VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS HUMANITARINIŲ MOKSLŲ FAKULTETAS ANGLŲ FILOLOGIJOS KATEDRA
Jolita Vinickytė
INTEGRUOTO DALYKO IR KALBOS MOKYMO ĮGYVENDINIMAS: PRIVALUMAI IR IŠŠŪKIAI
Magistro baigiamasis darbas
Taikomosios anglų kalbotyros studijų programa, valstybinis kodas 621Q30002 Filologijos studijų kryptis
Vadovė prof. dr. Nemira Mačianskienė ______(parašas) (data)
Apginta ...... ______(Fakulteto dekanė) (parašas) (data)
Kaunas, 2016
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING: ADVANTAGES AND CHALLENGES OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION
By Jolita Vinickytė
Department of English Philology Vytautas Magnus University Master Thesis Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Nemira Mačianskienė 12 May 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ...... i List of Figures ...... ii Glossary of Terms ...... iii SUMMARY ...... iv SANTRAUKA ...... v 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF CLIL IMPLEMENTATION ...... 3 2.1 The concept of CLIL ...... 3 2.2 Theoretical framework ...... 6 2.3 Diversity of CLIL implementation: international perspective ...... 9 2.3.1 EU policy and implementation of CLIL in EU ...... 9 2.3.2 CLIL in secondary education ...... 12 2.3.3 Overview of digital technologies as potential tools in CLIL classes ...... 14 2.3.4 CLIL and cognitive development ...... 17 2.3.5 CLIL and teacher professional development ...... 18 2.4 Brief History of CLIL implementation in Lithuania ...... 21 3 METHODOLOGY ...... 21 3.1 Research rationale...... 21 3.2 Organisation of empirical research ...... 21 4 FINDINGS OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH INTO CLIL IMPLEMENTATION ...... 29 4.1 CLIL IMPLEMENTATION IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES: EXPERT INTERVIEW ANALYSIS ...... 29 4.1.1 Advantages of CLIL implementation in foreign countries ...... 29 4.1.2 Problems of CLIL implementation ...... 31 4.1.3 Impact upon teacher development ...... 34 4.2 CLIL IMPLEMENTATION IN LITHUANIAN SCHOOLS ...... 35 4.2.1 Lithuanian CLIL teachers’ opinion analysis ...... 35 4.2.2 Lithuanian expert interview analysis ...... 42 4.3 COMPARISON OF FOREIGN AND LITHUANIAN EXPERT OPINIONS ...... 48 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 51 REFERENCES ...... 54 APPENDIX A. Foreign Experts’ Interview Responses (Original Language)...... 58 APPENDIX B. Plain Language Statement and Interview Questions ...... 65 APPENDIX C. Interview Questions for Lithuanian Experts ...... 66
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Three Stages of Developments in Bilingual Education...... 5 Table 2 Advantages of CLIL implementation: Lithuanian and foreign experts’ opinion...... 44
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Qualitative distinction of CLIL by Ball P (2015:1)...... 6 Figure 2 The 4Cs Framework by Coyle D., Hood P., Marsh, D. (2010: 41) ...... 8 Figure 3 Status of target languages used for CLIL in primary and/or general secondary education, 2010/11, Eurydice (2012: 41) ...... 10 Figure 4 Existence of CLIL provision in primary and/or general secondary education, 2010/11, Eurydice (2012: 39) ...... 11 Figure 5 Status of CLIL provision in primary (ISCED 1) and general secondary education (ISCED 2 and 3, 2004/05, Eurydice (2006: 13) ...... 11 Figure 6 Example of Quizlet flashcards ...... 16 Figure 7 Current level of in-service teachers in ongoing professional development (Canado, 2014: 14) ...... 21 Figure 8 Model of empirical research into advantages and challenges of CLIL implementation .. 28 Figure 9 Activating...... 36 Figure 10 Guiding Understanding...... 37 Figure 11 Focus on Language...... 38 Figure 12 Focus on Speaking ...... 39 Figure 13 Focus on Writing...... 40 Figure 14 Assessment, Review and Feedback...... 41
ii
GLOSSARY OF TERMS CLIL – Content and Language Integrated Learning IDKM – Integruotas dalyko ir kalbos mokymas LAKMA - Lithuanian Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language CBLT – Content-based Language Teaching CBI – Content-based Instruction “Activating” – in CLIL classroom it is related to the presentation of a new topic to the students; how teachers find out what the level of students’ prior knowledge is; whether they use any visual or organizational materials; encourage students to speak or even do hands-on activities. “Guiding Understanding” - in CLIL classes it is related to teachers’ actions enhancing students’ active participation and understanding of the topic. “Focus on language” - helps to identify how much attention teachers dedicate to vocabulary building and terminology, grammar or differences between students’ mother tongue and foreign language. “Focus on writing” – deals with teaching how to write different types of texts that are related to specific subjects; using visual materials to organise students writing skills more easily; helping students during the process of writing or explaining the differences between concrete and abstract writing styles related to a particular subject they are teaching. “The 4Cs Framework” - stands for ‘content’, ‘communication’, ‘cognition’, and ‘culture’. It represents the integration of the most important factors in CLIL and is based on a holistic view. It indicates that content and language learning systems should be viewed as a whole, but not as separate parts that cannot function in isolation.
iii
SUMMARY
The topic of this Master thesis is “Content and Language Integrated Learning: Advantages and Challenges of its Implementation”. The aim of this paper is to identify the benefits provided by integration of content and foreign language in the classroom as well as challenges faced in content and language integrated learning (hereinafter CLIL). In order to achieve this aim scholarly resources were consulted; furthermore, the documents of the European Commission in regard to CLIL implementation were analysed and research applying qualitative and quantitative research methods was performed aiming at identifying the main features and extent to which CLIL functions in Lithuanian schools. Also, the analysis of the interviews with foreign and Lithuanian experts was performed. The present paper is divided into five sections. The first section introduces the main methodological parameters of the study: the topic, aim, objectives, outline, and research methods that are used in this research paper. In Section Two the concept of CLIL as well as the spread of this approach in Europe is discussed. Moreover, the history of CLIL in Lithuania and its main features are presented in Subsection 2.4. Sections Three presents research rationale as well as the organisation of empirical research. Section Four presents the analysis of oral and written interviews that were undertaken with CLIL experts who participated in the international LAKMA conference in 2015 as well as with the Lithuanian experts. Furthermore, the findings on the application of CLIL in Lithuanian schools and its extent in relation to six focus aspects during CLIL lessons are presented in Section Four. The study ends with conclusions and recommendations. The main findings of the paper indicate that the implementation of CLIL differs among the EU member states because of national policies, socio-cultural and language situation. Although there have been a number of attempts to strengthen CLIL implementation in general education through the EU funded projects, there is a need for further teacher training and more definite government actions in order to expand CLIL in Lithuania. On the other hand, the research data analysis also shows that teachers tend to focus more on cognitive skills and the subject itself rather than the development of language skills; furthermore, in regard to previous knowledge activation, guidance of understanding, and language learning teachers use a variety of tools to facilitate learning process; however, speaking and writing skills are not considered to be a priority feature for most of the respondents. According to the experts, CLIL implementation increases students’ motivation to learn a foreign language and overcome cognitive challenges during lessons; CLIL classes are also useful to increase students’ cultural knowledge, tolerance, and multiculturalism. CLIL implementation also has a positive impact on school’s image, attractiveness and popularity.
iv
SANTRAUKA
Šio darbo tema yra „Integruoto dalyko ir kalbos mokymo įgyvendinimas: privalumai ir iššūkiai“. Tyrimo tikslas - išanalizuoti integruoto dalyko ir kalbos mokymo (IDKM) teikiamus privalumus bei iššūkius, su kuriais susiduriama taikant šį metodą. Norint pasiekti šį tikslą analizuota mokslinė literatūra, Europos komisijos dokumentai reglamentuojantys IDKM įgyvendinimą bei atlikto tyrimo taikant kokybinį (interviu) ir kiekybinį (anketa) tyrimo metodus duomenys. Baigiamąjį darbą sudaro penki skyriai. Pirmajame skyriuje yra aptariami metodologiniai parametrai, tema, tikslai, uždaviniai, planas ir tyrimo metodai. Antrajame skyriuje yra pristatoma IDKM sąvoka bei šio metodo paplitimas Europoje. Taip pat poskyryje 2.4 yra apžvelgiama IDKM įgyvendinimo Lietuvoje istorija ir jos pagrindiniai bruožai. Trečiajame skyriuje pateikiami tyrimo metodologiniai aspektai, o ketvirtajame skyriuje analizuojama lietuvių ir užsienių ekspertų bei lietuvių mokytojų nuomonė apie IDKM įgyvendinimą Lietuvos mokyklose remiantis šešiais pagrindiniais aspektais. Darbo pabaigoje yra pateikiamos išvados ir rekomendacijos. Tyrimo rezultatai rodo, kad IDKM įgyvendinimas skiriasi Europos valstybėse priklausomai nuo valstybės įgyvendinamos švietimo politikos, sociokultūrinės ir kalbinės situacijos. Nors ir buvo bandymų paspartinti IDKM įgyvendinimą švietimo įstaigose pasinaudojant Europos Sąjungos finansavimu, tačiau vis dar trūksta tolesnio mokytojų kvalifikacijos kėlimo šioje srityje bei apibrėžtų vyriausybės veiksmų siekiant sustiprinti IDKM pozicijas Lietuvoje. Vis dėlto, tyrimo duomenys rodo, kad respondentai (IDKM mokytojos) yra labiau linkusios pamokų metu daugiau dėmesio skirti kognityvinių gebėjimų lavinimui ir pačiam mokomajam dalykui, o ne kalbinės kompetencijos tobulinimui. Mokytojos naudoja įvairias priemones pamokų metu norėdamos suaktyvinti ankstesnes žinias, skatinti mokinių supratimą bei plėtoti lingvistinius įgūdžius, tačiau kalbėjimo ir rašymo įgūdžiai, anot respondentų, nėra prioritetai. IDKM ekspertų nuomone, šio metodo įgyvendinimas teigiamai veikia mokinių motyvaciją mokytis užsienio kalbos ir įveikti kognityvinius iššūkius pamokų metu; IDKM pamokos padeda lavinti mokinių supratimą apie kitas kultūras, toleranciją bei tarpkultūriškumą bei gerina mokyklos įvaizdį ir didina patrauklumą ir populiarumą.
v
INTRODUCTION
Language learning requires much effort both from the students and teachers; therefore, educators try to find ways which would help to make this process easier. One of the approaches that can help to achieve this aim is Content and Language Integrated Learning (hereinafter CLIL) which has been gaining popularity in the past few decades. The European Commission as well as the European Council support the use of CLIL methodology which can be important in creating multilingual Europe, providing better job opportunities, and making the movement of people easier. National governments of certain European countries are also willing to implement CLIL because it helps to strengthen intercultural environment and integrate national minorities. However, CLIL faces a number of challenges because of the national policies of different countries and the attitude of students’ parents. CLIL is a rather recent phenomenon in Lithuania and deeper analysis of this approach as well as the extent of its implementation in comparison to other EU countries is needed. The aim of this paper is to identify the benefits provided by integration of content and foreign language in the classroom as well as challenges faced in content and language integrated learning. In order to achieve this purpose, the following objectives were set: 1. To analyse the concept of CLIL and its theoretical framework. 2. To present the diversity of CLIL implementation in Europe in regard to EU policies, students’ cognitive development, and the use of technologies. 3. To investigate the history of CLIL implementation and its main features in Lithuanian schools. 4. To analyse CLIL advantages, its impact upon student and teacher development as well as challenges identified by foreign experts. 5. To examine the actual extent of CLIL features in Lithuanian schools, CLIL implementation advantages, challenges and future perspectives in Lithuania. The following research methods were used in the study: analysis of scholarly sources, qualitative research methods – oral and written interviews, quantitative research methods – questionnaire survey research, descriptive statistical analysis. Statistical data obtained from the questionnaires is presented in tables, while qualitative data is provided and discussed in the analytical part. Research methods used in this study examine CLIL features and extent to which it is implemented in Lithuania and in other European countries. The study consists of theoretical and practical parts. The theoretical part presents the concept of CLIL as well as discusses the spread of this approach in Europe. Moreover, the history of CLIL in Lithuania and its main features are presented in this part. The practical part of the paper analyses the results of qualitative research: oral and written interviews. In order to analyse the
1 current situation abroad in regard to CLIL implementation, its advantages, challenges and impact upon teachers’ professional development, eight oral and written interviews were conducted with foreign experts who participated in the 17th LAKMA conference “Focus on CLIL – Lithuania 2015” in Vilnius on 16th and 17th of October, 2015. A brief interview was performed with the respondents during the conference and more open questions were agreed to be expanded on in written responses sent by email (see Appendix A). The experts were from the UK, the Check Republic, Slovakia, Italy, and Ireland. For ethical reasons, the respondents’ names are not used in the research; they were encoded providing them numbers, e.g. Respondent 1, Respondent 2, etc. Interviews were also undertaken with Lithuanian experts: representatives of the Ministry of Education and Science, coordinators and executives of the European Social Fund supported CLIL projects, three CLIL teacher trainers, higher education institution teachers and CLIL project developers and secondary school principals who organise implementation of CLIL in Lithuania. Other participants of quantitative research were secondary school teachers who participated in VMU project called “Synergy of Content and Foreign language”. The study ends with conclusions and recommendations.
2
2 THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF CLIL IMPLEMENTATION
Language learning is a complex process which requires dedication from teachers and hard work from students. Since early ages people have applied different ways and approaches to teach a foreign language, but they kept changing all the time and it is difficult to tell which language teaching approach or methodology is most efficient. Nowadays language specialist and educators try to apply new and innovative ways to teach foreign languages and make this process as efficient as possible. CLIL is one of the newest and most innovative pedagogical trends in Europe and is gaining its popularity in other areas, too. One of the main reasons for expansion is that CLIL encompasses not only language learning itself but also integrates content of a particular school subject in this process. As Smith and Paterson (1998:1) claim “cognitively undemanding work, such as copying or repetition, especially when there is little or no context to support it, does not enhance language learning [...] by actively involving pupils in intellectually demanding work, the teacher is creating a genuine need for learners to acquire the appropriate language”, and it is the core idea of CLIL which integrates both the acquisition of foreign language skills and helps learners understand the subject itself. Consequently, this chapter deals with the content and language integrated learning concept, its differences from CBI, immersion, and CBLT, the theoretical background of this approach and its implementation in Europe.
2.1 The concept of CLIL
Content and Language Integrated Learning is a rather new concept because it emerged in the early 1990s and in Europe most often is associated with the English language. Do Coyle, Philip Hood, and David Marsh (2010: 1) define it as a “dual focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language. That is, in the teaching and learning process, there is a focus not only on content, and not only on language. Each is interwoven, even if the emphasis is greater on one or the other at a given time”. It is evident that CLIL concentrates not only on the subject itself but also on rendering of the most important ideas and concepts in a foreign language. Moreover, the fact that “an additional” language is used in CLIL indicates that actually it can be any language, e.g., the second language, a foreign language or even a minority language; this also explains while CLIL became so popular in Europe during such a short period of time - there are many countries that have minorities and need to deal with problems that arise in the sphere of official and minority language education. In publication by Eurydice CLIL is defined as:
3
“the platform for an innovative methodological approach of far broader scope than language teaching. Accordingly, its advocates stress how it seeks to develop proficiency in both the non-language subject and the language in which this is taught, attaching the same importance to each. Furthermore, achieving this twofold aim calls for the development of a special approach to teaching in that the non-language subject is not taught in a foreign language but with and through a foreign language. This implies a more integrated approach to both teaching and learning, requiring that teachers should devote special thought not just to how languages should be taught, but to the educational process in general”. (Eurycide, 2006: 7)
Thus, CLIL puts emphasis on subject teaching through and with a foreign language which leads to a presupposition that language and subject teaching should be acquired in a more natural way, without forcing students to cram huge amount of information in a short period of time. This would help students to learn both language and content while learning a school subject. The implementation of CLIL according to this definition can be problematic as it does not explain how CLIL actually works, because different countries implement CLIL depending on their context and educational traditions. However, Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Tarja Nikula (2014: 117) argue that even though CLIL approaches are very heterogeneous there are some “prototypical implementations” of CLIL: use of a foreign language (most frequently, English) rather than the co-official language of the country; teaching by subject specialists, rather than language teachers; classes being timetabled as content lessons and taking place alongside language teaching rather than instead of it. It reveals that CLIL actually poses challenges to subject specialists rather than language teachers and emphasises that learning is concentrated not only on the content but also on language acquisition. Furthermore, according to some scholars CLIL and EMILE are considered to be equivalent concept; however, some of them define their different features. For example, Hugo Baetens Beardsmore (2002: 24) claims that CLIL belongs to the second stage of bilingual education, while Emile is associated to the third one. According to H. B. Beardstome, CLIL is still oriented to language and grammar, whereas EMILE concentrates on the subject itself and gives much attention to discourse in learning process (see Table 1).
