72
EFL LITERACY DEVELOPMENT IN CLIL SETTINGS: AN INSIGHT INTO
TEACHERS' PRACTICES
DESARROLLO DE LA LITERACIDAD EN INGLÉS COMO LENGUA
EXTRANJERA EN ENTORNOS AICLE: UN ANÁLISIS DE LAS PRÁCTICAS
DOCENTES
Ana García Cuadrillero
Centro Universitario Cardenal Cisneros, España
ana.garcia@alu.cucc.es
Raquel Fernández Fernández
Centro Universitario Cardenal Cisneros, España
raquel.fernandez@cardenalcisneros.es
ABSTRACT
The present article examines teachers’ practices on ELF literacy development in Primary CLIL
settings. The work is part of the research developed in the Erasmus+ project “Developing FL literacy
in CLIL contexts, which aims to improve literacy practices in the CLIL classrooms. The study has an
exploratory and descriptive nature and was conducted using an online questionnaire, designed and
supervised by the international group participating in the project. Results show that a number of the
resources, tools and strategies used by participants fall short in covering students’ communicative
needs in our present society, such as the work on different genres and text types, the promotion of
free voluntary reading or the creation of a link between reading and writing tasks. Possible
improvement areas are related to teacher training, lesson planning and materials design.
Keywords: literacy, teachers’ practices, reading, Content and Language Integrated Learning, English as a
Foreign Language.
RESUMEN
El presente artículo examina las prácticas docentes relativas al desarrollo de la literacidad en las
clases de inglés en Educación Primaria en entornos AICLE. Tiene como objetivo la mejora de las
prácticas de literacidad en las aulas de inglés como lengua extranjera. El estudio tiene un carácter
descriptivo y exploratorio, y ha sido desarrollado a través de un cuestionario online, diseñado y
supervisado por el grupo internacional participando en el proyecto. Los resultados muestras que
algunos recursos, herramientas y estrategias utilizados por los participantes no cubren las
necesidades comunicativas de nuestros estudiantes en la sociedad actual, como el trabajo con
diferentes géneros y tipos de texto, la promoción de la lectura libre y voluntaria o la creación de un
vínculo entre las tareas de lectura y escritura.
Palabras clave: literacidad, prácticas docentes, lectura, aprendizaje integrado de contenidos y lengua
extranjera, inglés como lengua extranjera.
Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas (RNAEL) ISSN 1699-6569
Vol. 13 Núm. 27 (2019) doi: 10.26378/rnlael1327339
Recibido: 01/09/2019/ Aprobado: 23/10/2019
Publicado bajo licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento Sin Obra Derivada 4.0 Internacional
73
1. INTRODUCTION
With the advent of bilingual education, much research has been carried out to find out the
impact of this instruction on students’ language skills. However, despite the fact that
teacher's views on CLIL have been dealt with in the specialised literature (Fernández
Fernández et al., 2005;; Coonan, 2007; Fernández Fernández and Halbach, 2010; Johnson,
2012; Cabezuelo and Fernández Fernández, 2014; Pladevall-Ballester, 2015; and San Isidro
& Lasagabaster, 2019), there still seems to be a dearth of studies on teachers' perceptions
and, more specifically, on the English language teachers. In this context, the Erasmus+
Project ‘Literacy for CLIL’ attempts to improve literacy development in contexts where
English is taught and used as a foreign language1.
One of the milestones in the research phase of the project is to describe teachers’
beliefs about literacy and their classroom practices. At the core of these practices is reading,
as a skill that makes learning accessible, providing students with a considerable amount of
input both inside and outside the classroom. Also, research has demonstrated that students’
reading abilities can be considered a predictor of academic success (Cullinan, 2000; Whiten,
Labby and Sullivan, 2016; or, more recently, Stoffelsma and Spooren, 2019).
Another important characteristic of reading as a communicative skill is that it is
inextricably linked to the rest of the skills. In Krashen’s words (2013, p.21): “There is
overwhelming evidence that those who read more read better, write with a more acceptable
writing style, have larger vocabularies, have better control of complex grammatical
constructions, and spell better than those who read less”. In this sense, classroom practices
that remain at the decoding phase fail at giving students the opportunity to develop
cognitive skills, which are linked to the a more sophisticated use and work on text, such as
grasping nuances of meaning, speaking from the perspective of a text or generating
knowledge of text structure and purpose which will ultimately feed into text production.
