CLIL or “just good teaching” in Kazakhstan?

¿AICLE o solo “buena enseñanza” en Kazajistán?

Laura Karabassova

Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education, Kazakhstan

laura.karabassova@nu.edu.kz

ABSTRACT

CLIL is an approach in which an additional language is used to teach non-language subjects in the

curriculum. Despite the fact that this approach has been implemented for more than two decades,

there is still a dearth of research on CLIL pedagogies. This article reports on results of research into

the implementation of CLIL in an elite school in Kazakhstan, which provides instruction to gifted

students in three languages. The research examined teachers’ practices of CLIL with the focus on

the design of CLIL lessons, the way to integrate language focus, comprehension support as well as

strategies for promoting interaction among students. The findings of the study indicate that teachers

tended to perceive CLIL as just teaching through an additional language. Even if they implemented

CLIL strategies, they did not always realize they were using them or did not attribute those

techniques to CLIL. This may suggest that most of the strategies and methods recommended for

quality CLIL implementation are common to good teaching practices not necessarily specific to CLIL.

Keywords: CLIL lessons, CLIL implementation, language focus, teaching practices

RESUMEN

AICLE es un enfoque en el que se utiliza un idioma adicional para enseñar materias no lingüísticas

en el curriculo. A pesar de que este enfoque se ha aplicado durante más de dos décadas, todavía

hay una escasez de investigación sobre las pedagogías de AICLE. Este artículo informa sobre los

resultados de la investigación sobre la aplicación de AICLE en una escuela de élite de Kazajistán,

que imparte instrucción a estudiantes dotados en tres idiomas. La investigación examinó las

prácticas de los profesores de AICLE, centrándose en el diseño de las clases de AICLE, la forma de

integrar el enfoque lingüístico, el apoyo a la comprensión y las estrategias para promover la

interacción entre los estudiantes. Los resultados del estudio indican que los profesores tendían a

percibir AICLE como una simple enseñanza a través de un idioma adicional. Aunque implementaron

las estrategias de AICLE, no siempre se dieron cuenta de que las estaban utilizando o no atribuyeron

esas técnicas a AICLE. Esto puede sugerir que la mayoría de las estrategias y métodos

recomendados para la implementación de AICLE de calidad son comunes a las buenas prácticas de

enseñanza no necesariamente específicas de AICLE.

Palabras clave: Clases AICLE, implementación de AICLE, enfoque en el idioma, prácticas de enseñanza

Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas (RNAEL) ISSN 1699-6569

Vol. 13 Núm. 27 (2019) doi: 10.26378/rnlael1327341

Recibido: 17/09/2019/ Aprobado: 22/10/2019

Publicado bajo licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento Sin Obra Derivada 4.0 Internacional

1. INTRODUCTION

CLIL is an approach in which an additional language is used to teach non-language subjects

in the curriculum. The fact that CLIL is usually linked to and identified with the previous

bilingual education models might be explained by some misconceptions leading to

confusing interpretations of this approach. Although CLIL shares characteristics with its

predecessors (Cenoz & Ruiz de Zarobe 2015; Somers & Surmount 2011), Canadian

immersion or American bilingual programmes ‘bear little resemblance to the study of

English through the CLIL programmes in Europe, particularly in terms of the sociolinguistic

and sociocultural context in which the L2 is learned and the authenticity of the input’

(Gallardo del Puerto et al. 2009, p. 65), a statement also supported by Lasagabaster and

Sierra (2010). Effectively, CLIL “synthesizes and provides flexible way of applying the

knowledge learnt from these various approaches” (Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, 2008, p. 12).

Yet, a dual focus of teaching on both content and language distinguishes CLIL from the

abovementioned approaches (Coyle, 2008; Dalton-Puffer, 2008; Marsh, 2000).

Despite the fact that this approach has been implemented for more than two decades,

there is still a dearth of research on CLIL pedagogies.” (San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019).

Coyle, Holmes and King (2009) recommended a range of CLIL strategies for supporting

students` comprehension in L2 and developing language. These strategies include the use

of contextual clues, activating existing knowledge, reading strategies, speaking and writing

scaffolds, inquiry-oriented tasks, graphic organizers and other types of visuals as well as a

thoughtful use of code-switching which are considered features of a successful CLIL lesson.

Emerged as a way of promoting linguistic diversity and competitiveness in Europe,

CLIL has become increasingly widespread in other parts of the world. Vazquez and Ellison

(2013) warn that “the popularity of CLIL should not be mistaken for something that is easy

to implement and deliver” (p. 67). As the interest in CLIL continues to grow, it is important

to explore how the approach is enacted in actual classrooms which testify whether actual

teaching practices support broad educational goals claimed to enhance the quality of

learning.

This article reports on results of research into the implementation of CLIL in an elite

school in Kazakhstan, which provides instruction to gifted students in three languages. The

research examined teachers’ practices of CLIL with the focus on the design of CLIL lessons,

the language focus, comprehension support as well as strategies for promoting interaction

among students. Given the scarcity of research evidence on the practices of CLIL in

classrooms, it is important to answer the question of how CLIL works through describing

practices and strategies that teachers implement in L2 and L3 classes to reinforce content

and language learning.

The study set out to answer the following research questions:

1. How do teachers in the trilingual context implement CLIL?

2. What are the most common CLIL strategies as implemented by teachers?

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Stakeholders` perceptions have received a significant amount of attention in CLIL research

(e.g., Aguilar & Rodriguez, 2011; Dafouz, Hüttner, & Smit, 2016; Hüttner, Dalton-Puffer &

Smit, 2013; Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2016; Pena Diaz & Porto Pequejo, 2007; Pladevall-

Ballester, 2015; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019; Skinnari & Bovellan, 2016). Fewer

studies (Aguilar & Rodriguez, 2012; Coonan, 2007; Cross & Gearon, 2013; Mehisto & Asser,

2007; Nikula, 2015) have addressed the implementation of CLIL in practice, including

master`s and doctoral dissertations (Herescu, 2012; LaPrairie, 2014; Savikj, 2013). In

these studies, the following aspects of CLIL have particularly attracted researchers’

attention: integration techniques, activities and strategies that characterize CLIL, the mode

of classroom interaction, and the use of languages.

