Session Information
31 SES 08 B, Teacher Effectiveness in Foreign Language Education: Competences and conceptions
Paper Session
Contribution
CLIL is an educational approach in which an additional language is used as a medium for teaching content subjects such (Marsh, 2012). Emerged with the aim to increase young people`s language competences in the 1990s, CLIL is now well-established in the current language teaching and multilingualism scenario. It is admitted that CLIL is an umbrella term that covers a whole range of other language programs, such as bilingual education, multilingual education, immersion, content-based language instruction, etc. Yet, as distinct from those language programs, CLIL has a dual focus on both content and language in equal measure, although the intensity of focus on content or language may vary depending on specific situations (Harrop, 2012). It is envisioned that in a sequence of teaching, CLIL teachers maintain a balance between teaching content area and supporting language learning (Coyle, Holmes & King, 2009).
Coyle (1999) developed a framework (the 4Cs Conceptual Framework) based on four guiding principles which I used as a frame for my research except for the cultural lens. The framework goes beyond the subject matter-language division, and focuses on the interplay of “content”, “communication”, “cognition”, and “culture”. The 4Cs framework suggests that subject matter is at the heart of learning since thematic learning determines the course of learning, and that the role of language needs to be revisited from a language learning based on “grammatical progression” towards “learning to use language and using language to learn” (Coyle, 2005, p. 552).
CLIL appeared as a European approach, and has become increasingly widespread in other parts of the world. Since the approach is now adopted outside Europe, more evidence is needed from CLIL classrooms in other parts of the world, as each country presents a unique context, and a unique case of CLIL implementation. The purpose of study of was to explore, and gain a better understanding of, how teachers in Kazakhstan, working at 20 Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) conceptualize CLIL and how they implement CLIL approach, if at all, in teaching content subjects through students` L2 or L3.
NIS is a network of twenty state-funded elite schools for gifted students in Kazakhstan. The network was established in 2008 to serve as “the main site for testing the multilingual educational model and educational innovations” (Nazarbayev, 2010) which was supposed to disseminate this experience to the rest of the schools in Kazakhstan. In order to help NIS depart from the old system, and allow experimenting new practices the Government granted them full autonomy in all their activities. The NIS network develops its own curriculum, learning resources, assessment and professional development for teachers.
The content of the NIS curriculum is generally focused on in-depth study of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology which are considered central to building the intellectual potential of the country (AEO NIS, 2013a). At NIS, there are two streams divided by the main medium of instruction which is Kazakh or Russian. Regardless of the main language of instruction, in Grades 7-10, students learn about 10% of the curriculum subjects in a second language (L2, Kazakh or Russian), and 90% in first language (L1, Russian or Kazakh). In grades 11-12, all three languages are used as mediums of instruction whereby 40% of content instruction is provided in L1 and L2, and about 60% in English (L3) (Karabassova, 2018).
NIS declared trilingual education their hallmark, and explicitly defined CLIL the core pedagogical principle of trilingual education, since “to successfully implement and develop the trilingual model, and above all to optimize learning, Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools are expected to apply…the integration of content and language instruction” (AEO NIS, 2013b, p. 6).
Method
This study was a part of exploratory sequential mixed methods research which aimed to explore how teachers, working in the network of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) conceptualize and implement Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach. The first phase (qualitative) of the study was carried out as a qualitative doctoral study in 2016-2017, and successfully defended in 2018. In the qualitative phase, data were collected through face-to-face interviews and classroom observations in one of 20 schools in the network. Data from the qualitative phase were used to develop a survey instrument for the second, quantitative phase. The survey measured the following dimensions: teachers` background and preparation for CLIL, conceptions of content focus, conceptions of language focus and classroom practices. Survey contained 30 questions which were built from the themes that emerged from the qualitative cross-case analysis. The aim of the quantitative phase is to generalize the findings from the qualitative part to the network of NIS, and test predictions about relationships between variables such as teachers` CLIL orientation and training received; teachers` CLIL orientation and subject area, the length of teaching experience at NIS. The survey design was reviewed by the IREC of Nazarbayev University, and by the Research Department of the Intellectual Schools which granted the researcher a permission to administer the survey. The survey will be administered in January 2019 through Qualtrics survey software in three languages, Kazakh, Russian and English through which participants taught. The data were stored in the PC protected by a password, and analyzed using the SPSS software.
Expected Outcomes
The data from the qualitative phase indicated that participating teachers prioritized teaching subject content over developing students` language competences. Given the demanding nature of the enquiry-based NIS curriculum, the teachers were more concerned about fulfilling content goals, and meeting assessment requirements. Moreover, the participating teachers believed that as subject experts, they were mainly responsible for the domain of content, and language was beyond their responsibility. The data indicated that the participants did not fully understand the rationale for CLIL and the pedagogical intentions behind this approach. Unawareness of pedagogical intentions resulted in the teachers’ viewing CLIL as a mere change of the language of instruction. Consequently, they expected their CLIL students to be already proficient in the target language and did not assume responsibility for improving their language. Consistent with teachers` conceptions of CLIL as “just teaching through another language” (Marsh, 2010), their overall lesson planning and teaching basically did not differ from that of L1 content lessons. Participants did not explicitly plan language objectives or left them implicit during the lessons, whereas they articulated specific learning objectives for content. Nevertheless, teachers incidentally implemented some strategies aimed at supporting student comprehension. Yet, during discussions, they did not always attribute them to CLIL. As I observed, these CLIL strategies included the development of students’ cognitive skills, asking comprehensible questions, encouraging students` speaking, activating prior knowledge, student scaffolding, promoting interaction among students, as well as the use of visuals and multimodal lesson input. Given the limitations of qualitative research and sampling size, the second phase of the study was designed with the aim to generalize findings to the whole network of NIS with over 1,000 teachers, through conducting a survey. It is expected that the survey will produce dense data on teachers` conceptions and practices of CLIL, the relationship between different variables.
References
AEO NIS (2013a). Autonomous Educational Organization “Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools” 2020 development strategy. Astana: AEO NIS. Retrieved from http://nis.edu.kz/en/about/str-doc/ AEO NIS (2013b). Trilingual education policy for Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools. Astana: AEO NIS. Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts. Masih, J. (Ed.) Learning Through a Foreign Language. London: CILT. Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a Theory of Practice, APAC Monograph 6, APAC, Barcelona. Coyle, D., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum. CLIL national statements and guidelines. London: The Languages Company. Retrieved from http://www.rachelhawkes.com/PandT/CLIL/CLILnationalstatementandguidelines.pdf Harrop, E. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Limitations and possibilities. Encuentro, 21, 57-70. Karabassova, L. (2018). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Kazakhstan: Case studies of five teachers at a Nazarbayev Intellectual School (NIS). (Doctoral dissertation), Graduate School of Education, Nazarbayev University. Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Cambridge University Press ELT. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Czdg8-6mJA Marsh, D. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). A Development Trajectory. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba. Nazarbayev, N. (2010). Decree of the President of the RoK. No. 922 2010. Retrieved from www.akorda.kz
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.