Even if reading has always been at the core of literacy, little research has been carried
out to describe the present state of the art of EFL reading practices in the CLIL classroom.
The present work attempts to fill the research gap providing evidence on the current
practices of EFL Primary Teachers of 3rd to 5th graders in Spain.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Literacy is not only an academic concept but a human right (UNESCO, 2008). For a long
time, it remained as a privilege for those who could afford and access quality education
(Lunsford, Moglen & Slevin, 1990). With the spread of public education in the world, literacy
development has been achieved by an increasing number of citizens. Nevertheless, there is
still a need to develop good literacy practices in countries where economic and human
means are not at hand, such as in the case of Ethiopia or India, and for sectors of the
population which present disabilities or need support (Goodley, 2007). It is still common to
find literacy practices which fall short at providing learners with the training they need, as
Copeland and Keefe state (2007).
The definition of literacy has evolved because it is a historical-contingent concept. In
our time, literacy skills have been influenced by two significant advances. First, the impact
of technological progress in the last century, which has created new means of
74
communication, helping citizens to have easier access to information from any part of the
world. Second, and also as a consequence of the first, globalisation. This panorama has
created new opportunities for communication in different languages and contexts, and the
use of more than one language in our everyday context. As García et al. (2007, p.207)
stated: “In this context, it has become clear that, instead of bilingualism and biliteracy, the
terms plurilingualism and pluriliteracies more accurately describe the complex language
practices and values of speakers in multilingual communities of the 21st century”.
2.1 Bilingual programmes and teacher training in Spain
Following recommendations from the Council of Europe (White Paper, 1995), the Spanish
government started to promote bilingual education. Bilingual initiatives in public schools
were launched with collaboration from the British Council and the Ministry of Education with
a project combining the national and the British curriculum as an integrated model (1996).
Later on, some regional governments established bilingual projects based on dual-language
models, such as is the case in Andalusia, where the curriculum competences are delivered
both in L1 and L2 parallelly, and teachers are required to have a B2 CEFR level in the
additional language. Other regional bilingual projects are based on the development of CLIL
programmes, such as in the Autonomous Community of Madrid, or in the Community of
Valencia. In this case, around 50% of class time is given in English. Bilingual subjects are
entirely taught in English by content-teachers with an accredited advanced level, C1 CEFR.
Other regions hired native speakers of the language to deliver subjects in English, such as
is the case of the Aragon government, which implemented these programmes together with
the British Council.
Parallel to these programmes, regional governments made (and are making) a
considerable effort to launch teacher training itineraries for content-subject teachers to
improve, not only teachers’ communicative abilities but also their didactic knowledge and
abilities. However, few recommendations, if any, have been made to teachers teaching the
English language subject to adapt and improve their instruction within the new context. In
this line, Dalton-Puffer and Smit (2013) indicate the need for research in this area:
The question of whether additional FL teaching is necessary is at the heart an empirical one
and requires more, and more detailed, studies of the classroom discourse of CLIL and FL
classes embedded in specific educational contexts. (p. 552)
Furthermore, most of the English language curricula are still based on a pre-designed
grammatical syllabus (Coyle et al. 2010 and Coyle, in Zarobe, Sierra and Gallardo, 2011)
instead of focusing on language use associated with the content needs (Halbach 2014,
Pavón Vázquez, 2014). Few proposals on how to tackle English language learning as a
subject can be found in the literature focusing on the Spanish context. Among the few,
Halbach (2018) proposes to work on a literacy-based approach centred on backwards
planning (as proposed by Wiggins and McTighe, 2006) with the creation of texts as the
desired goal. In the same line, a more textual approach to language in EFL is recommended
by Lorenzo and Moore (in Dalton-Puffer et al., 2010).
2.2 Literature Review
Specific reports on reading practices in CLIL classrooms are scarce. In many cases,
information on this area can be found in the evaluation reports of bilingual projects, such
75
as the report on the Spanish Project launched by the Ministry of Education and the British
Council written by Dobson, Pérez Murillo and Johnstone (2010). The authors conducted a
study based on interviewing teachers and conducting a systematic observation of classroom
practices. Also, they surveyed students at both Primary and Secondary levels. Results
related to reading show that sixth-graders perceive this skill as the second most developed,
just after writing. Students generally indicate that they need to improve their speaking.
