which consists of two different possibilities of using English or French in the classroom: Type A. Therefore. the cradle of the first Spanish words. So far we have briefly portrayed the situation of CLIL in Spain and we can conclude that it is not consistent at all. it is time to move to the description of this empirical study whose general objectives are formulated in the next section. and San Millán de La Cogolla i. since back in 2005 only 10 schools were involved in this project. routines. tourism have a huge importance due to the culture of wine. and instructions. Therefore results cannot be generalised. James. above all.e. 8 . There has been a great increase in the number of schools that have adhered to this instructional method. having given an overview of CLIL. explained the main reasons for its rapid spread. The author points out the existence of some initiatives designed to improve the teaching of foreign languages teaching as for instance: the PILC Project (Proyectos de Innovación Lingüística en Centros. The Way of St. however in 2009 there are 46 schools. La Rioja is a monolingual community where immigration and. Research is urgently needed. in spite of its diversity CLIL seems to be effective and produce good results. The Bilingual Sections are also summarised in Fernández Fontecha in Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe 2010 and it is explained that it is a different way to implement CLIL in schools in La Rioja: In this case at least two subjects can be taught in a foreign language if the total number of hours taught in the foreign language does not surpass the 50% of the total hours of the curriculum. and Type B. As authors state. research that looks at the main participants involved in the CLIL experience such as students and teachers. i.e. differences also arise between different regions of the same country. where part of the curriculum is taught in the foreign language (FL). where the foreign language is employed for greetings. As it happened with the different implementations in the European countries.Zarobe 2010. research that looks at the effectiveness of CLIL in an empirical way is still scarce and usually focuses on one aspect of CLIL.
1. we believe it is necessary to identify the problems and difficulties teachers encounter when implementing CLIL in their classroom settings as well as the effect of this educational approach on learners’ attitudes towards foreign languages. we set out to test the effectiveness of CLIL compared to English as a subject on two sides: (i) learners’ attitudes towards English language. one of the main objectives of this dissertation is to describe how CLIL is being implemented in a school in La Rioja by means of asking teachers’ and students’ themselves their views on CLIL. nor 9 . ii) Studies on the effectiveness of CLIL on general language proficiency as well as on specific aspects of communicative competence with particular attention to studies on the relation between CLIL and EFL learners’ lexical competence. attitudes and motivation. Review of the literature In this section we first begin by providing working definitions of key terms in this study such as beliefs. Bilingualism and Multilingualism. and learners’ and teachers’ attitudes towards foreign languages. 4. Due to the empirical nature of our study as well as to space limitations. Thirdly. Needless to say of the importance for vocabulary and language education researchers of gathering information on the possible effect of CLIL on an important dimension of learners’ communicative competence: vocabulary knowledge.3. 4. and (ii) learners’ performance on a receptive vocabulary test in English. We then move on to review the literature on the following areas of research: i) Studies on learners’ and teachers’ beliefs. as CLIL is in an almost embryonic stage. Working Definitions Each term that will be defined here has received considerable attention in different areas such as Educational linguistics. Secondly. we will not display all the definitions available for each term in the literature. Objectives First of all. particularly towards English and English language teaching/learning both in CLIL and in non-CLIL classes. Second Language Acquisition. and Vocabulary studies.
effective teaching strategies. 10 . social status. ideas and theories that teachers and learners hold about themselves. Motivation In general. desires. ease or difficulty of learning. Instead.will we enter into theoretical discussions about the adequacy of each term in comparison to others. In teacher education a focus on belief systems is considered important since teacher development involves the development of skills and knowledge as well as the development or modification of belief systems (Richards & Schmidt. Learners’ belief systems are relatively stable sets of ideas and attitudes about such things as how to learn language. observations. Language Attitudes the attitudes which speakers of different languages or language varieties have towards each other’s languages or to their own language. a class of reasons for learning a language. and willingness to expend effort in order to learn the second language. Belief systems in language teaching. degree of importance. teaching. sometimes impeding the acceptance of new ideas or practices. we will adopt a practical stance and we will define these terms out of a wellknown reference in the field of applied linguistics: Richards & Schmidt’s (2002) Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Attitudes towards a language may also show what people feel about the speakers of that language. the driving force in any situation that leads to action. Teachers’ beliefs are thought to be stable constructs derived from their experience. language learning and language teaching. 2002:297). teaching. appropriate classroom behaviour. elegance. Language attitudes may have an effect on second language or foreign language learning. In the field of language learning a distinction is sometimes made between an orientation. 2002: 541) Learner Beliefs also learner belief systems ideas learners have concerning different aspects of language. etc. language. training and other sources and serve as a source of reference when teachers encounter new ideas. which refers to a combination of the learner’s attitudes. Teacher belief systems in language teaching. Beliefs also serve as the source of teachers’ classroom practices. and their goals in language learning…(Richards & Schmidt. and motivation itself. ideas and theories that teachers hold about themselves. learning and their students. language learning and their students (Richards & Schmidt. 2002: 49). Beliefs form a system or network that may be difficult to change. 2002: 286). their own abilities. that may influence their attitudes and motivations in learning and have an effect on their learning strategies and learning outcomes. Expressions of positive or negative feelings towards a language may reflect impressions of linguistic difficulty or simplicity. The measurement of language attitudes provides information which is useful in language teaching and language planning (Richards & Schmidt.
Some reflections on the above definitions As we have just seen in the above definitions. or other sources of rewards and punishments. Borrul et al. Pena Díaz and Porto Requejo 2008) we come to the conclusion that theory and practice do not walk hand in hand: teachers acknowledge the importance and necessity of motivation although they do not or cannot pay as much attention to enhance learners’ motivation through teaching as it might be expected. Other theories of motivation emphasize the balance between the value attached to some activity and one’s expectation of success in doing it. When dealing with a group of adolescents–as it is the case in the present study. Motivation is generally considered to be one of the primary causes of success and failure in second language learning (Richards & Schmidt. enjoyment of language learning itself. like their easily influenced personalities. Gardner) therefore includes the integrative orientation.Orientations include an integrative orientation. 2002: 343-4). and we can guess that the more and better motivated the teacher the more and the better motivated the learner is. However. C. and Delfín de Manzanilla 2007. it is essential for teachers and learners to be aware of this motivational and attitudinal influence. and an instrumental orientation towards more practical concerns such as getting a job or passing an examination. academic requirements. Another widely cited distinction is between intrinsic motivation. due to the psychological features of adolescents. there should be a reciprocal relationship among teachers and students in any given teaching-learning environment. Meanwhile.we should put a greater emphasis on the teacher’s role as a motivator and even greater in a CLIL school setting. positive attitudes towards both the target language community and the language classroom and a commitment to learn the language. after reviewing some articles about teachers’ perceptions on CLIL and on language teaching (Crawford 2001. Therefore. they should identify the different kinds of motivation in order to do their utmost possible effort. the role of self-determination and learners autonomy. and better results are achieved. These scholars observe how attitudes may have a positive or a negative influence over academic achievement. and extrinsic motivation. the learner’s attributions of success or failure. Ideally. Regarding the Spanish context. motivation and attitudes towards language play an important role in learners’ linguistic achievement. driven by external factors such as parental pressure. goal setting. characterized by a willingness to be like valued members of the language community. And this is not only because of the shift of the teacher’s role in a CLIL classroom setting but also. the strength of their role has been demonstrated by Pérez 2006. 2008. The construct of integrative motivation (most prominently associated with R. Yazid 2003. and the characteristics of effective motivational thinking. societal expectations. teachers involved in CLIL school settings accept its benefits and its 11 .
This may explain the great amount of attention that has been paid to this issue in applied linguistics. Attitudes and motivation play a main role when it comes down to language and even more to language learning. how and at what level of language competence this approach is most effective. As it has been stated in the above definitions. In other words. This differentiation implies that positive attitudes foster language learning whereas negative attitudes impede language learning. it is absolutely necessary to systematise research on the effect of CLIL as to identify when. there is a common agreement on the benefits of CLIL as for instance: the formation of positive beliefs and attitudes towards foreign languages and cultures. Given the diversity of experiences that can be found in the implementation of CLIL in foreign language class settings. The remaining of this section will be structured as follows: firstly we will look at studies 12 . attitudes mostly entail emotions and beliefs.2. in turn. The aim of this section is to provide an account of the studies that look at the interrelationship of these topics. learners’ development of cognitive abilities. Gardner himself (in Liuoliene and Metiuniene. thus negative attitudes can turn into positive attitudes and vice versa. however no word has been said about the relationship between these variables and CLIL. which are more of a personal issue rather than something objective. and above all. the natural acquisition of the foreign language by means of focusing on content. may have an influence over the speaker’s opinion towards language learning. divides them into positive and negative attitudes towards language. As it has been explained in the introduction. Evidence on the effect of CLIL The notions of beliefs. aspects that are crucial in our study.effectiveness over other methodologies but are mostly reluctant to change their traditional teaching methods or they corner it by means of making a sparse use of the method. there are attitudes. nor on the relation between CLIL and learners’ lexical competence. we find attitudes. but attitudes are not simply restricted to language learning. attitudes and motivation have been briefly presented. As it happens to motivation. Ellis (1997) in Lennartsson 2008. these feelings can be either positive or negative which. 2006) considered motivation as a construct made up of different elements among them. Going further into attitudes’ classification. On the other hand. 4. So far we have seen how attitudes relate to language learning. attitudes can change since they are not fixed. It is difficult to differentiate between motivation and attitudes. attitudes have to do with the feelings that any speaker may have towards any language.