4
Table 1 The 3 Stages of Developments in Bilingual Education. Emblematic Didactic Communication Data processing designation orientation competence techniques 1st Immersion Language Strategic Experimental/Quantitative stage (product-oriented) 2nd Content and Language Language Morpho- Experimental/Quantitative stage Integrated Learning syntactic (product-oriented) (“grammatical”) 3rd “ Enseignement d’ une Subject Discursive Ethnographic/Qualitative stage matière par (process-oriented) l’ intègration d’une langue ètrangère” (EMILE)
Furthermore, both CLIL and EMILE are based on functional bilingualism approach which, according to Colin Baker (1993:13), is person's ability to use and produce both languages across “an encyclopaedia of everyday events”. Thus, language in such a type of education is used as a tool to interact with environment or other people that surrounds the student. Moreover, Peeter Mehisto, David Marsh and Maria Jesus Frigols (2008:29) emphasise the application of language skills as a part of “active learning” which is one of the core features in CLIL methodology. Active learning is mainly student oriented and encourages students to speak more than teachers, evaluate learning process, participate in cooperative work and interact with each other using a foreign language. This means that the teachers’ role is just a facilitator. On the other hand, if language learning is based on monolingualism, teacher is perceived as an instructor who has a higher position than students and learners should always follow what the teacher is saying; however, it does not help to improve language skills efficiently or get deeper insights about the subject or the topic that is being discussed. The concept of CLIL can also cause misunderstanding as it is often confused with Content- based Language Teaching (CBLT), immersion and Content-based Instruction (CBI). According to Liz Dale and Rosie Tanner (2012: 4) CBLT is related to teaching the content of the lesson in foreign language lessons, whereas CLIL concentrates on teaching language and a particular subject simultaneously. Furthermore, even though the terms CLIL and immersion are often used interchangeably, CLIL differs from immersion, because attention is given not only to studying a specific subject using a foreign language, but to the language and content at the same time. All in all, CBLT tries to increase the knowledge of language, CLIL – both language and content, and immersion – mainly just content. Jasone Cenoz (2014: 10) also puts an emphasis on Content-based Instruction (CBI) which can be considered to be a generic term. According to Jasone Cenoz (2014), CBI serves as an umbrella term for approaches that are related to content and language learning and encompasses CBLT, CLIL and immersion.
5
However, Key Bentley (2009: 9) opposes this idea and claims that CLIL is an “umbrella term covering teaching contexts in which subject content is taught through another language”, but this definition does not actually define the scope of content learning and language learning, this way increasing the vagueness in defining this concept. To sum up, CLIL is an approach which deals with content and language learning at the same time and the main objective of this approach is to teach a subject not in a foreign language but through and with an additional language, which helps learners to acquire new skills in a less stressful environment, because they learn the new information in a naturalistic but cognitively demanding atmosphere. Furthermore, CLIL is sometimes used interchangeably with such concepts as CBLT, CBI and immersion; however, according to some scholars CBI is a generic term for the teaching of content in a foreign language; CBLT concentrates on the acquisition of language; and immersion mainly deals with content knowledge.
2.2 Theoretical framework
CLIL as an approach, according to Phil Ball (2015), can be divided into two camps. The first one – “in which the teaching and learning is focused primarily on the subject content” (content- driven), and the second one – “in which the teaching and learning is focused primarily on language” (language-driven). These two approaches are closely interwoven in CLIL and supplement each other. On the other hand, because of their specific features they can be referred to as the “strong” (or hard) and “weak” (or soft). The author claims that the “strong” CLIL can be found in schools where education and social medium are undertaken in a foreign language, whereas the “weak” CLIL is used as a description for language classes where more content than usual is used. A clearer distinction between the “weak” and “strong” CLIL is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Qualitative distinction of CLIL by Ball P. (2015:1)
Thus, sometimes it can be problematic for educators to implement this approach as they need to balance between content and language-driven CLIL, because as J. Grandall states “students
6 cannot develop academic knowledge and skills without access to the language in which that knowledge is embedded, discussed, constructed, or evaluated. Nor can they acquire academic language skills in a context devoid of [academic] content (Grandall, 1994:256). This means that each teacher faces challenges not only while conveying information on a particular subject in a foreign language but also while constructing a dialogue with students and making them use the foreign language during the learning process. Do Coyle, Philip Hood, and David Marsh (2010) also present “The 4Cs Framework” which stands for ‘content’, ‘communication’, ‘cognition’, and ‘culture’. The 4Cs Framework represents the integration of the most important factors in CLIL and is based on a holistic view which claims that content and language learning systems should be viewed as a whole, but not as separate parts that cannot function in isolation. From this perspective CLIL is a language learning approach which includes “appropriate language learning while using language to learn effectively” (2010: 42). According to D. Coyle, P. Hood, and D. Marsh, effective CLIL takes place because of mutual existence of several factors: progression in knowledge, skills and understanding of the context; engagement in associated cognitive processing; interaction in the communicative context; development of appropriate language knowledge and skills; the acquisition of a deepening intercultural awareness, which is in turn brought about by the positioning of self and ‘otherness’ (2010:41). Therefore, this approach can only work if students increase their knowledge of the subject, engage in learning and thinking processes, interact with each other this way creating their own knowledge and understanding; moreover, it helps to develop their foreign language skills and intercultural awareness. Relationship between content, communication, cognition, and culture can be seen in Figure 2.
7
Figure 2 The 4Cs Framework by Coyle D., Hood P., Marsh, D. (2010: 41)
This relationship also refers to the importance of synergies for CLIL. ‘Synergy’ stands for the “creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts”. The term synergy comes from the Greek word ‘synergia’ which means "working together" (Online Etymology Dictionary, 2015). Therefore, the main feature of CLIL is integration, which helps to increase the outcomes of the learning process when the content of a subject is interdependent from the foreign language and the knowledge of both of them is developed at the same time. Also this theoretical approach poses some dilemmas, for instance, such authors as Wells (1999) emphasise “dialogic learning” which puts much importance on teacher-learner and learner- learner dialogues. This can be problematic, because learners who do not have good enough language skills might have difficulty in speaking about a certain topic using some grammatical constructions; therefore, not only grammatical or linguistic choices to support language learning should be made, but also an additional approach, which would support language usage in the classroom is required (Coyle, Hood, and Marsh, 2010: 35). All in all, CLIL is based on a holistic view and separate parts of the implementation of this approach cannot work effectively because content, communication, culture and cognition are closely interrelated. Furthermore, this approach has several modes which are distinguished based on its concentration towards content (content driven) or the language learning itself (language driven). Therefore, the depth of this approach implementation in a particular country depends on general social and cultural situation as well as local authority policies, and is unequal in different countries.
8
2.3 Diversity of CLIL implementation: international perspective
CLIL implementation arises mainly from two backgrounds: the initiatives from particular teachers who want to teach the subject and language at the same time or EU policies that encourage the emergence of bilingual Europe and emphasise the focus on CLIL in a number of countries. This happens because CLIL and wider foreign language learning can be useful in facilitating integration of national minorities, providing better job opportunities and better carrier development. Therefore, CLIL is being implemented in European schools at quite an early age; though it varies country by country. This chapter shortly discusses CLIL implementation in secondary education in several European countries as well as possible ways to use technology while implementing CLIL. Moreover, attention given to CLIL influence on students’ cognitive development as well as the opportunities for teacher professional development in relation to CLIL will be discussed.
2.3.1 EU policy and implementation of CLIL in the EU
In recent years CLIL has gained much popularity all over Europe because of a number of reasons, for example, Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe (2013: 231) claims that the European Commission has had much influence on the spread of CLIL, as its Action Plan (2003) related to language learning and diversity, presented CLIL as an innovative method which would help to improve the quality of teaching. Therefore, CLIL was considered to be a tool which can help to promote language learning as well as intercultural understanding and social cohesion. However, according to the author, the EU cannot actually force its member states to implement CLIL to a particular degree; thus, the realization of this approach is divergent in different countries because of local authorities’ actions and different social situation in each member state. Furthermore, different application of CLIL in different countries is one of many factors that are influenced by social and cultural differences. Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe (2013: 232) states that “CLIL in Poland, the United Kingdom or the Netherlands will differ from CLIL in Spain, Sweden or Italy [...] as does the linguistic diversity in all the communities or the attitudes and strength of the foreign language”. Therefore, it can be noticed that countries which have a big variety of national minorities are more prone to implement this language teaching approach than the ones that are more homogenous, because CLIL in this case is used by policy makers as a tool that helps to reduce cultural and linguistic tensions between minority members and local people. On the other hand, more homogeneous countries tend to be more sceptical about the implementation of CLIL. For further details, see Figure 3.
9
. Figure 3 Status of target languages used for CLIL in primary and/or general secondary education, 2010/11, Eurydice (2012: 41)
Glyn Williams, Miquel Strubell, and Gruffudd Owain Williams (2013: 31) state that integration of language and subject teaching has been successful in several countries, and they emphasise the aspect of using minority languages as the other language in teaching subjects: “this has been a feature of several minority language systems for many years, and CLIL programmes and initiatives can learn a great deal from such experience”. Therefore, as it is illustrated in Figure 3 the situation of a minority language in a particular EU member state can be a factor that forces policy makers to strengthen CLIL implementation in their country. María Luisa Pérez-Cañado (2012: 315) also claims that there are several driving forces that have increased the popularity of this approach in Europe. They are: reactive reasons – CLIL is implemented when foreign language competence is unsatisfactory and should be improved; proactive responses – CLIL is implemented in order to strengthen multilingualism in Europe and enhance intercultural communication and economical, political cooperation between member states; advancement in second language acquisition (SLA). Thus, all these factors can account for the increased popularity of CLIL during the last decade in all stages of language education. The fact that the number of countries who implemented CLIL provision not only as part of mainstream education but also within various international projects has almost doubled during the last decade indicates that the aforementioned driving forces constitute the background of CLIL expansion in Europe. For more information regarding the increase of CLIL popularity in each member state, see Figure 4 and Figure 5.
10
Figure 4 Existence of CLIL provision in primary and/or general secondary education, 2010/11, Eurydice (2012: 39)
Figure 5 Status of CLIL provision in primary (ISCED 1) and general secondary education (ISCED 2 and 3, 2004/05, Eurydice (2006: 13)
Furthermore, the popularity of CLIL has increased not only because of top-down language policy (Spain) but also due to bottom–up initiatives (Germany, Austria). Also, according to C. Dalton- Puffer and T. Nikula (2014:118), the European Commission’s support of CLIL “meant that for some time there was not only a favourable political climate but also funds available for setting up transnational initiatives and platforms for collaboration and exchange – not necessarily a common phenomenon relating to educational innovation on a continent that may be integrating but whose 11 school-level education systems remain firmly NATIONAL”. The European Union policies still influence the expansion of CLIL and which helps to strengthen relationship between different countries. In conclusion, the spread of CLIL in Europe is related to actions taken by the European Commission which expedited the acceptance of CLIL in the EU member states. The implementation of CLIL in European countries is not on the same level because of national policies and socio-cultural and language situation (the presence of minority languages forces policy makers to support CLIL realization in a country, whereas local authorities in more homogeneous countries tend to be less enthusiastic about CLIL implementation). Thus, CLIL in Europe serves not only as an innovative language teaching approach but also as one of the factors that strengthens intercultural relations and communication between the EU member states and is, therefore, supported by the EU policy makers.
2.3.2 CLIL in secondary education
There is some evidence which proves that CLIL implementation at an early age has some positive outcomes Michael Grenfell (2000) claims that in CLIL “other subjects in the curriculum are taught through the target language. Certainly, this style of language learning and teaching is growing in popularity within Europe and may offer us examples of good practice” (2000: 26). For example, according to María del Carmen Méndez García (2013), “CLIL constitutes a framework for the implementation of interculturally-oriented methodological approaches” and “it has the potential to contribute to the enhancement of learners’ intercultural communicative competence” (2013:268). In her research the author mainly focuses on Andalusian region which is mainly monolingual and the use of another language in secondary school lessons not only enhances students’ written and spoken communication skills but is also related to intercultural competence development because students can become more familiar with the cultural background of the people who speak the target language. In this region during secondary school years CLIL courses are mainly used for social sciences, such as history and geography. On the other hand, natural sciences tend to be more common in primary education. Also, when Spanish schools start teaching subjects and languages with CLIL one third of subjects is taught in a foreign language (English, French, and German) and the rest of the courses in the mother tongue (2013:269). Thus, an early introduction of CLIL in public schools not only enhances students’ competences in regard to specific subjects but also helps them to become more acquainted with different cultures during social science lessons, which enhances students’ intercultural development. Moreover, research has been performed with the aim to identify the impact of CLIL on students’ acquisition of written skills. Maria Gené-Gil, Maria Juan-Garau and Joana Salazar-
12
Noguera (2015) found out that there is a positive impact on students’ EFL writing skills in CLIL settings during secondary education years. The scholars analysed written complexity, accuracy, and fluency among secondary school learners in CLIL and usual study settings. Another study was conducted in Catalan region in Spain. CLIL students had to study social and natural sciences in the English language, whereas the other research group had only usual language classes. Their written competences were measured several times over 3 years and revealed that secondary school non- CLIL students actually showed significantly better results in terms of lexical complexity; however, students who had CLIL classes actually received a better overall score for writing competences (2015: 286). Therefore, even though CLIL might not be the best decision to improve only lexical language usage skills in written context, but it proves to be effective in terms of overall writing skill development when lexical knowledge, accuracy, fluency, and complexity of the sentences are measured. Furthermore, Pat Moore (2011) claims that CLIL implementation in secondary school classrooms is extremely useful in terms of collaboration and interaction between students. During his research, Pat Moore made interviews with CLIL secondary school students and students that had usual language classes in Andalusia. The scholar noticed that “CLIL learners are participating both more frequently and more effectively in collaborative turns than their MS counterparts” (2011: 531). Besides, he distinguished four initial turn-taking types that CLIL students are using while interacting with each other; they are – individual turns, cooperative turns, embedded turns, and empty turns. The interviews revealed that CLIL students demonstrated more cooperation and greater engagement in conversation that usual students. Moreover, this can be associated with the fact that greater competences are usually related to improved interaction between participants. The fact that CLIL students were collaborating with each other in the second language more often also emphasises higher levels of second language competences among CLIL students. In addition, there is a tendency in European countries to implement CLIL methodology in classrooms with high-achieving students, whereas lower-achievers are usually considered to be not enough competent to engage in such second language learning activity. However, Jenny Denman, Rosie Tanner, and Rick de Graaff performed a research in the Netherlands among secondary school students and reported the successful linguistic, curricular, as well as pedagogical characteristics of CLIL education among the latter type of learners. Furthermore, students claimed that they were more motivated to study in the presence of CLIL challenge and this helped to improve studying results as well as students’ self-esteem levels while speaking in a foreign language. Seventy percent of the students who participated in this research and attended a vocation school noted that they would recommend the course to their peers (2013: 298).
