Students' language and subject learning attitudes in CLIL secondary education
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2024
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Routledge / Taylor & Francis
Citations
Exportar
Citation
Hidalgo-McCabe, E. (2024). Students’ language and subject learning attitudes in CLIL secondary education. Language Learning Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2024.2390554
Abstract
This study examines the attitudes of CLIL learners to both language and subject learning in the context of Madrid’s Spanish-English Bilingual Education Program. The research compared 70 students enrolled in two secondary school strands with differing CLIL exposure (high versus low) in terms of their attitudes towards the languages of instruction and their beliefs about how content subjects are taught in the L1 (Spanish) and the L2 (English). Their answers to two open-ended questions from a longer questionnaire were coded using thematic analysis. The results indicate that, whilst participation in either the high- or the low-exposure strand has an effect on students’ preferences regarding the language of instruction, it does not seem to influence their orientation towards the practical value of CLIL. In addition, students tend to attribute similarities and differences in the teaching of subjects in the L1 and the L2 to the content and to the change in language of instruction. These results are further discussed by addressing the amount of CLIL instruction across strands and by contextualising this approach in a primarily monolingual context and mindset, where certain expectations clash with fears and presuppositions concerning the effect on L1 literacy of learning in an additional language.
Description
This study is part of a larger project that focuses on a longitudinal corpus-based analysis of academic language competence in CLIL, which encompasses subject literacies, classroom practices and participant perspectives from primary through secondary education. The project (RTI2018-094961-B-I00) was granted approval by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities. The results reported are part of the investigation into students\u2019 attitudes in relation to CLIL and are based on data derived from a questionnaire adapted from a previous project (FFI2014-55590-R).
Referencias bibliográficas:
• Alonso-Belmonte, I., and M., Fernández-Agüero. 2021. Teachers’ narratives of resistance to Madrid’s bilingual programme: an exploratory study in secondary education. Linguistics and Education63: 100925–10. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2021.100925.
• Arnold, J., 2019. The importance of affect in language learning. Neofilolog52, no. 1: 11–14.
• Baker, C., 1992. Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Braun, V., and V., Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3, no. 2: 77–101.
• Clarke, V., V., Braun, and N., Hayfield. 2015. Thematic analysis. In Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Research Methods, ed. J.A., Smith, 222–248. London: SAGE.
• Clyne, M., 2005. Australia’s Language Potential. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
• Comunidad de Madrid. 2017. Madrid, Comunidad Bilingüe 2016-2017. Madrid, a Bilingual Community 2016-2017. Madrid: Consejería de Educación e Investigación. http://www.madrid.org/bvirtual/BVCM016362.pdf.
• Comunidad de Madrid. 2023. Datos y cifras de la educación 2023-2024. https://gestiona3.madrid.org/bvirtual/BVCM051108.pdf.
• Comunidad de Madrid. n.d. Madrid Comunidad Bilingüe. Madrid. https://www.comunidad.madrid/servicios/educacion/madrid-comunidad-bilingue.
• Coyle, D., 2010. Forward. In CLIL in Spain:Implementation, Results and Teacher Training, eds. D., Lasagabaster and Y.R., de Zarobe, vi–vii. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
• Dalton-Puffer, C., and U., Smit. 2013. Content and Language Integrated Learning: a research agenda. Language Teaching46, no. 4: 545–559. doi:10.1017/S0261444813000256.
• De Mejía, A.M., 2002. Power, Prestige, and Bilingualism: International Perspectives on Elite Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
• Doiz, A., D., Lasagabaster, and J.M., Sierra. 2014. CLIL and motivation: the effect of individual and contextual variables. The Language Learning Journal42, no. 2: 209–224. doi:10.1080/09571736.2014.889508.
• Fernández-Agüero, M., and E., Hidalgo-McCabe. 2020. CLIL students’ affectivity in the transition between education levels: the effect of streaming at the beginning of secondary education. Journal of Language, Identity & Education21: 363–377. doi:10.1080/15348458.2020.1795864.
• Fernández, R., and A., Halbach. 2011. Analysing the situation of teachers in the Madrid autonomous community bilingual project. In Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts, eds. Y., Ruiz de Zarobe, J.M., Sierra, and F., Gallardo del Puerto, 241–270. Lausanne, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
• García-Mayo, M.P., 2003. Age, length of exposure and grammaticality judgments in the acquisition of English as a foreign language. In Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language, eds. M.P., García-Mayo and M.L., García-Lecumberri, 94–114. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters.
• Garrett, P., 2010. Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Genesee, F., 2014. Is early second language learning really better?Babylonia1: 26–30.
• Heller, M., and A., Duchêne. 2012. Pride and profit: changing discourses of language, capital and nation-state. In Language in Late Capitalism: Pride and Profit, eds. A., Duchêne and M., Heller, 1–21. New York: Routledge.