ii) studies that look at learners’ attitudes towards an L2/L3. We find evidence of the relation of these two variables in Pérez (2006) and also in Sevim Inal and Saracaloglu (2007).2. A first search in the literature on motivation and attitudes towards languages and language learning yields an impressive collection of studies. Space restriction advises us to be selective rather than exhaustive on our review. Studies on attitudes towards language learning Regarding studies that have addressed the issue of attitudes towards language learning. Sevim Inal and Saracaloglu (2007) as well as other scholars as Karahan 2007. and iii) studies that investigate learners’ attitudes towards English as L2/L3. teachers are one of the most decisive factors influencing positive attitudes. 2007) to senior learners (older than fifty) enrolled in university studies (Lennartsson. 13 . and they are willing to communicate in the foreign language. we will focus on motivation and language achievement.2. Beliefs.2. Secondly. proving the influence of motivation with respect to achievement. from pre-teens in primary education (Karahan. 2008). These studies reinforce the theory summarised by Richards and Schmidt (2002) in the definitions provided above (section 4. Furthermore. The importance of the role of the teacher as a motivator seems to be consistent in all learning periods and ages. Lennartsson 2008. University students also hold positive attitudes towards foreign language speakers. 4. iv) research that combines the study of CLIL and attitude/motivation/perceptions.1. These studies show that a high motivation in the foreign language involves positive attitudes towards the language. we find Delfín de Manzanilla (2007) who show that university learners are both internally and externally motivated towards language.3. 4. motivation and attitudes towards CLIL: empirical evidence Regarding attitudes and motivation. Motivation and language achievement In the first place. we will review studies on the effect of CLIL on several aspects of learners’ nonnative competence. research has shown their strong influence on different aspects of language learning.which have focussed on teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and learners’ attitudes towards CLIL. we will have a closer look on i) studies that explore the relationship between motivation and L2/L3 language achievement. and it also conveys better academic language achievement. Therefore. and Verma 2008 observe that according to learners. 4.1).2.
Furthermore. In our opinion. therefore. it seems logical to think that teaching methodologies have a clear influence on making language learning more or less appealing to the eyes of the learner. Regarding 14 . As we have seen. a big amount of attention should be put on motivation. These studies also indicate that the greater the motivation. the more autonomous students want to be in their learning process. 2009). There are other studies (see Liuolienė and Metiūnienė. let’s not forget that the main bond between teachers and learners is the classroom. this difference in motivation between university students and primary or secondary students may be also related to their ages: university students are closer to the job market –if not already there. in our view.e. studies have proved that teachers are one of the main driving forces in motivation. primary and secondary school students are not as motivated as elder learners regarding foreign language learning (Karahan 2007. In this regard. following this premise. the methodology the teacher uses. However. they are not motivated to learn a language because they do not think it is useful for their everyday life. which apart from reaffirming the importance of motivation in the learning process do reveal that students’ wishes and needs to work independently depend on their motivation. but even more important is to be aware of learners’ attitudes towards language teaching methodologies.Likewise they have positive attitudes towards bilingualism (Mohideen Obeidat 2005). Savignon and Wang (2003) and Verma (2008) conducted research in order to ascertain university students’ motivation and attitudes towards language learning. These results reported by Mohideen Obeidat (2005) can also be similarly found in González Ardeo (2003) since he concluded that Spanish and Basque bilinguals and Spanish or Basque monolinguals university students show positive attitudes towards English although they are reluctant to be taught in English. Research has shown that this lesser motivation has to do with the minimum contact learners experience with the language outside the classroom context. Being aware of learners’ attitudes towards foreign languages is of paramount importance for teachers and researchers. i.and they may consider learning a foreign language could help them to get a better job or a higher salary (extrinsic motivation). 2006). Yassin et al. this latter assertion can be related to one of the main assumptions advocated by CLIL: the claim that it fosters cognition and learners’ independent learning. Research also points out that teachers are one of the main sources for motivation whether positive or negative.
data resulting from these studies suggest that teachers are the main motivator for learners. b) They feel more motivated because the teacher is the language expert and the subject expert at the same time.4. To this respect we will refer to two studies that have dealt with this issue in secondary school settings: Lasagabaster and Sierra (2009) and Yassin et al.methodology. (2009)’s study. The results provided by these authors are of great value to us. we will focus on students.2. The main results obtained in this study are summarised as follows: a) CLIL encourages learners to talk and to think by themselves. Students Studies on students’ perceptions on CLIL are scarce. and then we will procedure accordingly with teachers. On the one hand. and d) CLIL lacks organization in the way it is implemented. Looking at these assertions closely we note that there is agreement between students’ views involved in a CLIL programme and the theoretical virtues attributed to CLIL. 4. common findings are observed in these studies: students prefer and are more motivated with a communicative approach rather than with grammar-focused lessons. (2009) is to document the experiences of learners and to ascertain their views towards the teaching of Science through English in Malaysia. We will now turn our attention on students’ attitudes towards CLIL. as their findings do not seem to be fortuitous since 1660 former CLIL students answered a questionnaire and 20 students actually involved in CLIL completed a deep interview. greater parental support. the main object in Yassin et al. First of all. c) Students focus more on communication than on grammatical correctness. following the previous assertions about the role of the teacher. and experience of using the English 15 . The study was conducted with “Year 4” students and the main findings were that NLEP (Non-Limited English Proficiency) learners have significantly more positive attitudes towards Science in English. Views and attitudes related to CLIL In order to complete our review we need to have a look at the different studies that have combined these attitudinal factors with learning in a CLIL context. These results are in agreement with the ones attained by Lennartsson (2008) since the learners in this study also consider that teachers influence positively or negatively their attitudes towards language. in our review we will fall back on Dalton-Puffer et al. which presents the views of Austrian university students involved in a CLIL programme. Furthermore. (2009).
According to Crawford (2001). although students’ low competence makes its implementation difficult. Lasagabaster and Sierra (2009) present the differences in language attitudes between CLIL students and non-CLIL students EFL learners in secondary education in the BAC. and Pena Díaz and Porto Requejo 2008). al 2008. and Pena Díaz and Porto Requejo 2008). the characteristics of CLIL subjects and the length of the programme. Although research on these topics is not plentiful the few studies found provide an insight of how teachers perceive the CLIL experience. Borrull et. They also focus on how gender and social class have an influence on motivation towards foreign languages. This study reports that students who are involved in a CLIL programme show better attitudes towards English as well as towards other languages -Basque and Spanish in this case.language than LEP (Limited English Proficiency) learners.and find learning English easier than EFL students do. we can now cast an eye over studies reporting teachers’ views about language teaching and CLIL. Teachers Having dealt with students’ views on CLIL. Taiwanese teachers preferred a communicative approach on language teaching. This author concluded that Taiwanese primary education teachers find hard to motivate their students because they do not perceive English as a useful subject. Without this information the comparison with other studies is not possible. however they find it difficult as a consequence of learners’ low linguistic competence. 2008. Some teachers also show their willingness to follow a communicative approach in the class. Infante et al. 16 . However. besides Taiwanese teaching tradition emphasized reading and writing over speaking and listening. Students’ low competence is not exclusive to Taiwan as other studies seem to have arrive at a similar conclusion and highlight this point as one of the main weaknesses or problems that impedes implementing CLIL satisfactorily (see Yazid 2003. teachers are aware of the relationship between motivation and achievement. On the other hand. According to teachers involved in CLIL programs. Differences in favour of CLIL are significant. Furthermore. an accurate interpretation of the results is not possible since the study does not provide the number of hours of exposure to English. This conveys a large workload for teachers as they have to create or adapt others’ materials (Yazid 2003. another common obstacle is the lack of specific CLIL materials.
17 . and. Theoretical premises and CLIL participants’ perceptions match up.A close look at the results of the above studies reveals that teachers’ views are in agreement with CLIL assumptions since they share its effectiveness and its impact on cognition and motivation. Studies on the effect of CLIL on learners’ language competence Research on the effect of CLIL on learners’ language competence is rather scarce when compared to the great number of studies on the implementation of CLIL or research on theories and principles of CLIL. learners’ age and mother tongue as well as learners’ level in the target language. At this point our aim is to ascertain whether the outcomes attained by empirical studies support CLIL theory as well as learners’ and teachers’ views on CLIL. Comparisons among the studies. and following other observations noted in these researchers. they may develop negative attitudes towards this approach. This information is needed in order to compare outcomes but unfortunately. Moreover. In our opinion. or the specific dimension of learners’ competence that is investigated. furthermore. So far the literature review has provided us with the views of the main participants in a CLIL school. nevertheless still some problems and difficulties remain. In the next section we shift our focus on studies that look at the effectiveness of CLIL on different aspects of learners’ communicative competence. as a result. its systematisation is rather complex. the number of hours of CLIL is not usually reported in most studies. this review has allowed us to note how attitudes have an out-of-doubt influence on learners’ achievement. negative attitudes are closely related to learners’ low competence in the target language: as they cannot follow the class. results on teachers’ views also reveal the important role played by attitudes towards CLIL: Borrull et al. they become strongly discouraged.2. 4.5. Likewise. (2008) posit that the main handicap for CLIL implementation is the “negative attitude of learners”. let alone generalizations of outcomes are risky due to the huge variation among the existing studies but also because of the lack of information regarding the number of hours of CLIL received by the learners participating in the studies. Researchers claim that both learners and teachers regard CLIL as an effective approach. The reason is that the studies aimed at ascertaining the effectiveness of CLIL differ a great deal at least on the following respects: the characteristics of the language learning contexts where CLIL was implemented.