13
However, it should be noted that even though CLIL methodology implementation in Europe usually shows positive results, it is not the case with all countries. One of the examples can be Sweden and this issue is mainly related to nation-specific contextual factors. According to Liss Kerstin Sylven (2013: 301), these factors are focused on policy framework, teacher education, age of implementation, and extramural exposure to English. When it comes to education policy framework it should be noted that in Sweden different government institutions as well as education institutions have different definitions that contradict each other in several aspects. Teacher education in 1999 seemed to be promising for language and subject teachers because they could study non-language subject with languages; however, this did not prove to be efficient as many teachers could not find the job and teacher education policy was changed again focusing only on one subject teachers. The age of implementation is also an influential factor because students show a tendency to acquire better language skills at an early age. In Sweden CLIL is usually implemented at upper secondary level; however, it is usually restricted to a maximum of fifty percent of all subjects and does not allow full implementation of this methodology. On the other hand, extramural exposure to English in Sweden is quite high because students can watch TV with English subtitles or get most of their English contacts outside the school; thus, it strengthens the impact of CLIL among Swedish students.
2.3.3 Overview of digital technologies as potential tools in CLIL classes
The fact that we live in the digital 21st century also plays an important role while choosing a language teaching methodology and style. Students who attend our schools these days belong to “Z generation”, a generation that was born at the time when everyone uses computers, mobile phones, iPhones, iPads and other types of modern technologies. This is why usual classroom environment with the use of paperbooks and pens is no longer attractive for today’s students anymore. Teachers should provide interesting and enriching class environment to new generation students by introducing a new medium in the classroom, various digital technologies, virtual learning and playing platforms that students are so familiar with. Grażyna Paliwoda-Pękosz and Janusz Stal (2015) support the idea that ICT (information and communication technology) should be integrated with CLIL in order to achieve better language and subject learning results and motivate students. Students should have access to “a diverse set of technological tools and resources used to communicate, and to create, disseminate, store, and manage information” (Blurton, 1999: 1). The authors suggest that ICT should be employed in integrated subject and language learning process to facilitate learning process and make it more attractive as wells as constructive among new generation learners. The authors also claim that virtual learning environments (VLE) should be integrated with CLIL in countries where “a political
14 and economic transformation has brought similar shifts in language skill requirements” (2015: 403). This would make second language learning among new generations’ students more acceptable and inclusive. Internet is the main tool that allows such a shift in CLIL teaching. The use of multimedia is another means of technology use in classrooms as it helps students become familiar with the natural use of language in relation to a specific subject. Furthermore, it should be noted that language learning is not restricted only within classroom boundaries these days. Almost every student can improve his or her area specific language skills with the use of mobile apps that can be downloaded from Android Play Store. For example, NCERT Social Science app can be a very useful tool for students who want to improve their knowledge about social sciences and check it at the same time while answering the questions that this application is providing. Students can check the notes first of all and later on evaluate themselves by answering the provided questions. It should be noted that this mobile application is created by National Council of Education Research and Training in India and can be used by higher classes’ students. Similarly, one more mobile application that can help students in CLIL classes learn new things, increase their intellect capacity and improve language skills at the same time is called “Owl”. This application actually provides students with one interesting historical or science related fact and can be used in CLIL learning environment to promote knowledge about different subjects and increase reading comprehension skills. Subsequently, the mobile application called “Atlass by Collins” can be useful in CLIL geography classes. This application provides its users with an opportunity to travel around the world, see new places and learn new information about important destinations or artefacts in the world. The users of this application can also use nine globes, a variety of maps and other tools at the same time learning new things about geography and improving their English language skills and comprehension. One more application that can be useful during CLIL mathematics classes is called “Math Genius Brain Trainer”. This application helps to develop problem-solving competences and critical thinking. Students using this application can play math games that help to improve their mathematic skills in interesting virtual environment. In addition, there are some applications or web pages that can be incorporated and used during CLIL classes of several different subjects. Every student and teacher can use “Quizlet” webpage in order to learn new terms or even create flashcard games that help to remember the content more easily. This webpage allows the creation of numerous study sets on different topics. To make the learning process more interesting students can use audio files or pictures and attach them to their study sets. Therefore, “Quizlet” can be a universal tool that could be used to facilitate language learning in relation to different school subjects. An example of Quizlet flashcards for CLIL biology lesson can be seen in Figure 6.
15
Figure 6 Example of Quizlet flashcards (Newcomb, 2011)
One more useful application for the learning process in a CLIL classroom is “KhanAcademy”, and with this application students can study many subjects such as mathematics, science, economics and finance arts and humanities or even prepare for specific tests such as SAT. You can also view a variety of videos on different study topics or download them and watch later. Therefore, this application is also a universal one that can be used in numerous school subjects to strengthen CLIL features. One more application that can be used in a CLIL classroom is “Duolingo”. However, this application is preferable for lower grade students and focuses more on language learning. On the other hand, it also incorporates a variety of different study topics for beginner language learners, such as nature, math, banking, sports, arts, philosophy, politics, music, culture, etc. To sum up, technology and CLIL are closely related in terms of language development and subject learning. Internet connection these days is the main driving force that can facilitate language acquisition as well as studying of a specific subject through various means. One of them is virtual learning environment creation which shifts the learning process from a usual classroom and makes lesson material available to a higher number of students as well as increases active student participation and involvement in the learning process. The fact that new generation students use smart phones or other electronic devices provides an opportunity to use a variety of mobile applications designed for a specific subject learning and language improvement at the same time or a universal one which can be used to facilitate learning of various subjects or even include different languages in the learning process (for example, Quizlet, KhanAcademy, or Duolingo).
16
2.3.4 CLIL and cognitive development
Cognitive development is a constituent part of the learning process and often depends on the methodology that is being used to learn a new subject. CLIL in this respect is one of the driving forces for students’ cognitive development because it encompasses both learning of new subject- related information such as new terminology, new factual information as well as the use of a particular language as a medium of communication and instruction in the language classroom. Cognitive development is closely related to students’ ability to think and understand a specific topic which would be impossible without proper language acquisition. This emphasises the need of quite high language proficiency before starting to use CLIL methodology in order to make sure that it will be effective and help to increase students’ cognitive development. Natalia Evnitskaya and Tom Morton in their research suggest that “the efforts to understand classroom processes and language use in CLIL classrooms can be strengthened by forging links between CLIL research and the classroom discourse work across different disciplines” (2011:109). The authors emphasise the need for communication between the teacher and students as well as the collaboration between the students themselves. It is not enough only to present new information about a specific topic in a foreign language. Students should communicate and express their thoughts about a newly learned subject in a foreign language in order to strengthen their cognition skills and make sure that they understand what a teacher tries to teach them. On the other hand, Agnieszka Otwinowska and Małgorzata Foryś (2015) claim that successful development of students’ cognitive skills highly depends on affective condition and emotional state of the learners. They analysed the relation between affectivity and cognition among upper-primary Polish students who were learning mathematics and science. The scholars found out that there were cases when symptoms of intellectual helplessness (IH) and negative affectivity were experienced by young CLIL learners in science and mathematics. However, this was not the case in terms of usual English language classes and the cognition as well as the affective state of students did not have any negative impact on students’ grades. Agnieszka Otwinowska and Małgorzata Foryś (2015) explain this paradox in relation to different types of language needed during general English and CLIL classes that are related to mathematics or science. This means that in general English language classes interpersonal communication skills are more important, whereas cognitive academic language proficiency is usually required in CLIL subjects when students have to learn math or science in the English language (2015:1). Thus, it might result in higher stress levels among CLIL students and lower studying results. As a result, CLIL teachers should carefully consider study plans and try to ensure positive classroom environment during such classes.
17
Jaana Seikkula-Leino analysed how cognitive development, motivation, and students’ self- esteem in CLIL classroom were different from the ones in usual classrooms where the language of instruction was Finnish. Her research revealed that students both in a CLIL classroom and a usual classroom learned new subjects and could understand new topics equally well. This indicates that CLIL is not an obstacle to learn new information or develop thinking and understanding of specific issues. Thus, CLIL does not have any negative effect on students’ cognitive development. On the contrary, according to Jaana Seikkula-Leino research, it increases students’ inner motivation to learn a new language and a different subject at the same time; however, according to the author, students who study in a CLIL classroom tend to show a tendency to have a “low self-concept in foreign languages” (2007:328). In regard to this affective factor CLIL has some disadvantages, but the fact that students feel more motivated to learn a new subject in a foreign language indicates that students know their achievements and things that can be improved in regard to foreign language learning and try to change the current situation, which again is a positive aspect of CLIL implementation in today’s classrooms. Furthermore, Piet Van de Craen, Katrien Mondt, Laure Allain and Ying Gao claim that “CLIL induces the learner to be more cognitively active during the learning process” (2007: 73). This can be explained by the fact that monolingual learners usually just scan some information and do not have to concentrate much in order to understand what is being said. On the other hand, students who study a specific subject in a foreign language have to analyse what is being said in the second language. This way they have to train their cognitive skills more often and concentrate deeper into the subject at the same time developing their foreign language proficiency. In conclusion, students’ development of cognitive skills in CLIL classrooms depends on several factors. Students’ affective state is one of them and influences self-esteem while communicating and expressing their thoughts or insights about a specific topic in CLIL lessons. Low affective state can result in lower numbers of underachieving students during the learning process. However, CLIL trains students’ ability to think, strengthens their understanding and learning a new subject in a foreign language because CLIL students have to use their cognitive skills more often because of the language barrier and at the same time they are more motivated to learn the second language itself.
2.3.5 CLIL and teacher professional/personal development
CLIL has become more and more popular in recent years as a means of helping to create multilingual Europe. The use of CLIL methodology in regard to students’ language acquisition and subject learning issues were analysed by a number of scholars; however, not much attention was
18 given to teacher related issues and their professional development. Every teacher faces a number of challenges while providing CLIL classes. This happens because CLIL teachers are usually non- natives who have expertise either in a specific subject or language teaching and have to integrate both content and language that is being taught. On the other hand, CLIL implementation helps to improve teachers’ professional development and helps to acquire new skills and knowledge that is needed to provide effective CLIL classes. Josephine Marie Moate performed a research into teachers’ professional integrity and development while providing CLIL classes in Finland. She conducted interviews with teachers and learned that teaching that is mediated through a foreign language “affects teachers’ sense of professional integrity with regard to both the person and the practice of the teacher at a fundamental level” (2011: 333). According to her study, the majority of interviewed teachers felt much stress and anxiety while delivering CLIL classes because they used a foreign language that they learnt only because of a personal drive or Finnish school language requirements; as a result, a language barrier posed a number of challenges to them. In regard to professional changes, these teachers also had to overcome several obstacles. For instance, it was difficult to find suitable teaching materials because of the requirements of academic standard, too complex language for the students and availability of teaching resources (2011: 338). CLIL teachers that concentrate on the subject more have to overcome a number of problems in regard to the use of pedagogical patterns in CLIL classrooms; therefore, more opportunities for professional development should be offered in order to solve the arising issues during CLIL classes. Gerrit Jan Koopman, Jason Skeet, and Rick de Graaff (2014: 131) analysed experienced CLIL subject teachers’ practical knowledge base in relation to the actions and activities that are used for foreign language learning in their CLIL lessons. However, even though the teachers were experienced, they had to apply their knowledge of language teaching in subject lessons and learn new things at the same time. For example, the use of input phrases during CLIL lessons is an aspect that should be facilitated by teachers in order to help students understand new information more easily. Thus, despite teachers’ expertise new opportunities for professional development should be constantly provided in order to ensure effective CLIL classes because only well prepared teachers can properly respond to the issues that arise in a CLIL classroom and prevent their further emergence. Dario Luis Benegas (2012) claims that the main issue in CLIL teacher professional development is that teacher educators are not experienced enough in CLIL implementation themselves and thus they can provide only theoretical knowledge for CLIL teachers. As a result, the author suggests that the teacher educators need to be qualified to teach CLIL in educational institutions before starting to explain what a good CLIL teacher is and what skills CLIL teachers
19 should develop. This would help to ensure that CLIL teachers provide good quality classes because they would have an opportunity to learn prom the experts in this area and apply their knowledge in everyday classes. According to D. L. Benegas, CLIL implementation is most often based on top-down decisions but it should be the opposite and more attention should be given to teachers’ professional development. He claims that decision-making processes these days begin with addressing education system first and teachers’ professional development is addressed the last (2012: 53), which might be the reason why CLIL implementation seems to be challenging both for language and subject teachers and often results in high teacher stress levels and anxiety. Therefore, more opportunities for teachers should be created to participate in seminars or take courses that would help to increase their knowledge about CLIL implementation and would teach hove to overcome problems that arise in CLIL classroom. On the other hand, various institutions offer a number of opportunities for CLIL teacher professional development; furthermore, there is quite a range of courses, summer schools, seminars and even webinars that help teachers to improve their competencies in CLIL teaching. For example, a list of possible webinars is provided on Oxford professional development page (see http://professionaldevelopmentoxford.com/). The webinars are completely free of charge and promise to provide useful information about CLIL implementation and inspire teachers to try this methodology (e.g., “CLIL teacher competences - what do good CLIL teachers do?”, or “CLIL in Action: Functional Language for CLIL Classes”) María Luisa Pérez Cañado (2014) in her article discussed the results of a study on major training needs of in-service teachers that work with a bilingual education model. The study revealed teachers’ training needs in terms of linguistic and intercultural competences that are needed for CLIL language teachers; also, theoretical and methodological aspects that were related to the new options associated with CLIL, as well as teaching materials and resources that would help integrate both subject and language learning at the same time; furthermore, attention was given to ongoing professional development of CLIL teachers as well. Figure 2 shows the detailed results of teachers’ opinions about professional development and it can be noticed that the majority of teachers actually consider CLIL teacher training insufficient most of the time.
20
Figure 7 Current level of in-service teachers in ongoing professional development (Canado, 2014: 14)
In conclusion, a number of opportunities for teacher professional and personal development are offered (e.g., courses, seminars, and online webinars); however, earlier conducted studies reveal that some teachers believe that their professional development is insufficient. As a result, they feel much stress, anxiety, emphasise a lack of prepared CLIL teaching materials as well as a language barrier that becomes an obstacle in their work. Other scholars emphasise that the main problem of CLIL teacher professional and personal development is that teacher educators do not have enough expertise themselves to provide decent advice and insights that would help teacher development.
