CLIL-SLA Project: Antecedents. Results on the Effects of CLIL on EFL Learning

1. CLIL-SLA Project: Antecedents.Results on the Effects of CLIL on EFL Learning To the memory of Mia Victori (1966-2010) sites.google.com/site/clilslaproject/apac-2011

2. Antecedents Studies from • UB: GRAL Project (UB) (Co-ord: Muñoz) • Marc Miret MA thesis (Navés) • Navés & Victori (2009) & Navés (2011) • UAB: • Vallbona MA thesis 2009 (Victori) • Bret MA thesis in progress (Victori & Pladevall)

3. Beliefs vs. Mainstream Research • The age factor: The sooner the better (García-Mayo & García Lecumberri, 2003; Muñoz, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010; Navés 2006; Celaya & Navés, 2008)) • Study abroad (SA). (Pérez-Vidal, 2001, 2009. But  Llanes & Muñoz, 2009) • CLIL maybe  but the evidence comes from • Short-term studies vs Long-term studies. Statistically significant differences vs. Relevant educational gains. (Navés, 2010) • Quantitative vs Qualitative studies (Escobar, 2009; Wittaker, 2010) • Cross-sectional studies vs. Longitudinal studies (See SLA-CLIL project in Pladevall et al., forthcoming) • Linguistic-oriented studies vs Content-oriented and CLIL-oriented studies • Product-oriented vs Process Oriented studies • Comparison of existing curricula vs. finely-grained studies: The control of the variables: amount of instruction, type of school, etc. (García-Mayo, 2010; Muñoz and Navés, 2007; Navés & Victori, 2009)

4. CLIL • The subject matter or part of the subject matter is taught via a foreign language with a two-fold objective: the learning of those contents and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language (Marsh, 1999:27)

5. The best way to learn an L2: Teaching subject matter in the L2 • Using the L2 to teach subject matter is more effective than teaching the language directly, treating the L2 itself as the subject matter (Krashen, 1982). • Teaching subject matter in a second language is the best possible way to encourage second language acquisition. (Spada and Lightbown, 2002)

6. CLIL The European Commission’s (2005) report on foreign language teaching and learningclaims that an excellent way of making progress in a foreign language is “to use it for a purpose, so that the language becomes a tool rather than an end in itself.” (p.9)

7. European Council (1995):A1-A2 - B1-B2 - C1-C2 • Lowering the starting age and simultaneously 2) CLIL instruction

8. CLAIMS: CLIL > EFL • CLIL instruction is more successful than traditional form-focused EFL learning (Piske, 2008, Do Coyle, 2009). • CLIL methodology provides plenty of real and meaningful input to learners and raises their overall proficiency in the target language. (Coyle, 2002 p.258).

9. But… • Not all content-based instruction results in good language learning (Swain, 1988) • CLIL provides some of the necessary conditions for good effective language learning to take place but is not a guarantee of success (de Graaf et al. 2007; Muñoz, 2007; Navés in press)

10. Short-term statistical significant differences versus long-term relevant education gains. Lindholm-Leary (2007)

11. Empirical Research CLIL>EFL Writing Performance: Ackerl (2006) - Carrilero(2009); Miret (2009) Huttner et al (2006) - Lasagabaster (2008) Loranc-Paszylk(2009) - Navés and Victori (2010) Navés (2010) - Miret (2009) Miret & Navés (in preparation) Vallbona & Victori (in preparation) English Proficiency : Admiraal et al.(2006) - Jiménez et al.(2006) Kasper (1997) - Lasagabaster (2008) Navés and Victori (2010) - Vallbona (2009) Pérez-Vidal (2010) - Lorenzo et al. (2009, 2010) Ruiz de Zarobe & Jiménez Catalán (2009) Villarreal Olaizola & García Mayo (2009) García Mayo & Villarreal Olaizola (2011)

12. Reasons for the present studies An increasing number of schools in Catalonia are teaching subjects or parts of subjects in English (CLIL) to improve students’ language competence. Despite this, academic research on CLIL programs is still embryonic in Catalonia (Navés and Victori, 2010). We need local studies comparing CLIL with traditional instruction to support the presumed benefits of this approach and to find out the weaknesses and strengths of CLIL. We need to evaluate language development in CLIL instruction as well as classroom dynamics and how this affects the outcomes of the approach.

13. How did we collect data? TESTS QUANTITATIVE INSTRUMENTS Language Proficiency Tests:* Listening Comprehension Test Dictation Test Cloze Test Grammar Multiple-choice Written Composition Oral Tests (Interview & Narrative) *Developed, validated and used by the BAF Project (Muñoz, 2006) QUALITATIVE INSTRUMENTS Students’ Background Questionnaire Interview with the CLIL Teachers CLIL Class Observations CLIL Students’ Opinion Questionnaire

14. CAF measures • COMPLEXITY Accuracy Fluency

15. Miret’sParticipants

16. Miret’s Results

17. Naves & Victori (2009) & Navés (2011)Participants

18. Grammar Test

19. Dictation

20. Cloze: Reading Comprehension

21. Writing Fluency (Essay length)

22. Writing Syntactic Complexity(clauses per sentence)

23. Writing Lexical Variety (Giraud’s index)

24. Summary of Results Miret (2009), Navés & Victori (2010) and Navés (2011) • Overall 5th and 7th grade CLIL learners better thantheir non-CLIL peers from 5th and 7th and did as well as learners two grades ahead • in all the proficiency testsexcept in the listening test • and in all the writing domains examined except in accuracy.