From the teachers’ perspective, the teaching for literacy, and more specifically the
connections between reading and writing with the spoken language, were indicated as areas
desired to be covered in future teacher training (p. 110). Another interesting finding of this
report is that the teaching of reading and writing was often introduced earlier than in
monolingual schools, with some practices taking place with 3-year-old children (p. 125).
Research on reading practices in bilingual contexts generally focuses on students’ skill
development. In this area, Recio and León (2015) measured Primary students’ reading
production in terms of fluency and reading comprehension. Participants were 39 students
from first and fourth grades in primary. The test asked students to read a text aloud and
answer some comprehension questions in front of an evaluator in a meeting that lasted
around 20 minutes. Results show that first graders were marginally better in English than
in Spanish, while the fourth graders had a superior performance in Spanish. The reason for
these differences is the year in which they enrolled in the bilingual program, as first graders
had been exposed to English for a longer time. When it comes to reading comprehension,
there were significant differences among both groups, as fourth-graders were somewhat
better altogether. However, first graders were better in English than in Spanish.
In the same vein, San Isidro and Lasagabaster (2018) conducted a two-year longitudinal
study in a rural multilingual school context in Galicia, Spain. CLIL and non-CLIL samples
were analysed to find out the impact of CLIL provision if students’ language and content
learning. The researchers concluded that the CLIL cohort outperformed the non-CLIL group
not only in English but also in Spanish and Galician. Besides that, content in the CLIL group
was not found to be watered down, and learning outcomes were not found to be negative
in comparison with their non-CLIL counterparts.
Another different perspective into reading practices is the one adopted by the present
study, which revolves around the teachers’ viewpoint. In this area, and apart from the
sections included in the general reports, such as the work by Dobson et al. (2010) cited
above, there is a need to produce high-quality research in the area. However, we can find
some studies in international settings. In the United States, Jia et al. (2006) focused on
teachers’ reading practices. There were 13 people taking part in this study: seven
elementary teachers and six middle school educators. All the information was gathered
using observations, interviews, and document analysis. Findings show that these teachers
used oral activities to evaluate their pupils’ reading comprehension skills.
In Africa, Cekiso (2017) selected the area of Eastern Cape in South Africa to explore
how teachers enhance reading skills with students whose mother tongue is not English. The
tool used for this purpose was semi-structured interviews. In the District of Mzibana, nine
teachers selected from three public schools were interviewed. According to the results,
teachers considered that their training was not sufficient to deliver effective lessons. They
also believed that classroom conditions, such as the big number of students per room, made
it difficult to create an appropriate learning environment. Similar results are found in
Ethiopia, where Bosha and Ukute (2019) reviewed some teachers’ perceptions regarding
the challenges of teaching reading skills. This project was held at ‘Wolaita Sodo Preparatory
76
School’ in Ethiopia. This school had 450 male and 388 female students, 838 altogether. The
number of teachers was a total of six, four male and two female. All six teachers were
selected to participate in the study, as well as the students from 11th grade. All teachers
were interviewed and then observed in an actual lesson. This research revealed how these
teachers had to overcome certain challenges derived from the lack of teaching material or
previous teacher training. The consequences of these problems were lack of motivation at
all levels and poor classroom management, to mention a few.
Another EFL context is set in Saudia Arabia, where Eid Alhasoini (2017) went a little
bit further and sought to find differences between native and nonnative EFL teachers in
Saudi Arabia when it comes to activating prior knowledge in reading activities. To fulfil the
objectives of the investigation research, 63 native and nonnative teachers volunteered to
participate and 23 agreed to be observed during a class. These participants were working
at the Aljouf University teaching English in the preparatory year. There were two instruments
used for this research: a questionnaire and an observation checklist. As a conclusion,
Alhasoini discovered that many of the difficulties that appeared when activating the previous
knowledge were due to the students’ low level of reading. They also agree on the importance
of suitable activities to activate prior knowledge in order to achieve a proper level of reading
comprehension. Finally, there was some evidence that confirmed that these participants
lacked appropriate training. At the same time, the books that they were using in their
classes did not meet their needs since they provided very little help.
Research on teachers’ beliefs and practices on reading in CLIL or EFL contexts
demonstrates that this field has been studied worldwide in the last decades. Some influential
variables such as classroom conditions, teachers’ training, use of methodological strategies
and time of exposure to the language are highlighted as factors that influence students’
learning success.