Sylvén 2010). Dalton-Puffer 2007. we believe that it is necessary to examine the results achieved by previous studies. due to the multifaceted nature of vocabulary knowledge. she concluded that it is hard to provide a simple definition of lexical competence due to the multifaceted nature of words. or writing (Admiraal et al. strategic competence. 2005. lexical competence is nowadays studied on its own (see Nation 2001). Most studies on the effectiveness on CLIL reveal. ii) it is not fixed. Jiménez Catalán and Ruiz de Zarobe (eds. Canale and Swain include vocabulary under the category of grammatical competence. To these dimensions we will add lexical competence.) 2009. CLIL has been proved to have a positive influence on lexical competence as shown in Jiménez Catalán. or reading comprehension. however. Therefore. that this approach entails better results for learners in most aspects of communicative competence and language skills as for instance: pronunciation. as theory and teachers and learners’ views pointed out. In the following paragraphs we will give a brief account of some of the studies that have focused on the effect of CLIL on dimensions of EFL learners’ lexical competence. Agustín Llach and Jiménez Catalán 2007. discourse competence. Huttner and RiederBunemann 2007. Llinares and Whittaker 2007. it can change throughout life. Bringing together opinions from experienced vocabulary researchers on what means to know a word. iii) it may vary from person to person. and cognitive development. as well as higher receptive vocabulary knowledge as measured by the 1000 and 2000 frequency bands of Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT). This study is not the only one to ascertain 18 . syntax. depending on different factors such as gender. Moved by this conviction. experience.In spite of the above limitations. in the next paragraphs we will attempt to classify them according to the dimensions of communicative competence as put forward by Canale and Swain (1980): grammatical competence. and she summarised some defining features of lexical competence such as the fact that: i) knowledge of words is accumulative. The clarification of studies on the different dimensions of lexical competence was addressed by Jiménez Catalán (2002). Ruiz de Zarobe and Cenoz (2006) where they acknowledged that CLIL learners display higher lexical richness and sophistication in the vocabulary they use in compositions. age. sociolinguistic competence. pragmatics. we will bear some of these determining factors in mind while reviewing the existing literature in order to lay the foundations for a more exhaustive and better subsequent comparison with the results of our own study. informal use of language.
This fact leads us to think about the importance of methodology. since these findings seem to contradict studies where learners with more hours of exposure through CLIL have better results (see 19 . She reports that CLIL students performed better in all tests. Miralpeix (2007) studied the influence of exposure with regards to language learning.e. were among the top scorers. The amount of exposure to English is a controversial issue to some extent in the field of language learning. the effects of extramural exposure to English on learners’ vocabularies (Sylvén 2006). Apart from these mentioned competences. however she highlights the importance of the exposure to English outside the class because some EFL students. Sylvén argues that CLIL students have more contact with English outside the school than non-CLIL students and this greater amount of exposure affects positively their self-assessment in English. results confirm again that students involved in a CLIL environment perform better than nonCLIL learners. Internet…-. word association. Ruiz de Zarobe and Jiménez Catalán (2009) edited a book that encompasses different studies that compare CLIL learners to non-CLIL learners with respect to different aspects of lexical competence such as receptive vocabulary. T. In all cases but one CLIL students achieved better results than non-CLIL learners: Ojeda Alba (in Ruiz de Zarobe and Jiménez Catalán 2009) compared the vocabulary most frequently implemented by both groups showing that the non-CLIL had better results in certain vocabulary areas.. transfer between languages (Spanish-English) or use of inflected forms in English among others.V. Her study reveals that one group with greater exposure –74 hours moreperformed similarly to two other groups that had received less exposure to English. they also remark that both CLIL and non-CLIL EFL learners resort to repetition rather than to synonyms or antonyms suggesting similar mechanisms of lexical cohesion by CLIL and non CLIL EFL learners. The results of the latter study go in line with results attained by Jiménez Catalán & Ojeda Alba (2009). Agustín Llach and Jiménez Catalán (2007) studied how the type of instruction affected lexical reiteration and productive vocabulary in written texts. there are other extra linguistic aspects that have been studied i. those who affirmed having a wide contact with English outside the class –reading. In a latter longitudinal study (Sylvén 2010) she also contrasted the differences in vocabulary size between a group of CLIL students and a group of EFL students.differences in favour of CLIL. where they found that non-CLIL students produced a higher number of word types than CLIL students in a lexical availability task. However.
However. and by means of observing the possible effects of CLIL on learners’ performance on vocabulary tests. there is no research that looks at the main participants in the CLIL experience within the same school. 2005.3. along with studies on the effect of CLIL on the different aspects of learners’ language competence with particular attention to aspects of lexical competence. In order to close this review on studies on the effectiveness of CLIL on EFL learners’ competences. CLIL activities. Likewise. learners’ attitudes towards English and CLIL. as happened with the studies on students’ views. attitudes and motivation towards CLIL. in the study reported in this dissertation we set out to investigate teachers’ and learners’ views on CLIL. As we have seen. We believe that the adoption of a comprehensive approach in our study will provide us with invaluable data to identify strengths but also to detect possible weaknesses in the early stages of implementation of CLIL in the community of La Rioja. Sylvén 2006. 20 . there is research on almost every variable involved in CLIL: teachers. there are studies on almost each dimension of communicative and lexical competence. learners. One of the main differences concerning learners involved in both studies seems to be the methodological approach: in Jiménez Catalán and Ruiz de Zarobe we mainly find comparisons on CLIL and non CLIL EFL learners while Miralpeix makes no reference to CLIL. let alone through a whole educational stage. rather we attempt to give a description of its reality by means of asking teachers and learners themselves. attitudes. In our opinion. and learners’ outcomes under the same scenario: the school where CLIL is being implemented. Huttner and Rieder-Bunemann 2007). motivations and practices of the main participants in the CLIL experience.Jiménez Catalán and Ruiz de Zarobe (eds. teachers’ CLIL practices. in order to advance in the understanding of CLIL it is necessary to adopt a more comprehensive view that may yield in a more detailed picture on the beliefs. Therefore. we find mandatory to comment on that. as far as we know. although scarce. We do not set out to look at CLIL with preconceptions. 4. subjects. Most studies conducted so far give a partial view of CLIL as they focus on one single aspect. some researchers make clear that CLIL students are more motivated than non-CLIL students and it influences their achievement (Admiral el al.) 2009). Conclusion In this section we have attempted to review studies on teachers’ and learners’ beliefs. and language learning contexts.
1) Do students believe that CLIL helps them to improve their English? 2) According to the students. 1) What is the professional profile of the CLIL teacher? 2) What kind of motivation do teachers have towards English and CLIL? 3) How is CLIL implemented in this school? 4) According to teachers. is CLIL effective? 5) Have they encountered problems or difficulties in the implementation of CLIL? 21 .5. what skills do they improve most by means of CLIL? 3) What attitudes do students have towards English language? 4) Do CLIL students hold better attitudes than non-CLIL students? 5) Do CLIL students score higher than non-CLIL students on vocabulary tests? 6) Is there a positive relation between learners’ attitude towards English and learners’ scores on vocabulary tests? Regarding teachers. Research questions In this dissertation we pose the following research questions concerning the main participants in a CLIL school: Regarding students.
Chinese. Method 6. Although these groups are interrelated in our study. second. Table 2 Distribution of students by mother tongue Sp 392 Rom 4 Arabic 1 Bulg 1 Cat 1 Chin 1 Rus 1 Sen 1 Urdu 1 The school provides education at all educational levels. they will all be presented in separate sections. Bulgarian.6. and 2 EFL teachers from one private middle class school in Logroño1. Russian.1.2 The distribution of students’ mother tongues is displayed in Table 2. they belong to the Spanish natives group according to our classification. and Urdu. 2 1 22 . Students’ ages range from 12 to 16. 3 CLIL teachers. from preschool to Professional Courses. whereas a small group of students have Spanish as L2. Senegalese. for the sake of clarity. Spanish native speakers born in South or Central America are not included in this group. Catalan. Their mother tongues are: Romanian. Table 1 shows the distribution of students by school grade and age range: Table 1 Distribution of students by school year and age range Grade N Age range 1st year 104 2nd year 99 3rd year 108 4th year 92 15-16 years old 12-13 years old 13-14 years old 14-15 years old Regarding mother tongue. Students The study encompasses the school whole population as regards secondary education (SE) in the school year 2009-2010. The population comprises 403 students distributed among the four compulsory years of Spanish secondary education: first. Arabic. most students are monolingual speakers of Spanish as L1. Informants The sample of informants consists of 403 students. third. and fourth ESO.
However. year 3 4 CLIL Non-CLIL 1st year: only 3 out of 105 students have some previous CLIL experience throughout primary education. the situation of the school is rather complex and needs clarification. We tackle this issue in the following paragraphs. The total number of CLIL hours per student ranges from 10 to 30 depending on the subjects studied through English. the reason is that these three students were new to the school and it was not a goal of this study to trace learners’ previous CLIL experience in other schools but to focus on CLIL in one school. neither throughout the grades nor within each grade. 23 .At this point it is necessary to make a further description of the characteristics of CLIL throughout the fourth grades in the school we investigate. Figure 1: Distribution of students by type of instruction per year CLIL Vs. The main difference between CLIL and non-CLIL groups lies on the fact that the former received additional hours of exposure to English language by means of CLIL methodology. Regarding CLIL. 3rd year: the vast majority of students (96 out 108) had some CLIL experience. the total number of hours could not be calculated either because the teacher in charge of the CLIL subject had left the school or because the students studied the CLIL subjects at a different school.E. However. Non-CLIL instruction 120 100 Students 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 S. However the number of hours of exposure to English could not be calculated. the number of hours is far from being equal. 2nd year: 28 out of 99 students had studied at least one subject by means of CLIL.