25. RESEARCH STUDIES • Vallbona MA thesis 2009 (Victori) • Victori & Vallbona (2010) • Bret MA thesis in progress (Victori & Pladevall)

26. PARTICIPANTS & DATA COLLECTION

27. RESULTS

28. CLOZE TEST LISTENING DICTATION NUMBER OF WORDS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND WRITING TESTS5th GRADERS

29. ORAL TESTS: 5th GRADERS Interview ACCURACY FLUENCY LEXICAL COMPLEXITY

30. ORAL TESTS: 5th GRADERS Narrative ACCURACY LEXICAL COMPLEXITY SYNTACTIC COMPLEXITY

31. CLOZE TEST LISTENING DICTATION NUMBER OF WORDS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND WRITING TESTS6th GRADERS NUMBER OF ERROR FREE CLAUSES NUMBER OF CLAUSES

32. ORAL TESTS: 6th GRADERS Interview FLUENCY

33. ORAL TESTS: 6th GRADERS Narrative ACCURACY FLUENCY SYNTACTIC COMPLEXITY LEXICAL COMPLEXITY

34. ORAL DATA: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS • Number of one-word utterances • Amount of subordination • Type of coordination

35. RESULTS Proficiency & Writing Tests - Improvement of receptive skills, such as listening, reading and dictation (Admiral et al, 2006; Gassner & Maillat, 2006; Mewald, 2007; Lasagabaster 2008; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008;Vallbona, 2008; Loranc-Paszylk, 2009; Miret, 2009; Naves & Victori, 2010). - Writing areas: fluency, accuracy, lexical complexity do not necessarily develop simultaneously as students become better writers (Naves et al, 2003; Foster & Skeken, 1996). Oral Tests - CLIL learners outperformed non-CLIL learners in many of the aspects analysed (Admiraal et al, 2006; Hüttner & Rieder-Büneman, 2007; Mewald, 2007; Jiménez et al, 2007; Ruíz de Zarobe, 2007; Lasagabaster, 2008; Juan-Garau 2010; Várkuti, 2010). - Improvement of fluency and syntactic complexity.

36. What did children think of Science?

37. CLIL students’ opinion questionnaire results YES! 5th graders 70% Overall assessment of the CLIL experience: very positive. • Did you like doing Science in English? • YES! • 6th graders • 85%

38. CLIL students’ opinion questionnaire results WHY? The teacher gave good explanations The activities were fun Science is our favourite subject We are interested in English

39. CLIL students’ opinion questionnaire results YES! 5th graders 56% Did you find Science easy? • YES! • 6th graders • 68 %

40. CLIL students’ opinion questionnaire results easy? Familiar topics The activities were easy Science is our favourite subject We have an ability for languages

41. CLIL students’ opinion questionnaire results What wasdifficult ? Understanding some concepts Answering in English Understanding some of the teacher’s explanations Understanding some words

42. Limitations These promising results have, nevertheless, to be analysed with caution because • the amount of hours of instruction was not kept constant • of the different types of schools involved • cross-sectional, • product-oriented nature. • short-term nature.

43. Limitations and Conclusions • Limitations of these types of studies (See Muñoz & Navés, 2007) • Statistical significant differences vs. Relevant gains from an education and language policy perspective.

44. Final remarks • Unlike the results found when examining (a) an early start, (b) stay-abroad (c) out-of-school instruction, the preliminary results from short-term cross-sectional research on CLIL instruction --in spite of its limitations and confounds-- seem promising.

45. Final remarks 2) Although the preliminary short-term of CLIL instruction results are encouraging, we still need to see whether • carefully planned studies confirm the benefits already found and furthermore whether • in the long run CLIL instruction will not just show a statistically significant difference but would make it possible to drastically raise the levels of proficiency of European learners as called for by the Council of Europe (1995).

46. Further evidence is needed • Short-term studies vs Long-term studies. Statistically significant differences vs. Relevant educational gains. (Navés, 2010) • Quantitative vs Qualitative studies and Product vs Process oriented studies. Mixed-methodology studies (Escobar, 2009; Wittaker, 2010) • Cross-sectional studies vs. Longitudinal studies (See SLA-CLIL project in Pladevall et al., forthcoming) • Linguistic-oriented studies vs Content-oriented and CLIL-oriented studies • Comparison of existing curricula vs. finely-grained studies: The control of the variables: amount of instruction, type of school, etc. (García-Mayo, 2010; Muñoz and Navés, 2007; Navés, 2010) (See SLA-CLIL project in Pladevall et al., forthcoming)

47. Thank you very much Moltíssimes gràcies Muchas gracias Eskarrik-asko Graciñas CLIL-SLA Project: Antecedents Teresa Navés tnaves@ub.edu Marc Miret marc.miret@uab.cat Anna Vallbonaanna.vallbona@uvic.cat Anna Bretannabret@escolapaidos.cat GRAL Project (UB) & CLIL-SLA Project (UAB) www.ub.edu/GRAL/NavesCLILSLAProject@gmail.com

48. CLIL-SLA Project To the memory of Mia Victori Anna Bret Amanda Cooper Carme Florit Natalia Maldonado Patricia Martínez Marc Miret Teresa Navés Elisabet Pladevall (Co-ord) Anna Vallbona Alex Vraciu

49. Characteristics of Successful CLIL Programmes (Navés, 2009, 2002) • Respect and support for the learner’s L1 language and culture   • Extremely competent bilingual teachers i.e. teachers fully proficient in the language of instruction and familiar with one of the learners’ home languages  • Mainstream (not pull-out) optional courses  • Long-term, stable programmes   • Parents’ support for the programme; 

50. Characteristics of Successful CLIL Programmes (Naves, 2009, 2002) 6. Joint effort of all parties. Cooperation and leadership of educational authorities, administrators and teachers  • Dually qualified teachers (in content and language)   • High expectations and standards  • Availability of quality CLIL teaching materials  • Properly implemented CLIL methodology 