3. THE STUDY
3.1 Aims and hypothesis
The present piece of research aims to describe and understand the nature of the teaching
practices around reading in CLIL contexts in Spain. It is expected to gather evidence as to
indicate future guidelines which may be used for teacher training actions or material
development as to improve EFL literacy development in the CLIL Primary classrooms in
Spain.
3.2. Research methodology and data gathering tool
The present article is based on an exploratory and descriptive study which gathers
information about the EFL reading practices at the Primary level in CLIL settings in Spain.
The information gathered is both quantitative and qualitative and has been analysed used
using the IBM software SPSS. To ensure validity and reliability, the questionnaire used was
first piloted following the Delphi method, then piloted by a number of teachers and finally,
the group of statisticians collaborating in the Erasmus+ project that this study is part of
77
revised the final version to ensure information gathered was in line with the research
questions for the project.
The final version of the questionnaire consisted of 47 questions with sections
covering: general information, the conceptualisation of literacy, reading and writing
resources and practices, teacher assessment, difficulties, teacher training and teachers'
needs. Questions combined multiple-choice format with Likert-scale statements and open
questions. Respondents to the need analysis questionnaire were self-selected, as the online
questionnaire was made available to all teachers of English in CLIL projects in the three
countries through email, social media and personal contacts of the partners in the project.
The questionnaire was made available from December 2018 to March 2019 and was sent to
private contacts, as well as institutions, such as the British Council, Cambridge Assessment
and education counsellors for regional governments in Spain.
3.3 Participants and context
The on-line questionnaire was filled out by 106 valid respondents in Spain. In what follows,
information about the profile of the participants is provided. Participants’ age ranges from
24 to 60 years. The average age was 38.84 years. As for the number of years working as a
teacher, the minimum was one year, the maximum was 37 years, and the average was
13.75 years. Out of 106 participants, there were 23 male (21.7%) and 83 female (78.3%)
participants. The proportion coincides with EUROSTAT report (2016), which indicates that
the population of female Primary Teachers reaches 76% in Spain.
The sample shows that participants generally come from state-granted schools (80,
75.5%), with a smaller representation of public centres (21, 19.8%) and just 5 (4.7%)
private schools (see figure 4). The sample does not represent the population in this case,
as state schools represent 62.6% of the schools in Spain, whereas private and state-
granted centres account for 30.6% of the centres. Thus, it was expected to have more
participants coming from public/state schools than chartered centres. These results may be
explained by the fact that the survey was sent to several private
educational organisations, which may have spread the word among their associates better,
producing more responses in the data gathered.
Graph 1. Type of schools participants come from
Concerning their qualifications, 69.8% of the participants held a Teaching degree with
an English specialization. Other profiles included English Philology or English studies and
78
Primary teachers with an English certification. In relation to this, they were asked about the
current position in the school. 67 participants (63.2%) were EFL teachers, whereas 63
(59.4%) were content-subject teachers in a CLIL/bilingual project. From those teachers
working in a CLIL/bilingual project, 54.0% (34 teachers) are also working as English
teachers.
Most teachers are in 5th-grade classes (32.7%), with 16 participants (15.4%) teaching
in 3rd grade, and 19 (18.3%) in 4th grade. There is also a representative number of
teachers who are involved in the teaching of the three courses (16.3%). However, teachers
in two courses are rarer, with percentages ranging from 2.9% to 8.7%. We can conclude
that teachers dealing with the highest level, year 5, constitute more than half the teachers
in the sample.
Graph 2. Levels taught in the present school year
10 out of 17 autonomous communities in Spain are represented in the sample.
There are no participants from Galicia, Cantabria, Catalonia, Extremadura, Murcia, Balearic
Islands or the Canary Islands. The two autonomous cities, Ceuta and Melilla, do not have
any representation in the study either. The most represented one is Madrid (41.4%).
In the case of Spain, CLIL contexts often involve the teaching of several content
subjects in a foreign language. Teachers were asked which subjects they were teaching in
the 2018/2019 school year. Results show that most teachers are teaching Natural Sciences
combined with another subject, most commonly Arts and Crafts (N=67).
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In what follows, the results of each of the questions related to reading practices will be
analysed and described.
4.1 How often and which activities do teachers use to develop their students’
reading skills? (1=very rarely or never; 5=very frequently)
79
As can be seen in Table 1, the activity most frequently used to develop students’ reading
skills is helping students understand new vocabulary in the text (M=4.42), followed by doing
reading comprehension tasks orally (M=4.13) and asking students to read aloud (4.02).