the sample consists of 3 informants whose ages range between 30 to 45 years.Figure 2: Distribution of 3rd year students by the amount of CLIL hours received CLIL hours S. The total number of CLIL hours ranges between 10 to 90 depending on the different subjects studied by the informants all along secondary education. on the one hand the CLIL teachers and on the other the EFL teachers. Figure 3: Distribution of 4th year students by the amount of CLIL hours received CLIL hours S.E. 3rd year 60 50 Students 40 30 20 10 0 No CLIL Up to 15 15 to 30 Unknw on Total am ount of hours 4th year: a high percentage of students had some kind of CLIL experience: 75 out of 94.E. 4th year 35 30 Students 25 20 15 10 5 0 No CLIL Up to 15 15 to 30 30 to 60 60 to 90 Total am ount of hours Teachers In this case the sample is made up of two different specialist groups of teachers. Their teaching experience 24 . Regarding the former. In this case. students had studied from one to three subjects in English.
teachers were interviewed on individual basis. or the skills they were trying to boost in their pupils. and following the conventions.2. As far as the vocabulary tests are concerned. the sample of EFL teachers was made up of 2 teachers in a 50 to 55 years range and their EFL teaching experience was as long as 32 years in each case. then. Some questions were added asking information about the students’ CLIL experience and their perceptions and attitudes on it. The tests and the questionnaire were completed in one single session (50-55 minutes). views on learning English and CLIL methodology. These received oral and written instructions in Spanish on how to complete the test. (c) Implementation of CLIL in the classroom. students had to accomplish the 3000 VLT under the very same conditions of time and instructions as in the 2000 VLT band. students were asked to fill in a questionnaire designed for the purpose of the task. Data collection instruments Students were asked to complete a productive vocabulary test. They had 10 minutes to complete each band. a receptive vocabulary test and a questionnaire containing questions about their perceptions towards English and some further personal information. subjects taught in English.goes from 7 years of the youngest teacher to 18 years. the types of materials used. On its part. however they all have the same CLIL teaching experience having used this methodology for 3 academic years. level of proficiency in English. Finally. In other words. 6. (b) Motivation towards English and CLIL. the activities done in the class. Finally. by means of informal but guided interviews we aimed at gathering information on teaching experience. in the first place. 2001). In addition. After the productive test was handed in. students accomplished the 2000 VLT. The time given for test completion was 15 minutes. the way they were implementing CLIL in the school. The interviews were informal but guided (see appendix iv). once completed. EFL teachers were asked 25 . The purpose was to collect information on the following issues: (a) Professional profiles. students were given the 2000 and 3000 bands of the receptive Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Schmitt. the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (VLTP) was administered to students. The procedures were as follows: firstly.
The purpose was to trace a profile of learners and teachers regarding perceptions and attitudes to CLIL as well as the effect of CLIL on learners’ performance on vocabulary tests. we proceeded to score the Vocabulary Level Tests giving one point to each correct answer and no point for incorrect answers. after having typed the scores to the VLT as well as responses to the questionnaire we proceeded to the quantitative analysis of the data. although participants had to fill in some questions about their personal experience with English language and other personal questions. 6. As to the qualitative method. and MannWhitney among others tests) where needed by means of SPSS3 We would like to wholeheartedly acknowledge Montserrat San Martín. we proceeded to interview both the CLIL teachers and the non-CLIL teachers. The former is used in the quantification of learners’ survey responses as well as in the quantification of their scores to the vocabulary tests. being the minimum 0 points.4. for the purpose of this study we decided to focus only the questions concerning students’ perceptions on CLIL and their opinions on English language. Type of research The present thesis makes use of quantitative and qualitative methods.3. for her invaluable help in test selection and statistical data analysis. Regarding the questionnaire. lecturer at the Mathematics and Computing Department of the University of La Rioja. 6. Finally.about their views on CLIL and its possible effect on learners’ improvement in English as compared to traditional classes (English as a subject). After correcting the tests we typed the results into the computer together with the results of the questionnaire completed by students so it was possible to analyze them by means of different programs. in that the maximum total score for each test was 30 points. Shapiro-Wilk. 3 26 . which was completed using different statistic tests (including here Kolmogorov-Smirnov-Lilliefors. Procedures Once the data gathering was completed.
and their results in the VLT vocabulary test. vocabulary is included together with the four skills. a great number of students reported ‘listening’ and ‘speaking’ as the most positively influenced skills. we will present teachers’ views on CLIL. Contrary to what might have been expected. Results In this section. Figure 4: Distribution of responses given by students regarding their views on CLIL Is CLIL helpful according to students? 100 80 Students 60 40 20 0 N/A Not helpful Very little Little Quite Very Regarding our second research question. ‘What skills have students improved most by means of CLIL?’ two tendencies clearly emerge in the data shown in Figure 5. a noticeable percentage of students felt that CLIL had not boosted any of their skills.1. In the first place we will provide the data obtained from students on their views on CLIL. we attempt to reply the research questions posed earlier (see section 5. ‘Do students think that CLIL helps them to improve their English?’ The answer is negative since according to more than 80% of the students. Then. The reason for its 27 . we see that 3rd year followed by 4th year are the courses that concentrate the highest number of students who report CLIL to have been of help in the improvement of their language skills (mainly listening). None of the students considered CLIL as ‘very helpful’.7. Secondly. their attitudes towards English. Students’ views on CLIL As to our first research question. In the first place. Figure 4 reveals that most of the students who had received CLIL instruction report that CLIL was either of ‘very little help’ or ‘little help’. page 20) by providing data elicited from students and teachers belonging to a CLIL school. 7. Also. as we can observe in Figure 5. CLIL is not considered as a useful experience.
3 S. The minimum score is 1 and the maximum 7. 4 7. Figure 5: Distribution of skills improved per course Skills improved by CLIL according to students 60 50 40 Students 30 20 10 0 Reading Listening Writing Speaking Vocabulary None Linguistic skills S. To this purpose.E. were obtained by CLIL students in the last year of Spanish Secondary Education: 4th ESO. therefore the most motivated students. 1 S. although the means are slightly higher for the CLIL group throughout the four years. The means show that CLIL students and non CLIL students hold very similar attitudes towards English language.E.inclusion here is that all the students who believed that CLIL had helped them in the improvement of the four language skills also referred to the positive effect of CLIL on the development of their lexicons. both groups were asked to rate English according to an attitudinal scale made up of positive and negative adjectives (item 15 in the questionnaire). including here the two groups of students: CLIL and non-CLIL. 2 S. Students’ attitudes towards English We now turn our attention to students’ attitudes towards English (RQ3).2. 28 .E. E. A close look at Table 3 reveals that the highest scores.
5977 5. Furthermore.500 z = . these differences were not statistically significant.2692 5.47624 1.000 z = .7072 S. as the results of Mann-Whitney U test applied to the means gave us the following values4 as regards 1st year (U = 137.05). 69264 1. Results show a high value (t=0. thus as the assumption of normality was met. 88829 . the t-test5 performed showed non-significant differences either between CLIL and non-CLIL students.778). 78062 .6250 5. 2nd year (U = 917. Before getting any deeper in this respect it must be said that due to space limitations here we will present solely the results corresponding to 4th year of ESO.5625 5.5236 5. Students’ vocabulary outcomes In this section we mean to present the results obtained by our informants in the receptive VLT in its 2000 and 3000 words band version.561).05 (p<0.05) 7.000 z= .699).Table 3: CLIL and non-CLIL students’ attitudes towards English CLIL 1st year NO YES 2 year nd N 101 3 69 28 13 95 19 73 Mean 5.6018 5. a parametric test was used to compare the two groups. 4 29 . and 3rd year (U = 556. Regarding 4th year. . These high values of do not allow us to affirm that these differences found between CLIL students and non-CLIL students are significant. 58097 . 94136 . 66836 NO YES 3 year rd NO YES 4 year th NO YES Although CLIL students score higher in their attitude towards English all through the four years. The reason for focusing on this course rather than the other three is that 4th ESO stands for the final stage of Spanish secondary education. we will also present The Kolmogorov-Smirnov-Lilliefors Test run for normality testing showed the sample did not have a normal distribution (p<0.D.5000 5.3.05).03188 . 5 the Kolmogorov Smirnov-Lilliefors Test showed that the sample had a normal distribution (p> 0.516) and we cannot affirm that these are significant because the p-value should be less than 0.
As the results of Mann-Whitney U test applied to the means gave us the following values6 as regards VLT200 (U = 603.E. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov-Lilliefors Test run for normality testing showed the sample did not have a normal distribution (p<0. However. 4th year 25 Correct items 20 15 10 5 0 VLT 2k VLT 3k CLIL Non-CLIL Although we find differences in favour of CLIL students. CLIL and non-CLIL students performed similarly.500 z = . 6 30 .927).973).14 the average score obtained by CLILs and 16. although students having received some kind of CLIL instruction performed slightly higher in the two frequency bands than those who had not. in VLT 3k results are much closer being 16.384).the results obtained from analyzing the relationship between attitudes towards English. again non-significant differences were found between CLIL and non-CLIL students concerning their results on VLT2000 due to the high values (t = . presented above. both groups obtained higher scores in the VLT 2k rather than in the VLT 3k and differences between CLILs and non-CLILs are also greater in the former test. As it can be seen in Figure 6. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov for contrasting two samples was also applied to the data to search for significance.05). and students’ achievement measured by means of VLT 2000 and VLT 3000. Figure 6: 4th year CLIL and non CLIL students’ scores in VLT 2k and 3k VLT Results in S.5 in the same test. whereas the EFL group obtained 18. The CLIL group obtained 19. and VLT300 (U = 690.00 the average score by the EFL group. these were found not to be significant after analysing them statistically.646) and VLT3000 (t = .85 correct answers in VLT 2k.000 z = . As expected.
those who had contact with CLIL and those who did not.349 for VLT 3000) indicate that this is an increasing relation: the higher the score in motivation. They have more than 30 years of experience as English language teachers in 31 . Relation between students’ attitudes and vocabulary outcomes We are now presenting evidence for the relationship between students’ attitudes towards English language and vocabulary outcomes as measured by VLT2000 and VLT300.420 for VLT 2000 and . Teachers Personal interviews with the teachers provided us with a first hand perspective on how CLIL is being implemented in a given school as well s on teachers’ views on CLIL. The p-values (. that is. . In this section we present a brief summary of the main topics covered during the guided interviews. and this correlation applies to all students.420. p<. The results tell us that there is a significant increasing relationship between students’ attitudes towards English and their vocabulary performance.05. 7.001 in VLT 3000) are less than 0. The former are two female EFL teachers who hold a university degree in English Studies. (e) Main problems and difficulties in CLIL implementation.5. (d) Perceptions on CLIL and its effectiveness. and r= 0.000 for VLT2000.349. which indicates that the relation between attitudes and outcomes is significantly different. (c) Implementation of CLIL in the classroom. (a) Teachers’ professional profiles As stated in the Method section our sample consists of five teachers: two EFL teachers and three CLIL teachers. (b) Motivation towards English and CLIL. The values obtained were as follows: r=0. The significant correlation suggests that the better the attitudes towards English the better the performance on the two bands analysed from VLT test. the better the results in VLT 2000 and VLT 3000. For the sake of clarity we group the topics into five categories: (a) Professional profiles. In this regard. Furthermore the rvalues higher than 0.7.00 (.4.000 in VLT 2000 and .001 for VLT3000. It does not matter if the students have received any kind of CLIL instruction or not. p<. there is a positive correlation (Spearman test) between attitudes and scoring in each VLT frequency band.
