![3D"Imagen](3D"3.Karabassova2_archivos/image001.jpg")
![3D"Cuadro](3D"3.Karabassova2_archivos/image002.gif")
CLIL or
“just good teaching” in Kazakhstan?
¿=
AICLE
o solo “buena ense&n=
tilde;anza”
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 resea=
rch
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 st=
udy
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 fo=
rma
de integrar el enfoque lingüístico, el apoyo a la
comprensión y las estrategias para promover la interacción en=
tre
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 pr&aacut=
e;cticas
de enseñanza no necesariamente específicas de AICLE.
Palabras
clave: Clases AICLE, implementación de AICLE, enfoque en el idioma,
prácticas de enseñanza
1. INTRODUCTION <= o:p>
CLIL is an approach in which an additional languag=
e 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 mode=
ls
might be explained by some misconceptions leading to confusing interpretati=
ons
of this approach. Although CLIL shares characteristics with its predecessor=
s (Cenoz & Ruiz de Zarobe 2015;
Somers & Surmount 2011), Canadian immersion or American bilingual programmes ‘bear little resemblance to the stud=
y of
English through the CLIL programmes in Europe,
particularly in terms of the sociolinguistic and sociocultural context in w=
hich
the L2 is learned and the authenticity of the input’ (Gallardo del Pu=
erto
et al. 2009, p. 65), a statement also supported by Las=
agabaster
and Sierra (2010). Effectively, CLIL “synthesizes and provides flexib=
le
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<=
/span> this approach has been implemented for more than two decades, there=
is
still a dearth of research on CLIL pedagogies.” (San Isidro &
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 popular=
ity
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 appr=
oach
is enacted in actual classrooms which testify whether actual teaching pract=
ices
support broad educational goals claimed to enhance the quality of learning.=
This article reports on results of research into t=
he
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 less=
ons,
the language focus, comprehension support as well as strategies for promoti=
ng
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 implem=
ent
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 teache=
rs?
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Stakeholders` perceptions have received a signific=
ant
amount of attention in CLIL research (e.g., Aguilar & Rodriguez, 2011; =
Dafouz, Hüttner, &am=
p; Smit,
2016; Hüttner, Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2=
013; Lasagabaster & Doiz, =
2016;
Pena Diaz & Porto Pequejo, 2007; Pladevall-Ballester, 2015; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019; Skinnari
& Bovellan, 2016). Fewer studies (Aguilar &=
amp;
Rodriguez, 2012; Coonan, 2007; Cross & Gearon,
2013; Mehisto & Asser, 2007; Nikula,
2015) have addressed the implementation of CLIL in practice, including mast=
er`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 strate=
gies
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 grea=
t 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 follo=
wing
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 wh=
ich
are mainly content-driven. Ho=
wever,
the focus on subject-specific language tended to be incidental as this happ=
ened
unplanned when teachers realized that students needed subject vocabulary to=
comprehend
lesson input (Herescu, 2012; Savikj,
2013). N=
ikula
(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 t=
he
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.
Along with adapting the pace of speech, when not b=
eing
understood teachers use dramatization.&nbs=
p;
It is one of the strategies that work well in CLIL lessons (Cross &a=
mp; Gearon, 2013; Pladevall-Balleste=
r,
2015). Teachers found it
particularly useful for presenting new content or ensuring student
comprehension. In CLIL science lessons, dramatization can be used for stude=
nts
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 part=
icularly
useful for low achievers, who could not follow classroom instruction.