2. 1 Enacting integration: practices and strategies

The way integration is manifested throughout all stages of the lesson and features of a CLIL

lesson have not received a great deal of empirical attention. What is known to us from

previous research is the various practices and strategies teachers applied to support

students’ comprehension in L2. These strategies served different purposes, including

presenting new lesson input, checking student comprehension, or extending

understanding. They can be grouped into the following categories: teaching subject-

specific vocabulary, strategies for supporting comprehension (e.g., adapting delivery rate

and repeating concepts, dramatization), promotion of interaction, non-verbal strategies

(i.e., diagrams, concept maps, etc.), and use of L1 (i.e., code-switching and

translanguaging).

Research indicates that teaching subject-specific vocabulary is one of the most

common ways of integration in CLIL classes which are mainly content-driven. However,

the focus on subject-specific language tended to be incidental as this happened unplanned

when teachers realized that students needed subject vocabulary to comprehend lesson

input (Herescu, 2012; Savikj, 2013). Nikula (2015) investigated the potential of hands-on

tasks in CLIL Chemistry and Physics lessons as sites for learning and using subject-specific

language in Finnish schools. Despite the evident content orientation in the Science tasks,

language was present in the handling of those tasks. In particular, the study revealed that

pre-task and post-task stages had more space for promoting the use of subject-specific

language than hands-on tasks that involved more indexical language use, although the

language focus remained implicit during the classes.

Adjusting the pace of speaking and lesson delivery is another strategy used for

supporting students` comprehension as found in the reviewed research. Aguilar and

Rodriguez (2012) reported that university lecturers adopted a slower pace of delivery as a

way of facilitating student’s comprehension. However, even adapted utterances were not

found helpful by students who needed immediate translation of subject-specific terms from

the lecturer. At the school level, contradictory results were found regarding delivery rate.

According to Pladevall-Ballester (2015), primary school students could easily follow the

teacher when concepts were repeated many times, and teachers adjusted their pace of

speech, so the students could grasp them. The participating teachers reported that

students understood instructions well when they heard them frequently.

Along with adapting the pace of speech, when not being understood teachers use

dramatization. It is one of the strategies that work well in CLIL lessons (Cross & Gearon,

2013; Pladevall-Ballester, 2015). Teachers found it particularly useful for presenting new

content or ensuring student comprehension. In CLIL science lessons, dramatization can be

used for students to physically represent what happens, when physical substances are

exposed to different conditions. Drawing and using diagrams, concept maps and other

visuals have also been mentioned as strategies that assist teachers. Using diagrams or

images were particularly useful for low achievers, who could not follow classroom

instruction.

Furthermore, concept maps and flowcharts helped students understand the process

and facilitated oral presentation (Coonan, 2007). Those strategies were complemented by

other techniques such as giving further examples or synonyms, simplifying language

(Ferreira, 2011), letting students use monolingual dictionaries (Pladevall-Ballester, 2015),

or activating students’ prior knowledge (Cross & Gearon, 2013; Ferreira, 2011).

2.2 CLIL classroom interaction

The mode of interaction and organization of class work in CLIL settings have also garnered

some attention in CLIL research. Coonan (2007) reported that “student-student” and

“students-students” interaction activities were successfully implemented in Italian CLIL

programs. In those CLIL lessons, pair work or group work occupied from 30-40% to 70%

of the overall lesson time. “Teacher-student” interaction took from 30% to 60-70% of

instruction time. Interestingly, individual work was squeezed out. As a consequence of a

preference for pair and group work, the emphasis was on the development of reading and

speaking skills, and writing tasks were completed as homework. Cross and Gearon (2013)

stated that pair work created opportunities for scaffolding. This helped students practise

new language and check their understanding through the interaction with other students.

Conversely, in a case study of English-medium education, LaPrairie (2014) found that

the interaction in CLIL classrooms was limited to teacher-initiated questions and one-word

student answers, given in chorus. Instructional approaches were described as non-

interactive, teacher-led, and content-based, which provide little opportunity for students

to talk. LaPrairie concluded that the Bhutanese teachers’ adherence to traditional methods

of teaching may be explained by the teachers’ expectations for traditional teacher-student

roles. Limited interactions were also reported by Aguilar and Rodriguez (2012) in the study

of a CLIL program at a Spanish university. Due to both teachers’ and students’ low level

of communicative competence in the target language and the lack of interaction

opportunities for students, students could not interact with their Erasmus peers who had a

good command of English.

2.3 Language choices and the use of L1 in CLIL classrooms

The use of L1 in CLIL classrooms is also a major issue documented in research (Coonan,

2007; Ferreira, 2011; Lasagabaster, 2015; Moore & Nikula, 2016; Wang & Kirkpatrick,

2012; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2018). Despite the overarching aim of CLIL to promote

bilingual skills, monolingual orientation was found in some CLIL programs. In such

contexts, the use of L1 was not accepted as a valid strategy. In a South African CLIL

program with English as the target language, Ferreira (2011) found that code switching

was not perceived as a useful practice, although teachers admitted to occasionally using

this technique. They explained the pointlessness of code switching by the fact that

assessment was in the target language.