The activity showing the highest standard deviation is listening to a tape while reading the
text. It is worth highlighting that reading activities are more often connected to oral work
than to written work.
N
Mean
Median
SD
Teachers read aloud to the class
103
3.66
4
1.015
Ask students to read aloud
90
4.02
4
0.861
Ask students to read silently
88
3.03
3
0.928
Give students time to read books of their
own choosing
91
2.73
3
1.165
Teach students strategies for decoding
letters into sounds
90
2.73
3
1.16
Listen to a tape while reading a text
91
3.64
4
1.32
Help students understand new vocabulary
in the texts
90
4.42
4
0.599
Do reading comprehension tasks in
writing
90
3.87
4
0.939
Do reading comprehension tasks orally
90
4.13
4
0.778
Ask students to write something in
response to what they have read
90
2.93
3
1.015
Do a project about what they have read
(e.g. a play or an art project)
90
3.06
3
1.115
Table 1. Reading activities and frequency of use
In the free comments section, some participants included options that were not initially
included in the questionnaire, such as using drama techniques or creating mindmaps.
4.2 How often and which activities do teachers use to develop their students’
reading strategies? (1=very rarely; 5 very frequently)
The most frequent activity used to develop students’ reading strategies is finding specific
information in the text (M=4.27), followed by identifying main ideas in the text (M=4.15),
followed by the least frequent, and showing the highest standard deviation, talking about
text genre (M=2.72; SD=1.198).
N
Mean
Median
SD
Identify main ideas in the text
100
4.15
4
0.833
Find specific information in the text
95
4.27
4
0.675
Compare what they have read with their
experiences
92
3.57
4
1.009
Make generalisations and draw inferences
based on the text
92
3.51
4
1.064
Encourage risk-taking and guessing about
the text
92
3.53
4
1.084
80
Make predictions about what will happen
in the text
92
3.86
4
0.897
Talk about the text structure
92
3.22
3
1.137
Talk about the text genre
92
2.72
3
1.198
Table 2. Reading activities for strategy training and frequency of use
Some of the teachers also stated other activities they use for developing their students'
reading strategies, such as matching pictures to the text; using grammar songs or games
to help them link words or work in groups to get the main idea of the text. Results show
that the strategies used are based on identifying information (general or specific) in the
text. The lack of work on text genres may indicate that either there is not a diversity of
texts used or that the genre of the text is not considered. However, working with different
text types and genres and considering their structure may be pivotal to help students
recognise and produce texts later on.
4.3 How often and what kinds of materials/resources do teachers use for
developing their students’ reading skills? (1=very rarely or never; 5=very
frequently)
Another area of interest in the study was the use of materials and resources for developing
students' reading skills. Participants use mainly EFL textbooks (M=3.84). They also show
frequent use of worksheets (M=3.71) and CLIL textbooks (M=3.66). However, the use of
CLIL textbooks show one of the highest standard deviations (SD= 1.238), probably
reflecting that teachers come from bilingual and non-bilingual contexts, and when the
former is the case, they opt for these types of materials. The least frequently used materials
for reading are children's magazines (M=2.05) and non-fiction books (M=2.45).
N
Mean
SD
EFL textbooks
98
3.84
1.068
CLIL textbooks
93
3.66
1.232
Graded readers
92
3.52
1.049
Worksheets
92
3.71
0.882
Children’s books
93
2.83
1.179
Non-fiction books
93
2.45
1.170
Children's magazines
92
2.05
1.136
Web pages
92
3.20
1.096
Materials written by students
92
2.54
1.166
Materials from other subjects
91
2.64
1.245
Table 3. Resources and materials used for reading development
Some participants included other materials, such as authentic materials, songs and song
lyrics, graphs, films, poetry, photocopies of exam papers, quizzes, or videos. Even with
81
these examples, the vast majority of teachers rely on textbooks or other didactic material
and leave little room for non-fiction books or literature.
4.4 How often and what kinds of texts do teachers use to develop their students’
reading skills? (1=very rarely or never; 5=very frequently)
As can be seen in the table below, teachers often use songs and chants, followed by short
stories, tales and fables. These results contrast with the reduced use of children's literature
stated in the question before (M=2.83). It may be that the texts used are not considered
literature for children or that the teachers do not recognise these literary genres as such.
Participants rarely use non-fiction texts, such as instructions or manuals, or other
modes of communication, such as charts, diagrams and graphs. These modes of
representation are fundamental in the development of students' literacy skills in content
subjects where information is organised using different text types and modes of
communication.