(c) Implementation of CLIL Concerning how CLIL is put into practice. the three teachers have been using this methodology for the last three years (from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010) in the subjects they teach. the materials they use in the class.leaving aside writing and reading. As to the CLIL teachers. some tendencies emerged from the interviews and they are summarised as follows: English is used by CLIL teachers to teach Mathematics. nevertheless one of them also said that he did for the school’s reputation sake.a wide variety of educational levels: primary education. And as far as CLIL experience is concerned. As to their motivation towards CLIL. the latter was only highlighted by one teacher. which certifies their intermediate English level. The three teachers are in possession of a university degree in their own specialities. What is more. secondary education. another reason was that they wanted to transmit this idea to their pupils. 32 . (b) Motivation towards English and CLIL CLIL Teachers coincided in their replies concerning their motivation towards English. at the time of the interview. the three CLIL teachers and the English as a subject teachers share the same view: oral skills –listening and speaking. from primary education to university. However. whereas. the remaining two had completed 3 courses from the local Escuela Oficial de Idiomas (Official Languages School). the three teachers said that they adopted this methodology out of personal interest. Regarding English. Physical Education and Religion. one of them (the Religion teacher) holds an English Studies degree. and Professional Courses. the CLIL group is set up by three male teachers whose teaching experiences range from 6 to 17 and 18 years respectively in all educational levels. their profiles are not as homogeneous as the EFL teachers’. The subjects taught in English are Maths. baccalaureate. or how is the collaboration among content teachers and English language teachers. Teachers remarked the skills they want their pupils to improve. As to the skills they want their pupils to improve. corresponding to a B1 for the Common European Framework of Reference. the five of them try to enhance their students’ fluency and vocabulary. The three teachers replied that they used English to teach their subjects due to the importance of this language as a lingua franca in nowadays society.
divergent. examples… . however CLIL is differently approached in every subject since it is used in one third of the course in Mathematics. have been changing from the first time they became involved in CLIL. Teachers also informed us that although some materials are available. the two remaining teachers considered that there was no collaboration. as well as to increase their vocabulary. while the others used a textbook and a course guide self-elaborated. one used no teaching materials at all. when teachers were asked about the selection of the students taking part in the CLIL class. Teaching materials are a controversial issue in the implementation of CLIL as shown by the different opinions and perspectives teachers hold. and the distribution of CLIL hours throughout the course. they all share the idea about not increasing or decreasing the amount of hours in which they use English to teach their subjects. again. Activities. teachers think that CLIL also affects students’ attitudes and 33 . in two didactic units in Religion and randomly used in some lessons in Physical Education. Each teacher had its own approach to teaching materials. Regarding the type of activities accomplished in class. as well as summaries from books and personal notes. in this case. they have to search for materials either on the Internet or in books. playing games. they have to prepare most of the material –lectures. In order to do so. In addition. as teachers said. mainly because it was not necessary. (d) Perceptions on CLIL and its effectiveness Teachers believe that students show positive attitudes towards CLIL and that CLIL helps them to improve their oral comprehension and speaking skills. for example. activities. and according to teachers’ replies they range from discussions. Also as a part of the CLIL implementation. and some grammar-focused activities like rephrasing or translating.they use in class by themselves. Although every teacher has a different approach. Students’ participation in a CLIL programme was another point addressed in the interview. reading aloud. One of them maintained that the collaboration was positive whereas.Physical Education. correction of exercises. activities. the answer was the same: ‘No selection is made’. we asked teachers about their collaboration with English language expert teachers and the results are. and Religion. These CLIL teachers have been using this approach for three years and during this time they have implemented some changes in topics.
Their opinions on CLIL are somewhat shared: they all consider that CLIL is a very good methodology and the passing of time will bring more CLIL hours and subjects. (iii) improves students’ oral expression and comprehension as well as their fluency and pronunciation. on their view. Both teachers have different opinions on CLIL and its effect on students. and they also share the view that CLIL (i) fosters students’ vocabulary. On the other hand. They confirmed that the influence of CLIL is shown positively or very positively in students’ marks. However.motivation towards other languages in general and towards English in particular in a positive way. Nevertheless. Nevertheless. (ii) develops positive attitudes towards other languages. however for two teachers the amount of content would decrease in a definite manner in case they taught their subjects exclusively in English. they agree upon the skills that are most positively affected by CLIL. two female English experts are in charge of teaching English as a subject all through the four courses in secondary education. One teacher teaches English to all students in the 1st and 2nd year in Secondary Education and the other one teaches in the 3rd and the 4th year in Secondary Education. i. we decided to interview EFL teachers as to obtain a round picture on CLIL in this school: as experts on English language and teachers of English of students involved in CLIL they would be in an ideal position to assess students’ gains in English. As it was mentioned above. it is hard to achieve better results due to the vast diversity of students and this situation could only be changed if students were divided into smaller groups and also if greater economic support could be received from the national Government as well as from regional/local administrations.e. two main things are needed. when asked about the future of CLIL the two teachers remained sceptical and said that –in this school. According to teachers. However. We also asked them about their personal opinion about CLIL and about the changes that it may undergo in the future. speaking and listening. CLIL does not affect the amount of content of the subject. one teacher remarked that CLIL is an excellent initiative as long as it is optional 34 . what will affect students positively. namely more support for teachers –by lightening their workload or by offering a wider range of courses both on language and on teaching methodology-.“CLIL will remain as it is”. and better linguistic competences on the part of students. In their opinion.
Teachers feel rather pessimist as in their opinion. However. Nevertheless.6. there is little they can do in order to change Government’s support. or necessities that arise in a CLIL school. Whereas our informants are in the last year of the 35 . they adapt the materials and. the main difficulties are firstly the scarcity of adequate teaching materials. We are trying to provide a valid interpretation to these results. In order to solve these problems. the influence of CLIL in learners’ receptive vocabulary or the perceptions that teachers and students have on CLIL. on the one hand. they make use of different strategies such as making use of audiovisual support. Our results seem to match those attained by Pérez (2006) and Sevim Inal and Saracaloglu (2007) where these scholars stress the importance of the positive relationship that binds motivation to achievement. In this respect and according to the teachers of the school analysed. (e) Main problems and difficulties in CLIL implementation Up to now we have taken a look at CLIL teachers’ motivation and professional profiles and also at the implementation of CLIL in the school. there is one main difference if we are to compare these studies with ours: the age of informants. However no word has been said about the difficulties. students receiving some kind of CLIL instruction show better attitudes towards English as compared to those students that are not involved in content teaching. our results suggest that although EFL and CLIL students get similar scores. repeating explanations. 7. there is a strong link between motivation and achievement since the more motivated students are also the ones that obtained the highest scores regardless of their instruction. rephrasing. problems. although achieving bilingualism seems to be a chimera. Concerning students’ motivation. our findings are not limited to this fact because as it was explained in the previous chapter. and finally. and finally although there is no agreement here. on the other.for students and she thought those CLIL hours will remain increasing. linguistic difficulties related to students’ poor competence. Discussion The results of our study provide us with different kinds of evidence on varied issues like students’ motivation towards English. translating if none of the former strategies was successful. secondly the lack of help from Government and other administrations – which on their view such help is restricted to some language courses-.