2.4 Brief History of CLIL implementation in Lithuania
CLIL is a relatively new phenomenon in Lithuania that has a potential because it opens new opportunities for students to learn a foreign language in a practical way. At first the implementation of CLIL in Lithuania caused a number of discussions and response to this approach was not only a positive one because CLIL is sometimes perceived in Lithuania as a threat to the state language. On the other hand, the European Union supports initiatives which help to strengthen the realization of CLIL practices in Lithuania, and provides funding for various projects. Content and Language Integrated learning does not have very deep roots in Lithuania; however, it has gained popularity in other European countries and has been encouraged by the European Union policies because of its influence on economy, mobility, integration and cultural dialogue. Other European countries are already preparing double specialization teachers who are able to teach both the subject and a foreign language at the same time (e.g., 4 universities in
21
Germany, 216 CLIL programmes in Switzerland (Nijolė Bazarienė, 2006: 6). On the other hand, there are no particular institutions who would prepare such specialists in Lithuania, which causes obstacles for the implementation of CLIL in Lithuania and results with a lack of subject and language specialists who have appropriate expertise to teach using this approach. Since Lithuania regained its independence, many education reforms have been enacted; however, little attention has been given to the training of teachers who can integrate content and language in their teaching process. The first two types of pilot projects related to CLIL were implemented in Lithuania at the beginning of the first decade of this century. One of the first attempts to introduce CLIL approach in Lithuanian schools was in 2001. Twenty-four schools where the language of instruction was Russian but not Lithuanian participated in this project. According to the European Commission’s country report on Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe (2006), this initiative was mainly related to the integration of national minorities into Lithuanian society and the improvement of Lithuanian language competencies by introducing the state language as a medium of teaching. The initiators of this project were the Ministry of Education and Science, the Education Development Centre and the Teacher Development Centre. Therefore, this project was intended not only to bring positive results for students but also enhance teacher qualifications and expertise (2005: 3). This pilot project ended in 2005. Another project that was related to bilingual education in Lithuanian schools was undertaken at the same time, in 2000-2001. This pilot project aimed at strengthening foreign language competencies (mainly such as English, French, and German). There were 35 schools that participated in this project; however, the most prominent one was Alytus Dzūkija secondary school which implemented a project related to French language learning (EMILE). According to the State- of-Art reports from partners in the CORE project (2011: 7), early French language education was started in primary classes to teach music and physical education. In the 10th, 11th, and 12th grades teachers started to teach history, geography, music and physical education (also, there was one history specialist from France) using French language. All the subjects were taught carefully following the curriculum. This school also has close relationship with the French Institute and Comenius Agency. Furthermore, it is stated in the report that another institution that implemented CLIL and tried to enhance this teaching method in Lithuania was Alytus Youth centre which was a partner in CORE (CLIL – Objectives and ResourceKit in Education) project. According to the information provided on CORE website, this project aimed at promoting language learning and linguistic diversity; developing knowledge and understanding among young people and educational staff of the diversity of European cultures and languages and its value; and helping young people acquire
22 the basic life-skills and competences necessary for their future employment and for active European citizenship. CORE arranged meetings during which the future perspectives of implementation of CLIL in member countries were discussed. CORE also provides articles, films, presentations, and improvement rapports which are intended to facilitate teachers’ work, spread knowledge about CLIL and evaluate the current situation and CLIL implementation in member countries of this project. EMILE is a project that has many common features with CLIL but is directed towards integration the subject and the French language. It has been supported by the French Embassy and the French Institute in Lithuania since 2001. This project attracted many participants and about 950 students from 20 partner schools participated in it. Also, it had a positive effect on teachers’ experience because they had an opportunity to increase their French language proficiency and visit Besanson Applied Linguistics Centre, this way becoming more familiar both with implementation of content and French language. The participants of this project were also issued special certificates by the French Embassy in Lithuania. Moreover, in 2002 the Ministry of Education and Science invited schools to voluntarily implement CLIL in their classrooms. Thus, official institutions were the ones who showed initiative to introduce CLIL in Lithuanian secondary schools. Furthermore, the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania in 2003, July 4 accepted a resolution No. IX -1700 and the need to strengthen foreign language learning was emphasised in National Education Strategy 2003-2012. The main objective of this resolution was to achieve that all the students who graduate from Lithuanian secondary schools would be able to communicate at least in two foreign languages (Mačianskienė et al. 2012:14). The first attempt to offer training for subject and language teachers was in 2004 when British Council helped to organise the first training course for both subject and language teachers. Another project supported by the British Council was implemented in 2003-2006, its outcomes were not only upgraded teacher competences and implemented CLIL and EMILE models in Lithuanian schools but also a publication “Integruotas užsienio kalbos ir dalyko mokymas” (2006) which summarised the experience gained in the project and for the first time in Lithuania provided methodological guidelines for CLIL implementation. As stated in the book, it was more common to implement CLIL in humanitarian or social science classes in Lithuanian schools (2006: 4-7), such subjects as information technology, history, ethics and geography were most often taught in Lithuanian schools using a foreign language (English, German or French). This reveals a tendency to apply CLIL while teaching humanitarian and social sciences in Lithuanian schools, rather than chemistry, physics or biology, because teaching these subjects in a foreign language
23 requires further experience and deeper knowledge of a specific terminology that usually is not so well known by subject specialists. Furthermore, most often students took a 35-hour subject module that was taught in a foreign language, i.e., they used to have one lesson per week that was based on CLIL features (2006: 8). However, the models of CLIL implementation in Lithuania varied; for example, some schools just introduced subject related terms in foreign language during the first 15 minutes of the lesson, others chose to teach the subject in a foreign language half of the lesson time or only certain topics that were taught in a foreign language, this way ensuring that one quarter of the course was taught through a foreign language (2006: 8). This indicates that CLIL in Lithuania was introduced step by step not exerting much pressure on the students and teachers at the same time. The age of the students who had lessons based on this approach varied depending on the subject. Music, arts and physical education lessons were taught using another language in primary schools; geography, healthy lifestyle, and biology - in lower secondary schools; history, economy, information technology – in the final years of secondary schools. However, according to Loreta Andriulienė (2006: 8), the main reason for subject choice among certain age pupils was the proficiency and experience of teachers who had to teach subject and language at the same time. Furthermore, CLIL and EMILE were introduced in Lithuania just partially because the number of schools who practiced it constituted just a little part of all Lithuanian schools. Most often CLIL became just a part of the whole subject course and there was a lack of experienced educationalists that would have enough expertise to follow this approach in their classrooms (2006: 8). Moreover, despite the fact that CLIL was gradually spreading in Lithuania and offered new possibilities both for the students and teachers, there were opponents of CLIL who doubted the usefulness of this teaching approach because it was perceived as a threat to the Lithuanian language. Later on, in 2011-2013, Vilnius University started a project called “Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) development in the educational process “which aimed at “introducing subject teachers to the application of content and foreign language integrated learning approach in the process of General education and Vocational training”. The target group of the project were subject teachers from social and natural science spheres who were willing to learn about CLIL and apply this approach in their work. During the project teachers were offered to participate in a 5- week intensive course which encompassed 200 hundred academic hours; also, the certificates for nor formal education were issued to the participants. The European Union also played a significant role in reinforcing CLIL practices in Lithuania. The European structural funds and the Ministry of Education and Science funded the Project called “Development of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Education in 2011-2013 (No. VP1-2.2-ŠMM-05-K-02-011) which was coordinated by Vilnius University. The
24 main goal of this Project was to introduce teachers of specific subjects who work in secondary schools in Lithuania to CLIL and explain how this approach could be implemented in Lithuanian schools. It is evident that teacher training is one of the key factors that ensures successful implementation of CLIL in a specific country. The lack of teachers who have knowledge about the nature of CLIL and expertise in its practical application in schools is an obstacle that impedes the expansion of CLIL. Another example of teacher training course that was offered for Lithuanian educators was initiated by Lithuanian Association of Teachers of English (Lietuvos anglų kalbos mokytojų asociacija (LAKMA)). They started a project called “Green English in CLIL: a Teacher Training Course” which aimed at developing teaching materials and preparing a didactic course which could be used by certain subject teachers and would help to share experience and knowledge about CLIL implementation, this way strengthening awareness about the usefulness of CLIL practice in Lithuania and neighbouring countries. This project lasted for 18 months and at the end of it course materials for CLIL teaching were developed. The course itself was presented on the website of partner institutions and was introduced to teachers during the conferences that were arranged by partner associations. Finally, in 2011, Vilnius Pedagogical University offered a “CLIL Teacher Training Course” which lasted for 40 academic hours and was intended for participants whose English language level was at least B11. One of the biggest projects related to CLIL implementation in Lithuania was “Synergy of Content and Foreign Language”, implemented by the Institute of Foreign Languages at Vytautas Magnus University in 2011-2013. This project involved 121 secondary school teachers and more than 600 students. According to the organisers, “the overall aim of the project is to develop teachers’ foreign language competences (English, German or French), their knowledge and skills in CLIL methodology, lesson planning, classroom management, language learning strategies, using ICT as a teaching resource, promoting cultural awareness and multilingualism” (Synergy of Subject Matter and Foreign Language). This project had a number of partners, such as, Alytus Centre of Vocational Education, Kaunas Jesuit Gymnasium, Kaunas Teacher Qualification Centre, Šiauliai Didždvario Gymnasium, and Šiauliai University. The implementation of this project helped to present new ideas and learning concepts to pupils while integrating CLIL in traditional curriculum. Schools that participated in this project used foreign languages as the medium of communication in CLIL classes which helped to improve students’ learning experiences while combining both subject and language learning at the same time. This project provided an impulse to further apply CLIL methodology in Lithuanian schools and also helped to increase teachers’ professional development
1 State of the Art Analysis. Available: http://www.coreproject.no/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/State-of-the- art-_-Lithuania-Alytus-youth-centre.pdf [2 May 2015] 25 opportunities in terms of CLIL implementation, inspiring them to learn new things and enhance their teaching methods, which also provided students with an opportunity to learn subject and simultaneously improve their foreign language skills. This brief overview indicates that in Lithuania there have been several attempts to offer training and support in CLIL for teachers. Furthermore, although the majority of projects were mainly oriented towards integration of subject and the English language, a number of projects integrated French and German languages as well. However, Lithuania should follow other European countries’ examples and strengthen both the training of perspective subject and language teachers and initiate more projects that would help to make current teachers familiar with CLIL and willing to include this approach in school curriculum.
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research rationale
Even though CLIL is not a new phenomenon in Lithuania, it still needs to be strengthened, as in other European countries it has a longer tradition of implementation and is closely related to the socio-political situation in the country and the presence of national minorities. The European Union has always supported CLIL as an initiative to make multilingual Europe, provide better job opportunities and ensure free movement across the Europe. Therefore, a further analysis of CLIL implementation in several foreign countries is needed in order to compare CLIL implementation features in Lithuania and abroad as well as to provide further recommendations for CLIL methodology development and application. Aiming at receiving different perspectives on the research object (implementation of CLIL), both quantitative and qualitative research methods were chosen and both Lithuanian and foreign research participants were involved in the study. Qualitative research methods (oral and written interviews and open-ended questions of the questionnaire survey) were chosen as they allow to study “systems of knowledge, practices, and experiences in the context of those (local) traditions and ways of living in which they are embedded, instead of assuming and attempting to test their universal validity (Flick, 2009: 210). In our case, it allowed to explore the participants’ knowledge and experience of CLIL implementation in the respondents’ country (in Lithuania and abroad). A quantitative research method (a questionnaire survey) was chosen seeking to obtain responses on the same set of questions from a larger number of respondents. In our case, it allowed to investigate the impact of the project on the synergy of content and language instruction by exploring to what
26 extent teachers apply the main aspects of CLIL methodology they became aware of during the period of the project.
3.2 Organisation of empirical research
Research stages The empirical research proceeded in three stages. First, in order to analyse the current situation abroad in regard to CLIL implementation, its advantages, challenges and impact upon teachers’ professional development, eight oral and written interviews were conducted with foreign experts who participated in the 17th LAKMA conference “Focus on CLIL – Lithuania 2015” in Vilnius on 16th and 17th of October, 2015. A brief interview was performed with the respondents during the conference and more open questions were agreed to be expanded on in written responses sent by email (see Appendix A). The experts were from the UK, Italy, Ireland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. For ethical reasons, the respondents’ names are not used in the research; they were encoded providing them numbers, e.g. Respondent 1, Respondent 2, etc. During Stage Two, research into Lithuanian CLIL teachers’ opinion on benefits and challenges of CLIL implementation was conducted. Stage Three focused on exploration of Lithuanian experts’ opinion: a qualitative research was performed with representatives of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Lithuanian Republic, who had experience in analysing and assessing CLIL methodology implementation in various secondary education schools by observing the realisation of various CLIL projects and a principal of a secondary school who has coordinated a number of CLIL projects on the secondary school level.
Figure 7 Model of empirical research into advantages and challenges of CLIL implementation
Research participants
27
Research participants can be grouped into three groups. Foreign experts who answered to oral and written interview questions belong to the first group. Participants of this group were chosen because of their expertise in CLIL as some of them are teacher trainers and curriculum writers, freelance education consultants, language consultants, coordinators of CLIL related projects, authors of CLIL related books, academic managers as well as university professors. Respondents had to comment on advantages and problems of CLIL implementation as well as impact upon teacher development. Short interviews were conducted during the conference where they presented their papers and it was agreed to be expanded on in written responses sent by email. The second group of participants comprises 68 English language teachers in Lithuania, former participants of the Synergy project (described in 4.2.1). They were asked to fill in the online questionnaire “How CLIL are you?” The respondents that belong to the last group are representatives of Ministry of Education of Science of Lithuania, three CLIL teacher trainers higher education institution teachers and CLIL project developers and two head teachers of Lithuanian basic and secondary schools. They shared their expertise about CLIL implementation. The chosen interviewees were provided with seven open ended questions and respondents were requested to express their thoughts in regard to advantages and difficulties of CLIL implementation in Lithuania. They had to comment on the reasons for lower CLIL popularity levels in Lithuania compared to other European countries; or even discuss future perspectives of CLIL implementation in Lithuania. Research instruments An interview guide or a list of 7 questions and topics was prepared and used in the semi-structured interview with foreign experts. In many cases more topics were discussed and additional questions asked depending on the flow of conversation. Open questions encouraged the interviewees to express their opinion more broadly. Besides, the interviewees agreed to send additional comments in written form; in this case they were not guided by any questions but were limited to the discussed topic. An online questionnaire survey was used in the quantitative research. The survey statements were related to the main CLIL topics and the questionnaire prepared on the basis of Liz Dale and Rosie Tanner (2012: 15-18) questionnaire “How CLIL are you?”. The survey consisted of 6 topics and 36 statements with an ordinal scale as the answer option (answers ranged from ‘always’ to ‘never’). The first topic that they had to provide their opinion about was “Activating”. This topic was chosen to assess how teachers introduce a new topic to their students; how they find out what the level of their prior knowledge is; whether they use any visual or organizational materials; encourage students to speak or even do hands-on activities. Another topic was “Guiding Understanding” which was related to teachers’ actions enhancing students’ active participation and
28 understanding of the topic. The third main topic of the questionnaire focused on language development and helped to identify how much attention teachers dedicate to vocabulary building and terminology, grammar or differences between students’ mother tongue and foreign language. One more topic that was analysed in the questionnaire is writing and it deals with teachers’ encouragement to write; teaching how to write different types of texts that are related to specific subjects; using visual materials to organise students writing skills more easily; helping students during the process of writing or explaining the differences between concrete and abstract writing styles related to a particular subject they are teaching. The last topic that was analysed in the questionnaire was the assessment of students’ achievement, as well as the feedback about their progress. The assessment of students’ skills is often a problematic issue because teachers must clearly define the criteria and allow the students to know what is expected from them; therefore, teachers were asked to provide their opinion about this issue.
4. FINDINGS OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH INTO CLIL IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 CLIL implementation in foreign countries: expert interview analysis
4.1.1 Advantages of CLIL implementation in foreign countries
Different scholars emphasise different advantages of CLIL implementation in various countries. Most of them are related to students’ ability to learn a subject and a foreign language at the same time, opportunity to learn practical skills that will be useful to find a future job as well as develop students’ intercultural communication. However, CLIL experts who actually work with CLIL and research this methodology show a tendency to emphasise slightly different advantages. For example, Respondent 1 from Slovakia suggests that the main advantage of CLIL is that it “enables practising the foreign language within the curriculum of another subject (music). Therefore, it is challenging for learners and for teachers as well.” This actually supports the idea that CLIL students are usually more motivated to learn a foreign language despite their struggles. These challenges make students more attentive and require deeper concentration in order to understand and remember new content material that is provided during the music subject. Respondent 2, who is CLIL materials writer, teacher-trainer and curriculum writer, claims that there are a number of advantages of CLIL implementation. He says that “subject teachers begin to understand the importance of language in the understanding of their subject, and language teachers begin to understand the way in which ‘content’ works and is shaped. So for teachers, CLIL
29 represents substantial and significant professional development”. It is true that every subject teacher is a language teacher at the same time; however, not all teachers pay attention to this factor. As a result, those teachers who conduct CLIL classes have to develop a particular sense of language usage in order to convey the content in an understandable way. As a result, CLIL classes positively influence teachers’ professional development in this respect. This also indicates that CLIL offers opportunities not only for students, but for teachers as well. Respondent 2 also emphasises that CLIL is popular among students too, because “the learners feel that they’re achieving more. They feel that they are getting more than they would be in their L1 (native language). Understanding and producing to the same level (in a school subject) in a foreign language as in L1 is a great feeling”. Thus, according to the author, students can feel the sense of achievement and development in terms of learning different subjects. They can feel that they are learning more than their peers in classes where only the mother tongue is used. Therefore, this statement provided by Respondent 2 actually contradicts with the claims of some previous researchers (e.g., Jaana Seikkula-Leino (2007:328)) who suggest that CLIL students have low self-esteem or self-concept and usually are not satisfied with their second language speaking skills. Respondent 2 also claims that the understanding of a particular subject among CLIL students is even better. According to him, “it requires more effort from the learner. But if the methodology is supportive, this effort can be enjoyable, not burdensome”. As a result, in order to ensure that CLIL implementation is advantageous in this respect teachers have to be careful and attentive in supporting students’ learning during CLIL classes. Furthermore, respondents admit that CLIL increases learning motivation, especially language learning motivation. For instance, Respondent 3 from Italy who is teaching at the university also claims that students at her university “are highly motivated to improve their English but at the same time they expect to be intellectually challenged, which is what an EFL content- based course does”. Therefore, content learning is one of the prerequisites to increase students’ motivation and eagerness to learn the language at the same time. She also notes that students also have additional Academic English courses where they learn new concepts and develop a position on a specific topic related issue using authentic materials that are mainly brought from the web. Respondent 4 from the Czech Republic, on the other hand, claims that the main advantage is “interconnecting things to be learnt with sensible use of a foreign language”. According to her, this was the everyday practice for her when she worked in a kindergarten with children. This also indicates the usefulness of CLIL in countries with national minorities, e.g., the Czech Republic (Slovakian national minority). To sum up, CLIL teaching experts enumerate a number of advantages that CLIL implementation provides both for the teacher and for students. Teachers who have CLIL classes can
30 enjoy advantages in respect to their professional development and better understanding of content and language relation itself. CLIL students in the aforementioned examples tend to be motivated and eager to learn new things, be intellectually challenged as well as constantly improve their foreign language skills and overcome the challenges that arise in the learning process.
