"A profile for the Foreign Language teacher and for the CLIL teacher. Are they the same? Is CLIL changing the role of FL teachers? "

Author(s):

Macarena Navarro-Pablo(presenting / submitting)Jesús Casado Rodrigo

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

31. LEd – Network on Language and Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

31 SES 01, CLIL and Bilingualism in Diverse Educational Contexts

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-22

13:15-14:45

Room:

W4.24

Chair:

Irina Usanova

Contribution

During the second half of the 1990’s many investigations indicated the need to create a methodological framework for bilingual education. Most European countries are developing new bilingual pedagogies, such as the CLIL approach (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2015; Gutiérrez, Durán & Beltrán, 2012; Madrid & Hughes, 2011; Cenoz, Genesse & Gorter, 2014; Wolff, 2012). Much research is based on the positive effects of CLIL and the cognitive benefits of bilingualism (Casals and Moore, 2009; Lorenzo, Casals and Moore, 2009). Nevertheless, some authors indicate a number of unsolved dilemmas concerning the implementation of this methodology (Pavón & Rubio, 2010; Pavón, 2013; Pérez Cañado, 2016). There are few studies available about the implementation and results of bilingual programmes.

Key issues are those concerning teachers’ qualifications, and new demands arise for both initial teacher training and in-service training programmes. Bilingual programmes draw a different context for teacher profiles, and teachers' competences must be reviewed. The adoption of CLIL and the emergence of this new bilingual educational context entail a change in perspective about the teaching of a foreign language as a separate subject and the teaching of curricular content through a foreign language.

This paper addresses the role and professional development of both language and content teachers. Two issues need an in-depth analysis:

- Teacher competences for teaching FL and content through a CLIL approach. A dual-focused teacher profile for “a dual-focused education approach” (Marsh and Langue, 2000, 2)?

- The need to re-think and re-interpret teaching methodology in order to cater for a bilingual education model.

An essential question emerges about the implementation of bilingual programmes: “Who should be responsible for teaching content through the second language and how this should be done”(Pavón, 2013). This unsolved dilemma is related to the roles of linguistic area teachers versus non-linguistic area teachers. There is no easy answer. In addition, educational practice always needs to adapt to the context where it is implemented. There are many variables, such as teacher availability and regional as well as national policies, to be considered in determining the type of CLIL appropriate for each context.

Pavón, Ávila and Gallego (2014) describe this situation:

Generally, the roles and functions of the FL teacher and the content teacher are separated, but in some occasions they are not and the FL specialist teaches the content too, as it happens in some occasions in primary education in the context investigated and in other countries. However, teaching content and language ‘simultaneously’ means that the FL instructor teaches both of them at the same time in his/her classes, but this model requires double teaching qualification (i.e. being a specialist in the FL and in the content subject) […]

This topic should be analysed depending on whether the teacher in the CLIL class is the FL teacher or the content teacher. In all cases an “effective identification of the roles adopted by content teachers and FL teachers is essential for the success of CLIL" (Pavón et al. 2014). As noted by Pérez Cañado (2016), "a final oft-cited problem which needs to be circumvented is the qualification of teachers." A comprehensive revision of the profile for FL teachers and CLIL teachers must necessarily be carried out.

This paper analyses the situation according to what teachers have reported, and seeks for clarifying issues related to the changes in the way teachers work brought by the implementation of bilingual models. The ultimate aims are to (1) contribute empirically-sound data to promote further implementation of CLIL, and (2) encourage reflection based on the views held by practitioners about CLIL implementation and teachers work.

Method

This paper draws on findings from a research project called “The effect of Content and Language Integrated Learning in monolingual communities: A large-scale evaluation”. It explored how bilingual programmes foster learning in primary and secondary education students after six years of implementation. The study took place in Seville (Spain) in eight different urban and rural schools. The participants were from both rural and urban backgrounds. The intention was to analyse the development and implementation of bilingual programmes, and students´ attainment in terms of language improvement. The overall study involved both quantitative and qualitative data. This paper focused on qualitative data which included methodological aspects and evaluated the implementation of CLIL programmes in order to determine teacher performance in relation to curricular and organizational aspects, their motivation, their opinion and their level of satisfaction about the programmes. Data were collected from all the subjects involved: FL teachers, content teachers, language assistants, programme coordinators and students. Three data-collection techniques were used within the qualitative investigation: (1) Direct observation to examine and analyse language learning behaviour and gather information about the language learning situations and methodology employed; (2) semi-structured interviews, with clear-cut questions established beforehand, and (3) a questionnaire designed and validated in Spanish and English, in slightly different versions for teachers and students; the questionnaire included opinion and value questions in order to probe the respondents’ thoughts, reactions, attitudes, and views on the CLIL programmes they take part in. This combination provided objective and uniform information. Data obtained were categorised according to features included in all tools: use of the FL, competence level in the foreign language of both FL and content teachers, methodology employed, and instructional approach (focused on form vs. focused on meaning). After data collection, a detailed SWOT analysis of the functioning of the bilingual sections was made. This paper focuses on two main areas of concern: teachers’ qualifications and methodology.

Expected Outcomes

Results are positive and largely concurrent with those from prior researches (Fernández et al. 2005; Fernández and Halbach, 2011; Cabezas, 2010): CLIL teachers are involved and committed; they are motivated and see CLIL as a challenge despite the lack of institutional support, the poor access to didactic resources, the increased workload, and the large number of obstacles to overcome. Most agree that one major hurdle is their serious training deficits concerning CLIL methodology, and they voice their need for further language and methodological training. These results apply both to Primary and Secondary Education. Nevertheless, in some respects the situation differs depending on the level. In Secondary Education, separate content subjects are covered by different teachers and CLIL programmes are prepared in coordination. In this context, teachers argue that promoting language proficiency should be the task of FL teachers; many comments in this sense show the traditional view that FL instruction focuses on formal linguistic aspects, overlooking that communicative methodologies (and CLIL) arise from the important progresses made in the field of second language teaching. In Primary Education, the situation is different. Bilingual classes were initially taught by General (Non-Linguistic Area) teachers with the assistance of FL teachers, as in Secondary Education. However, staff adjustments connected to teacher supply, plus the need to hold certified FL qualifications (which many cannot document), lead to different schools solving the situation in different ways: content subjects taught by NLA teachers (who often feel insecure about their competence in English), or by FL teachers. It seems clear that all those who teach content subjects should be trained in CLIL methodology. Therefore, a better understanding of NLA and FL teachers’ profiles is needed, analysing in depth the competences to be acquired by any teacher in charge of bilingual programmes.

References

Cabezas, J. M. 2010. “A SWOT Analysis of the Andalusian Plurilingualism Promotion Plan (APPP).” In Proceedings of the 23rd GRETA Convention, edited by M. L. Pérez Cañado, 83–91. Jaén: Joxman.  Casal, S. & Moore, P. (2009). The Andalusian Bilingual Sections Scheme: Evaluation and consultancy. International CLIL Research Journal 1: 36

Author Information

Macarena Navarro-Pablo (presenting / submitting)

University of Seville, Spain

Jesús Casado Rodrigo