In a similar vein, a case study (Wang & Kirkpatrick, 2012) of trilingual education in

Hong Kong revealed negative attitudes toward code-switching. Some experienced teachers

noted that eventually students became accustomed to the teacher’s instructions in English.

Although teachers perceived code-switching as a “bad” practice, they allowed students to

use their mother tongue when they encountered difficulties in discussions as they were

concerned with covering the subject content in the given time. Because of such practices,

instruction in English became a mere formality, as students, knowing that an explanation

in L1 was coming, often ignored L2 instructions, waiting for the L1 support.

While the first group of studies indicates more negative attitudes towards cod-

switching, the second set of studies emphasizes the strategic use of both languages in the

lesson. Moore and Nikula (2016) used the term “translanguaging” to describe a pedagogic

practice involving the deliberate alternance of languages. They considered translanguaging

as a tool for integrating content and language. In a study of secondary school in three

countries, Finland, Spain, and Austria, Moore and Nikula (2016) explored translanguaging

practices in CLIL classrooms. They found that translanguaging was perceived as a salient

practice since it may reinforce meaning and content-specific terminology, especially when

students are learning new content through an L2. Along with explicit language focus,

translanguaging can be found a useful strategy for maintaining the flow of interaction.

Over the last decade, different aspects of CLIL practices have been garnering research

attention. However, most of reviewed studies describe classroom practices from the

teachers` perspectives, relying on surveys and interviews. Studies which specifically

focused on characteristics and stages of CLIL lessons through classroom observations are

still scarce.

Sketching out several research tasks for further CLIL research at the national and local

levels, Dalton-Puffer and Smit (2013) suggested looking into actual CLIL practices of any

subject area taught in any language. The scholars stressed that more empirical studies are

needed in pedagogical designs and the teaching/learning arrangements which characterize

CLIL lessons, including explicit language-teaching episodes.

3. RESEARCH SETTING

The present research was conducted in the network of 20 state funded elite Nazarbayev

Intellectual Schools (NIS) in Kazakhstan. The network was established in 2008 to serve as

“agents of change,” and the platform for testing the multilingual educational model

(Nazarbayev, 2010) and 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. The NIS network develops its own

curriculum, learning resources, assessment and professional development for teachers.

NIS also enjoy levels of funding considerably higher than do mainstream schools, as they

currently enroll 0.4% of all Kazakhstani students at a unit cost of more than three times

the national average (OECD, 2015).

NIS declared trilingual education their hallmark, and explicitly defined CLIL as a

significant component of trilingual education. The content of the NIS curriculum is generally

focused on in-depth study of Science and Mathematics. At NIS, there are two streams

divided by the main medium of instruction which 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, 2018a).

The NIS Central Office has provided CLIL training for teachers and developed teacher

guidelines for implementing CLIL. The guidelines suggest that the integration of content

and language learning requires teachers’ changing the way they traditionally teach. This

includes articulating language learning objectives for each lesson and discussing them with

students ((AEO NIS, 2013). Furthermore, the guidelines also recommend teachers

developing academic language and subject-specific terminology, using scaffolding,

translanguaging techniques, and the adaptation of texts among other CLIL strategies.

The data were collected in Parassat NIS, situated in the City of Ken Dala (pseudonyms)

in Western Kazakhstan. Parassat NIS is a typical case representing the average school in

the network, and unlike schools in the Russian-dominating North or Kazakh-dominating

South, the population of this region speaks both Kazakh and Russian (Committee on

Statistics, 2015). Like other schools in the network, Parassat NIS was specifically designed

and built to be an Intellectual School and outfitted with the cutting-edge school equipment

and facilities.

4. METHODS

The research reported in this paper was part of a larger study to explore teachers

conceptualization and implementation of CLIL in the network of NIS. To explore subject

teachers’ conceptions and classroom practices of CLIL, a qualitative multiple case study

design was employed, which is aimed at examining a phenomenon “in depth and within its

real-world context” (Yin, 2014, p. 16), using multiple sources of evidence.

The participants were purposefully selected based on length of teaching experience in

the network, language of instruction, and received CLIL training. Thus, teachers who

worked at NIS for at least 2 years and received some CLIL training, taught subjects through

Kazakh (L2), Russian (L2) or English (L3) were targeted for this study.

The five teachers, selected for the study were referred to by the pseudonyms Ainur, Aisha,

Zhadyra, Kuralay, and Paul. Their profiles are summarized in Table 1 (Karabassova,

2018b). Except for Paul, an international teacher, all the participating teachers were

Kazakhstani, and women. Ainur and Kuralay instructed through Kazakh L1 and L2, Aisha

through Russian L1 and L2, Zhadyra through Russian L1 and English, and Paul taught

exclusively in English L3. Zhadyra and Paul often taught in a team with other teachers who

are not included in this study (bilingual team teaching).

The data collection took place in the school year 2016-2017. The data in this study

came from semi-structured face-to-face interviews and classroom observations which

focused on CLIL practices. Moreover, teachers’ lesson plans and classroom artifacts were

reviewed for complementing the data. Three interviews and at least one lesson observation

was conducted with each participating teacher.

Two interviews were conducted prior to and one interview, after classroom

observations in Kazakh, Russian and English based on the participants' preferences. The

type of observation employed was non-participant, which involved the researcher sitting in

the back of the room out of the direct line of vision of the students. Given the purpose to

develop a holistic and detailed understanding of the implementation of CLIL, the technique

of thick description, described as “deep, dense, detailed accounts” (Denzin, 1989, p. 83)

of the practices observed was used. In this study, thick descriptions involved using an

observation protocol which allowed the researcher to watch the lessons as taught, and to

take detailed observation notes. Flexible as it was, the observation protocol framework

highlighted important aspects, such as integration techniques, comprehension support

strategies, classroom interaction and the use of languages.

Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Based on teachers’ preferences,

classroom observations were protocoled without videotaping. The data were analyzed

through thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is “a method for identifying, analyzing, and

reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 6). The reason for

choosing thematic analysis is its flexibility in defining themes in various ways.

Teacher

Ainur

Aisha

Zhadyra

Kuralay

Paul

Kazakh

Russian

Kazakh

English

Degree/

Country

BA and MA in

History/

Kazakhstan

Specialist

Diploma in

History/

Kazakhstan

Specialist

Diploma in

Chemistry/

Kazakhstan

BA in Geography/

Kazakhstan

Postgraduate

Diploma in

Physics/ United

Kingdom

Teaching

experience

10 years

20 years

15 years

10 years

17 years

NIS teaching

experience

3,5 years

3 years

2 years

Subject taught

History of

Kazakhstan

World History

Chemistry

Geography

Physics

Language of

instruction

Kazakh

Russian

Kazakh-

English

Russian-

English

Kazakh

English

CLIL training

with an

international

trainer

2 workshops

with an

international

trainer

with an

international

trainer

with a school

colleague

none

Table 1. Participants` Profile (the names are pseudonyms)

5. FINDINGS

5.1 “CLIL or just teaching through another language”

The analysis of data from interviews, observations and teachers' documents across cases

indicated that the general design of the observed L2 or L3 lessons, basically, did not differ

from traditional non-CLIL classes. Teachers admitted that they had the same lesson plan

for two different cohorts who received instruction in L1 and L2. For instance, the Kazakh

history teacher taught in both Kazakh L1 and Kazakh L2 classes. The same is was true for

the world history teacher.

The course of the lesson and learning was determined by content topics indicated in

the curriculum which was the same for both streams divided by the language of instruction.

The review of lesson plans showed that all the participating teachers followed a similar

outline of lesson planning, and had specific content learning objectives, which could be

defined as measurable, specific and time-bound. For instance, in Aisha`s (RMI)1 revision

lesson of world history, the learning objectives included “summarizing the impact of

historical process on people’s mind, understanding the patterns of historical process and

evaluating the role of an individual in history” (Lesson Plan, Aisha, May 14, 2016).

Although, in practice, the observed lessons did not differ from traditional content

lessons, the teachers’ lesson plans were different from the ones used in mainstream schools

in Kazakhstan. Within their detailed lesson plans, which had to be approved by the subject

leader, the participating teachers designated a separate line to lesson aims which

practically repeated the learning objectives. Success criteria were another interesting

component of lesson plan which was sometimes shared with students in relation to

assessment. In addition, teachers indicated cross-curricular links, the ICT skills

development and prior learning determined by the theme of the lesson. During the

interviews, Ainur (KMI)2, Aisha (RMI) and Kuralay (KMI) who instructed in both L1 and L2

classes, mentioned that they prepared one lesson plan for both cohorts since the curriculum

content, assessment requirements and tasks were the same for CLIL and non-CLIL classes,

despite CLIL students’ having language deficiencies. According to the teachers, both CLIL

and L1 teachers in the school had the same lesson plan form.

Notwithstanding rigorous content planning, teachers did not tend to equally emphasize

language learning objectives. During the observations, no language learning objectives

were shared with the students. In general, Ainur (KMI), Aisha (RMI), Zhadyra (EMI)3 and

Kuralay (KMI), who had attended some CLIL workshops, seemed to know what language

learning objectives were, and how to include them in their lesson plans. In a pre-

observation interview, while discussing the Grade 7 lesson about the development of the

Kazakh music arts in the 19th century, Ainur generically mentioned the development of

listening, reading, speaking, and writing skills as language objectives to be pursued in the

upcoming class. However, in her lesson plan, she indicated different language aspects,

which stipulated the use of subject-specific vocabulary and phrases for communication and

writing (Lesson Plan, Ainur, May 10, 2016). In the actual lesson, yet nonetheless, none of

the planned language aspects received explicit attention.

Aisha’s lesson plan briefly mentioned language objectives in the following way: “terms

and concepts covered during the term” (Lesson Plan, Aisha, May 10, 2016). Paul, who did

not have any CLIL training, did not share his lesson plan, and no language learning

objectives were made explicit to students during the class. Similar to her colleague Ainur,

Kuaralay highlighted specific phrases and chunks of sentences as language focus of her

geography lesson in Grade 10. However, explicit focus on language skills was not evident

during the lesson observed. The chemistry teacher, Zhadyra, who planned and taught

lessons in a team with Elaine4, a foreign teacher partner, had more detailed language

learning objectives in her lesson plan. However, as the observations revealed, Zhadyra and

Elaine did not draw their students’ attention to language objectives, and did not reflect on

their achievement, despite the fact that success criteria for content learning were clearly

articulated and discussed during classes.

5.2 “Incidental focus on subject-specific vocabulary”

The analysis of teachers’ lesson plans, interviews and lesson observations revealed that the

most common way of integration that the participating teachers adopted was attention to

language through incidental focus on subject-specific vocabulary. The integration of content

and language was not systematically planned. The language received the teachers’

attention only when they wanted to ensure that students understood the meaning of key

words important for learning a new topic, to check that students mastered previously

learned terms, and when they corrected language errors in their students’ speech. Ainur

(KMI) and Aisha (RMI) placed a focus on language through verbal scaffolding, although it

tended to be incidental. In her class of Kazakh history, announcing the topic of the lesson,

Ainur discussed the meaning of several key words with the class, since they were central

to the new content to be learned. While individual students read the content learning

objectives aloud as she requested, Ainur drew students’ attention to the meaning of

unknown words and key words in Kazakh such as bai (prosperous man) and zhyrau (poet):

“Gyus, what does the word bai mean? Who is a zhyrau?” However, those words were not

practiced or consolidated any further (Observation, May 10, 2016).