4.1.2 Problems of CLIL implementation
Despite all the advantages of CLIL implementation, teachers may face certain problems in their daily work as well as in regard to the implementation of CLIL on the national level. The first issue mentioned by the experts regarding time-consuming nature of the method which leads to teacher dissatisfaction and reluctance to adopt this method at their schools. Respondent 1 asserts that it is “very time consuming and demanding to prepare a lesson. There are no fixed materials. You have to find all the information by yourself”. Thus very often a CLIL lesson can become a burden for teachers who want to conduct it and expand students’ knowledge through the study of content and language in one lesson. Also, teachers have to be creative to encompass both these aspects and make students interested in the lesson, so that it would not be considered an additional burden for students. Respondent 5 mentioned that preparation for CLIL activities is a time consuming and little rewarded activity. In relation to the whole country, the respondent claims that teachers in her country are not well paid and the average age of teachers is around 50 years; as a result, the majority of the teachers are tired of working extra time for free and not being paid. According to her, “CLIL activities need extra time for planning, creating activities, materials, and evaluating tools” which is time consuming and often undermines teachers’ motivation of implementing CLIL classes in their school. Respondent 2 also agrees that even though there are ways to make CLIL lessons effective and adjusted to teachers’ and students’ needs, it is a time consuming activity and requires much effort and devotion on the part of the teachers themselves. CLIL activities are not only time-consuming; they are little rewarded to teachers as well. He emphasises the need for preparation, planning, and giving more attention to the process itself. According to him, teachers get tired more quickly and show a tendency to complain sometimes. He also claims that sometimes teachers talk too much and says that “it can be hard to let go from their more coveted ideas”. Thus, being a CLIL teacher is a complicated task in the first place. Another problem raised by respondents, which is also related to the fact that CLIL organisation is a time consuming activity, is the resources used in CLIL implementation in the classroom. Respondents mentioned lack of resources that are suitable to their particular needs or to the local context. Another respondent noted the lack of graded resources for CLIL implementation, i.e. text-books that are graded from easy to difficult ones which again result in causing difficulties for teachers and challenging them to find appropriate lesson materials. Teachers have to create or
31 adapt material to make it suitable and of the right level for language students, easily accessible, which could provide all the information in a comprehensible and structured way, at the same time emphasising the features of language usage while talking about the chosen topic (Respondent 5). Respondent 2, who is the teacher trainer, encourages the development of unique materials that would be useful to a particular teacher and he/she would enjoy working with them “teachers need time to develop their own materials – for the materials to ‘belong’ to them. This is very effective, but difficult to implement”. He states that countries should prepare their own resources for teaching with CLIL on the basis of local needs, and he is proud that “in the Basque Country there are more ‘in-house’ materials than in most CLIL contexts in Europe”. One more problem is related to evaluation issue. As CLIL teachers are most often subject teachers, they are expected to evaluate the students’ subject knowledge, but if the subject teaching is integrated with language learning, who will evaluate the language that the students are using and improving. It is not clear whether the language should be evaluated at all. Respondent 1 stated that one of the biggest problems in regard to CLIL lessons in Slovakia is the evaluation system of CLIL lessons. According to her, the balance between assessing the language and content might be misleading. Fortunately, as she teaches music which is the subject that is not assessed in Slovakia, “it is an advantage in this case”. Thus, for the majority of the respondents, subject evaluation in CLIL classes is problematic because teachers are not sure whether they should concentrate on evaluating language or content during CLIL classes, and it is complicated to keep the balance between these two. Respondent 2 agrees that the most important problems in his country are similar to the ones that were mentioned before. He thinks that one of them is assessment because “teachers are not trained to test and assess, and generally do it defectively, even in L1 practice. So in CLIL, it’s even more problematic”. Thus, the roots of this problem, according to Respondent 2, are much deeper and also common in classes where the language of instruction is the mother tongue. Although CLIL means focus on both, content and language, but CLIL teachers sometimes focus more on delivering and analysing content without giving proper attention to language in terms of language support. Some teachers tend to be concerned mainly with making sure that students learn the subject matter that is being taught. Respondent 2 claims that “sometimes teachers forget about language support, and revert back to older methods because they feel the need to ensure that content is being learned as well as in the L1. But this is a mistake – understandable nevertheless”. Respondent 7 refers to a foreign language related problem, claiming that it is difficult to speak about CLIL implementation problems for the country, but according to her personal experience content teachers tend to think that students who are studying English “will naturally ‘pick up’ the language”. However, in reality language professionals know that they still need to be “focused on form and develop criteria for accurate language use”. The respondent asserts that “if students who
32 are not advanced enough linguistically follow their regular courses in English without a cognitively challenging language course, they risk developing the 'passive' skills but continue to have interference from their native language and their errors become fossilized”. This can be a negative aspect of CLIL classes for students whose foreign language competences are not high enough to follow and understand a particular subject as well as apply communication skills during CLIL classes. The final main issue presented by the respondents is insufficient professional preparation of CLIL teachers. Respondent 4 emphasises that subject teachers who implement CLIL lessons in the Czech Republic are not always language competent and vice-versa, if CLIL lessons are provided by language teachers, these lack subject matter competences. The biggest problem according to her is the level of language preparation while preparing subject professionals and this is the task for teacher preparation universities. She thinks that English should be taught “thoroughly to all teachers’ adepts”. She also addresses insufficient children’s preparation to attend CLIL classes. She adds that all children should be taught listening skills and acquire communication competences long before reading and writing which is the only way to master the language competence and be prepared to take CLIL classes. In regard to the situation in the country, Respondent 4 claims that teachers and students language competences are at a low level. She says that “the clear and instructive concept is missing, ministry of education follows a lot of experiments not related to a proper language teaching but the influence of big publishing houses forcing to use their products and so-called research organisations that are not competent in teaching particular age groups, especially (very) young learners”. Therefore, the problems in this country arise from the actions that are taken by government institutions that are easily influenced by publishing houses or other similar organizations that do not have expertise in this field. Another respondent from the Czech Republic claims that there are not enough subject teachers in the Czech Republic that are able to use English in their lessons. She says that “Basic school teachers can teach only singular words (basic numbers, names of animals, fruits, colours, etc.) and secondary school teachers are usually ashamed to use their English in front of the students whose English is much better than theirs”. Consequently, this has been one of the main reasons why CLIL is not spreading in the Czech Republic so fast. In sum, educators who try to implement CLIL in their classes face a number of problems. It is very time consuming and demanding to prepare a CLIL lesson; therefore, teachers have to be devoted to their work in order to provide high quality classes. Also, even now there are no fixed lesson materials that teachers could use at school and it is complicated to choose appropriate level lesson materials that would be understandable and easily accessible to students. Moreover, subject evaluation in CLIL classes is problematic because teachers are not sure whether they should
33 concentrate on subject or linguistic performance evaluation. Finally, subject teachers are not language competent and vice versa; this is one of the reasons why they hesitate to provide CLIL classes.
4.1.3 Impact upon teacher development
CLIL implementation affects both teachers and students at the same time. Some scholars emphasise the advantages of providing special CLIL workshops and seminars for teachers’ professional and personal development; others concentrate on the main issues that are burdensome for teachers and interfere with their professional growth. It is interesting that CLIL experts find both positive and negative aspects in relation to CLIL teacher development. Respondent 4 puts emphasis on the fact that teacher professional and personal development depends not necessarily on the courses or seminars that are offered for CLIL teachers. Talking about her personal experience she emphasises that implementation of CLIL classes actually made her love math, even though it seemed to be an impossible thing several years ago. She had an opportunity to explain “the pattern of mathematical operations for children in an easy and logical way”. She also adds that while being a CLIL teacher she learnt a lot about nature and music and all these things keep her “energetic and professional”. Thus it can be said that CLIL lesson can bring inner fulfilment, sense of improvement and happiness to the teacher, despite all the challenges that arise in the learning process. Respondent 8 adds that providing CLIL classes also helps to expand teachers’ general knowledge on various subjects and learn new ideas that different groups of students bring into the class. She also notes that their materials are updated every year so teachers can develop both by planning the course and teaching the class. Also teachers learn how to react when they do not know an answer to a particular student’s question. She says “I am a native speaker but I am not afraid to tell students when I don't have the answer to something: I tell them it's their field not mine and they should find out on their own and share with the class”. As a result, teachers can acquire class management strategies in complicated situations during CLIL classes. Respondent 2 emphasises that teachers should worry more about methodology than the language in terms of development. According to him, “it’s true that teachers need to be confident in their language levels, but in general it is the methodologically reflective ones that succeed, not the high-level speakers”. As a result, giving well methodologically supported CLIL classes provides better opportunities to succeed as a CLIL teacher, rather than only knowing a foreign language itself. He also mentions that CLIL teachers develop their skills and increase professional improvement while conducting CLIL classes “CLIL teachers get to see how they need to extend their methodological repertoires, because they can’t just talk and talk and talk at the kids. They
34 become more like good primary school teachers, who instinctively understand the need for scaffolding and support”. Thus, actual teacher involvement, reflections and in-service work are some of the prerequisites for constant professional and personal development as a CLIL teacher. Respondent 2 adds that being a CLIL teacher challenges her creativity and helps to improve in this sphere. Also, CLIL exposes her to a range of “vocabulary, strategies and content wider than a traditional ESL curriculum usually does”. She claims that CLIL enables her to work with her students in team in order to achieve a shared objective – this way teacher collaboration skills and the development of team work competences is encouraged in CLIL classes. Another respondent (Respondent 1) explains that teacher development is related to challenges that CLIL teachers experience on a daily basis. She claims that “it is very challenging; you are still working on your classes in order to improve them”. Each teacher must adapt CLIL methodology to support students’ needs. What is more, teacher learns new things that can be applied in other lessons. She also gives a piece of advice for CLIL teachers not to stop improving personally and professionally in this area. Respondent 1 thinks that teachers “should never think of themselves and their lessons that they are perfect. There is always something to improve”. Therefore, according to the respondent, it is one of the driving forces that enhances teacher development and helps to improve CLIL methodology as well as provides better support for the students.
4.2 CLIL implementation in Lithuanian schools
4.2.1 Lithuanian CLIL teachers’ opinion analysis
As it was mentioned in the theoretical part there is no single CLIL pedagogy and different schools choose different patterns to implement this approach in their classrooms. Therefore, CLIL classroom features in Lithuania differ not only from the features of CLIL applied in different countries, but also vary among different schools. As a result, in order to determine the good practices and extent of CLIL in Lithuania the impact of the implemented projects should be researched; therefore, it was reasonable to perform research in this area. One of the biggest projects related to CLIL implementation in Lithuania was “Synergy of Content and Foreign Language”, coordinated by the Institute of Foreign Languages at Vytautas Magnus University in 2001-2013. This project attracted 121 teachers and more than 600 students. In order to identify to what extent teachers who participated in this project implement CLIL methodology in their classes, an online survey was prepared and 68 teachers were asked to fill out a questionnaire with the return rate of 22%. Fifteen teachers responded to the survey statements related to the main CLIL topics, prepared on the basis of Liz Dale and Rosie Tanner (2012: 15-18)
35 questionnaire “How CLIL are you?”. The survey consisted of 6 topics and 36 statements with an ordinal scale as the answer option (from ‘always’ to ‘never’). The first topic is “Activating” which helps to assess how teachers introduce a new topic to their students; how they find out what the level of their prior knowledge is; whether they use any visual or organizational materials; encourage students to speak or even do hands-on activities. The research findings indicate that almost half of the teachers (46.7%) always try to find out what students already know about the topic and 20% do that often; however, when it comes to the language related to the topic, they are not so much interested in students’ prior knowledge and only 20 % always find out about the language, but 46.7% often check if the students know the topic related terminology. On the other hand, it is a positive feature that more than half of the respondents use visuals and hands on activities while introducing new topics (50% often, 18% always, 31.3% sometimes). The results show that graphic organisers are not so popular as an activating activity used in order to clarify what the students know about the topic and the majority of the teachers (73.3 %) use them only sometimes. Furthermore, encouraging students to speak about the new topic and this way activating their prior knowledge is not as common among the teachers as 66.7% of them do it sometimes, whereas only 6.7% do it often (See Figure 8). This indicates that the researched teachers tend to ask students about their prior knowledge, introduce new topics using visuals and hands-on activities; however, using graphic organisers or encouraging students to talk to each other at the beginning of the lesson is not as common.
Figure 9 Activating
36
The next topic is “Guiding Understanding” which is related to teachers’ actions enhancing students’ active participation and understanding of the topic. The results indicate that the majority of teachers often (46.7 %) or sometimes (40 %) use multimodal input to help students understand new material. Similar answers are in relation to the questions that teachers are giving to the students. It is relevant to give different kinds of questions to the students because they have individual understanding abilities and only difficult questions can sometimes help them to deeply process the content. Also, even though teachers do not encourage students to communicate with each other at the beginning of the class, there is a change during the class time because students are encouraged to work in pairs or groups. A similar pattern can be noticed with the use of graphic organisers because the number of the teachers who often employ them during the lesson time increases (from 13.3 % to 40 %). In addition, the majority of the teachers admit that they try to develop students’ thinking skills very often or often; however, when it comes to reading and listening skills most of the teachers tend to do it often or just sometimes. These results reveal that teachers who implement CLIL in their classroom tend to focus more on thinking and the subject itself rather than developing language skills (for further details see Figure 9).
Figure 10 Guiding Understanding
The third main topic of the questionnaire focuses on language development and helps to identify how much attention teachers dedicate to vocabulary building and terminology, grammar or
37 differences between students’ mother tongue and foreign language. The vast majority (73.4 %) of the teachers claim that they often use many activities to recycle vocabulary that has already been learnt and enhance their knowledge of subject specific terminology (including 6.7% of those who do that always). However, almost half of the respondents pay attention to individual students’ need sometimes and indicate that their students actively use personal vocabulary files (33.3% often). Furthermore, showing the difference between the students’ native language and a foreign language does not seem to be a priority to the teachers because only one fourth of them compare the languages and 40 % of them just sometimes help students to notice the differences between the two languages (see Figure 10). Teaching the students learning to learn strategies does not seem to be of the highest importance for teachers because none of them do it often; 40 % claim that they draw attention to it very often, 20 % sometimes, 33.3 % occasionally, whereas 6.7 % do not do that at all. This indicates that teachers tend to focus more on vocabulary and subject specific terminology rather than grammar; however, they are not so fond of giving practical advice to the students about learning new vocabulary or explaining the differences between native and foreign language.