• Hidalgo McCabe, E.A., and N., Fernández-González. 2019. Framing ‘choice’ in language education: the case of freedom in constructing inequality. In Language and Neoliberal Governmentality, eds. L., Martín Rojo and A., Del Percio, 69–90. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Jensen, E., 1998. Teaching with the Brain in Mind. Arlington, VA: ASCD.
• Lamb, M., 2004. Integrative motivation in a globalizing world. System32, no. 1: 3–19.
• Lasagabaster, D., 2011. English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching5: 3–18. doi:10.1080/17501229.2010.519030.
• Lasagabaster, D., 2015. Different educational approaches to bi-multilingualism and their effect on language attitudes. In Content-based Language Learning in Multilingual Educational Environments, eds. M., Juam-Garau and J., Salazar-Noguera, 13–30. Berlin: Springer.
• Lasagabaster, D., and A., Doiz. 2017. A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on affective factors. Applied Linguistics38: 688–712.
• Llinares, A., T., Morton, and R., Whittaker. 2012. The Roles of Language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lorenzo, F., 2007. The sociolinguistics of CLIL: language planning and language change in 21st century Europe. RESLAExtra, no. 1: 27–38.
• Lorenzo, F., S., Casal, and P., Moore. 2010. The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics31, no. 3: 418–442. doi:10.1093/applin/amp041.
• Lorenzo, F., and C., Dalton-Puffer. 2016. Historical literacy in CLIL: telling the past in a second language. In Conceptualising Integration in CLIL and Multilingual Education, eds. T., Nikula, E., Dafouz, P., Moore, and U., Smit, 55–72. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
• Masduki, M., D., Poedjiastutie, and C., Giat Prabowo. 2022. Teachers’ English level proficiency: do students perceive it as a threat or a chance?Arab World English Journal13, no. 1: 72–86. doi:10.24093/awej/vol13no1.5.
• McCabe, A., and R., Whittaker. Forthcoming. Intersubjectivity in CLIL: how can the outside become the inside? In Systemic Functional Linguistics and the Individual, ed. J., Williams. London: Routledge.
• Mehisto, P., 2012. Excellence in Bilingual Education: A Guide for School Principals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nikula, T., 2017. CLIL: a European approach to bilingual education. In Second and Foreign Language Education, 3rd edition, eds. N.V., Deusen-Scholl and S., May, 111–124. Cham: Springer.
• Nikula, T., and P., Moore. 2016. Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism22, no. 2: 237–249. doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.1254151.
• Norton, B., and K., Toohey. 2011. Identity, language learning, and social change. Language Teaching44, no. 4: 412–446. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000309.
• Pavlenko, A., 2006. Bilingual selves. In Bilingual minds: Emotional Experience, Expression and Representation, ed. A., Pavlenko, 1–33. Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
• Pavlenko, A., and B., Norton. 2007. Imagined communities, identity and English language learning. In International Handbook of English Language Teaching, eds. J., Cummins and C., Davison, 589–600. New York: Springer.
• Pavón Vázquez, V., and F., Rubio. 2010. Teachers’ concerns and uncertainties about the introduction of CLIL programmes. Porta Linguarum14: 45–58.
• Rafi, A.S.M., and A.M., Morgan. 2023. Blending translanguaging and CLIL: pedagogical benefits and ideological challenges in a Bangladeshi classroom. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies20, no. 1: 20–45. doi:10.1080/15427587.2022.2090361.
• Relaño Pastor, A.M., 2015. The commodification of English in ‘Madrid, Comunidad Bilingüe’. Insights from the CLIL classroom. Language Policy14, no. 2: 131–152. doi:10.1007/s10993-014-9338-7.
• Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., 2013. CLIL implementation: from policy-makers to individual initiatives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism16, no. 3: 231–243. doi:10.1080/13670050.2013.777383.
• Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., and D., Lasagabaster. 2010a. The emergence of CLIL in Spain: an educational challenge. In CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training, eds. D., Lasagabaster and Y., Ruiz de Zarobe, ix–xvii. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., and D., Lasagabaster. 2010b. CLIL in a bilingual community: the Basque autonomous community. In CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training, eds. D., Lasagabaster and Y., Ruiz de Zarobe, 12–30. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Rumlich, D., 2017. CLIL theory and empirical reality–two sides of the same coin?Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education5, no. 1: 110–134. doi:10.1075/jicb.5.1.05rum.
• Seikkula-Leino, J., 2007. CLIL learning: achievement levels and affective factors. Language and Education21, no. 4: 328–341. doi:10.2167/le635.0.
• Somers, T., and A., Llinares. 2021. Students’ motivation for content and language integrated learning and the role of programme intensity. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism24, no. 6: 839–854. doi:10.1080/13670050.2018.1517722.
• Swain, M., 1978. Bilingual education for the English-speaking Canadian. In International Dimensions of Bilingual Education, ed. J., Alatis, 141–154. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
• Vaismoradi, M., J., Jones, H., Turunen, and S., Snelgrove. 2016. Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice65: 100–110.