Background and motivation

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background and motivation

  Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)    The integrative perspective in CLIL 

  Comparing CLIL and L1 

  Focusing on Primary Education    Group interaction in CLIL    Applications in pedagogy 

Aims and scope of the present study Methodology and research questions

  Participants and research context    Research questions 

Theoretical perspectives

  A combined model for the analysis of group interaction in CLIL  Thesis overview

Chapter Summary

learn” (Mehisto et al., 2008: 11). In other words, CLIL gives learners the context where they can put their language and communication skills directly into practice, similarly, to some extent, to learning a language in the context where it is spoken.

Learners no longer want to learn languages in isolation prior to having opportunities to apply them. Instead, they want to acquire and use languages simultaneously in meaningful contexts.

In addition, CLIL possesses three characteristics that make it an even more attractive educational approach in an information‐driven society. It is effective, efficient and global (Devos, 2016:23): effective, as reflected in the improved results obtained by CLIL language learners in their second Language (L2 henceforth);

efficient, because it combines two school subjects into one; and global, due to its integrative approach to learning. As Dalton‐Puffer, Nikula and Smit (2010) state, even though the twofold goal of CLIL is widely acknowledged, it hasn’t been sufficiently dealt with in research: “theorizing in CLIL has treated it like a hot potato:

much of the existing CLIL research has tended to focus on either its language or its content aspects, with much less attention being devoted to their interface, that is, the integration of language and content” (2010:288). The present study aims to contribute to this growing need by focusing on the integrated content and language aspect of CLIL.

1.1.2 The integrative perspective in CLIL

The central and distinguishing element in CLIL is its dual‐focused educational approach, which seeks to fuse goals of content and language learning (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010). In this line, many researchers are calling to bring the fusion of content and language perspective to CLIL teaching and researching. As DaltonPuffer et al. write, “either applied linguistics or content pedagogy fusional understanding would require a similarly ‘fused’ investigative take”(2010:289).

Other researchers have also defended this fusion of language and content in research, teaching and learning. Two volumes on CLIL (Llinares, Morton and Whittaker, 2012;Nikula, Dafouz, Moore and Smit, 2016) have highlighted integration as the main aspect to be addressed in CLIL. Many researchers have

demanded more work on principled approaches to content and language integration (e.g. Cenoz et al., 2014; Dalton‐Puffer et al., 2010; Gajo, 2007). A decade ago, Leung (2005) proposed to integrate two pedagogic issues that were still seen in a separate way: curriculum content learning and language learning in classroom‐based bilingual research (2005:240).Specifically in CLIL, a pioneer study was Llinares, et al. (2012) on the roles of language in CLIL. In this book, the authors account for the need to bring content and language issues together and the roles of classroom interaction and the work on genres and registers to achieve this purpose. Two recent studies have proposed a conceptual framework for the analysis and implementation of CLIL (Llinares, 2015; Meyer et al., 2015). The present study stands by the statement that Llinares et al. (2012:10) make when they write: “The theory needs to show, in a principled way how, at the same time, social activities such as education shape language use and how language itself constructs knowledge”. However, in Nikula et al.’s (2016:2) words, “operationalising such considerations to the more concrete level of research and educational practice still remains a challenge”.

This study seeks to operationalize these considerations by proposing a multi‐

layered analytical model that addresses both the language and the content elements present in CLIL students’ group discussions in a fusion manner. Moreover, in order to delve deeper into the integrative aspect of CLIL, the intertwined process of language constructing knowledge and the education shaping language use must be dealt with. Dalton‐Puffer et al. (2010) suggest that “research based on CLIL as

‘fusion’ presupposes an inter‐, perhaps even transdisciplinary research construct”

(2010:289). It is with this idea in mind that the present study proposes an analytical model based on both a sociocultural view of learning and a functional linguistics conception of language, as it will be further presented in chapter 5, section 5.2.

1.1.3 Comparing CLIL and L1

According to Llinares (2015), the focus on integration can bring interesting insights not only when a foreign language is involved, but also in first language contexts.

More specifically, “CLIL research on integration could serve as a catalyst for

increasing awareness of the role of language in learning any discipline in any language (first, second or third)” (2015:70). It is in this direction, that more research that compares learning in CLIL and L1 settings is necessary “in order to observe similarities and differences and identify what features can be transferred from one language to the other”(Llinares, 2015:70).