Figure 11 Focus on Language
Speaking skills are also a key factor in CLIL lessons, because they help students to actively use a specific foreign language and apply newly learned words and phrases in a realistic context. However, the majority of the respondents did not show much enthusiasm in creating various speaking activities or creating tasks in relation to different speaking registers about specific subjects. On the other hand, almost one third (26. 7 %) of the teachers admitted that they never use graphic organisers to support students’ speaking skills and do not try to create different speaking 38 activities to their students; even though they claimed that they use graphic organisers while focusing on the language itself. Furthermore, almost one third (26.7 %) acknowledged that they encourage students to speak during the class just occasionally or ask them to work in groups or pairs, which is not enough to effectively improve students’ speaking skills about a particular subject (Figure 11). These results reveal the tendency to reduce the focus on the spoken discourse during CLIL lessons, even though speaking is one of the features that helps students actively learn a new language and process unfamiliar information that is provided during the lesson time. It is possible that this happens because of the lack of experience and appropriate teaching materials which would allow teachers to suggest a higher variety of activities for the students. Furthermore, students usually feel hesitant to speak in a foreign language because they feel the lack of confidence in themselves; thus, teachers should not be too strict during the class time in order to make the students speak willingly, otherwise forced speaking activities can result in high stress levels which can discourage students to learn both the language and the subject at the same time. Furthermore, the fact that the majority of the teachers are not often willing to use speaking frames or graphic organisers during the lesson time exacerbates the situation even more: the speaking tasks that are given to the students may be too difficult for them as they have to generate their own ideas about the subject while dealing with new lesson material related to the subject and new vocabulary or subject specific terms.
Figure 12 Focus on Speaking
The next topic that was analysed in the questionnaire is writing and deals with teachers’ encouragement to write; teaching how to write different types of texts that are related to specific
39 subjects; using visual materials to organise students writing skills more easily; helping students during the process of writing or explaining the differences between concrete and abstract writing styles related to a particular subject they are teaching. Writing is also one of the key skills while learning a new language; however, it is surprising that one third of the respondents (33.3 %) never encourage written output from their students. Also, one third of the teachers claim that they sometimes ask their students to write different types of texts in their subject, whereas 26.7 % never actually do it. When it comes to the use of graphic organisers to facilitate the writing process the number of teachers who do that and who do not distributes similarly (see Figure 12); similar results can be noticed in relation to differences between abstract and concrete language styles while doing writing activities. Furthermore, the number of teachers who often help learners during such writing stages as brainstorming, organising ideas, drafting, and editing is relatively high (40% - often, 6.7% - always) which means that teachers try to actively participate in the process and offer their help when students face specific difficulties. However, it is discouraging that a similar number of teachers (46.7%) only occasionally (26.7%) and never (20%) facilitate learners in different stages of writing. Moreover, less than half of the teachers (40 %) show trust in their students and claim that students are often familiar with text typologies, can distinguish the audience they are writing, and apply appropriate writing style for the specific situation. But even one third (33.3%) of the respondents admit their learners never know the aim of their writing activities, are not concerned with the audience and text-type they are writing. This shows that subject teachers lack knowledge and skills in CLIL methodology and need further training. In conclusion, around one third of the respondents are not fond of encouraging their students to write in a foreign language; however, almost half of the teachers claim that they are helpful during the writing process which facilities students while learning proper writing or text construction skills that are related to a particular topic.
40
Figure 13 Focus on Writing
The last topic that is analysed in this paper is the assessment of students’ achievement, as well as the feedback about their progress. The assessment of students’ skills is often a problematic issue because teachers must clearly define the criteria and allow the students to know what is expected from them; however, when teaching of the language and a specific subject merge into one, teachers have to decide which skills are the main focus of their course and which activities will be the key ones for the assessment. Thus, it is important to find out what kind of evaluation strategies are employed by CLIL teachers. The research findings reveal that 60% of the respondents always or at least often use various ways to evaluate learners both in content and language they have learnt, which indicates that teachers try to differentiate while assessing students and understand that the same evaluation system is not appropriate to evaluate different modes of studying. Furthermore, around half of the respondents (46.7 %) claim that they ask students to provide feedback about each other’s written or spoken language skills, which enhances student self-evaluation abilities and improves their communication skills in a foreign language at the same time. However, when it comes to teachers and their feedback about students’ speaking abilities the respondents do not have one single opinion about it and the number of teachers who give feedback on students’ language and who do not do it is distributed similarly (e.g., 33.3 % do that often and 26.7 % do that occasionally). Moreover, the majority of the teachers (66.6 %) admit that they prepare clear evaluation criteria when their students make class presentations or have homework assignments (see Figure 13); this helps to
41 make CLIL implementation in the classroom easier because students know what is expected from them and which area (subject or language use) they should focus more.
Figure 14 Assessment, Review and Feedback
In addition, 66.7 % of the teachers claim that they know how to design a rubric which indicates for what kind of skills students receive a particular mark; thus, it helps to define permanent evaluation criteria in CLIL classrooms. To conclude, CLIL teachers show a tendency to use various ways while evaluating both content and language skills during their classes; the majority of them try to define clear evaluation criteria so that their students would know what aspects their students should concentrate on while making projects or doing homework assignments. The fact that teachers know how to design and use a rubric indicates that a clear evaluation framework exists in the majority of researched schools that implement CLIL approach. However, even though the respondents encourage students to evaluate each other’s achievements and stimulate communication in the classroom, teachers are not as much willing to provide feedback on each learner’s language skills or allow students to give feedback to each other on their spoken or written language.
4.2.2 Lithuanian expert interview analysis
The analysis of foreign expert interviews revealed different attitudes towards CLIL implementation in schools. However, the majority of the interviewed experts agree that the biggest advantage of CLIL implementation is that students feel more motivation to learn a foreign language and are cognitively challenged during CLIL lessons. In regard to CLIL teachers, opportunities are created 42 for teachers to improve their language competences, complement their teaching methodology and develop professionally during the learning process. The biggest drawbacks that were named by the experts were the lack of time for CLIL class preparation; also, the lack of supportive lesson materials, language barrier and inadequate government policies. These findings about the features of CLIL implementation in foreign countries are significant; however, a further analysis of CLIL implementation from the point of view of Lithuanian experts is needed in order to reveal the attitude of Lithuanian educators or politicians towards this teaching method. As a result, semi-structured oral interviews were conducted with two representatives of Ministry of Education of Science of Lithuania, three CLIL teacher trainers higher education institution teachers and CLIL project developers and two head teachers of Lithuanian basic and secondary schools where CLIL has strong traditions and is widely used. The chosen interviewees were provided with seven open ended questions and were requested to express their thoughts in regard to advantages and difficulties of CLIL implementation in Lithuania. They had to comment on the reasons for lower CLIL popularity levels in Lithuania compared to other European countries; or even discuss future perspectives of CLIL implementation in Lithuania. The data gathered from these interviews helped to draw same insights about CLIL advancement in Lithuanian schools, its condition compared to practices in other European countries, and possible perspectives for the implementation of this method in Lithuanian schools. A more detailed qualitative analysis of interviewee’s answers is provided in this chapter. The first topic-related question that was given to the interviewees asked them to express their opinion about the merits of CLIL implementation in Lithuania. Both representatives of the Ministry of Education and Science (hereinafter MES) claimed that CLIL lessons help to increase students’ motivation to study and encourages them to challenge themselves in order to achieve better studying results. They also claimed that CLIL can be used as a tool that supports the development of cognitive skills. The head teacher of the chosen secondary school, on the other hand, put emphasis only on the impact of CLIL on the development of cognitive skills, whereas students’ motivation was not considered as a primary advantage of using this methodology. The university representatives mentioned several advantages of CLIL, such as deeper cognitive development of students, natural language competence acquisition and language skill development, increased communication skills and awareness of cultural differences. However, they all agreed that advantages are gained only if CLIL classes are provided in a qualitative way. If for various reasons teachers are forced to speak in a foreign language during the subject teaching (in those cases when the school administration attempt to implement CLIL but teachers are not ready yet to do it), then the advantages may turn into disadvantages or simply discredit the method.
43
Respondents also claimed that CLIL has a potential to expand students’ cultural knowledge, increase tolerance to each other, and multiculturalism. One university representative, a teacher trainer, mentioned that a number of foreign language and culture related facts, cultural norms and manners can be acquired during CLIL classes if the teachers are inventive and creative (she gave an example of CLIL teachers preparing an excellent lesson in which students were learning manners of politeness and other culture related aspects during the ICT teacher’s demonstration of pizza preparation software). Another university teacher stated that if students study from authentic materials (not adapted) the culture is easily seen and can be discussed in class. However, a respondent from the MES criticized this statement saying that acquisition of cultural knowledge does not always happen in CLIL classrooms due to complex relationship between these two aspects “theoretically it is true; on the other hand, practically – it is the most difficult part of CLIL implementation”. Therefore, even though it is true that CLIL can be a valuable tool to improve students’ knowledge and world perception in this area; however, teachers have to struggle in order to make it succeed. Respondents also claimed that CLIL is useful for language studies and helps to improve speaking or writing skills in natural situations because students have to interact and perform exercises that are closely related to their daily life situations or requires specific knowledge about certain topic; however, one respondent from MES did not put emphasis on this statement and said that the success of language learning and students’ self-trust in terms of communication depends on two factors: “The result can be different depending on situation. If teacher has good knowledge both in a foreign language and the subject, then it can really help to improve students’ skills and self- esteem; however, if both teacher and students are still trying to combine these two things and are not trained enough, then there can be much disappointment”. What is more, both representatives of the MES claimed that CLIL implementation increases schools’ popularity and recognition. One of the teacher trainers emphasized the necessity for whole school policy for CLIL to be efficient and for school to become attractive and popular in the region. Interestingly, the head teacher of the basic school did not think that such statement could be valid, but concentrated on advantages of CLIL implementation for students. For instance, she claimed that CLIL is a “great method that helps to prepare students for future studies or job” because they learn not only the language but also get practical knowledge that they can apply in reality. She also stated that CLIL helps to vary learning methods and forms; therefore, students are more interested in content that they are learning and it helps to keep information in their memory for a longer time. The school respondents also shared an idea that more project lessons/workshops related to CLIL should be organized and this way it will become an example for other schools that could follow it and apply CLIL during their own classes. Also, one interviewee claimed that “international
44 and European dimension should be emphasized in schools’ culture”. According to her, CLIL will become popular if people see the actual benefits of such classes; therefore, multiculturalism and European dimension plays a significant role in this aspect, because students who have good language competences and are familiar with specific subjects or areas of daily life might find a job in a foreign country more easily or have fewer difficulties at the university. Moreover, Respondent from MES suggested that CLIL should be recognized nationally and supported by official institutions or school administrations because only enthusiasm or interest of teachers’ will not be enough to truly make CLIL popular in Lithuania. The respondent from MES claimed that in some schools CLIL is being implemented with the use of French language which is complicated and not a lingua franca anymore. Therefore, according to the interviewee, there should be a “shift from French to English language”. As a result, more parents would express support for CLIL classes in their children’s educational institution because nowadays, according to the respondent, only “a small number of parents actually express willingness that their son or daughter would take CLIL classes”. Therefore, choosing a popular language (e.g., English) as a medium of communication in CLIL classes can help to make this method more widespread in Lithuanian schools. The interviewees were also asked to express their ideas about the biggest difficulties/problems that impede CLIL implementation in Lithuania. To begin with, all respondents emphasised that there is a shortage of teachers who would be prepared and fully qualified to conduct CLIL classes at schools. This indicates the need for further teacher training and favourable conditions for self-development. Moreover, all respondents agreed that the number of teachers who are qualified enough to conduct CLIL classes is low because of language barriers and because teachers’ communicative competence in a particular language is not high enough so that a foreign language could be integrated in classes. Moreover, a MES representative admitted that some people have a presupposition that CLIL classes will not be efficient enough to prepare students for particular study subject state examinations or receive the highest marks compared to the cases when the subjects are studied in the Lithuanian language. Also, it is difficult to prove that these statements are not true, because no research has been undertaken in Lithuania which could prove that CLIL actually helps or hinders to pass state examination. Also, one of the respondents claimed that some people consider that CLIL implementation can have a negative impact on the Lithuanian language usage among younger generation representatives. Another respondent claimed that she has heard such opinions only from a few people and could not further comment on this issue. The third respondent, on the other hand, disagreed with this idea claiming that there is no scientific proof to support it. Moreover, the representatives of Ministry of Education and Science asserted that there are not enough courses or
45 training programs where teachers that are interested in CLIL teaching could participate. However, the head teacher of a secondary school disagreed with this idea and suggested that teachers have enough opportunities to improve professionally and learn about CLIL implementation. Therefore, a contradiction between state administration workers and people who actually have to deal with CLIL in their daily life is slightly different on this matter. However, a small number of researched experts does not allow drawing wider conclusions. Another idea that was mentioned by school and university respondents was that CLIL implementation requires much time and financial resources. As a result, not so many schools and teachers are actually prepared to provide this type of classes. Some teachers might lose their motivation to conduct CLIL classes because they do not have enough time that they could allocate for the preparation of teaching materials or personal language improvement. However, respondents from MES fully agrees with the first idea related to the lack of time, but she is not sure about the need for financial resources because in her opinion not so large financial resources are required in order to implement CLIL classes in Lithuanian schools. On the other hand, there are some ideas on which the majority of respondents agree. First of all, there is no common state policy that would support the implementation of CLIL principles in Lithuanian schools. This can be considered as one of the areas where Lithuanian government or the Ministry of Education and Sciences cannot reach a common decision. As a result, CLIL development is mainly left for the school itself and highly depends on school administration, teacher motivation and priorities that every school has to decide on by itself. Another idea that was raised by one of the respondents was that for the implementation of CLIL a whole school policy is needed and, unfortunately, in many Lithuanian schools there is no whole school policy which would be directed to the implementation of CLIL, which means that all school stakeholders, i.e. teachers, students and the administration of the school do not try to achieve this aim and are interested in different aspects of their work and studies. This statement partly transfers the responsibility from Lithuanian government institutions to the schools themselves. However, another respondent claimed that such a proposition can be used generally about all the schools, because there are some that actually are taking certain actions to strengthen CLIL position in their schools and improve the quality of such classes. Moreover, regarding the funding of CLIL classes, the respondents agree that that schools that actually provide CLIL classes do not get enough funding and it actually stops further improvement and the development of CLIL on school level because schools have many other areas where they have to allot their funds. However, schools always have an opportunity to write various projects that are related to CLIL implementation and receive funding from European Commission that can be used in order to strengthen CLIL implementation at their school. Consequently, it is
46 evident that Lithuanian authorities are little concerned with CLIL implementation and are not supportive enough for CLIL and expect that this method will spread among schools because of teachers’ motivation and willingness to improve their teaching quality. Another issue that was emphasized by interviewed head teacher was that some parents actually do not want their children to actually have CLIL classes. This might happen because of several reasons; first of all, they might be worried that their children will not get excellent results in state examinations because students might feel too much pressure and will not be able to remember needed information about the subject and learn the language at the same time as it was also indicated by other respondents previously. Another explanation could be related to the fact that during CLIL classes students at first experience higher stress levels because they are reluctant to express themselves in regard to a specific lesson topic; however, parents should not forget that later on the stress level lowers down and students actually feel more self-esteem in terms of communicating in a foreign language and feel more motivated to improve even further. It is obvious that in order to implement CLIL at school parents should be more acquainted with the advantages of CLIL. One more issue that the respondents raised was related to CLIL spread in other European countries. The interviewees were asked to think why CLIL is more advanced and popular abroad than in Lithuania. One of the respondents claimed that it partly depends on cultural and social situation; for example: “there are broad national minorities in certain European countries and governments are trying to increase people’s communication and integration; in this case, CLIL can be used as a tool to strengthen intercultural integration inside the country”. Therefore, social and political issues can serve as a reason to start CLIL and pose a need for CLIL implementation. However, one of the respondents from MES thinks that CLIL popularity can highly depend on individual people, their vision and hard work in order to make their classes succeed. She claims that “everything depends on personalities that propagate this method; a good example is Keith Kelly and the things that he is doing in Bulgaria”. Thus, according to her even one person can be a good example and inspire his/her colleagues to take action and apply this method in local communities. The other two respondents agreed that in other countries there is more attention given to the development of teacher qualification in general. As a result, teachers have more opportunities to increase knowledge about various teaching methods and learn how to apply them practically. However, a representative from MES suggested that it depends on individual countries and their policies. She said that “the number of seminars or courses that teachers can take is also closely related to economic factors and countries try to support such training as much as they can afford it”. Another respondent claimed that CLIL is more popular in other European countries because “the higher language competence of all teachers allows to apply this method more actively”. This
47 indicates that teachers who grew up in a multicultural environment and had an opportunity to learn another language in the surrounding where this language was spoken, or the teachers who live in economically stronger countries whore more funds are allocated for teacher training and professional development actually had more opportunities to improve language competence. As a result, there is a possibility that such teachers are not reluctant to provide CLIL classes, do not feel shy, and do not think that the classes they are providing might be unsuccessful. One more interviewee again emphasized the economic factor claiming that “more attention is given to the funding of education in general in other countries”, which indicates that countries set different priorities and if education is not the first priority for the politicians, it can result in slower development of new teaching methods and their actual application in schools.
