Challenges of CLIL in NIS: A Study of Teachers' Perceptions

Author(s):

Moldir Adilgireyeva(submitting)Zhuldyzay Zhakypbekova(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2017

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES G 05, Curriculum Innovation

Paper Session

Time:

2017-08-22

09:00-10:30

Room:

W2.10

Chair:

Sabine Krause

Contribution

Over the last decade tremendous reforms were introduced to rationalize the Education system of Kazakhstan. Almost all of these reforms were aiming at changing the methods, concepts and philosophy of teaching and learning processes completely and eliminate the heritage of Soviet school system. One of the paramount novelties in education was the organization of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS). NIS was the education platform that tested and adapted advanced teaching and learning practices of the world to transfer to other schools of Kazakhstan. Content-Language Integrated learning (CLIL) was one of the well-known approaches applying in NIS to develop language literacy, foreign culture awareness and capacities of the students in secondary schools. CLIL was introduced to NIS system in 2013 and hundreds of teachers with thousands of learners are testing the approach effectiveness. However, the approach has generated two-edged debates among some stakeholders: teachers, students and parents. Parents and their children mostly have negative attitude toward CLIL, whereas teachers have diverse visions of the approach. They could identify explicit benefits of content-language integrated lessons, but they also have not denied classroom challenges of CLIL. The purpose of this research is to study main stakeholders’ experience: teachers’ perception of CLIL in NIS. Therefore this study attempts to address two main research questions: RQ1: What are the teachers’ perceptions of CLIL in NIS? RQ2: What challenges do NIS teachers face in CLIL classrooms?

This qualitative case study employed individual interviews with CLIL teachers and observation of their lessons to understand teachers’ challenges in-depth. Purposeful sampling was used to collect the data. Selected participants of the study represented teachers of various subjects with different teaching experiences and education backgrounds. Research results provided information about NIS teachers’ perception of CLIL, mainly the challenges they faced in content-language integrated lessons. Generally, NIS teachers were not in favor of changed curriculum putting forward their old teaching approaches. The case study revealed the language difficulties as a major challenge in CLIL classrooms. However, there appeared contradicting findings as many of the participants reported that they could improve English language knowledge.

Method

Case study method, where the researchers focus on a program, event or activity involving individuals (Creswell, 2014) was applied to this qualitative research. This method suited our research since case study provides researchers chance to study the topic in depth (Cohen et al,2007). An awareness of teachers’ challenges in integrating their subject with the second and third language of the learners encouraged us to explore the case of NIS teachers’ perception of CLIL through interviews and observations. These research instruments could give relevant and credible information about teachers’ practices. For this qualitative research ten teachers of NIS in Southern part of Kazakhstan were selected by maximum variation sampling. Maximum variation sampling participants are the individuals who can provide strong, rich and applicable data from their own interpretation (Cohen et al, 2007). The given sampling was chosen since all the participants differed from each other with their education background, teaching experience and language of teaching. The reason for using maximum variation sampling was to study teachers’ perception and challenges in CLIL from the perspectives of different people, collect rich data and avoid biased views. Two of the participants were the teachers who worked in Russian-medium and Kazakh-medium classrooms whereas the rest eight teachers taught science in English. Half of the participants were local CLIL teachers, respectively five participants were international teachers. Research participants were chosen by only criterion: being a CLIL teacher. Almost all of the research participants used to regularly collaborate with us to address the issues appeared in their CLIL classes. Ten open ended interview questions were developed focusing on the teachers’ experience of working in CLIL classrooms, their understanding of the approach and challenges they experienced in teaching content through language. Taking the semi-structured face to face interviews as one of the effective instruments of qualitative data collection (Creswell, 2004) enabled us to understand teachers’ perceptions and teaching problems related to CLIL issue deeply. We had interviewed ten teachers working in CLIL classrooms and observed their lessons. All ten teachers were participating in research on the volunteer basis and open to the Interviews and lesson observations. The lessons were not observed for critical, evaluative or monitoring purpose. The focus on observations was made on teachers’ use of L1 and foreign language to delivering content. All the lessons were taught in team: local teacher with international teacher speaking English only.

