Session Information
31 ONLINE 26 A, On the various components of language learning: Arenas, approaches, actors
Paper Session
MeetingID: 824 2354 5871 Code: V5ZTwY
Contribution
At present, Europe is witnessing a process of internationalisation of education in which the knowledge of a second language is an essential requirement for the development of an individual as a whole (INEE, 2012). European countries, distinguished by their multilingual and multicultural character, have addressed the foreign language issue in positive terms as a way to achieve greater social, political and cultural cohesion (Butler, 2009).
As part of this international and multicultural growth, the Spanish government has taken some measures to increase the number of schools that offer bilingual education programmes as well as to increase the level of English taught. It is well known that bilingual education has both social, cultural and professional benefits (Madrid & Hughes, 2011; Lorenzo, 2009; Bruton, 2011). Hence, many European countries have included the CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) approach in their curriculums, offering new strategies, methodologies and resources to teach English as a Foreign Language. Nonetheless, as many studies have analysed, it is still necessary to create a basis for bilingual education (Gutierrez, Duran & Beltran, 2012; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2015; Lorenzo, 2009; Madrid and Hughes, 2011).
Regarding this concern about how English is taught and learnt by our students, the European Survey on Language Competences (ESLC) was created in 2012, aiming to develop a linguistic competence indicator of progress for improving foreign language learning across European schools. The results of this study led to concerns in countries like Spain, where the results were far away from those initially expected (Morales, 2009). Actually, Spain’s results seemed to indicate that despite the strong presence of English in the school curriculum, the creation and promotion of bilingual schools and the presence of English teaching assistants at school, among others, the efforts have not yet been sufficient (European Commission, 2006; Bonnet, 2003). In fact, the ESLC states that there is an obvious connection between the English skills the teacher works with his/her students in the classroom and the type of methodology used and, of course, the students’ 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 student's competence in English significantly varies according to “the teachers’ focus on teaching the language” (Dendrinos, Zouganeli & Karavas, 2013, p. 100). Actually, Arribas (2016) identifies some of the factors that could be causing such obstacles in the implementation of the CLIL approach which are related 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 curriculums; 2) To explore the methodologies and resources used by Secondary school teachers to teach EFL; 3) To analyse the impact of these resources and methodologies used by teachers on the students’ learning; 4) To find out, depending on the school context, possible differences in the students’ attitude towards English, their classroom behaviour and their ability to learn the language.
Method
This study includes a sample based on 25 Secondary school teachers and 565 students of an ISCED-2 level of Greece and Spain. In both countries, different types of schools 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 learning a foreign language (adapted from Roncel Vega’s previous work in 2000). The questionnaires that both teachers and their students completed were based on multiple option items 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 to learn a foreign language in the four skills mentioned above. Thus, the analyses carried out for the research aims of this study include a descriptive study of the main features of the Spanish and Greek curriculums with special emphasis on the subjects taught in English (aim 1); a descriptive study of the teacher’s methodologies and resources used to teach EFL (aim 2); an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and a T-test to compare the students’ ability to learn English with the type of school (bilingual/non-bilingual) and the skills assessed (Speaking, Listening, Writing and Reading) (aims 3 and 4).
Expected Outcomes
Taking into account both educational systems (the Greek one and the Spanish one) has been an important initial element to understand better the main characteristic features of both curriculums in relation to how EFL is taught. In general, the Spanish schools of the sample seem to work the grammar (Use of English) to a greater extent. Nevertheless, in the Greek context (Athens), in addition to grammar, teachers give an important role in the improvement of reading comprehension (Reading). On the one hand, 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 (like the audio-lingual method and the natural/direct approach) are used to a greater extent. On the other hand, the student’s attitude during English lessons is a key factor in the learning process: feeling comfortable when speaking English in public, being afraid to make mistakes, understanding the teacher’s explanations, the fear to fail, etc., affect the way students learn English. Therefore, the results show differences in the ability to learn English perceived by students depending on the class group in Speaking, Writing, and Reading. Nevertheless, there was a difference between the type of school only in Listening in favour of the bilingual one. Also, the student’s behaviour in the classroom predicts in a significant way (p=0,0001) the greater or lesser ability to learn English as a Foreign Language.
References
-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. (2003). The assessment of pupils’ skills in English in eight European countries. In Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa- INEE (2012), European Survey on Language Competences EECL Vol. II (pp. 1-105). -Bruton, A. (2001). “Are there differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010)”. Applied Linguistics, 32, nº2: 236-241. -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. -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. -European Commission (2006). Special Eurobarometer 243. Europeans and their Languages. Brussles: European Commission. -Gutierrez, G.; Duran, R.& Beltrán, F. (2012). CLIL in teacher training: A Nottinham Trent University and University of Salamanca experience. Encuentro 21, 48-62. -Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa - INEE (2012). European Survey on Language Competences (ESLC). Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. -Lasagabaster, D. & Doiz, A. (2015). A Longitudinal Study on the Impact of CLIL Affective Factors. Applied Linguistics (1), 1-26. -Lorenzo, F. (2009). “CLIL in Andalusia”. In CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training, ed. D. Lasagabaster and Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, 2011. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. -Madrid, D. & Hughes, S. (eds). (2011). Studies in Bilingual Education. Switzerland: Peter Lang. -Morales, C. (2009). La enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras en la Unión Europea. Educación y futuro, 20, 17-30. -Roncel Vega, V. (2000). El rendimiento en una lengua extranjera en enseñanza secundaria. Un modelo causal. Tesis doctoral inédita. Universidad de Sevilla.
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.