Yet, most comparative studies focus on foreign language attainment comparing CLIL and EFL (see e.g., Hüttner and Rieder, 2010; Maillat, 2010; Nikula, 2008; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2007 and 2010; for a full review, see Llinares, 2015). Few studies have compared content learning in CLIL and L1 settings. Some of these  studies, performed by researchers in the second language acquisition and applied linguistic field, have taken a focus on language learning, (Llinares and Whittaker, 2010;

Vollmer., 2008) while others (Airey, 2010; Wellington and Osborne, 2001) were performed by science teaching researchers and their focus is therefore on content learning. In the applied linguistics or second language acquisition field, researchers paid particular attention to academic writing (Llinares and Whittaker, 2010;

Vollmer., 2008). Thus, Llinares and Whittaker (2010) compared secondary level CLIL students’ production in History taught in English with that of their peers studying the same subject in the L1 Spanish. They found that the students taught in the L1 were more proficient in certain features of academic language such as the use of prepositional phrases to express circumstances (time, place and cause) and the use of abstractions whereas CLIL students often used clause complexes, creating a more oral and less academic register in their written texts. In addition, Vollmer (2008), in his comparative study of CLIL and non‐CLIL students, found that many of the CLIL learners he observed displayed poor academic writing skills in their academic language use. Vollmer (2008) showed how students often failed to articulate subject‐specific concepts and issues adequately by using the appropriate academic language both in their L2 and L1.

The science teaching field has taken concern with regards to how the content subject (science) is learnt in the context of CLIL versus L1 (Airey, 2010; Wellington and Osborne, 2001).. Wellington and Osborne (2001) aimed to raise awareness on the importance of learning the language of science in science education through their

book. Airey (2010) compared the oral competency of undergraduate students in their L1 (Swedish) and L2 (English) describing physics concepts learned before.

Oral competency was measured by fluency, code‐switching and discipline discourse.

He found that students were more fluent in their L1 than L2 and that they tended to switch to their L1 in describing physics concepts in L2. However, he also found that high achievers used both their L1 and L2 equally and suggested that teaching in both L1 and L2 could have a positive impact on students’ disciplinary descriptions in both languages.

It is clear, thus, that comparative studies on CLIL and L1 contexts have been driven towards either a more language or content factor of the learning process, rather than aiming at examining the integrative language and content aspect of this process.

Therefore, comparative studies that examine the integrative element of the learning process are necessary.

1.1.4 Focusing on Primary Education

In the 1990s, and in response to European language policies aimed at promoting plurilingualism among the European citizens (Council of Europe, 1992; 2008;

Eurydice, 2005), the member states developed different programmes aimed at favouring bilingual education in their nations. In Spain, foreign language bilingual education and CLIL have seen a very fast increase in the last decade and “is consolidating as a trend in the autonomous education systems” (Lasagabaster and Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010: xi). In the Madrid region, although CLIL is fairly recent, it has had a large and fast implementation (Llinares and Dafouz, 2010) and in the school year 2015‐2016, 492 state schools were taking part in the bilingual programme (353 at the primary level and 139 at the secondary level¹). Although CLIL research in Madrid has been carried out at different educational levels, namely primary (Halbach, 2008; Basse, 2016; Pascual, 2017), secondary (Llinares and Morton, 2010;

Llinares and Whittaker, 2006, 2009, 2010; Llinares et al.2012; Morton, 2010;

1 See the uam‐clil website for further information on the topic:https://uam‐

clil.org/resources/clil‐in‐madrid/history‐and‐objectives/ (with the references to the  sources he used) and https://uam‐clil.org/resources/clil‐in‐madrid/statistics/  

Whittaker, Llinares and McCabe, 2011) and tertiary (Dafouz and Llinares, 2010, Dafouz, Núñez, Sancho, and Foran., 2007, Maíz‐Arévalo and Domínguez‐Romero, 2013). Due to the quick growth of these programmes, more research is needed with clear pedagogical applications.

Moving to the European scene, most of CLIL research has focused on the secondary school classroom because this is the level where the majority of CLIL programmes have started and have been more extensively implemented (Lasagabaster and Sierra, 2010). Just to mention some examples, in a large scale study of Austrian secondary schools, Dalton‐Puffer (2007) analysed the patterns of language use and language forms, Nikula (2007) compared the IRF pattern in CLIL and EFL classes in Finnish schools, and Llinares and Whittaker (2009) examined the oral and written language of Spanish secondary students in Madrid. Other studies have analyzed the the European secondary CLIL context: Gassner and Maillat (2006) in Switzerland;

Jakonen and Morton (2015) in Finnland; Mariotti (2006) in Italy and Sylvén (2006) in Sweden.

At the primary level, the implementation of CLIL in Europe is also steadily growing.

