In the last few years, European countries have addressed the foreign language issue in positive terms as a way to achieve greater social, political and cultural cohesion (Butler, 2009). Supranational organisations like the European Commission have discussed the problem of teaching a foreign language in a multilingual context, recommending new strategies to promote multilingualism. Regarding the learning of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) this paper focuses on, it is fundamental to highlight “the phenomenon of English being a global language” (Graddol, 2006: 12).

In the context of widespread concern about foreign languages, the European Survey on Language Competences of 2012 (ESLC) acted as a springboard to provide a linguistic competence indicator of progress for improving foreign language learning across Europe. Nevertheless, that study did not analyse variables related to how EFL is taught in Europe even though they play a decisive role in how students learn EFL and so, in their academic results. In fact, the ESLC states there is an obvious connection between the EFL areas the teacher works in the classroom with the type of methodology used and how these should have an impact on the students’ academic results (ESLC, 2012). Similarly, one of the findings of the Greek version of the ESLC regarding the effect of the foreign language teaching approach was that the students’ competence in English significantly varies according to “the teachers’ focus on teaching the language” (Dendrinos, Zouganeli & Karavas, 2013: 100). Hence, we became interested in analysing this relationship to understand better the low results obtained in the ESLC by Spanish students compared to the Greek ones (Bonnet, 2003; Erickson, 2004; Sylvén, 2013).

The present paper analyses the kind of resources and methodologies that Secondary school teachers use to teach EFL and also the relationship of these variables with the students’ perceived ability to learn EFL in four areas (Speaking, Listening, Writing and Reading). This study compares two European countries (Spain and Greece) and two different types of school (monolingual and/or bilingual). All the bilingual schools follow the CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) approach which is based on a dual pedagogical approach highly recognised in Europe and worldwide, since it has an impact on the acquisition of bilingual and multilingual competence in Europe (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010).

In the last two decades, this method has been studied by numerous researchers (Graaff and Westhoff, 2007; Pérez-Cañado, 2011; Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Dalton-Puffer and Smit, 2013a, 2013b; and Coyle, 2013) and has been implemented in schools worldwide. This dual approach has served as a tool both for teaching and learning the contents of all the subjects and for working EFL. However, some issues with regard to how this methodology is being implemented in the classrooms has raised some concerns since there seems to be no common guidelines to carry out this approach. Arribas (2016) identifies some of the factors that could be causing such obstacles in the implementation of the CLIL methodology and that are related, among others, to the absence of official guidelines, and more specifically with: “a) the linguistic competence of teachers; b) teacher training; c) the language level will be achieved with students; and d) the distribution of CLIL/ALC hours” (p. 271).

Our research aims are: 1) To identify the main characteristics of the Spanish and the Greek educational curriculum; 2) To describe the resources and methodologies used by Secondary school teachers to teach EFL and non-linguistic subjects (in the case of bilingual schools); 3) To compare these resources and methodologies used by teachers with the perceived ability that students have to learn English according to the type of school (bilingual/non-bilingual) and the four areas assessed.

The sample of the current paper includes a total of 25 Secondary school teachers and 565 students of an ISCED-2 level of Greece and Spain. In both countries, different types of school participated in each context: four bilingual schools, in which English is the teaching language for several subjects; and four monolingual schools, where English is a Foreign Language. In order to collect the data, two questionnaires were used: one about the resources and methodologies that Secondary school teachers use to teach EFL and non-linguistic subjects; and another one about the students’ attitude to learn a foreign language (adapted from Roncel Vega’s previous work in 2000). However, from this last tool we will only consider the analyses of the third block of questions for this paper as it is the one that contains the items regarding the perceived ability to learn EFL in the four areas mentioned above (Speaking, Listening, Writing and Reading). Both teachers and their students filled these questionnaires based on a multiple option test and some open questions (in the case of the teacher’s instrument), and a Likert scale completed by students with questions in relation to their attitude towards English, their behaviour in the classroom and their ability perceived to learn a foreign language in the four areas assessed. The analyses carried out for the aims of this paper include: a descriptive study of the main features of the Spanish and Greek curriculums with special emphasis in the subjects taught in English (aim 1); a descriptive study of the teacher’s responses to analyse every aspect about the way they teach EFL and non-linguistic subjects (what kind of resources they use, the specific methodologies, the number of students they have in the classroom, the number of hours per week, etc.) (aim 2); and an ANOVA and a T-test to compare the ability perceived to learn English depending on the type of school (bilingual/non-bilingual) and the areas assessed (Speaking, Listening, Writing and Reading) (aim 3).