N
Mean
Median
SD
Dialogues/plays
99
3.18
3
1.078
Short stories, tales, fables
92
3.39
3.5
0.956
Poems, riddles, limericks
92
2.65
3
0.999
Charts, diagrams, graphs
91
2.45
2
1.148
Instructions or manuals
about how things work
93
2.27
2
1.023
Songs, chants
92
3.89
4
1.010
Table 4. Texts teachers use for reading development
Respondents also included other materials such as e-mails, letters, digital articles or
comics.
4.5 How often and what forms of classroom organisation do teachers use when
developing their students’ reading skills?
When developing students' reading skills, participants mostly use whole-class groupings
(M=3.96), followed by mixed-ability groups (M=3.73) and individual work (3.62). They
rarely use same-ability groups.
N
M
SD
Pair-work
100
3.39
0.973
Whole-class
93
3.96
0.859
Same-ability groups
87
2.41
1.106
Mixed-ability groups
93
3.73
1.044
Individual work
93
3.62
0.846
Table 5. Classroom organisation in reading activities
82
4.6 What difficulties do students have when reading in English?
Participants were requested to tick the two main difficulties their students faced when
reading in English. As can be seen in Table 6, the option most frequently chosen by
respondents (n=100) was 'understanding what was read' (54%). The second option (see R
(rank) column) chosen was mispronouncing words (52%) followed by reading monotonically
(29%). The options chosen least frequently were for students to share their reading
experience with others (8%) and to engage emotionally with the text (3%), which are
related to a more social and aesthetic view of reading.
F
R
Mispronouncing words
52
2
Reading very slowly
14
4
Reading monotonically
29
3
Understanding what was read
54
1
Unmotivated to read
10
6
Extracting key ideas
10
6
Distinguishing facts and opinions
9
7
Thinking critically about the text
11
5
Sharing their reading experience with others
8
8
Engaging emotionally with the text
3
9
Table 6. Difficulties students have when reading in English
Six participants indicated that all the difficulties in the list appeared in their
classrooms. Three teachers highlight the students’ fear or embarrassment and describe
situations of reading aloud when their classmates burst into laughter. Also, another
participant considers that the difficulties are not language-bound, as they also appear in
Spanish. Regarding comprehension, three teachers consider that the work on pronunciation
prevents students from understanding what they are reading.
4.7 What kind of tasks do teachers use for assessing their students' reading skills?
As can be seen in table 7, when assessing students’ performance in reading, teachers often
use oral questioning of students on what they have read (M=4.09). However, this response
shows one of the highest standard deviations, indicating that respondents are often
choosing the extreme options (a high frequency of use but also the lowest frequency), and
thus that the use of these kinds of activities is very uneven. Participant teachers also use
true/false activities (M=3.97), and they listen to students reading aloud (M=3.96).
Assessment activities such as meeting with students to discuss what they have been reading
or having students give an oral summary of what they have read in English are used less
often.
N
Mean
Median
SD
Multiple choice questions on materials read
96
3.76
4
0.964
Short answer to written questions on materials
read
89
3.90
4
0.844
83
Students give an oral summary of what they
have read in English
90
3.15
3
1.026
Teacher listens to students read aloud
90
3.96
4
0.925
Oral questioning of students on what they have
read
90
4.09
4
1.148
True/false activity
89
3.97
4
0.979
Meeting with students to discuss what they have
been reading
89
2.85
3
1.216
Table 7. Assessment tasks for reading
Teachers also use drawings to assess what they have understood, as well as role-play,
drama or KET-type tests.
Results portray a picture of reading practices in CLIL contexts which is very much
attached to traditional practices, with textbooks as the core material. Beside this, teaching
practices rarely focus on the work with text types or different genres and, when they do,
they are more often than not opting for fictional texts, with a tendency towards using songs
and chants. This may indicate that texts are really an excuse to exemplify the use of specific
grammar points or vocabulary items included in the curricula, rather than promote the use
of text focusing on a more functional perspective of language, which will highlight discourse
structure and purpose over purely grammatical forms.
As it has been seen in the theoretical framework, current literacy practices should
integrate different communicative abilities. There is no evidence of integration in the data
analysed, as just reading and oral work seem to be promoted with the purpose of assessing
the comprehension of texts orally. This lack of integrated practices may call for a broader
vision of what literacy may bring into CLIL contexts and how this may enrich students’
learning.