Furthermore, concept maps and flowc=
harts
helped students understand the process and facilitated oral presentation
(Coonan, 2007). Those strateg=
ies
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 g=
roup
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 wo=
rk,
the emphasis was on the development of reading and speaking skills, and wri=
ting
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 oth=
er
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 a=
nd
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. LaPrair=
ie
concluded that the Bhutanese teachers’ adherence to traditional metho=
ds
of teaching may be explained by the teachers’ expectations for tradit=
ional
teacher-student roles. Limited
interactions were also reported by Aguilar and Rodriguez (2012) in the stud=
y of
a CLIL program at a Spanish university.&nb=
sp;
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 i=
ssue
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 pro=
mote
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 wi=
th
English as the target language, Ferreira (2011) found that code switching w=
as
not perceived as a useful practice, although teachers admitted to occasiona=
lly
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 experien=
ced
teachers noted that eventually students became accustomed to the
teacher’s instructions in English. Although teachers perceived code-s=
witching
as a “bad” practice, they allowed students to use their mother
tongue when they encountered difficulties in discussions as they were conce=
rned
with covering the subject content in the given time. Because of such practi=
ces,
instruction in English became a mere formality, as students, knowing that an
explanation in L1 was coming, often ignored L2 instructions, waiting for th=
e 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 thr=
ee
countries, Finland, Spain, and Austria, Moore and Niku=
la
(2016) explored translanguaging practices in CL=
IL
classrooms. They found that <=
span
class=3DSpellE>translanguaging was perceived as a salient practice s=
ince
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 pr=
actices
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 characteristi=
cs
and stages of CLIL lessons through classroom observations are still scarce.=
Sketching out several research tasks for further C=
LIL
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 characteri=
ze
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, 20=
10)
and disseminate this experience to the rest of the schools in Kazakhstan. <=
span
class=3DGramE>In order to help NIS depart from the old system, and a=
llow
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 mainstr=
eam
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 Sci=
ence
and Mathematics. At NIS, ther=
e are
two streams divided by the main medium of instruction which Kazakh or
Russian. Regardless of the ma=
in
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 guidel=
ines
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 th=
em
with students ((AEO NIS, 2013). Furthermore, the guidelines also recommend
teachers developing academic language and subject-specific terminology, usi=
ng
scaffolding, translanguaging techniques, and the
adaptation of texts among other CLIL strategies.
The data were collected in Pa=
rassat
NIS, situated in the City of Ken Dala (pseudony=
ms) in
Western Kazakhstan. Parassat NIS is a typical c=
ase
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 conceptualizati=
on 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, 2=
014,
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 yea=
rs
and received some CLIL training, taught subjects through Kazakh (L2), Russi=
an
(L2) or English (L3) were targeted for this study.
The five teachers, selected for the study were
referred to by the pseudonyms Ainur, Aisha,
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 int=
erview,
after classroom observations in Kazakh, Russian and English based on the
participants' preferences. Th=
e 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 understandin=
g 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 a=
s it
was, the observation protocol framework highlighted important aspects, such=
as
integration techniques, comprehension support strategies, classroom interac=
tion
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 patte=
rns
(themes) within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 6). The reason for choosing thematic a=
nalysis
is its flexibility in defining themes in various ways.
|
Teacher |
Ainur |
Aisha <= o:p> |
Zhadyra |
Kuralay |
Paul |
|
L1 |
Kazakh<= o:p> |
Russian=
|
Russian=
|
Kazakh<= o:p> |
English=
|
|
Degree/=
Country=
|
BA and =
MA
in History/ Kazakhstan |
Special=
ist
Diploma in History/ Kazakhstan |
Special=
ist
Diploma in Chemistry/ Kazakhstan |
BA in
Geography/ Kazakhstan |
Postgra=
duate
Diploma in Physics/ United Kingdom |
|
Teachin=
g experie=
nce |
10 year=
s |
20 year=
s |
15 year=
s |
10 year=
s |
17 year=
s |
|
NIS
teaching experie=
nce |
3,5 yea=
rs |
3,5 yea=
rs |
3 years=
|
3 years=
|
2 years=
|
|
Subject
taught |
History=
of
Kazakhstan |
World
History |
Chemist=
ry |
Geograp=
hy |
Physics=
|
|
Languag=
e of
instruction |
Kazakh<= o:p> |
Russian=
|
Kazakh-=
English Russian=
-English |
Kazakh<= o:p> |
English=
|
|
CLIL
training |
with an
international trainer 2 works=
hops |
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-C=
LIL
classes. Teachers admitted that they had the same lesson plan for two diffe=
rent
cohorts who received instruction in L1 and L2. For instance, the Kazakh history t=
eacher
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 determin=
ed
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 le=
sson
planning, and had specific content learning objectives, which could be defi=
ned
as measurable, specific and time-bound. For inst=
ance,
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 w=
ere
different from the ones used in mainstream schools in Kazakhstan. Within th=
eir
detailed lesson plans, which had to be approved by the subject leader, the
participating teachers designated a separate line to lesson aims which prac=
tically
repeated the learning objectives. Success criteria were another interesting
component of lesson plan which was sometimes shared with students in relati=
on
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 s=
ince
the curriculum content, asses=
sment
requirements and tasks were the same for CLIL and non-CLIL classes, despite
CLIL students’ having language deficiencies. According to the teacher=
s,
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, A=
inur
(KMI), Aisha (RMI), Zhadyra (EMI)3 a=
nd 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 Gr=
ade
7 lesson about the development of the Kazakh music arts in the 19th
century, Ainur generically mentioned the develo=
pment
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 langua=
ge
objectives in the following way: “terms and concepts covered during t=
he
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. Simila=
r to
her colleague Ainur, Kuara=
lay
highlighted specific phrases and chunks of sentences as language focus of h=
er
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 reveal=
ed, 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 lea=
rning
were clearly articulated and discussed during classes.