In Aisha’s class of world history in Grade 8, the language focus involved emphasizing

the correct usage of words through rectifying incorrect words or word stress. She

recognized that her students had a good proficiency of Russian L2 already, and she required

them to speak as accurately as possible. While checking a task with the class, Aisha tried

to correct language errors or elicit correct answers from the students:

Aisha: Let’s check. So, Group 1, what is your heading? (R)5

Group 1: The heading of our text is “The history of the origins [proishojdeniya] X-rays” (R)

Aisha: Not the origins, but discovering [otkrytiya](R) (Observation, May 15, 2016).

Science teachers, Zhadyra (EMI) and Paul (EMI) focused on the use of previously learned

subject terms through asking questions and giving definitions of terms. For instance, in

Zhadyra`s class of chemistry, taught in English, language received attention in the following

way:

Zhadyra: What is carbohydrate? (E)6

Class: A molecule consisting of carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) (E)

Zhadyra: What is hydrolysis? (E)

Class: Breaking chemical bonds by adding water. (E) (Observation, May 11, 2017).

Similar to his colleague, Zhadyra, Paul also tried to check the knowledge of subject terms. He

directed questions to individual students in English:

Paul: Alina, what is this? [points to the formula] (E)

Alina: Isotope stability. (E)

Paul: Askar, what is isotope stability? (E)

Askar: Can you repeat? (E)

Paul: What is isotope stability? (E) [speaks a little more slowly]

Askar: An isotope is stable if the ratio of protons to neutrons in the nucleus is right. (E)

(Observation, May 18, 2016)

Kuralay, who seemed to plan a lesson with some language aspects in mind, was the

exception among her colleagues, as she did not pay any explicit attention to subject

vocabulary during the observed classes.

While speaking was evident in all the observed classes, it was mostly limited to

providing short information as a response to the teacher’s questions. While in interviews

teachers mentioned that students’ speaking and the ability to express ideas were the most

important language skills in subject classes, no cases were observed in which students

were explicitly taught how to communicate and demonstrate their knowledge in the target

language. Writing in the target language found place in all the observed classes. However,

the teachers did not put emphasis on developing writing skills or the usage of important

subject-specific words, indicated in their lesson plans. Thus, writing tasks served as a way

of taking notes in a preparation for presentation or providing answers to questions posted

by the teacher.

Interestingly, activities aimed at developing reading and listening skills were also

featured in some observed classes. For instance, Aisha tried to strategically direct students

at working with a text. In her class, students worked in groups and with different texts

distributed at random by Aisha. Reading included two types of strategies, such as while-

reading and after-reading tasks. During the while-reading task, students were to formulate

a heading for the text, and give it to their group. After reading, students were asked to

formulate six types of question for the text: simple questions, specifying questions,

interpretation questions, creative questions, practical questions, and evaluative questions.

An attempt to develop students’ listening skills was observed in Ainur’s class. The

listening activity involved watching a video about a horse in the target language. The video

was played in the YouTube channel, and was apparently meant for wide Kazakh-speaking

audience. Students were divided into groups and each group was given a question about

the type of horse to be answered while listening to the information: Group 1: What is

zhaby?; Group 2: What is argymak?; and Group 3: What is kazan at? The video was played

only once. The questions required lower-order thinking skills, and straightforward answers.

Each group managed to answer the questions, and when asked, students estimated that

they had comprehended the material between 40% and 60%. However, the listening

material was not processed or elaborated any further.

5.3 “CLIL or just good teaching?”

While the integration of language was always implicit, the participating teachers

implemented practices and strategies intended to support students’ comprehension of

content material provided in the target language. Activating students’ prior knowledge was

one of the strategies that all the participating teachers implemented at the beginning of

the lesson. In her lesson about Service sectors in Kazakhstan, Kuralay set to tap into

students’ prior knowledge on the topic through getting them to discuss cover pages of

newspapers and magazines she displayed on the interactive board. She asked short

questions directed at individual students, allowing adequate “think time” between asking a

question in Kazakh and speaking for a second time:

Kuralay: Aizhan, what are the pictures about? (K)7

Aizhan: Newspapers and magazines. (K)

Kuralay: Alibek, what are newspapers and magazines for? (K)

Alibek: We receive information. (K)

Kuralay: Roumissa, what kind of information do you receive? (K)

Roumissa: About products and services. (K)

Kuralay: Assyl, what are the 2 branches of industry? (K)

Students: Production and manufacture. (K)

Kuralay: Does the service sector produce goods? (K)

Students (in chorus): No, no. (K) (Observation, May 10, 2016)

Lesson observations revealed that social science teachers used a range of various

strategies in order to elicit from students their existing knowledge and build knowledge

needed for accessing upcoming content. These strategies included discussing pictures,

listening to music, eliciting ideas about the upcoming activity and asking questions. Science

teachers in this study tended to use less varied activities, since they mainly asked short

questions at the activating stage. However, during pre-observation and post-observation

classes, none of the teachers mentioned activating prior knowledge as a CLIL-related

strategy and its role in CLIL classes.

In the class observations, spoken input by means of teacher explanation was the most

common mode of lesson input. Moreover, taken together, the participating teachers

exploited varied and multimodal input, including spoken, written, visual, and hands-on

materials. All of these materials were in the target language, and included pictures, cards,

diagrams, audio and video materials, realia, and experiment equipment and tools. During

the observed classes, social science teachers (Ainur, Aisha and Kuralay) used more

pictures, diagrams, video and audio materials. Among the three, Ainur was more skillful at

supporting students’ comprehension, as she made use of several visual materials, including

video and audio materials, pictures and posters. In her chemistry class, Zhadyra used

models of chemical bonds, experiment equipment, and materials for demonstrating

chemical reactions, including consumables, such as margarine, water and ethanol. In his

revision lesson, Paul mostly relied on spoken material in the form of teacher explanations

with PowerPoint slides although his subject, Physics would allow more space for contextual

support.