15 to 16 years. due to different and varied internal and external factors. 2009). Verma 2008.secondary education. SE 3 and SE 4. Let us now focus solely on motivation.e. and our results appear to be in line with them. 2009) have positive attitudes. We have therefore a difference in age but we have a similarity in the motivation-achievement relationship. Mohideen Obeidat 2005. had significantly better attitudes than EFL groups. We compared our informants’ attitudes with the mentioned study and we realized that. By doing so we mean to fulfil one of the initial objectives of our study and to answer at the same time one of our research questions: Does CLIL affects students’ motivation? Other studies make clear that students from primary levels (Karahan 2007. leaving aside the influence it may have on achievement. this might be possibly due to a greater amount of exposure to English in favour of their informants. Nevertheless it is very important from out point of view noting that there is a great difference between the cultural contexts: English is L2 for our informants whereas English is L3 for Lasagabaster and Sierra’s informants. in Lasagabaster and Sierra’s study CLIL groups. Yassin et al. towards other languages which are not their mother tongues. since our informants from each of the 4 courses of our school presented high scores on average when they were asked to evaluate English. It implies that their informants live in a multilingual community and they might have developed more positive attitudes towards languages than our informants. as we have seen. Delfín de Manzanilla 2007. Dalton-Puffer el al. through to secondary levels (Lasagabaster and Sierra 2009) and university students (González Ardeo 2003. opposed to our study. so they were at least 18 years old by the time their studies were being carried out. We do not think that the socioeconomic context of the informants in each of the studies can make a big difference because the cities where both questionnaires were administered on areas in the North of Spain and not far from each other. i. Savignon and Wang 2003. their informants were already university students. i. Lennartsson 2008. 36 . This leads us to think that the influence that motivation has on achievement might remain at least stable throughout different educational stages.e. Very similar to our study is the one conducted by Lasagabaster and Sierra because their informants are the same age as ours and both of us measured students’ attitudes towards English by means of the same question (item 15 in questionnaire attached) therefore we can establish an interesting comparison with their study.
which had received 74 extra hours of exposure to English. students’ linguistic skills. which appears to be a poor implementation if we look at the amount of hours taught in English and we compare it to the CLIL hours in other studies (see Ruiz de Zarobe and Jiménez Catalán 2009) Furthermore our results do not seem to match other similar studies focused on the effectiveness of CLIL since other scholars have proved that CLIL can make a significant difference between students who are involved in CLIL and students who are not. According to this study the CLIL group. However our CLIL informants did not perform significantly better than non-CLILs and the answer to this striking difference may rely on the actual implementation of CLIL in this school.In addition. For instance in Ruiz de Zarobe and Jiménez Catalán eds. Nevertheless. According to previous studies (Sylvén 2006 and 2010) a greater amount of exposure to the foreign language has a positive influence on the learner’s attitude towards it. results throw some light on this issue and these results help us to answer the research question about the increase of vocabulary size in CLIL students. 2009. among others. First of all. and their results are much more significant than ours. CLIL –among other possible individual factors which we did not studyseems to have a positive influence on learners’ vocabulary since the CLIL group performed slightly better than the EFL group. that is why she concludes that more emphasis should be put on the quality of the input. and the EFL group performed similarly. Moving on to students’ performance and to the influence that CLIL might have on these. although we have seen that it was not significant. like the measuring tools. besides it is to be specially highlighted the study by Jiménez Catalán and Ruiz de Zarobe 2009 on receptive vocabulary in which CLIL students perform significantly better and they also have a greater vocabulary because there are several similarities between both studies. This fact seems to be completely logical if we take into account that in its theoretical foundations CLIL is addressed to foster primarily. we have found similarities with at least one study (Miralpeix 2007) where the author devotes her study to test if a greater exposure to English entails better results. the context. although the amount of hours of exposure to English is not made clear in Lasagabaster and Sierra’s study. 37 . we tend to think that their informants might have received a greater exposure. we see that in most studies the CLIL group outperforms the control group. or the age of the informants.
a greater emphasis should be put on the amount of hours while CLIL undergoes a global process of standardization. closely followed by speaking. being from our point of view scarce in all cases in order to achieve relevant results in students’ linguistic skills. that is. After carrying out our study and exploring other studies we have noticed that the implementation of this methodology is somewhat irregular in the school under study. and secondly the CLIL hours vary considerably among teachers.e. as we saw in the results section. teachers work very independently and they have different approaches when it comes to teaching in English. Firstly. it is important no to forget that CLIL is still in a preliminary stage in La Rioja. i. therefore we think that. and students’ perceptions support this view since the majority of our informants pointed at listening as the skill that has improved the most. for the moment. we are inclined to give more importance to the amount of hours because we agree with Jiménez Catalán and Ruiz de Zarobe (2009) when they say that CLIL appears to be an effective teaching methodology although the differences in students’ performance might rely on the greater exposure to English that CLIL students have. these studies have demonstrated that the amount of hours and the quality of the input given to students are both of capital importance. To find how is CLIL being implemented we asked the content teachers how do they apply this methodology.These differences and similarities in findings lead us to one main possible interpretation. Leaving aside the fact that CLIL implementation may not be systematic. the coincidence in teachers and students’ perceptions regarding the linguistic skills that have been improved lead us to think about an interpretation for the results obtained in the two VLT: Teachers and students feel that CLIL boosts their listening and speaking skills. let alone the school of our study. Both sides seem to be right to a certain extent. Nevertheless. However. all three teachers aim at enhancing their students’ oral skills. thus the differences in 38 . In our opinion. we found that CLIL is being implemented without following any given pattern. and the obtained results provided us with a picture that allows us to interpret the actual CLIL implementation. speaking and listening. However in the context of our study and focusing our attention in the acquisition of vocabulary.
we must bear in mind that the North American immersion programmes in the eighties are predecessors of nowadays CLIL. students’ results on different vocabulary level tests. something that had not been done previously as far as we are concerned. The possible reasons to give an explanation to these difficulties are of different nature. To begin with. which we think. have been answered. the lack of materials can be attributed to the early stages that CLIL is in. The opinions of these professionals in the education field did not seem to be completely convinced about the effectiveness of CLIL and it allows us to think that there can be a sceptical vision on behalf of the Government. and interviews we have tried to provide a bird’seye view on a whole single CLIL secondary Spanish school. questionnaires. and the lack of investment. it is seen. together with other possible causes. Conclusion By means of a series of tests. Results have proved on one hand 39 .achievement between CLILs and non-CLILs should be notable in these skills but not necessarily in vocabulary. that is the lack of appropriate teaching material. Finally. We have tried to fulfil three main objectives and in order to do that we proposed some research questions. such as economical reasons. 2006) mentioned in the introduction to this study. as a good initiative that needs some time to develop and to give notable results. the lack of trained professionals. According to teachers the main problem they face is the lack of appropriate teaching materials but they also complain about the lack of courses that Government offers. and difficulties that teachers must face when they get involved in teaching through English. These teachers’ perceptions go hand in hand with the main difficulties listed by the European study (Eurydice. in order to close this section we observed the main problems. and also by summarising how teachers are implementing CLIL in their classes. This may be due to the early stage of CLIL in La Rioja. according to the English teachers of our sample. We have done that by presenting students and teachers’ perceptions on CLIL. the lack of trained professionals according to Eurydice 2006 seems to be connected to the lack of courses focused on CLIL that teachers in our study demand: we understand that there can be no specialist teachers without specialist courses. Secondly. 8. we mean that a greater period of time is needed for the creation of more materials and more specific.
Regarding CLIL teachers. it is obvious that Spanish students need a higher competence in English if CLIL is meant to be successful and this task relies on many different bodies. there is room for further studies which aim at investigating and helping to improve CLIL. to some extent. therefore. we have shown that this implementation at this very specific school is rather irregular because there is not any guide or pattern to be followed by teachers and there is no agreement between them on how to apply this methodology in their classes. On the other hand results showed that although different teachers have different approaches to CLIL. In addition to teachers’ opinions we find the fact of the actual implementation of CLIL in the classroom. The results that we obtained also lead us to think that further research is required comparing the amount of hours of exposure to the quality of exposure to the language in order to find out which of these is more relevant for students’ better linguistic achievement.that CLIL seems to have a positive effect on students. Besides we have learnt that attitudes towards languages have a significantly positive influence on students’ achievement. as well as students. who should do their utmost in order to help students to achieve a higher competence. In order to close this dissertation we must make reference to the implications that this study might have for teachers. the influence of the amount of exposure hours needs also to be studied. In the first place. they should try and follow at least a similar pattern of CLIL teaching which would help them in a definite manner. pioneer character of the work and. teachers should really put a great emphasis on trying to enhance their pupils’ motivation and attitudes. also due to this character of the study. Results show the need for further studies devoted to research in depth how extramural exposure affects learners compared to CLIL exposure. However these interpretations should be taken with extreme care because statistical tests affirmed that the positive differences in favour of CLIL students were not significant. These interpretations should be cautiously taken into account due to the. ranging from Government to each of the language teachers. in this case towards English. from our point of view. To this respect. Together with the influence of exposure to the language outside the class. as it was expected. teachers and students’ perceptions match up when it comes to the linguistic skills that students are supposed to have improved after having been involved in a CLIL context. 40 .
and Jiménez Catalán. 12. Agustín Llach. we think that a greater effort on the part of local. pages: 63-73. Revista Electrònica d’Investigació i Innovació Educativa i Socioeducativa Vol. Agustín Llach. et al. (2010) CLIL : Content and Language Integrated Learning. 1: 104-128 Coyle. Borrull. Acknowledgements We are very grateful to every member of the school that allowed us to elicit data for the present dissertation. (2006) Evaluation of Bilingual Secondary Education in The Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. 17. national. 1. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. P. (2007) "Lexical Errors as Writing Quality Predictors" Studia Linguistica 61. M.. M. we would like to thank both teachers and students for their collaboration. Particularly. Canberra University 41 . Jane C. Crawford.. (2006) "Lexical Errors in Young EFL learners: How do they Relate to Proficiency Measures?" Interlingüística. International Journal of English Studies vol.Finally. W. et al. D. 1: 75 – 93 Agustín Llach. P. (2007) Lexical Reiteration in EFL Young Learners’ Essays: Does it Relate to the Type of Instruction?. 7: 85-103. (2001) Teacher perceptions of the primary English language program in Taiwan: From the outside looking in. References Admiraal. P. et al. M. R.. (2008) La enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera basada en contenidos. Applied Linguistic Association of Australia Annual Conference. Educational Research and Evaluation Vol. Percepciones del profesorado de educación secundaria en las Islas Baleares. pages: 1-19. No... N. M. and international educational and governing bodies is necessary because more specialists are needed in order to make CLIL a more effective methodology. regarding the difficulties and problems that teachers face when implementing CLIL in their classes.