5.2 “Incidental focus on subject-specific vo=
cabulary”
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 langua=
ge
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 correc=
ted
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 (p=
oet):
“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, wh=
at is
your heading? (R)5
Group 1: The heading of our text is “The history of the origin=
s [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 quest=
ions
and giving definitions of terms. For instance, in Zhad=
yra`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 chemic=
al
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 t=
he
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 attenti=
on
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 whi=
ch
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 class=
es.
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 read=
ing
and listening skills were also featured in some observed classes. For insta=
nce,
Aisha tried to strategically direct students at working with a text. In her
class, students worked in groups and with different texts distributed at ra=
ndom
by Aisha. Reading included two types of strategies, such as while-reading a=
nd
after-reading tasks. During the while-reading task, students were to formul=
ate
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 question=
s,
specifying questions, interpretation questions, creative questions, practic=
al
questions, and evaluative questions.
An attempt to develop students’ listening sk=
ills
was observed in Ainur’s class. The listen=
ing
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 onc=
e. The
questions required lower-order thinking skills, =
and
straightforward answers. Each=
group
managed to answer the questions, and when asked, students estimated that th=
ey
had comprehended the material between 40% and 60%. However, the listening material wa=
s not
processed or elaborated any further.
5.3 “CLIL or just good teaching?”
While the integration of language was always impli=
cit,
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 knowled=
ge 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 magazi=
nes
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 indu=
stry?
(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 activit=
ies,
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 rol=
e in
CLIL classes.
In the class observations, spoken input by means of
teacher explanation was the most common mode of lesson input. Moreover, tak=
en
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 picture=
s, 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 materia=
ls.
Among the three, Ainur was more skillful at
supporting students’ comprehension, as she made use of several visual
materials, including video and audio materials, picture=
s
and posters. In her chemistry class, Zhadyra us=
ed
models of chemical bonds, experiment equipment, and materials for demonstra=
ting
chemical reactions, including consumables, such as margarine, water and ethanol.&nb=
sp;
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 appro=
ach.
During the observed lessons, they mainly asked short questions and reiterat=
ed
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 t=
ask.
Ainur (history) was the exception in this respe=
ct 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, Ais=
ha,
and Paul tried to ask personalized questions, students answering often answ=
ered
the teacher`s questions as a whole class in Ainur and
Zhadyra`s lessons. Besides, Ainu=
r,
Kuralay, and Zhadyra often
forgot to allow students adequate “think time” for answering be=
fore
moving to the next question. =
In
addition, Kuralay, Aisha, and Paul seemed to ad=
just
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 student=
s to
talk. During group presentati=
ons,
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 wi=
th
classroom management seem to happen since the students were noisy and did n=
ot
listen to one another during group presentations. For instance, in Ainur’s class, group activities sometimes creat=
ed
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 class=
room
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 m=
ake
their own decisions, Aisha (RMI) and Kuralay (K=
MI)
tended to retain full control of the classroom and directed all
activities. Aisha (RMI), on t=
he
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 ans=
wers
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 i=
s a
student named Abilmansur, he is very free and e=
asy,
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
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The findings indicate that consistent with the pri=
or
theory (Coyle, 2005; Dalton-Puffer, 2008), in the present study, CLIL was
content-driven and the thematic content which wa=
s 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 alw=
ays
had specific and measurable content learning objectives which they always
shared with students. Given t=
he
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 resea=
rch
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, Sch=
indelegger
& Smit, 2008; Nikula, 2010). At the same ti=
me,
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 comm=
on
way of integration that the participating teachers adopted was attention to
language through focus on subject-specific vocabulary. However, the integra=
tion
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 ter=
ms
through asking direct questions, whereas social science teachers tried to f=
ocus
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 fr=
om
switching to their L1, even though code-switching among students, especially
during group discussions, was a norm. While teachers emphasized the importa=
nce
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=
217;
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 complexit=
ies
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, collabor=
ation
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 ac=
tive
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-base=
d,
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 sugge=
sts
that teachers of social sciences who taught through Kazakh L2 or Russian L2=
were
implementing more CLIL-supportive strategies than science teachers who taug=
ht
through English L3, even though diversity was observed among the social sci=
ence
teachers in terms of the strategies they employed. This may be because the
social science teachers attended several trainings in general teaching prac=
tice
when joining the NIS network, and familiarized themselves with new approach=
es
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 fo=
cus
of CLIL than science teachers were. The disparity between social science
teachers’ CLIL-orientation and that of Science teachers can be explai=
ned
by the fact that the former attended a CLIL workshop at the beginning of th=
eir
career at Parassat NIS. This might point out th=
e 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 consisten=
t in
implementing them.