In line with the previous paragraph, difficulties highlighted by teachers are at the level
of comprehension and pronunciation, with little reference to critical thinking or
distinguishing facts and opinions. This may indicate a need for more profound and rich work
on text, which may also trigger discussion and personal contributions to the class. Dialogic
practices which incorporate these elements together with a more systematic work on the
structure, purpose and meaning of the texts may be crucial to help teachers boost their
students’ reading skills.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The present study attempts to understand the nature of the teaching practices within the
English classrooms in CLIL settings in Spain. Data analysis suggests that there is little work
on certain key areas that may ensure a more productive and effective reading experience
for students. To begin with, there seems to be little work on text structure and genre.
Working on text types will help children recognise text structure and intention, identify
different language patterns typical of those text types and use them to produce their own
texts. Working on text types will also increase reading comprehension, as these schemata
will be activated and help students make sense of the text. In the same line, exposure to
different genres (such as theatre scripts or poetry) and the discussion around them may
help students gain knowledge on different topics, while also recognising new language
84
features and developing an interest in genres they had not been exposed to until then. It
is, therefore, an area of improvement in the Primary English classroom that needs to be
taken into consideration, not only by the teachers but also by the publishing houses.
Another finding worth highlighting is that reading for pleasure and having the right to
choose their books is rare in the data analysed. Teachers rarely offer students the possibility
to work on the books they would like to read and, in any case, there is little emphasis on
the aesthetic experiences with literature. As Rosenblatt (2005) puts it, there is probably
much effort on gathering information from the text, rather than focusing on the experience
lived through the text, and how the text is constructed in such a way to create this
experience. It is essential to work on language, not as a literal vessel of meaning, but as a
compound of representational nuances the reader has put together.
Finally, results also show that there is a need to create stronger links between reading
and writing activities. Reading activities are often accompanied by oral tasks, but it is rare
to find a link with written production. It is quite surprising, as both skills should go hand in
hand to help students develop appropriate communicative competences. Students’ written
production should be encouraged in these Primary middle courses as students have basic
knowledge of the language to start producing their own.
Regarding possible future lines of research, it would be interesting to compare these results
with the practices in other countries, as to check whether they are context-bound or are
related to teachers’ training in each country. Also, it would be of interest to disseminate
results in international gatherings to share these concerns and seek other literacy models
that are more focused on text-types and reading for pleasure. Finally, it is of paramount
importance to raise teachers’ awareness of their practices and the impact they have on their
students’ reading development. Teacher training efforts should be directed towards working
on their beliefs and practices and allowing them to discover new ways in which literacy can
be approached.
NOTES
1 The present study is part of the research work carried out as part of Erasmus+ project “Developing FL literacy
in CLIL contexts” (2018-1-PL01-KA201-050920)
REFERENCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS
Alhaisoni, E. (2017). Prior Knowledge in EFL Reading Comprehension: Native and Nonnative EFL
Teachers’ Perceptions, Classroom Strategies and Difficulties Encountered. International Journal
on Studies in English Language and Literature, 5(1), 30-41.
Bosha, T. B., & Ukute, D. Y. (2019). An Exploration into Teachers’ Perceptions towards the challenges
of Teaching Reading Skills using Communicative Language Teaching Approach: Focus on Wolaita
Sodo Preparatory School. Britain International of Linguistics Arts and Education (BIoLAE)
Journal, 1(1), 1-8.
Cabezuelo Gutiérrez, P. and Fernández Fernández, R. (2014). A case study on teacher training needs
in the Madrid bilingual project. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated
Learning, 7(2), 50-70. DOI:10.5294/laclil.2014.7.2.3 eISSN 2322-9721.
Carr-Hill, R. (2008). International literacy statistics. Montreal, Quebec: UNESCO Institute for
Statistics.
85
Cekiso, M. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of reading instruction in selected primary schools in the
Eastern Cape. Reading & Writing - Journal of the Reading Association of South Africa, 8(1), 1-
8.
Coonan, C.M. (2007). Insider Views of the CLIL Class through Teacher Self-Observation-
Introspection. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 625-646.
Copeland, S. and Keefe, E. (2007). Effective literacy instruction for students with moderate or severe
disabilities. Baltimore, Md.: P.H. Brookes Pub.
Coyle, D., Marsh, D. and Hood, P. (2010). CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cullinan, B. E. (2000). Independent reading and school achievement. Research Journal of the
American Association of School Librarians, 3, 1-24.