4.3 Comparison of foreign and Lithuanian expert opinions
If the ideas about the advantages of CLIL implementation expressed by Lithuanian and by foreign experts are compared, then several similarities can be noticed. For instance, both Lithuanian and foreign experts claim that CLIL is challenging for students and increases their motivation to study. They also mention that CLIL helps to increase students’ cognitive skills and learn sensible use of language. However, Lithuanian experts emphasize that CLIL classes are useful to increase students’ cultural knowledge, tolerance, multiculturalism, and makes the learning process more interesting. According to them, CLIL classes can also have a positive impact on school’s popularity, even though in point of view of foreign experts it is not so significant. A more detailed comparison of foreign experts’ view can be found in the table below. Table 2 Advantages of CLIL implementation: Lithuanian and foreign experts’ opinion Lithuanian experts’ Foreign experts’ opinion opinion Increases students’ Enables practising the foreign language within
motivation to achieve better the curriculum of another subject (music). studying results. Therefore, it is challenging for learners and for teachers as well. Increases the development Subject teachers begin to understand the of cognitive skills. importance of language in the understanding of their subject, and language teachers begin to
understand the way in which ‘content’ works and
is shaped. So for teachers, CLIL represents substantial and significant professional development. Increases students’ cultural The learners feel that they are achieving more. knowledge, tolerance, and They feel that they are getting more than they multiculturalism. would be in their L1 (native language). Understanding and producing to the same level Advantages of CLIL of implementation Advantages (in a school subject) in a foreign language as in L1 is a great feeling. 48
Helps to learn languages in Understanding of a particular subject among natural situations. CLIL students is even better. Challenges that students face Students are highly motivated to improve their help to boost their self- English, but at the same time they expect to be esteem. intellectually challenged, which is what an EFL content-based course does. Prepares for future studies or Interconnects things to be learnt with a sensible jobs. use of a foreign language. Increases schools’ popularity and recognition. Helps to vary teaching methods and forms.
Ideas expressed by foreign and Lithuanian experts in regard to challenges related to CLIL implementation mainly correspond. Both foreign and Lithuanian experts claim that teachers do not have high enough language proficiency and some parents believe that CLIL classes will not help to prepare students for state examinations and receive good results. Respondents also state that there are not enough training courses which is an issue in the majority of European countries. CLIL implementation requires much time and financial resources; there is no common state policy. This indicates that some challenges related to CLIL implementation in secondary education are parallel in terms of teacher preparation, public attitude and state policy. However, if difficulties of CLIL implementation expressed by Lithuanian and foreign experts are compared, some discrepancies can also be noticed. It is mainly because foreign experts show a tendency to give much significance to the fact that there are not enough lesson materials prepared for CLIL classes, as well as teachers are not competent enough to evaluate students’ achievements in CLIL classes. They also claim that teachers are not able to keep a balance between subject learning and language study at the same time; therefore, one area usually receives more attention and is more developed during CLIL classes. However, both Lithuanian and foreign experts agree on the idea that there are not enough competent educators that would be able to provide high quality CLIL classes, as well as CLIL implementation is too much time consuming for teachers. A detailed comparison of foreign and Lithuanian experts’ opinion is presented below. Both Lithuanian and foreign experts agree that: There are not enough teachers who would be competent to conduct CLIL classes. Teachers do not have high enough language skills. Some people believe that CLIL classes will not help to prepare students for state examinations and receive good results. Some people believe that CLIL classes will have a negative influence on Lithuanian language skills. There are not enough courses or training programs for teachers 49
CLIL requires too much time and financial resources. No common state policy that would support CLIL implementation. No “whole school CLIL policy” Foreign experts also state that: Subject evaluation in CLIL is problematic and the balance between assessing the language and content might be misleading. There are no fixed materials that could be used by CLIL teachers and provide information in a comprehensible and structured way. Therefore, teachers need to find all the information by themselves. Subject teachers are not language competent and vice-versa. Sometimes teachers start concentrating too much on the subject and try to ensure that content is being learned as well as in mother tongue because it is difficult to focus equally on the subject and language competences at the same time. Nonetheless all the difficulties that CLIL educators face while trying to strengthen its positions in Lithuania, there is still a positive attitude towards the future development of this method. All the interviewed respondents agreed that CLIL has some perspectives in Lithuania and suggested some actions that should be taken in order to improve this situation. A MES representative proposed that “First of all, study programs that would prepare CLIL teachers should be created”. In her opinion, it is necessary to prepare young teachers who are familiar with CLIL methodology, who have better language competences than usual teachers have nowadays and these new teachers should be experts in a specific study subject. Thus, this suggestion can help to increase the number of qualified CLIL teachers in Lithuania and strengthen its positions as a widely used method. Other respondents suggested several more alternative actions (described below) but also agreed that more attention should be given to “CLIL teachers’ preparation and their professional development”. A school representative added that preparing “double specializations” might bring positive outcomes in terms of CLIL popularity expansion in Lithuania. Therefore, this idea seems to be most emphasized by the experts and is thought to provide perceptible results. Respondents also stated that it is necessary for CLIL to become a strategic priority for the whole school because the school has to define the goals and objectives which allow taking more concrete actions towards wider CLIL implementation at school. Also, according to the interviewee, “teachers’ collaboration and contribution to CLIL trainings” should be encouraged because only by sharing knowledge teachers can learn from each other and apply the knowledge or lesson materials that were created by other teachers during CLIL classes. This also coincides with the ideas that were expressed by international CLIL teaching experts and theoreticians at 17th LAKMA conference “Focus on CLIL – Lithuania 2015”.
50
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study, based on the analysis of advantages of Content and Language Integrated Learning implementation and possible challenges it may raise, allows drawing the following conclusions: 1. CLIL is an approach which helps to teach a subject not in a foreign language but through and with a language, which helps students to learn new skills performing cognitively demanding tasks. It is based on holistic view because it functions properly only when its key features - content, communication, culture, and cognition are closely interrelated during the lesson. CLIL can be content and language driven; however, the choice of its implementation depends on social and cultural situation as well as local authority policies in a specific country. 2. The European Commission policies support the spread of CLIL in the EU; however, CLIL implementation differs among the EU member states because of national policies, socio- cultural and language situation. CLIL implementation abroad is related to the use of virtual learning applications and the development of students’ cognitive skills depends on their affective state. 3. The biggest advantage that was emphasised by CLIL experts is that students feel more motivation to learn a foreign language and are cognitively challenged during CLIL lessons. However, much time is needed for CLIL class preparation, there are not enough supportive lesson materials and government policies are inadequate. 4. The researched CLIL teachers tend to focus more on cognitive skills and the subject itself rather than the development of language skills. Furthermore, in regard to previous knowledge activation, guidance of understanding, and language learning teachers use a variety of tools to facilitate learning process; however, speaking and writing skills are not considered to be a priority feature for the bigger part of the respondents. On the other hand, educators pay much attention to the evaluation of students’ achievements during CLIL lessons. 5. The research revealed that there were several attempts to offer teacher training and support for CLIL teaching in Lithuania, but as research showed subject teachers still lack competence and skills in a foreign language and CLIL methodology. Also, even though CLIL supporting institutions offer courses, seminars, and webinars for teacher professional and personal development; however, some teachers feel that their professional development is insufficient. Thus, Lithuania should strengthen the training of perspective subject and language teachers and initiate more projects that would help to make current teachers willing to include this approach in their lessons.
51
6. Lithuanian experts claim that CLIL classes are useful to increase students’ cultural knowledge, tolerance, and multiculturalism. It also has a positive impact on school’s popularity. However, there are not enough competent educators that would be able to provide high quality CLIL classes. However, CLIL would have better perspectives in Lithuania if there were study programs for future CLIL teachers; also, CLIL should become a strategic priority for whole school and should be recognized nationally as well as supported by official institutions or school administration.
The analysis of the data obtained during the research, i.e. interview results both with the foreign experts who participated in the 17th LAKMA conference “Focus on CLIL – 2015” and Lithuanian experts helped to provide some recommendations and suggestions which might make CLIL in Lithuania more popular and widespread. Some suggestions which were received from the respondents in regard to teacher foreign language level improvement were contradictive because some respondents emphasised the need of it, while others considered it to be not such an important factor. The recommendations were grouped into several areas, such as, education, CLIL promotion and communication, and incentives.
Education
Teachers should have a high enough language proficiency level (C1) to feel comfortable and not to be at a disadvantage in teaching their subjects in the foreign language. Special study programs should be designed by universities to prepare CLIL teachers. Teachers should have an opportunity to participate in CLIL related seminars and courses. As CLIL teachers should use very interactive approaches to actively involve students in a CLIL lesson, teachers should be well-prepared with regard to CLIL methodology; consequently, this calls for necessity to offer teachers appropriate CLIL training sessions and seminars. It is mainly subject teachers who have to be given appropriate training; whereas the role of language teachers is acting as facilitators of students’ language development or as CLIL teacher consultants in language areas. Promotion and communication Teachers should be prepared to go out of their comfort zones and not to be afraid of telling students they do not know some specific aspect of language, but they should also be learning and growing and improving as they go along. They need to have a community of fellow CLIL teachers to work with, either in their own schools or online.
52
Teachers should observe each other’s classes and do that non-judgementally. Teachers should publicise their achievements and spread the news about CLIL implementation across the country. Teacher trainers should explain teachers and parents the advantages of CLIL, prepare them for possible challenges. Special interest groups should be created, where CLIL practitioners could discuss the problems they are facing and try to find a way to solve them. Teachers ought to collect teaching resources and share them with each other. It would be helpful to discuss problems that are related to teaching resources fellow teachers. Incentives School administration should try to motivate teachers to learn more about CLIL and offer more professional development opportunities. Teachers should be given material awards or prizes for implementation of CLIL classes at school and students should be awarded for the improvement of studying results. National policy Government should support the idea to provide CLIL classes in primary schools. This would help students to get accustomed to CLIL lessons and would be less stressful in later years of study. A definite national policy should be created in regard to CLIL implementation in order to take further actions that would help to strengthen CLIL positions in Lithuania. Lithuanian government should allot more money for education sector, especially, provide more funding for CLIL schools. Schools should create whole school policy and school community should try to achieve CLIL related aims and together work on the same goal.
53
REFERENCES
Andriulienė, L., Kelli, K., Krikštaponis, A., Vilkancienė, L., Bazarienė, N., Brazauskienė, R., Sušinskienė, V. (2006). Integruotas dalyko ir užsienio kalbos mokymas. Vilnius: Švietimo ir mokslo ministerijos Švietimo aprūpinimo centras. Baker C. (1993). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ball, P. How do you know if you are practising CLIL? One Stop English. Available: http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/articles/article-how-do-you-know-if- youre-practising-clil/500614.article [20 March 2015] Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2002). The significance of CLIL/EMILE, in Marsh, D (Ed.), CLIL/EMILE. The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. Jyväskylä: UniCOM. Benegas, D. L. (2012). CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 5(1), 46-56. Bentley, K. (2009). Primary Curriculum Box. CLIL lessons and activities for younger learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Blurton, C. (1999). New directions of ICT-use in education. UNESCO’s World Communication and Information Report 1999. Available: http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/lwf/dl/edict.pdf [17 March 2015] Carmen Méndez García, M. (2013). The intercultural turn brought about by the implementation of CLIL programmes in Spanish monolingual areas: a case study of Andalusian primary and secondary schools. The Language Learning Journal, 41:3, 268-283. Cenoz, J. (2014). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28:1. CORE (CLIL – Objectives and ResourceKit in Education). Available: http://www.coreproject.no/aims-and-objectives/ [30 April 2015] Coyle, D., Hood, P., Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dale, L., Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL Activities. A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T. (2014). Content and language integrated learning. The Language Learning Journal, 42:2, 117-122.
54
Denman, J., Tanner, R., de Graaff, R. (2013). CLIL in junior vocational secondary education: challenges and opportunities for teaching and learning, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16:3, 285-300. European Commission. (2005). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Lithuania. National Description – 2004/2005. Eurydice European Unit. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Lithuania. Country reports. Brussels. Eurydice. (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe – 2012. Brussels. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. Evnitskaya, N., Morton, T. (2011). Knowledge construction, meaning making and interaction in CLIL science classroom communities of practice, Language and Education, 25:2, 109-127. Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Edition 4. SAGE publications. Grandall, J. (1994). Strategic integration: preparing language and content teachers for linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms, in Alatis, J. E (Ed.), Strategic interaction and language acquisition: theory, practice, and research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Gené-Gil, M, Juan-Garau, M., Salazar-Noguera, J. (2015). Development of EFL writing over three years in secondary education: CLIL and non-CLIL settings, The Language Learning Journal, 43:3, 286-303. Grenfell, M. (2000). Modern languages — beyond Nuffield and into the 21st Century, The Language Learning Journal, 22:1, 23-29. Kacanova, D., (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012 (Eurydice) Koopman, G, J., Skeet, J., de Graaff, R. (2014). Exploring content teachers' knowledge of language pedagogy: a report on a small-scale research project in a Dutch CLIL context, The Language Learning Journal, 42:2, 123-136. Mačianskienė, N., Bijeikienė, V., Budvytytė-Gudienė A., Jankauskaitė, A., Pundziuvienė D., Vaitekūnaitė A., Voronova L., Zutkienė, L. (2012). Integruoto dalyko ir užsienio kalbos (anglų, vokiečių ir prancūzų) mokymo didaktinių kompetencijų ugdymas. Mokomoji medžiaga. Available: http://uki.vdu.lt/wp- content/uploads/doc/Sinergija/IDKM_metodine.pdf [1 May 2015] Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillian Education.
55
Moate, J. M. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense of professional integrity in the CLIL classroom, European Journal of Teacher Education, 34:3, 333-346. Moore, P. (2011). Collaborative interaction in turn-taking: a comparative study of European bilingual (CLIL) and mainstream (MS) foreign language learners in early secondary education, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14:5, 531-549. Newcomb, R. (2011). Quizlet: “The best way to study languages, vocabulary, or almost anything”. Available: http://biororz.squarespace.com/biororz/quizlet-the-best-way-to- study-languages-vocabulary [11 Nowember 2015] Oxford University Press. Upcoming Webinars and Registration. Available: http://professionaldevelopmentoxford.com/upcoming-webinars-registration-2/ [15 Nowember 2015] Online Etymology Dictionary. Available: http://www.etymonline.com/ [3 April 2015] Otwinowska, A. Foryś, M. (2015). They learn the CLIL way, but do they like it? Affectivity and cognition in upper-primary CLIL classes, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-24. Paliwoda-Pękosz, G., Stal, J. (2015). ICT in Supporting Content and Language Integrated Learning: Experience from Poland, Information Technology for Development, 21:3, 403-425. Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15:3, 315-341. Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2014). Teacher training needs for bilingual education: in-service teacher perceptions, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-30. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., (2013). CLIL implementation: from policy-makers to individual initiatives, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16:3, 231-243. Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). CLIL Learning: Achievement Levels and Affective Factors, Language and Education, 21:4, 328-341. Smith, J., Paterson, F. (1998. Positively Bilingual: Classroom Strategies to Promote the Achievement of Bilingual Learners. Nottingham: Nottingham Education Authority. State-of-Art reports form partners in the CORE project. (2011). Available: http://www.coreproject.no/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/1_Product-no.1-State- of-the-art.pdf [30 April 2015] Sylvén, L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden – why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16:3, 301-320.