The findings from this study suggest some implicat=
ions
for policy, practice, research and theory of CLI=
L. It
is well-known that the rationale for adopting CLIL is improving students=
217;
language competences and the ability to use language for meaningful purposes
through placing equal focus on both content and language. Moreover, learning subjects through a=
nother
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 learn=
ing
objectives for each lesson and make them explicit to stude=
nts.
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 throu=
gh
revealing the “incidental” nature of applying CLIL strategies.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> 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. T=
he “incidental”
nature of implementation was manifested in the fact that teachers did not
systematically plan to achieve specific language learning objectives and sh=
are
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 attrib=
ute
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 general=
ly
good practices. Given the fac=
t that
CLIL “synthesizes and provides a flexible way of applying the knowled=
ge
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.
Give=
n 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 students̵=
7;
language proficiency based on one or two lesson observations. It would be m=
ore
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 N=
IS.
Retrieved from http://nis.edu.kz /en/about/repo=
rts/?id=3D2817.
Aguilar, M., & Rodríguez, R. (2012).
Lecturer and student perceptions on CLIL at a Spanish university. I=
nternational
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(2),
183-197.
C=
enoz,
J. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2015). Way forward in the twenty-first century in <=
span
class=3DSpellE>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 cla=
ss
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.<= o:p>
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated
learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Edu=
cation
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. 97-1=
12).
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 quantita=
tive
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. Retrie=
ved
from https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2004/cro04254.pdf
[CUP/Cambridge University Press ELT=
].
(2010, November 11). David Mar=
sh on
CLIL [Video File=
].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-Czdg8-6mJA.
Dafouz, E., Hüttner, J., & Smit., U.
(2016). University teachers&#=
8217;
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 Euro=
pe.
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). C=
ontent
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 coun=
try.
International CLIL Research Journal=
,
1(1), 60-73.
Gallardo del Puerto, F., Gómez Lacabex, E., & García Lecumberri, M.L. (20=
09).
Testing the effectiveness of content and language integrated learning in
foreign language contexts: The assessment of English pronunciation. In Y. R=
uiz
de Zarobe, & R. M. Jiménez (Eds.), Content and language integrated learni=
ng.
Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 63-80). Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Herescu, R. (201=
2): An
Investigation into the views and practices of teachers of Content and Langu=
age
Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Romania in E. Esch,
& M. Solly. (Eds.), The
Sociolinguistics of Language Education in International Contexts. Berne:
Peter Lang.
Hüttner
Karabassova, L. (2018a). Content and La=
nguage
Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Kazakhstan: Case studies of five teachers at a
Nazarbayev Intellectual School (NIS). (Unpublished doctoral dissertatio=
n),
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 Edu=
cation
and Bilingualism, 21 (7), 1-13.
LaPrairie, M. (2014). A case study of English-medium education in Bhu=
tan (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation), Institute of Education, University of London, Londo=
n,
UK.
Lasagabaster
Lasagabaster
Lasagabaster
Marsh, D. (2012). Content and language integrated
learning (CLIL): A Development trajectory. Servicio
de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Có=
rdoba,
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 conten=
t 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. Intern=
ational
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 45-59.
San Isidro, X. & Lasagaba=
ster,
D. (2018). Code-switching in a CLIL multilingual setting: a longitudinal
qualitative study. International Jo=
urnal
of Multilingualism, 1-21. 10.1080/14790718.2018.1477781.
San Isidro, X. & Lasagaba=
ster,
D. (2019). Monitoring of Teachers’ Views on Both CLIL and the Develop=
ment
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 role=
s:
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.
S=
omers,
T. & Surmont, J. (2011). CLIL and immersion: h=
ow clear-cut are they?
ELT Journal 66(1), 113-116.
Vazquez, V., P., & Ellison, M. (2013). Examini=
ng
teacher roles and competences in content and language integrated learning
(CLIL). Lingva=
rvum Arena, 4, 65 – 78.