The analysis of both educational systems has been an important initial element to understand the main characteristic features of both educational systems, especially in relation to the teaching and learning of EFL. A first curricular aspect that deserves to be highlighted is the fact that the number of weekly hours of English in secondary education differs. Another interesting aspect that presents differences between the Greek and Spanish context is that in Greece, from the first year of secondary school (Gymnasio), each class/group is examined and consequently classified by levels (beginners or advanced) according to their knowledge. Also, in general, the schools of the Spanish sample seem to work the grammar (Use of English) in a greater extent. Nevertheless, in the Greek context (Athens), in addition to grammar, teachers give an important role to the improvement of reading comprehension (Reading). In relation to the type of grouping used in English as a Foreign Language lessons and non-linguistic areas, the most popular types of groupings in the Spanish secondary schools of the sample are groupings according to activities and in pairs. In contrast, individual groupings, small groups or groups according to the activities, are the most popular types of grouping in the Athenian schools. Also, generally Spanish teachers carry out their teaching work through theoretical and practical lessons, although intercultural exchanges are also very important in both schools (monolingual/bilingual); and in Greece teaching is developed through workshops, group work, and theoretical lessons. The methodology used for teaching EFL varies between Spain and Greece: In Spain the most popular ones are the grammar-translation method, the natural/direct approach, and the project-based learning; and in Greece, those methods that involve a greater communicative/oral contact of the learners with English (audio-lingual method and natural/direct approach) are used to a greater extent.

- Arribas, M. (2016). Analysing a whole CLIL school: Students’ attitudes, motivation, and receptive vocabulary outcomes. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 267-292. doi:10.5294/laclil.2016.9.2.2 - Bonnet, G. (ed.) (2003). The assessment of pupils’ skills in English in eight European countries. Paris: Le Réseau européen des responsables de l'évaluation des systèmes éducatifs. - Buttler, A. (2009). Languages for social cohesion: the 2004-2007 programme of the ECML. In D. Newby y H. Penz (Eds.), Languages for social cohesion: language education in a multilingual and multicultural Europe (pp. 11-16). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. - Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: An investigation into ‘successful learning’ across CLIL contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 244-266. - Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and Language Integrated Learning: From Practice to Principles? Annual Review of applied Linguistic, 31, 182-204. - Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013a). Content and Language Integrated Learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46, 545-559. - Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013b). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Educaction and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267-284. - Dendrinos, B., Zouganeli, K. & Karavas, E. (2013). Foreign language learning in Greek Schools. European Survey on Language Competences. Athens: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. - Erickson, G. (2004). Engelska I åtta europeiska länder [English in eight European countries]. Stockholm: Skolverket. - European Commission SurveyLang (2012). First European Survey on Language Competences: Final Report, Version 2.0. http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/strategic-framework/documents/language-survey-final-report_en.pdf - Graaff, R., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in Con- tent and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The International Journal of Bi- lingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603-624. - Graddol, D. (2006). English Next: Why Global English may mean the End of ‘English as a Foreign Language’. London: British Council. - Pérez Cañado, M. (2011). CLIL research in Europe: past, present and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315-341. - 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, doi: 10.1080/13670050.2013.777387.