However, according to Nikula, Dalton‐Puffer and Llinares, 2013, CLIL research at this educational level is still in its infancy and very scarce. Among the few existing studies, there is Buchholz’s (2007) analysis of Austrian primary school students’

participation in classroom interaction, Massler’s (2012) account of children’s, parents’ and teachers’ perspectives on CLIL in Germany, Serra’s (2007) longitudinal study assessing integrative bilingual learning implemented through CLIL in three swiss primary schools, and a few comparative studies, such as Llinares and Lyster’s (2014) comparison of the use and effect of corrective feedback in immersion and CLIL classrooms in Spain and Canada, and Llinares and Pastrana’s (2013) comparison of primary and secondary school students’ oral production in Spain.

Although research at the primary level in other bilingual education contexts, such as immersion, is more abundant and is definitely relevant for CLIL, we need more studies contextualised in settings where the school represents the only contact that students have with the foreign language (Dalton Puffer et al., 2010). This is an

important difference with immersion contexts where students’ possibilities to have contact with the L2 school are much higher (for a further discussion, see e.g., Lasagabaster and Sierra, 2010). The present thesis addresses the abovementioned gap in research by focusing on primary school CLIL students in a “foreign” language context.

1.1.5 Group interaction in CLIL

The school has been defined as a place where communication is particularly relevant, a place which is there “purely for the talk” (Barnes, 1976:14). Until not so long ago, the predominant type of classroom communication has been the one between the teacher and the rest of the class. However, there has been a growing interest in other possible forms of interacting in the classroom, such as peer and group work, which now constitute common ground in modern pedagogical trends.

Thus, Cooperative learning (e.g., Sharan, 1990; Slavin, 1990), Task‐based learning (e.g., Nunan, 1989) and Project‐based pedagogical models (e.g., Blumenfeld et al., 1991) are all methodologies that build on the interaction among students who carry out collaborative activities in pairs or small groups in the classroom. This interest is shared by Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers, especially by those working within the interactionist model. Within this approach, one of the first research foci was on the opportunities of peer interaction for negotiation of meanings (Long, 1983). Recently, there has been an increased interest in deeper analyses of learning and interaction in group and pair work, especially of the way the participation structure and the power of each member of the group is negotiated (e.g., Ballinger, 2013; Donato, 1994; Guerrero and Villamil, 1994; Storch, 2002). In line with this research, the present study addresses this issue in a context where it has been hardly explored: the CLIL classroom.

As Nikula et al. (2013) observe, most of the studies on CLIL classroom discourse have examined whole‐class interactions in teacher‐fronted classrooms. Many have focused on the prototypical three‐part sequence: Initiation–Response–Feedback or IRF sequence (Synclair and Coulthard, 1975), also known as Initiation–Response–

Evaluation (IRE) sequence (Mehan, 1979). It has been widely argued that this pattern often constrains and restricts students’ possibilities of participation in the

construction of knowledge as it is mainly the teacher who selects the topic and the next speaker, often preventing students from pursuing their own ideas and interpretations (Barnes, 1976; Cazden, 2001). However, specifically in CLIL contexts and drawing on their findings, Llinares et al. (2012) claimed that the effectiveness of this pattern is not determined by the nature of the pattern itself, but rather by the activity at hand, its purpose and the participant roles.

A few studies have already investigated peer interaction in CLIL group‐work activities (e.g. Devos, 2016, Llinares and Pastrana, 2013; Llinares and Morton, 2012;

Pastrana, 2010; Morton and Evnitskaya, forthcoming). They have shown that this type of interaction allows students to participate in all three IRF moves, thus becoming active participants in the co‐construction of knowledge. They are not only

“animators” of the content knowledge they are supposed to have acquired but also

“principals” or generators of new constructed knowledge (Goffman, 1981; see also Llinares and Morton, 2012).

Although some studies on CLIL have shown the advantages of group activities when compared to whole‐class activities (e.g., Buchholz, 2007; Llinares and Pastrana, 2013; Nikula, 2005; Pastrana, 2010;), a deeper examination of the type of language that CLIL students use in such activities is necessary: “we still know rather little about how different classroom contexts and activity environments constrain language use” (Nikula, 2005:29). In order to further research this topic, the present study focuses on small group interaction in CLIL settings.

1.1.6 Applications in pedagogy

It is common to find that research studies set in educational contexts reduce research and pedagogical applications to potential implications. In other words, they tend to end up with a long list of coulds and woulds, which, in the end, often remain wishful thinking. This is the reason why the present thesis combines research on group interaction in primary classrooms with teacher training and implementation of a specific pedagogical programme that can enhance and improve integrated content and language learning in group work in both CLIL and L1 classrooms.