Vol. (2007) Language attitudes of Turkish students towards the English language and its use in Turkish context.. (2003) Attitude Towards English and ESP acquisition as an L2 or L3 at University. 18-25 Delfín de Manzanilla.) Content and Language Integrated Learning. in Marsh. Finland. A. Nº 7: 73-87. Journal of Arts and Sciences. M.. International CLIL Research Journal.edu.2: 1-35 Eurydice. Cenoz. 16: 20-27 Inal.M. Y. A. Jiménez Catalán. et al. and Ojeda Alba.. and Rieder-Bunemann. B. 15: 23-27 Karahan. 6: 109-133 Huttner..tr/dergiler/27/754/9618..) CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field. J. REDHECS Vol.1. España: Omagraf S. (2009) Disponibilidad léxica en inglés como lengua extranjera en dos tipos de instrucción. J. et al. VIEWZ Vol. (2009) “The Effects of CLIL from the Perspective of Experienced Teachers”.. (2005) The Relation Between Students’ Attitude Toward Foreign Language and Foreign Language Achievement. F. Fernández Fontecha. (2009) "Spanish CLIL: Research and Official Actions" In Y. Ibérica. D. Vol. (2009) Technology-Geeks Speak Out: What Students Think About Vocational CLIL. R. González Ardeo. (2007) The Effect of CLIL Instruction on Children's Narrative Competence. R.M. pages: 3-22.ankara. Vienna English Working Papers.pdf (Retrieved July 16. (2006). University of Jyväskylä. et al. C.. CCN: 42 .L. Vocabulary profiles of English Foreign Language learners in English as a subject and as a vehicular language. dergiler. Jiménez Catalán. 2010) Infante. S. (2007) Attitudes Towards English in Higher Education Students. (2006) Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lenguas (AICLE) en el contexto escolar europeo.Dalton-Puffer. Ruiz de Zarobe. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. D. Jiménez Catalán (Eds. et al (eds. J. J. Lenguaje y Textos Nº 30: 167-176.
and Metiūnienė. Marsh.. (2006) Second language learning motivation. eds. Llinares García. M. & Whittaker. and Sierra.. Nº 15: 64-73 43 .. V.M. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. RESLA. Nr. Monográfico. IJES Vol. C. D.. R. Y. F.. (2007) Diverse Contexts. “Talking and writing in the social sciences in a foreign language: a linguistic analysis of secondary school learners of geography and history”.diva- portal. D. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Santalka. 7: 61-83 Mohan. B. (1986) Language and Content. Results and Teacher Training.1: 4-17 Lennartsson. (2008) Teacher Beliefs in a CLIL Education Project. D. (2007) Lexical Knowledge in Instructed Language Learning: The Effects of Age and Exposure. J. 2007. A. S. (2008) Uncovering CLIL. 2010) Liuolienė.. C. Porta Linguarum 10: 151-161 Pérez. Acción Pedagógica. Vol. (2006) Motivación Interna y Rendimiento de los Estudiantes de Inglés de la ULA Táchira. Models and Practice in CLIL. and Ruiz de Zarobe.. D. Filologija. 83-94. http://lnu. Casal.org/smash/record. I. P.. Journal of Faculty of Education UAEU. et al. M. Converging Goals: CLIL in Europe.Lasagabaster. Edukologija. (2010) CLIL in Spain: Implementation. J. (2005) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Miralpeix. International CLIL Research Journal. Lorenzo. In F. eds. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Mehisto. (2009) Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFL Classes. D. Moore (eds). Year 18 Issue 22: 1-17 Pena Díaz. and Porto Requejo.jsf?pid=diva2:206523 (Retrieved July 12. Alba & P. Oxford: Macmillan Education. and Wolff. R. A. Lasagabaster.2: 93–98. (2008) Students’ motivation and attitudes towards learning a second language: British and Swedish students’ points of view. Mohideen Obeidat.
3: 47-53 Sylvén. Vol. 44 . L. pdf (Retrieved July 16. VIEWZ Vol. IRAL Vol. and Jiménez Catalán. et al. C. 2010) Yassin. Verma. (2008) Learner’s Attitude and Its Impact on Language Learning. Gothenburg. http://www. R. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. K. 1: 54-69 Yazid. S and Wang. and Schmidt.hk/clear/conference08/doc/handouts/VERMA%20Meenakshi%20H_handout. International CLIL Research Journal. L. M.. R. J. S.hku. H. eds. C.M. M. Sylvén.. ELTC ETeMS CONFERENCE 2003: MANAGING CURRICULAR CHANGE 2 – 4 DECEMBER 2003. London: Longman Ruiz de Zarobe. Z. 41: 223-249. (2009) Learners’ Perceptions Towards The Teaching Of Science Through English In Malaysia: A Quantitative Analysis. K. (2002). (2003) Communicative Language Teaching in EFL Contexts: Learners’ Attitudes and Perceptions. (2006) How is extramural exposure to English among Swedish school students used in the CLIL classroom?. Short Run Press Ltd.Richards. Y. Savignon. (2009) Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. (2010) Teaching in English or English Teaching? On the effects of content and language integrated learning on Swedish learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition.. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. (2003) Support for Science and Mathematics Teachers in The Implementation of PPSMI: Challenges Ahead and Strategies to Sustain The Momentum. 15 No.
Observa el siguiente ejemplo: EJEMPLO RESPUESTA CORRECTA 1 business 2 clock 3 horse 4 pencil 5 shoe ____ part of a house ____ animal with 4 legs ____ something used for writing 1 business 2 clock 3 horse 4 pencil 5 shoe __6__ part of a house __3__ animal with 4 legs __4__ something used for writing 1 coffee 2 disease 3 justice 4 skirt 5 stage 6 wage 1 choice 2 crop 3 flesh 4 salary 5 secret 6 temperature 1 cap 2 education 3 journey 4 parent 5 scale 6 trick 1 attack 2 charm 3 lack 4 pen 5 shadow 6 treasure 1 cream 2 factory 3 nail 4 pupil 5 sacrifice 6 wealth _____ money for work _____ a piece of clothing _____ using the law in the right way 1 adopt 2 climb 3 examine 4 pour 5 satisfy 6 surround 1 bake 2 connect 3 inquire 4 limit 5 recognize 6 wander 1 burst 2 concern 3 deliver 4 fold 5 improve 6 urge 1 original 2 private 3 royal 4 slow 5 sorry 6 total 1 ancient 2 curious 3 difficult 4 entire 5 holy 6 social _____ go up _____ look at closely _____ be on every side _____ heat _____ meat _____ money paid regularly for doing a job _____ join together _____ walk without purpose _____ keep within a certain size _____ teaching and learning _____ numbers to measure with _____ going to a far place _____ break open _____ make better _____ take something to someone _____ gold and silver _____ pleasing quality _____ not having something _____ first _____ not public _____ all added together _____ part of milk _____ a lot of money _____ person who is studying _____ not easy _____ very old _____ related to God 45 . Escribe junto a éstos. NOMBRE ______________________________________________________ Este es un test de vocabulario. En la parte izquierda te presentamos grupos de seis palabras inglesas y a su derecha.Appendix i: VLT 2000 CENTRO____________________________________________________________ CURSO_____________________________________________FECHA__________ APELLIDOS. el número de la palabra inglesa correspondiente a dichos significados. los significados de sólo tres de ellas.
En la parte izquierda te presentamos grupos de seis palabras inglesas y a su derecha. los significados de sólo tres de ellas. Observa el siguiente ejemplo: EJEMPLO RESPUESTA CORRECTA 1 business 2 clock 3 horse 4 pencil 5 shoe ____ part of a house ____ animal with 4 legs ____ something used for writing 1 business 2 clock 3 horse 4 pencil 5 shoe __6__ part of a house __3__ animal with 4 legs __4__ something used for writing 1 bull 2 champion 3 dignity 4 hell 5 museum 6 solution _____ formal and serious manner _____ winner of a sporting event _____ building where valuable objects are shown 1 muscle 2 counsel _____ advice 3 factor _____ a place covered with grass 4 hen _____ female chicken 5 lawn 6 atmosphere 1 abandon 2 dwell _____ live in a place 3 oblige _____ follow in order to catch 4 pursue _____ leave something 5 quote 6 resolve 1 assemble 2 attach _____ look closely 3 peer _____ stop doing something 4 quit _____ cry out loudly in fear 5 scream 6 toss 1 drift 2 endure _____ suffer patiently 3 grasp_____ join wool threads together 4 knit _____ hold firmly with your hands 5 register 6 tumble 1 aware 2 blank _____ usual 3 desperate _____ best or most important 4 normal ___ knowing what is happening 5 striking 6 supreme 1 blanket 2 contest _____ holiday 3 generation _____ good quality 4 merit _____ wool covering used on beds permanently 5 plot 6 vacation 1 comment 2 gown 3 import 4 nerve 5 pasture 6 tradition _____ long formal dress _____ goods from a foreign country _____ part of the body which carries feeling 1 pond 2 angel _____ group of animals 3 frost _____ spirit who served God 4 herd _____ managing business and affairs 5 fort 6 administration 1 brilliant 2 distinct 3 magic 4 naked 5 slender 6 stable _____ thin _____ steady _____ without clothes 46 .Appendix ii: VLT 3000 CENTRO _________________________________________________________________ CURSO_____________________________________________FECHA________________ APELLIDOS. Escribe junto a éstos. NOMBRE ______________________________________________________ Este es un test de vocabulario. el número de la palabra inglesa correspondiente a dichos significados.