Moreover, to sustain students’ comprehension in L2 or L3, the participating teachers

tried to make some adjustment to the questions they asked, although they did not

recognize it as a special approach. During the observed lessons, they mainly asked short

questions and reiterated them when needed. These questions were essentially aimed at

checking quick facts and students’ prior knowledge, as well as assessing how well the

students understood the instructions for a particular task. Ainur (history) was the exception

in this respect as she also used questions that encouraged opinions, feelings, and prompted

learners to support their arguments. However, in the observed classes, the particularities

of learning content in L2 were not always taken into consideration. For instance, while

Kuralay, Aisha, and Paul tried to ask personalized questions, students answering often

answered the teacher`s questions as a whole class in Ainur and Zhadyra`s lessons.

Besides, Ainur, Kuralay, and Zhadyra often forgot to allow students adequate “think time”

for answering before moving to the next question. In addition, Kuralay, Aisha, and Paul

seemed to adjust their speaking pace to the level of their students to support them as L2

learners, although Ainur and Zhadyra tended to speak faster.

5.4 “One teacher-one language”

All the participating teachers tried to encourage interaction in the learning context through

providing opportunities for more pair and group work. In all the classes observed, students

mostly worked in pairs or groups, and teacher talking to the whole class was also prevalent.

In the observed classes, there were almost no individual tasks.

While students relied on each other’s help during the group work, the history teachers

Ainur (KMI) and Aisha (RMI) tried to ensure the participation of each student in discussions

and poster presentations. Yet, the instructional approaches observed can generally be

described as teacher-led, and focused on content input, which provided little opportunity

for students to talk. During group presentations, students seemed to present their work

to the teacher rather than to their peers, and they did not always listen to each other.

Sometimes, problems with classroom management seem to happen since the students

were noisy and did not listen to one another during group presentations. For instance, in

Ainur’s class, group activities sometimes created disorder and chaos. In a mingling activity,

Ainur distributed three different sets of texts containing information about the topic of the

lesson, to three groups. Each group read only its own set, and then was invited to the

centre of the classroom to share its information with the class. However, as the space of

the class was small, and the students did not receive clear instructions on how to share,

the task caused some chaotic movements around the classroom instead of leading to

maximized interaction among students.

As to approaches to classroom learning, it can be said that in most cases, classroom

remained orderly and teachers had traditional roles. While Ainur (KMI), Zhadyra (EMI) and

Paul (EMI) tried to give more autonomy to students and let them make their own decisions,

Aisha (RMI) and Kuralay (KMI) tended to retain full control of the classroom and directed

all activities. Aisha (RMI), on the other hand, could say “Stop!” to students in case of giving

incorrect answers to her questions, and immediately turn to other students without giving

the former a chance to come up with another answer. She could also prevent other students

answering questions while she was eliciting answers from individual students. For Kuralay

freedom of expression among students appeared to be a norm, and while being asked

about her students during the pre-observation interview, she said: “There is a student

named Abilmansur, he is very free and easy, he can express himself without any confusion

and hesitation” (Kuralay, Pre-O, May 10, 2016).

In all the classes, except for Zhadyra (EMI), who taught in a team, the target language

was exclusively used as a language of instruction. Classroom observations showed the

adherence of Ainur (KMI), Kuralay (KMI), and Paul (EMI) to the “one teacher-one language”

principle. Unexpectedly, these teachers used only the target language while providing

subject input and talking to students, although code-switching was a commonly occurring

phenomenon among students. The exceptional use of the target language by teachers was

explained by their belief in the necessity of exclusive use of the target language, and the

fact that the language in which they delivered instruction was their own first or strongest

language. During the lessons observed, students kept switching to their L1 while talking to

their peers or asking them for clarifications. Although Ainur and Kuralay (both KMI) tried

to avoid code-switching by reminding their students of the necessity to speak Kazakh L2,

students naturally switched codes between L1 and L2. In Zhadyra’s class taught in a team

with her international colleague, switching to students’ L1 was a norm. For instance, when

the international teacher, Elaine has had an activity in English, Zhadyra translated some of

the information covered by Elaine, into Russian. Zhadyra also checked her students`

conceptual understanding through asking questions in L1, Russian, and highlighting certain

aspects of content material.

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that consistent with the prior theory (Coyle, 2005; Dalton-Puffer,

2008), in the present study, CLIL was content-driven and the thematic content which was

at the heart of teaching, determined the course of lessons. Unlike typical CLIL programs

implemented in mainstream education, at NIS, CLIL was implemented through the highly

demanding curriculum. Thus, the learning was organized around enquiry-based learning

and critical thinking. Moreover, teachers always had specific and measurable content

learning objectives which they always shared with students. Given the importance of

fulfilling content-learning objectives, teachers always bore assessment in their mind

through discussing success criteria and reflecting on them at the end of the lesson.

The findings support the results of previous research conducted in other CLIL contexts,

which concluded that in practice, didactic design, and teaching structure of CLIL lessons

did not differ from traditional L1 lessons which focused on teaching content without any

focus on language (Dalton-Puffer, Huttner, Jexenflicker, Schindelegger & Smit, 2008;

Nikula, 2010). At the same time, lesson planning in the present study slightly differed from

traditional L1 classes, since language focus was indicated in almost all cases. In other

words, teachers who received some CLIL training, seemed to generally know what language

learning objectives were, although they were limited to be a formal requirement of lesson

planning.