56
Synergy of Subject Matter and Foreign Language. Available: http://uki.vdu.lt/?page_id=7420 [12 April 2016] Van de Craen, P., Mondt, K., Allain, L. Gao, Y. (2007). Why and How CLIL Works. An Outline for a CLIL Theory. CLIL Special Issue, 16 (3), 70-78. Williams, G., Strubell, M., Williams, G. O. (2013). Trends in European language education, The Language Learning Journal, 41:1, 5-36.
57
APPENDIX A. Foreign Experts’ Interview Answers (Original language).
1. What are the advantages of CLIL implementation in your lessons? school? „I’m a CLIL materials writer, teacher-trainer and curriculum writer, so my comments need to be viewed in that regard. I watch other teachers implement my materials. The advantages are numerous. Subject teachers begin to understand the importance of language in the understanding of their subject, and language teachers begin to understand the way in which ‘content’ works, and is shaped. So for teachers, CLIL represents substantial and significant professional development. For students, CLIL tends to be popular because the learners feel that they’re achieving more. They feel that they are getting more than they would be in their L1 (native language). Understanding and producing to the same level (in a school subject) as the L1 is a great feeling, in a foreign language. Often the understanding is even better, because it requires more effort from the learner. But if the methodology is supportive, this effort can be enjoyable, not burdensome. Good CLIL-based schools feel that they’re doing more too – that they’re ‘killing two birds’ (language and content) with one stone”. „The main advantage is interconnecting things to be learnt with sensible use of foreign language. This was the everyday practise for me when I worked with kindergarten children - long before CLIL was invented”. “I teach at University level and I can say that the Political Science students at my University are highly motivated to improve their English but at the same time they expect to be intellectually challenged, which is what an EFL content-based course does. In their Academic English course, they learn new concepts and analyse and develop a position on controversial issues related to their field of study through the use of authentic materials, mostly from the web”. “Lessons are much more interesting”. “CLIL enables practising the foreign language within the curriculum of other subject (music). Therefore, it is challenging for learners and for teachers as well”. “CLIL lessons help to avoid boredom and create motivating atmosphere in the classroom. What is more important, when we revise material from the previous year, my students remember better those Geography topics that were taught in English”.
2. What factors help you to achieve CLIL programme success? “Well there are many. But basically these are the ones that we’ve identified here in the Basque Country:
58 a) Whole-school policy. Everyone is involved or at least informed. It’s not a case of ‘CLIL over there in the corner’. Parents are also involved and informed, and become ‘stakeholders’. The more of these, the better. b) Assessment procedures and criteria are adjusted to cater for the learner styles of multilinguals, not monolinguals. There is more formative and continuous evaluation also, and the students are rewarded for their involvement and for more meta-disciplinary behaviours. c) Good materials – often written by teachers themselves (if they have been given time and resources) or by real CLIL authors who understand how to include language support in the materials – whether it’s Physics, History or Biology. d) Some methodological training for the teachers. It’s often more important than language level. e) ‘Vertical’ policies in school implementation, where CLIL is introduced in Primary and gradually moves up to Secondary. This is not 100% necessary, but it tends to work very well. f) Governmental approval and support – obviously. “It’s offering the children the meaningful content to solve, to come up with their own solutions, the possibility to “invent” or “discover” something they would like to explore themselves”. “The teaching team works together and pools materials. In this way, those with a strong economics or law or social science background can give support to the teachers with a language and linguistics background who can in turn help them by providing ways to use content to work on form”. “Planning, graded materials, interesting materials, good visual aids”. “I do not understand the questions. Which factors do you mean? Motivation of my students, motivation of me teaching the subject in English and enthusiasm are psychological factors contributing towards successful CLIL implementation”. “Talking about my lessons, it should be mentioned, that I am both Geography and the English language teacher. I think this is the main factor that helped me to achieve CLIL programme success. Also, there is a lot of material I need for my lessons on the Internet”.
3. How do you usually implement CLIL in your lessons? Could you give any examples? „I’m not quite sure what you mean, but if you mean a classroom framework for CLIL, it’s difficult to identify any one way or ‘route’. My advice to CLIL teachers is to make the task
59
the primary consideration, and to cut down on teacher-talk and explanation. CLIL needs to be student-centred. So good CLIL classes have the kids working straight away, aware of what they’re supposed to be doing. It cuts down on the ‘blah-blah’ teacher-led approach. I’m not in favour of offering ‘formulas’ for classroom practice (i.e. first do this, then do the other, etc.) but I do like to advise the above – that the more task-oriented a class is, the better it will work. In my book I call this the ‘text-task’ relationship. When it’s clear, it works well. Here’s a clip of me explaining this [link is given]. We also use the ‘3 Dimensions of content’ idea, which seems to help the teachers. ‘……the notion of the three dimensions of content in CLIL, namely conceptual, procedural and linguistic. The notion forms the leitmotif of a new book on CLIL (Ball, Clegg, Kelly: ‘Putting CLIL into Practice’ OUP, 2015), where both subject and language teachers are encouraged to think of their lessons in these 3-dimensional terms, and to adjust the volume or weight of the individual task dimensions according to the priorities that specific objectives confer at any given time in a lesson or in a longer didactic unit”. “At the moment I don’t teach children, I am a material designer. In my story-based programme I offer a vast set of activities that can be used together with a story. Children can practise language (mother tongue and/or a foreign language), they count with the story, learn about natural consequences and relations, to draw, paint, cut, construct, move, clap, sing about all things connected to a traditional story in both languages. (BTW, can you give me a tip on a traditional Lithuanian story for me to try to make a programme for it?)”. „We start with content and then use all opportunities to focus also on terminology, grammar, pronunciation, study skills and academic writing (competence based). See the attached handout which I distributed during my presentation at the conference for specific examples”. “Sharing planning with discipline teachers, analysing the curriculum looking for possible CLIL units”. “I implement CLIL whenever possible. When teaching different music style, history of music, I try to implement foreign language as much as possible with the necessary vocabulary”. “I use the English language in my Geography lessons when I think that vocabulary of the topic is not too difficult and it is clear what grammar structures can be taught while teaching the topic. The age of discoveries is a perfect topic to revise the past simple. Conditional sentences can be taught while introducing movement of tectonic plates or talking about weathering. I usually choose the English language for a Geography lesson when I think that vocabulary of the topic is interesting and useful for our English lessons as well (climate, biomes of the world, wildlife, etc.)”.
60
4. What positive effect does CLIL have on your personal development? What is your advice for teachers with regard to their CLIL competence development?
“I’ve mentioned this in Number 1, but my advice would be to worry more about methodology than language. It’s true that teachers need to be confident in their language levels, but in general it is the methodologically reflective ones that succeed, not the high- level speakers. Also, CLIL teachers get to see how they need to extend their methodological repertoires, because they can’t just talk and talk and talk at the kids. They become more like good primary school teachers, who instinctively understand the need for scaffolding and support”. „While working on CLIL materials I started to love Maths - an impossible thing for me a few years ago. Now I explore potentialities to explain the children the pattern of mathematical operations in an easy and logical way. I’ve learnt a lot about nature, art and music. It keeps me energetic and “professional”. “I have learned a lot about what's going on in the world and each course for a different group of students brings out new ideas and challenges. We update our materials every year so we learn both by planning the course and teaching the class. I am a native speaker but I am not afraid to tell students when I don't have the answer to something: I tell them it's their field not mine and they should find out on their own and share with the class. Obviously we teachers are very careful about the materials we include and the websites we consult - only reliable and expert sources”. “It challenges my creativity, it exposes me to a range of vocabulary, strategies and content wider than a traditional ESL curriculum usually does, it enables me to work with my students in team in order to achieve a shared objective”. “It is very challenging; you are still working on your classes in order to improve them. My advice is that teachers should never think of themselves and their lessons that they are perfect. There is always something to improve”. “Implementing CLIL in my lessons has changed my approach towards the lesson and lesson planning. CLIL lessons proved once again that even the best course book is not enough for teaching a subject. Some additional material from real life has to be prepared for our lessons whatever subject we teach”. 5. What problems and challenges do you usually face with while implementing CLIL in your lessons?
61
“Well obviously CLIL requires more preparation, more planning, more process. Teachers get tired more quickly. Sometimes they complain. Sometimes they talk too much! It can be hard to let go from their more coveted ideas”. “Subject teachers are not language competent and vice-versa. The biggest problem is at level of professional preparation - universities. English should be taught thoroughly to all teachers’ adepts. And before that - all children should be taught listening skills and communication long before reading and writing - the only way to master the language competence”. “Lack of graded resources”. “It is very time consuming and demanding to prepare a lesson. There are no fixed materials. You have to find all the information by yourself”. “Preparing for CLIL lessons is very time consuming as there is no ready material and it should be prepared for every lesson. What is more, I have to be very persuasive when I want to teach Geography in English because our school is not a CLIL school and we haven’t signed any agreements with parents of our students”.
6. What are the biggest problems of CLIL implementation in your school? country? “One of them is assessment, of course. Teachers are not trained to test and assess, and generally do it defectively, even in L1 practice. So in CLIL, it’s even more problematic. Here’s a clip of me talking about it [link is given]. “Other problems are resources, although in the Basque Country there are more ‘in-house’ materials than in most CLIL contexts in Europe. Sometimes teachers forget about language support, and revert back to older methods because they feel the need to ensure that content is being learned as well as in the L1. But this is a mistake – understandable nevertheless”. “Teachers need time to develop their own materials – for the materials to ‘belong’ to them. This is very effective, but difficult to implement”. “In the Czech Republic the language competency is at low level. The clear and instructive concept is missing, ministry of education follows a lot of experiments not related to a proper language teaching but the influence of big publishing houses forcing to use their products and so-called research organisations that are not competent in teaching particular age groups, especially (very) young learners”. “I can't speak for the country. At my university, content professors tend to think students studying in English will 'pick up' the language but we language teaching professionals know that they need to be focused on form and to develop criteria for accurate language use, and that if students who are not advanced enough linguistically follow their regular courses in 62
English without a cognitively challenging language course they risk developing the 'passive' skills but continue to have interference from their native language and their errors become fossilized (see the results of the studies on language immersion in Canada, for example)”. “The evaluation system of CLIL lessons is a big problem. The balance between assessing the language and content might be misleading. However, music is not assessed in Slovakia, which is an advantage in this case”. “Teachers. They are not well-paid, their average age is around 50, and they tend to be tired of working extra time for free. CLIL activities need extra time for planning, creating activities, materials, and evaluating tools”. “The biggest problems with using CLIL in the CR are the mere fact that there are not enough teachers of subjects able to use English in their lessons. Basic school teachers can teach only singular words (basic numbers, names of animals, fruit, colours, etc.) and secondary school teachers are usually ashamed to use their English in front of the students whose English is much better than theirs. This is the biggest obstacle in using CLIL more widely”. “Unfortunately, subject teachers of our school do not speak a foreign language well enough to use it in their lessons. I am afraid that situation in other schools of our country is not better”. 7. What should be done to make CLIL more popular in Lithuanian schools? Do you have any suggestions and recommendations?
“Just do as much of the above as I’ve suggested! Get Primary schools CLIL-ing from an early age, don’t worry too much about teacher language-levels, involve language teachers but train them too. Get teachers to watch each other in class, non-judgementally. Break down barriers. Give the kids (and the teachers) some incentives, rewards. Publicise your achievements. And of course, read my book! [link is given]. “Motivate your teachers to wat to know more and to teach better - professional development”. “Only based on my personal experience of listening to teachers in the audience during the conference, I would say content teachers' language level needs to be high enough (C1?) to make them feel comfortable and not feel at a disadvantage in teaching their subjects in the foreign language. Also, they will need to pool resources, I think, as they have to get the language they need to teach their subject and that takes time and energy, and it helps to have someone to discuss it with too. They will also need to have a very interactive approach so the students are actively involved. In many cases this may require offering them appropriate
63
CLIL training courses. They should feel all right about telling students they don't know some specific piece of language but they should also be learning and growing and improving as they go along. I think they need to have a community of fellow CLIL teachers to work with, either in their own schools or online.” “Workshops and seminars”. “To promote it more. Explain teachers and parents the advantages, prepare them for possible problems. It is necessary to talk about it. Still in Slovakia, there are many schools which have no idea what CLIL is. It should be promoted more”. “I think, I answered this question while answering the previous one. It is not enough for a teacher to know the subject well. In modern school, every teacher has to be ready to use ICT in their lessons and speak a foreign language well enough to teach their subject. Universities should think about preparing well qualified teachers. In our situation, when subject teachers do not speak a foreign language or are good enough at a language but are too shy to speak one, language teachers should encourage them. A team of enthusiasts could be a good start creating a CLIL school. However, to implement CLIL efficiently, it is not enough to have a team of CLIL teachers. Learning content and the language separately is a difficult task for many students and learning content using L2 may be a real challenge. That is way it is very important not only to introduce CLIL to the students, but also to convince their parents that content and language integrated learning is advantageous. Creating a good team of teachers, introducing CLIL to students and their parents are the steps to be taken in turning school into a CLIL school”.
64
APPENDIX B. Plain Language Statement and Interview Questions
Plain Language Statement
Title of Project:
Challenges of Implementing Content and Language Integrated Learning: a Lithuanian Case
Name of Researcher: Jolita Vinickytė
You are being invited to take part in a research study because we consider you an expert in the field and would appreciate your contribution. Before you decide it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. I am conducting this study as part of my Graduate thesis at Vytautas Magnus University. Through this study I aim to examine the advantages and disadvantages of CLIL, challenges and problems that CLIL teachers usually face in their work, the influence of CLIL implementation upon your personal development and other issues. Your participation in the study is entirely voluntary. If you decide to take part, you will be asked to answer some questions relating CLIL implementation. The interview will be in written form.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected]. You might also contact my supervisor, Nemira Mačianskienė at [email protected]
Thank you for taking time to read this information sheet.
Interview Questions
1. What are the advantages of CLIL implementation in your lessons? school? 2. What factors help you to achieve CLIL programme success? 3. How do you usually implement CLIL in your lessons? Could you give any examples? 4. What positive effect does CLIL have on your personal development? What is your advice for teachers with regard to their CLIL competence development? 5. What problems and challenges do you usually face with while implementing CLIL in your lessons? 6. What are the biggest problems of CLIL implementation in your school? country? 7. What should be done to make CLIL more popular in Lithuanian schools? Do you have any suggestions and recommendations?
Thank you for your answers!
65
APPENDIX C. Interview Questions for Lithuanian Experts
1. Kokie yra, jūsų nuomone, didžiausi su IDKM įgyvendinimu susiję privalumai? 2. Kokie yra didžiausi su IDKM įgyvendinimu Lietuvoje susiję sunkumai? 3. Kaip manote, kodėl IDKM kitose Europos šalyse yra labiau pažengęs ir populiaresnis nei Lietuvoje? 4. Ar, jūsų nuomone, IDKM įgyvendinimas turi perspektyvų Lietuvos mokyklose? 5. Ką, jūsų nuomone, reikėtų daryti, kad IDKM taptų populiaresnis mūsų šalyje? 6. Ar pritartumėte minčiai, kad Lietuvos aukštosiose mokyklose reikia parengti IDKM mokytojų rengimo programas arba IDKM modelius integruoti į dalyko mokytojų rengimo programas?
66