Leer y escuchar esa lengua: □ Excelente □ Muy bueno □ Bueno □ Regular □ Malo Lengua:______________________ . Nacionalidad 3.Leer y escuchar esa lengua: □ Excelente □ Muy bueno □ Bueno □ Regular □ Malo 5. Especifica cual: ___________________________ 2. Especifica cual: ___________________________ □ Española □ Otras.Hablar y escribir en esa lengua: □ Excelente □ Muy bueno □ Bueno □ Regular □ Malo . Lengua materna 4. pero ya no voy 47 . Sexo □ Hombre □ Mujer □ Española □ Otras.Hablar y escribir en esa lengua: □ Excelente □ Muy bueno □ Bueno □ Regular □ Malo . ¿Recibes clases particulares de inglés fuera del colegio? □ Sí □ No □ He ido.Appendix iii: Questionnaire completed by students CENTRO______________________________________________________________ CURSO______________________________FECHA__________________________ APELLIDOS________________________________NOMBRE__________________ Maca con una “X” la respuesta que corresponda: 1. ¿Conoces otras lenguas además de inglés y español? □ No □ Sí .¿Cuál o cuáles? Especifica: _______________________________________________ .¿Cómo calificarías tu conocimiento global en esas lenguas? Lengua: _____________________ .
7. ¿Has estado en algún país de habla inglesa o en campamentos o colonias de inglés? □ No □ Sí . □ Complacer a mi familia.6. ¿Has recibido clases en inglés de alguna otra asignatura que no sea inglés? □ No □ Sí ¿Qué asignaturas?__________________________________________________ ¿Cuántas horas a la semana?_________________________________________ ¿Durante cuántos años?_____________________________________________ 10. □ Sacaba buenas notas en el colegio pero quería mejorar. especifica: Durante cuántos años: □ Menos de un año □ Cuatro años □ Un año □ Cinco años □ Dos años □ Tres años □ Más de cinco años Durante cuántas horas a la semana: □ 1 hora □ 2 horas □ 3 horas □ 4 horas □ 5 horas □ Más de 5 horas Cuál ha sido el motivo: □ Había suspendido y quería aprobar. Marca con una “X” la frecuencia con la que realices las siguientes actividades en las asignaturas que estudies en inglés (sin contar las clases de inglés). ¿En qué te ha ayudado estudiar otras asignaturas en inglés? □ Entender inglés escrito □ Hablar en inglés □ Entender inglés hablado □ Escribir en inglés □ Otras:_______________________________________ 12.¿Cuándo? _______________________________________________________ . ¿Cuál fue tu nota de inglés el año pasado? ______________________________________________________________________ 9.¿Has ido a clases de inglés allí?______________________________________ 8. □ Me gustan mucho los idiomas y me divierte aprenderlos. ¿Crees que estudiar otras asignaturas en inglés te ha ayudado a mejorar en inglés? □ Nada □ Muy poco □ Poco □ Bastante □ Mucho 11.¿Durante cuánto tiempo? ___________________________________________ . En caso de que hayas recibido clases de inglés fuera del colegio. 48 .
Pon una “X” en la casilla que corresponda de entre las siete que te presentamos.Escucho explicaciones en inglés: □ Nunca □ Muy poco □ Poco □ Bastante □ Mucho □ Poco □ Bastante □ Mucho □ Poco □ Bastante □ Mucho □ Poco □ Bastante □ Mucho □ Poco □ Bastante □ Mucho □ Poco □ Bastante □ Mucho 13.Leo textos en inglés: □ Nunca □ Muy poco .Hago resúmenes en inglés: □ Nunca □ Muy poco . ¿Cómo describirías tu nivel de inglés? □ Muy bueno □ Bueno □ Regular □ Malo 14.Participo en discusiones en inglés: □ Nunca □ Muy poco . incluida la sombreada (La casilla sombreada te guía para que identifiques el término medio las opciones presentadas). Especifica:_______________ 15. Aprender inglés es: Necesario Feo Difícil Atractivo Agradable Poco importante Inútil Interesante Innecesario Bonito Fácil No atractivo Desagradable Importante Útil Aburrido 49 . ¿Cuánto tiempo le dedicas cada día al inglés en casa (sin contar las clases que recibas)? □ Menos de media hora □ Entre media hora y una hora □ Entre una y dos horas □ Más de dos horas..Completo esquemas en inglés: □ Nunca □ Muy poco .Veo películas en inglés □ Nunca □ Muy poco .
temas.. música.. educación física. conocimiento de la cultura de la lengua inglesa. CCNN.. sustitución. tres cursos. un trimestre. ESO. otras:…… ¿En qué asignaturas utilizas el inglés? Matemáticas. días sueltos. otras:………………. Libro de texto en español que traduces al inglés. 2. pronunciación. ejercicios. dos semanas por curso. dedicación de tiempo: más o menos horas dedicadas a la asignatura. speaking. Libro de texto publicado en inglés. text comprehension. photographs. ¿Te gustaría ampliar o reducir el número de horas lectivas en inglés? Ampliar. Bachiller. otros:…………. FP Por qué trabajas el aprendizaje integrado: Interés personal.. sketches. …… Trabajas el aprendizaje integrado durante Todo el curso. un mes. otro:………………… ¿Qué ha cambiado desde el primer año? Asignatura. ¿Cuánto tiempo has estado trabajando con CLIL en el centro o en otro centro? Un curso. otros:…. vocabulario. wallcharts. videos de internet sobre aspectos gramaticales.Appendix iv: Guide for interviewing teachers Sexo: Masculino / Femenino Edad: Años de experiencia docente: ¿En qué niveles?: Primaria. religión. pictures. Reading. 3. reducir. tecnología. petición del centro. 4. historia. suprimir.… ¿Cuántas horas a la semana? 1. una semana por curso. dos cursos. actividades. películas. sin cambios. materiales: cuáles - - ¿Qué tipo de actividades realizáis en inglés? Lecturas de textos en inglés Explicaciones gramaticales Discusiones en parejas Debates en grupos Listenings sobre temas de la asignatura Role plays Juegos Presentaciones mediante PPT u otros medios audiovisuales Utilizamos gráficos Utilizamos páginas web Elaboramos webquests ¿Qué destrezas lingüísticas pretendes que mejoren los alumnos? (Writing.…)? - 50 .…) - - ¿Qué aspectos del inglés pretendes que mejoren los alumnos? Gramática. ¿Utilizáis libros de texto en inglés o tenéis otro tipo de materiales más independientes (lecturas sueltas. algunas lecciones. fluidez expresiva. listening. vídeos. - ¿Qué materiales utilizas para el aprendizaje integrado? Audiovisuales: grabaciones.
¿Se aprecia alguna evolución en las calificaciones de los alumnos? ¿En inglés y la materia que impartes. ¿Crees que los alumnos encuentran más motivación para aprender inglés? Bastante. falta de materiales. mucho. nada. Otra evolución:…….. indiferente. biblioteca del centro. problemas lingüísticos por parte de los alumnos. poco. ¿ Temas? - ¿Es difícil encontrar este tipo de materiales? encuentra y te haría falta? Por qué? ¿Qué material no se - ¿Qué fuentes utilizas para encontrar material en inglés? Internet. problemas de motivación por parte de los alumnos… - - ¿Cuál es la respuesta de los alumnos al aprendizaje integrado? Muy positiva.- Fotocopias de otros libros de texto Enciclopedias en inglés Readers (libritos de lectura seriados) Material impreso auténtico: cuál? Diccionarios bilingües (impresos o online?) Diccionarios monolingües ¿Lo preparas tú o hay materiales ya preparados? Si preparas tú el material: ¿Qué tipo de material? Ejemplo de material que preparas. - - - 51 . ¿En qué medida crees que el CLIL-AICLE ayuda a los alumnos? Aprenden más vocabulario Aprenden más gramática Mejoran su comprensión oral Mejoraran su expresión oral Mejoran su expresión escrita Mejoran su compresión escrita Mejoran su actitud hacia el inglés Mejoran su motivación hacia las lenguas Otras:………………. centro de Profesores. positiva. negativa. …. ………….… Otras bibliotecas: cuáles ¿Encuentras dificultades al dar la clase en inglés? En caso de que haya: Lengua. sólo en una de ellas o en ninguna? Positiva: obtienen mejores calificaciones en inglés Negativa: obtienen peores calificaciones en inglés No hay variación entre alumnos que reciben CLIL y los que no.
apoyo por parte de otras instituciones. Intermediate. en La Rioja.… - Opinión personal sobre CLIL 52 . méritos para concurso de traslado o de otro tipo. E. MEC…) con el CLIL-AICLE? - ¿Qué tipo de apoyo? Cursos en país de habla inglesa. … - - ¿Qué es lo que te motiva para trabajar en inglés? - ¿Cómo ves el aprendizaje integrado en el centro dentro de unos años? - ¿Cómo es la relación y colaboración con otros profesores que trabajen también el aprendizaje integrado? Muy positiva Positiva Regular Indiferente Negativa ¿Por qué?: - ¿Recibís ayuda o apoyo de algún tipo por parte de algún organismo (gobierno.- ¿Crees que el CLIL favorece el aprendizaje de un idioma a cambio de ralentizar el aprendizaje de otra materia o el aprendizaje es el mismo en ambas asignaturas? ¿Por qué? - ¿Cuál es tu preparación lingüística en inglés? (Cambridge. reconocimiento de algún modo: promoción? - ¿Qué se podría cambiar para mejorar esta situación? Materiales. C1. First Certificate. otros títulos:……………………………. TIC..I..O. abandonar el CLIL. 2. Proficiency. - ¿Qué criterios se siguen para decidir con qué grupos trabajar en inglés? Los alumnos son seleccionados en base a sus notas en inglés Es un programa voluntario: hay alumnos que no optan por CLIL No hay ningún criterio establecido: todos los alumnos reciben CLIL Otros:…………………… ¿Cómo solucionas posibles problemas lingüísticos por parte de los alumnos? Explicaciones en español intercaladas con inglés. licenciatura en Inglés. otros certificados) Nivel: B1. Advanced. cursos para profesores. magisterio en Inglés. Trinity. apoyo visual y de otros recursos para que comprendan mejor. Título EOI. C2.