Expected Outcomes

Referring to the findings it was revealed that CLIL has been perceived as an excellent tool that enables teachers to grow both professionally and personally. Participants reported a wide range of CLIL approach’s benefits as providing valuable teaching resources, improving language skills of the teachers and learners, encouraging teacher collaboration and positively influencing to personal qualities of the team teachers. However, interview and observation data found that teachers face difficulties in CLIL classrooms due to poor language knowledge, misunderstanding of team teachers, lack of CLIL classroom skills and lack of administration support. Participants’ experience, education background, ages and language of instruction was reflected on the findings of the research. International teachers who had more experience in CLIL were aware of all the benefits of the approach. They listed a few challenges only such as final exams taken only in L1 and little number of classes. They noted that they had only 2 lessons with each grade and they could not track students’ improvement. Local teachers shared perceived benefits of CLIL, although they complained about their poor foreign language knowledge and other concerns connected to language and curriculum changes generally. A few teachers highlighted team teaching inhibited effective teaching and it would lead to the loss of teaching identity. To sum up, NIS teachers were aware of CLIL benefit as improving whole school outcome. Many of them emphasized they were happy to be “change agents”, “first swallows” of CLIL and contribute to the realization of new trilingual policy in Kazakhstan. However a few teachers put forward there was a lack of administration support to CLIL teachers and as the result they were facing difficulties. Despite the perceptions of some teachers differed, the CLIL practice of NIS is rated as successful in whole.

References

Alonso, E., Grisaleña, J., & Campo, A. (2008). Plurilingual education in secondary schools: Analysis of results. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 36-49. Banegas, D. (2011). Content and language integrated learning in Argentina 2008-2011. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 32-48. Banegas, D. (2012). CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 5(1), 46-56. Banegas, D. (2012).Integrating content and language in English language teaching in secondary schools: models, benefits and challenges. Studies in Second Language learning and teaching,2(1),111-136. Ballester, E. (2015) Exploring primary school CLIL perceptions in Catalonia: students', teachers' and parents' opinions and expectations. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 45-59, Cammarata, L. (2009). Negotiating curricular transitions: Foreign language teachers’ learning experience with content-based instruction. Canadian Modern Language Review,64 (3). Chadwick,T. (2012).Language Awareness in Teaching. A toolkit for Content and Language Teachers. Cambridge Teacher Series.Cambridge University Press. Coonan, C. (2007). Insider views of the CLIL class through teacher-self-observation-introspection. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 625-646. Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543-562. Cohen,M.,Manion,L.,&Morrison,K.(2007).Research Methods in Education (6th ed). Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Darn, S.(2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) .A European Overview. Dickey, R. (2004). Content-based language learning, pitfalls and strengths. Fullan, M.(1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. The Falmer Press,London, New York, Philadelphia. Glesne, C.(2011). Becoming Qualitative researcher.(4th ed). McDougald, J. (2015). Teachers´ attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied. Linguistics Journal, 17(1), 25-41. Mehisto, P. (2008). CLIL Counterweights: Recognising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 93-119. Mehisto, P., & Asser, H. (2007). Stakeholder perspectives: CLIL programme management in Estonia. Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,10(5), 683-701. Met,M.(1994).Teaching content through a second language.Educating second language children: the whole child, the whole curriculum,the whole community. Cambridge University Press.New York, 159-182. Yin,R.(2014). Case study research: Design and methods. NIS Annual Report.(2013). Autonomous Education Organizations Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools. Retrieved from chrome extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://nis.edu.kz/site/nis/repository/file/%D0%93.pdf)

Author Information

Moldir Adilgireyeva (submitting)

AEO 'Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools'

NIS Taraz

Taraz

Zhuldyzay Zhakypbekova (presenting)

AEO Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools