Session Information
99 ERC SES 03 B, Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper Session
Contribution
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)* and language immersion programmes have been implemented in the majority of educational systems of Europe since the 1990s (Goris et al., 2019; Renau & Mas Marti, 2018). There is a consensus in the literature that the target language (TL) development of students in CLIL and immersion settings outstrips their peers who study the language in stand-alone classes (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Dalton-Puffer, 2008; Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2013; Tedick & Lyster, 2020). However, many scholars internationally conclude that students do not reach an advanced level of competence but, rather, a “functional proficiency” (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012, p. 253). For CLIL to reach its full potential by the end of upper secondary education, a more explicit and systematic focus on language is needed in content-area classrooms (Tedick & Lyster, 2020).
There is acknowledgement that this is not an easy undertaking as this fusing of content teaching and language teaching has variously been referred to as a “stab in the dark” (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012, p. 261) and a “conundrum” (Ó Ceallaigh et al., 2018, p. 5). In many jurisdictions this situation is exacerbated by teacher readiness issues, where no specific qualification is required to teach in CLIL settings (Ó Ceallaigh et al., 2018; Tedick & Fortune, 2013).
Irish is a minority language on the island of Ireland with the English language being the first language (L1) of the vast majority of the population (Central Statistics Office, 2017). This research project focused on the lived experiences of secondary CLIL teachers as they attempt to integrate the teaching of content and the teaching of language in Irish-medium schools. The first iteration of a pedagogical tool was developed to explore CLIL teachers’ experiences, attitudes and practices (Mac Gearailt et al., 2023). This pedagogical tool, SIOF, has now been refined and it is hoped that it will be a significant development in a move to a more “systematic” pedagogy” (Genesee & Lindholm-Leary, 2013, p. 22). SIOF focuses on “language sensitive” (Marsh et al., 2001, p. 4) classroom practices that relate to Scaffolding, Input, Output and Feedback.
It adopts a socio-cognitive view of the learning process and accepts that cognition and social interaction have complementary roles in language learning (Lyster, 2007). Considering the varied and naturalistic input of CLIL settings, the work of Krashen (1982), his theory on Comprehensible Input in particular, underpins much of the scholarship on CLIL. Social interactions are fundamental to the sociocultural perspective on second language learning (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Speaking (and writing) enables learners to control their mental processes, which facilitates the internalisation of language used in social interactions. In devising SIOF the authors drew heavily on the Counterbalanced Approach of Lyster (2007) and the CAPA model of Tedick and Lyster (2020), which focuses on contextualisation, awareness, practice and autonomy when integrating the teaching of language and content. Form-focused instruction (FFI) is the bedrock of these approaches, and of SIOF. FFI is defined as “any pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners’ attention to language form either implicitly or explicitly” (Spada, 1997, p. 73).
* The authors view CLIL as an umbrella term for any context where an additional language is used to teach content. As such, when the authors use the term CLIL this includes immersion. For further discussion on the interrelatedness of CLIL and immersion see (Mac Gearailt et al., 2021).
Method
This research was conducted within an interpretive ontological paradigm. A phenomenological approach, a form of naturalistic research that resides within the interpretive paradigm, was adopted (Cohen et al., 2018). This approach allowed the researcher to explore the lived experiences or “lifeworld” (Newby, 2010, p. 36) of CLIL teachers. Invitations to participate and information notes were sent to all of the Irish-medium secondary schools in Ireland (n=35) outside of official Gaeltacht areas (areas designated as being Irish speaking). Teachers who teach non-language subjects (geography, history, science etc.) were invited to participate. Within this school/teacher population a purposive sampling technique was utilised. Purposive sampling is a form of non-probability sampling which allows the researcher to recruit participants in a “strategic” way (Clark et al., 2016, p. 378). The researcher used his judgement to assemble participants to best meet the “specific needs” of the study (Cohen et al., 2018). A copy of the SIOF document was forwarded to all participants before attending an online information session. At these session the fundamentals of SIOF were explained to the participants and they were afforded the opportunity to ask questions. 32 participants were recruited (five subsequently withdrew) and sixteen information sessions were conducted. At the conclusion of these sessions the participating teachers were requested to reflect on the strategies/approaches outlined in SIOF for a period of two to four weeks and to explore some of the strategies/approaches in their classrooms. Subsequently three focus groups (with five to seven participants) and nine semi-structured interviews were conducted. The SIOF pedagogical tool was used as an interview schedule but a semi-structured approach was maintained. These interviews were audio recorded and subsequently transcribed for analysis. The researcher took notes during the interviews/focus groups and during the transcription process. The data was analysed using thematic analysis. The researcher followed the “contour” of data analysis conceptualised by Creswell and Poth (2018, p. 186).
Expected Outcomes
Findings: 1) Many of the participants endeavour to scaffold language use and to engage in language sensitive teaching. However, this happens in an unsystematic fashion. This is in contrast to the Language Tryptic of Coyle et al. (2010) which presents a more structured analysis of language requirements. 2) The data is suggesting that SIOF could foster reflection amongst teachers and an “awakening” (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012, p. 260) to the nuances of CLIL teaching. 3) As Irish is a minority language the breadth and dept of teaching recourses is not as great as there is in English. The data suggests that immersion teachers display innovation and creativity in ameliorating this situation. However, many participants admit to using English language resources. Some participants use English language textbooks even though Irish language ones are available. 4) The data also suggests that some participants (especially those without an undergraduate degree in Irish) do not feel sufficiently confident in their own level of Irish. 5) Many teachers give corrective feedback on language use in content classes. Some are apprehensive about feedback as it might disrupt the flow of the lesson. Others expressed a desire to give feedback but lack the confidence in their own language ability. 6) A common, but subtle theme, throughout the data is the conflict many teachers feel between the teaching of content and the teaching of language. This is the “subject-focused mindset” (Mehisto, 2008, p. 103). There is an underlying fear that an overemphasis on language will distract from content teaching. 7) All of the participants emphasised the importance of a whole school approach in relation to CLIL methodologies. In addition, there is also scope for greater collaboration within subject departments. 8) All the participants expressed a great desire for more CPD in the area of CLIL best-practice.
References
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251-269. Clark, T., Foster, L., Sloan, L., & Bryman, A. (2016). Bryman’s social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in Education (8th ed.). Routledge. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage. Genesee, F., & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). Two case studies of content-based language education. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 3-33. Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246-256. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquistion. Prentice-Hall. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins. Mac Gearailt, B., Mac Ruairc, G., & Murray, C. (2021). Actualising Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Irish-medium education; why, how and why now? Irish Educational Studies, 1-19. Mac Gearailt, B., Mac Ruairc, G., & Murray, C. (2023). Towards a research-based pedagogical tool for language sensitive teaching in secondary CLIL and immersion settings. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1-26. Marsh, D., Maljers, A., & Hartiala, A.-K. (2001). Profiling European CLIL classrooms. University of Jyväskylä. Mehisto, P. (2008). CLIL counterweights: Recognising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1). Newby, P. (2010). Research methods for education. Pearson. Ó Ceallaigh, T. J., Hourigan, M., & Leavy, A. (2018). Developing potentiality: Pre-service elementary teachers as learners of language immersion teaching. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Renau, M. L., & Mas Marti, S. (2018). A CLIL approach: Evolution and current situation in Europe and in Spain. International Journal of Science and Research, 8(2), 1100-1119. Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language teaching, 30, 73-87. Tedick, D. J., & Fortune, T. W. (2013). Bilingual/immersion teacher education. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 438-443). Blackwell. Tedick, D. J., & Lyster, R. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge.
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.