Unlike rigorous content planning, in the observed CLIL lessons, language focus of CLIL

was implemented incidentally. The most common way of integration that the participating

teachers adopted was attention to language through focus on subject-specific vocabulary.

However, the integration of content and language was not systematically speech.

Furthermore, all tasks and activities used the planned, and language received the

teachers’ attention incidentally. In general, the study revealed differences across subject

areas in relation to teaching subject-specific language. Science teachers focused on subject

terms through asking direct questions, whereas social science teachers tried to focus on

the meaning of key words and corrected language errors in their students’ observed

classes, were in the target language and teachers tried to get their students to practice

speaking in the target language. Paradoxically, the potential of students’ L1 was not

recognized and exploited as a valid pedagogic tool. Teachers tended to prevent students

from switching to their L1, even though code-switching among students, especially during

group discussions, was a norm. While teachers emphasized the importance of students’

ability to communicate ideas, speaking skills were not explicitly taught in the observed

classes. Writing skills did not receive special attention, whereas there were episodes to

teach reading skills and listening skills.

As observations revealed, teachers in this study implemented strategies and activities

aimed at supporting their students’ comprehension in L2 or L3 instruction. However, during

post-observation interviews, teachers did not always realize they were using them, or did

not attribute those techniques to CLIL. This may be due to the fact that most of the

strategies and methods recommended for quality CLIL implementation are common to good

teaching practices not necessarily specific to CLIL. As Mehisto (2012) suggested that the

complexities of “trilingual education cannot be fully disentangled from the complexities of

education in general” (p. 1) and best practices in pedagogy should be applied in order to

provide support to students in CLIL.

Coyle (2005) suggested that in CLIL, the learning process is not limited to the

acquisition of knowledge, skills, and understanding, but rather it enables learners to

construct knowledge by themselves. In the classes observed, the cognitive demand of

tasks was not reduced for CLIL students because of language issues, even though the

curriculum was highly demanding. Moreover, collaboration among students was fostered

through a lot of pair and group work, leaving little space for individual work (Coonan, 2007).

Yet, in some cases, students were in a more receptive or more passive learning mode,

while the teacher was more active and speaking most of the time. Teachers mainly directed

all classroom activities with very few exceptions. However, instructional approaches could

not be entirely described as non-interactive, teacher-led, and content-based, providing

little opportunity for students to talk.

In this study, any notable language-related differences were not found in CLIL

classroom practice. Yet, the study suggests that teachers of social sciences who taught

through Kazakh L2 or Russian L2 were implementing more CLIL-supportive strategies than

science teachers who taught through English L3, even though diversity was observed

among the social science teachers in terms of the strategies they employed. This may be

because the social science teachers attended several trainings in general teaching practice

when joining the NIS network, and familiarized themselves with new approaches in

teaching. This finding is in line with Savikj’s (2013) conclusions, who found that teachers

of social sciences were more mindful of the language focus of CLIL than science teachers

were. The disparity between social science teachers’ CLIL-orientation and that of Science

teachers can be explained by the fact that the former attended a CLIL workshop at the

beginning of their career at Parassat NIS. This might point out the fact that they are less

resistant to the idea of integration, and learned how to implement some CLIL strategies,

although they might not always be consistent in implementing them.

The findings from this study suggest some implications for policy, practice, research

and theory of CLIL. It is well-known that the rationale for adopting CLIL is improving

students’ language competences and the ability to use language for meaningful purposes

through placing equal focus on both content and language. Moreover, learning subjects

through another language brings with it challenges for students. Thus, it is important for

teachers to support students’ comprehension, simultaneously developing their language

skills. Teachers should be able to plan clear language learning objectives for each lesson

and make them explicit to students. Despite CLIL being a new pedagogical approach for

NIS teachers, the study revealed that the participating teachers have not been properly

trained to implement this new form of pedagogy. This points to the need of a more

systematic approach to CLIL teacher training.

This study contributes to the theory of CLIL through revealing the “incidental” nature

of applying CLIL strategies. While CLIL literature suggests that subject teachers

systematically plan and implement strategies aimed at sustaining students’ comprehension

and developing language skills, the findings indicate that in practice, teachers implement

CLIL incidentally. The “incidental” nature of implementation was manifested in the fact that

teachers did not systematically plan to achieve specific language learning objectives and

share them with their students. Even if they did implement practices that fit in with quality

CLIL implementation, they were not aware of them, or did not attribute them to CLIL.

Incidental implementation of CLIL may be explained by two factors. As this study has

revealed, not all teachers were provided with adequate CLIL training. Thus, they may be

implementing specific strategies they learned during short workshops. Second, most of the

strategies outlined as practices of CLIL are part of general “good pedagogy.” Every new

teacher joining the NIS network receives substantial training in innovative teaching

approaches and generally good practices. Given the fact that CLIL “synthesizes and

provides a flexible way of applying the knowledge learnt from these various approaches”

(Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, 2008, p. 12), could the implication be that CLIL, in substance,

constitutes general good pedagogy, and that the strategies which are specific to CLIL make

CLIL stand out as a distinctive approach.

Given that the data for this study were collected at the end of the school year, any

students were not observed who were left behind the class due to limited language

proficiency, although it was difficult to assess the students’ language proficiency based on

one or two lesson observations. It would be more appropriate to conduct longitudinal

studies, observing students throughout their schooling at NIS: from Grade 7 students`

experience of L2 and L3 instruction when they join the NIS for the first time to their

graduation in Grade 12, in order to see their progress and its relation to CLIL.