Dalton-Puffer, C. and Smit, U. (2013). Content and Language Integrated Learning: A research
agenda, Language Teaching, 46: pp. 545—559.
De Graaff, R., Jan Koopman, G., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective
L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603-624.
Dobson, A., Pérez, M., & Johnstone, R. (2010). Bilingual Education Project (Spain): Evaluation Report.
Madrid, Spain: British Council.
Fernández Fernández, R.; Pena Díaz, C.; García Gómez, A.; and Halbach, A. (2005). La implantación
de los proyectos educativos bilingües en la Comunidad de Madrid: las expectativas del
profesorado antes de iniciar el proyecto. Porta Linguarum, 3, 161-173.
Fernández Fernández, R. and Halbach, A. (2010). Analysing the situation of teachers in the CAM
bilingual project after five years of implementation. In Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.; Sierra, J.M. and
Gallardo del Puerto, F. (eds.) Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions
to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang.
García, O., Bartlett, L., and Kleifgen, J. (2007). From biliteracy to pluriliteracies, 5, 207-228.
Goodley, D. (2007). Towards socially just pedagogies: Deleuzoguattarian critical disability studies.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(3), 317-334.
Halbach, A. (2018) A literacy approach to language teaching: a proposal for FL teaching in CLIL
contexts. PULSO, 41: pp. 205-223.
Heick, T. (2015). The Definition Of Digital Literacy. [online] TeachThought. Available at:
https://www.teachthought.com/literacy/the-definition-of-digital-literacy/ [Accessed 19 Sep.
2019].
Jacobs, H. (2014). Active literacy across the curriculum: Strategies for reading, writing, speaking,
and listening. Routledge: Eye on education.
Jia, Y., Eslami, Z. R., and Burlbaw, L. M. (2006). ESL teachers' perceptions and factors influencing
their use of classroom-based reading assessment. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 407-430.
Johnson, M. (2012). Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs: A Case Study in a Tertiary Setting. Pulso, 35,
49-74.
Krashen, S. (2013). Access to Books and Time to Read versus the Common Core State Standards
and Tests. English Journal, 103 (2), 21-29.
Lawton, D. and Gordon, V. (1996). Dictionary of education. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Lorenzo, F. and P. Moore (2010). On the natural emergence of language structures in CLIL. Towards
a theory of European educational bilingualism. In Dalton-Puffer, C.; T. Nikula and U. Smit (eds).
Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. (pp. 23-38).
Lunsford, A., Moglen, H. and Slevin, J. (1990). The Right to literacy. New York: Modern Language
Association of America.
Nachmania, L. (2016). EFL Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices Regarding Reading Instruction in a
Multi-Cultural Environment. Future academy, 18 (4), 306-316.
Pavón Vázquez, V. (2014). Enhancing the Quality of CLIL: Making the best of the collaboration
between language teachers and content teachers. Encuentro, 23, 115-127.
86
Pladevall 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. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2013.874972
Recio, P., & León, J. A. (2015). La lectura en un contexto bilingüe: fluidez y comprensión lectora en
alumnos de 1 y 4 de primaria. Psicología Educativa, 21(1), 47-53.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (2005) Making Meaning with Texts: Selected Essays. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.; Sierra, J.M.; and Gallardo del Puerto, F. (eds.) (2011) Content and foreign
language integrated learning: contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Bern:
Peter Lang.
San Isidro, X. and Lasagabaster, D. (2018). The impact of CLIL on pluriliteracy development and
content learning in a rural multilingual setting: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching
Research, 23/5, 584-602. DOI: 10.1177/1362168817754103
Stoffelsma, L. and Spooren, W. (2019). The relationship between English Reading Proficiency and
Academic Achievement of First-Year Science and Mathematics Students in a Multilingual
Setting. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 905-992.
Travé González, G. (2013). Un estudio sobre las representaciones del profesorado de Educación
Primaria acerca de la enseñanza bilingüe. Revista de Educación, 361, 379-402.
Wagner, D. (1992). World Literacy: Research and Policy in the EFA Decade. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 520(1), 12-26.
Whitten, C.; Labby, S. and Sullivan, S.L. (2016). The impact of Pleasure Reading on Academic
Success. The Journal of Multidisciplinary Graduate Research, 2(4), 48-64.
Wiggins, J. and McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by Design. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson.