NOTES

1 Russian is a medium of instruction

2 Kazakh is a medium of instruction

3 English is a medium of instruction

4 Pseudonym

5 Russian

6 English

7 Kazakh

REFERENCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS

AEO NIS (2013). Integration of Content and Language: Guidance for Teachers. Astana: AEO NIS.AEO

NIS (2014). Annual report AEO "Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools" – 2014. Astana: AEO NIS.

Retrieved from http://nis.edu.kz /en/about/reports/?id=2817.

Aguilar, M., & Rodríguez, R. (2012). Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish

university. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(2), 183-197.

Cenoz, J. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2015). Way forward in the twenty-first century in content-based

instruction: moving towards integration. Language, Culture and Curriculum 28, 90-96.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London:

Routledge.

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.

Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in

content and language integrated learning contexts. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning

through a foreign language. London: CILT.

Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: towards a theory of practice, APAC Monograph 6, Barcelona:

APAC.

Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda

for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543-

562.

Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. Hornberger,

N. H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2 ed., Vol. 4, pp. 97-112). Berlin:

Springer-Verlag Berlin.

Coyle, D., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum: CLIL national statements

and guidelines. London: The Languages Company.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and

qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Cross, R., & Gearon, M. (2004). Second language teacher education: Sociocultural directions for the

future. Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne.

Retrieved from https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2004/cro04254.pdf

[CUP/Cambridge University Press ELT]. (2010, November 11). David Marsh on CLIL [Video File].

Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Czdg8-6mJA.

Dafouz, E., Hüttner, J., & Smit., U. (2016). University teachers’ beliefs on language and content

integration in English-medium education in multilingual university settings. In T. Nikula, C.

Dalton-Puffer, P. Moore & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual

education (pp. 123-144), Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning

(CLIL): current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L.Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives

for English language teaching (pp. 139-157). Carl Winter.

Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: A research

agenda. Language Teaching, 46(04), 545-559.

Dalton-Puffer, C., Huttner, J., Jexenflicker, S., Schindelegger, V., & Smit, U. (2008). Content and

language integrated learning an Osterreichs Hoheren Technischen Lehranstalten.

Forschungsbericht. Vienna, Austria: Universitat Wien & Bundesministerium fur Unterricht,

Kultur und Kunst.

Denzin, N.K. (1989). Interpretive Interactionism. Sage, Newbury Park.

De Zarobe, Y. R. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque

country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 60-73.

Gallardo del Puerto, F., Gómez Lacabex, E., & García Lecumberri, M.L. (2009). Testing the

effectiveness of content and language integrated learning in foreign language contexts: The

assessment of English pronunciation. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, & R. M. Jiménez (Eds.), Content

and language integrated learning. Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 63-80). Bristol:

Multilingual Matters.

Herescu, R. (2012): An Investigation into the views and practices of teachers of Content and

Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Romania in E. Esch, & M. Solly. (Eds.), The

Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International Contexts. Berne: Peter Lang.

Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their

influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual

Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267-284.

Karabassova, L. (2018a). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Kazakhstan: Case

studies of five teachers at a Nazarbayev Intellectual School (NIS). (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation), Graduate School of Education, Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan.

Karabassova, L. (2018b). Teachers` conceptualization of content and language integrated learning

(CLIL): evidence from a trilingual context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism, 21 (7), 1-13.

LaPrairie, M. (2014). A case study of English-medium education in Bhutan (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation), Institute of Education, University of London, London, UK.

Lasagabaster, D. (2015). Different educational approaches to bi- or multilingualism and their effect

on language attitudes. In M. Juan-Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Ed.), Content-based language

learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 13–30). Berlin: Springer.

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J.M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: more differences than

similarities. ELT Journal 64, 376-395.

Lasagabaster, D. & Doiz, A. (2016). CLIL students' perceptions of their language learning process:

delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences. Language Awareness,

25(1-2), 110-126.

Marsh, D. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): A Development trajectory.

Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba, Spain.

Mehisto, P., & Asser, H. (2007). Stakeholder perspectives: CLIL programme management in

Estonia. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 683-701

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL content and language integrated

learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.

Mehisto, P. (2012). High impact influences: considerations for trilingual education, Paper publication

for NIS Astana conference. Astana: AEO NIS.

Nazarbayev, N. (2010). Decree of the President of the RoK. No. 922 2010. Retrieved from

www.akorda.kz

Nikula, T. (2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language

use and learning. System, 54, 14-27.

OECD/The World Bank (2015). OECD reviews of school resources: Kazakhstan 2015, Paris: OECD

Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264245891-en.

Pena Díaz, C., & Porto Requejo, M. D. (2008). Teacher beliefs in a CLIL education project. Porta

Linguarum, 10, 151-161.

Pladevalll-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.

San Isidro, X. & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). Code-switching in a CLIL multilingual setting: a longitudinal

qualitative study. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1-21.

10.1080/14790718.2018.1477781.

San Isidro, X. & Lasagabaster, D. (2019). Monitoring of Teachers’ Views on Both CLIL and the

Development of Pluriliteracies: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study. English Language Teaching,

12, 1-16. 10.5539/elt.v12n2p1.

Savikj, B. (2013). Integration or non-integration? A multiple case-study of the conceptions and

practices of teachers of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in a secondary school

in Macedonia. (Master`s thesis). University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.

Skinnari, K., & Bovellan, E. (2016). CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and about their

professional roles: Perspectives from a European Context. In T. Nikula, C. Dalton-

Puffer, P. Moore, & U. Smit. (Ed.), Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual

Education (pp.145-167), Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Somers, T. & Surmont, J. (2011). CLIL and immersion: how clear-cut are they? ELT Journal 66(1),

113-116.

Vazquez, V., P., & Ellison, M. (2013). Examining teacher roles and competences in content and

language integrated learning (CLIL). Lingvarvum Arena, 4, 65 – 78.