UNIPV Language Centre at Pavia University

UNIVERSITY OF PAVIA

LANGUAGE CENTRE

AECLIL PROJECT

DESCRIPTIVE REPORT ON THE SURVEY

SEPTEMBER 2010

A descriptive report based on a comparison of survey data, regarding especially the teaching

method, the correlation between the CLIL teaching and the teaching in mother tongue, the

subjects and the teachers concerned by the project. The data are provided by the partner schools

involved in the AECLIL project.

UNIPV 2010

2

PARTNERS INVOLVED

SCHOOLS PROVIDING DATA

COUNTRY PARTNER SCHOOL/INSTITUTION/ASSOCIATION

Bulgaria PGI Licée Professionnel économie “G.S. Rakovsky”

France IUFM Primary school “Michel Del Castillo”

Germany GADERG Gymnasium an der Gartenstrasse

Italy RCDPV ITI e Liceo Tecnologico "G. Cardano" Pavia

ITCC "A. BORDONI" Pavia

Liceo scientifico "G.GALILEI" Voghera

IPSIA "L. CREMONA" Pavia

Liceo scientifico "T. TARAMELLI" Pavia

ITIS "G. CARAMUEL" Vigevano

Istituto "Cairoli" Pavia

"CIRO POLLINI" Voghera

ITAS "GALLINI" Voghera

Latvia ISEC Raina Daugavpils Secondary School N6*

Daugavpils Valsts gimnazija

Aizkraukles pagasta sakumskola – Primary School

Romania RWTC Octavian Goga School

Alexandru Papiu Ilarian High School Dej

Mihai Eminescu High School Cluj-Napoca

Spain** UNNE Universidad A. De Nebrija

Sweden*** STPKC Swedish TelePedagogic Knowledge Centre

Turkey HUT Hacettepe University – Departement of Physics Engineering

UNIPV 2010

3

Lend (LEND - Italy) and the Language Centre of Pavia University (Unipv - Italy) do not provide any

data: Lend has produced, in cooperation with the Language Centre, the survey form and has

proposed some criteria and methodological remark to be discussed on

(http://www.aeCLIL.eu/index.asp?page=teach)

* Raina Daugavpils Secondary School N6 (Latvia) has provided two different surveys. The teachers

involved in the project carried out two different pathways so that the data are significantly

different. For this reason the two surveys will be considered separately in the following analysis,

even if coming from the same school.

**The Universidad De Nebrija (Spain) has delivered a very exhaustive report on the situation in

Spain, which however is not related to the specific situation of the institution in which the CLIL

project will be carried on. Two articles on CLIL in France have been uploaded on AeCLIL website. It

may be interesting to collect and summarize similar national reports, if possible, in order identify

connections between the schools and institutions taking part to AeCLIL and their local situation.

The data on Spain will not be considered in the following report, as they aren’t comparable to the

others.

***The Swedisj Telepedagogic Knowledge Centre has delivered the criteria they use for

assessment of course and modules, which is also available on

http://aeCLIL.euproject.org/services/Projects/tables.cfm?ProjectID=190.

UNIPV 2010

4

A FIRST DATA ANALYSIS – THE REPORT

INTRODUCTION

The data come from twenty schools in seven countries:

- Bulgaria - 1 school

- France – 1 school

- Germany – 1 school

- Italy - 9 schools

- Latvia – 3 schools1

- Romania - 3 schools

- Turkey - 1 school.

They include schools ranging from primary (3) to secondary (3 lower, 8 upper) or technical and

vocational (4) school types, up to higher education (1) [1]. Consequently, the age of the students

ranges from 7 to 22.

CLIL teaching is declared element of the region/country’s educational policy in all countries, save

in Turkey. One clashing answer by Italy and Romania, that is by the countries where more than

one school is involved. It should be cleared: how CLIL teaching is part of the educational policy (is

it institutionalized by law?; is it recommended but mainly up to the school?).

THE STUDENTS

The participation of the students is mostly compulsory (14); it is free in 5 schools and both

compulsory and free in 1 school (depending on the school type, supposedly). To a CLIL project

participates mostly the whole class (15); in two cases only a group of students is involved and in

other three cases both a group of students and the whole class participate to CLIL.

1 One of the schools has provided two different surveys that will be considered separately in the following analysis.

This is the reason why the report will refer to 20 surveys instead of 19.

UNIPV 2010

5

THE TEACHERS

The language level of the subject teachers involved in the projects ranges from A1 to C2, with a

majority of A1, B1 and B2 [2]. It seems there is no correlation between the language level of

teachers and the school types.

Overall, subject matter teachers are more widely involved in CLIL projects across the surveyed

schools, with 7 schools out of 20 employing only subject matter teachers, 9 schools employing

both subject matter and language teachers, and four schools employing only language teachers

[3].

The data about team-teaching are uncertain and in fact there is not clear correlation between the

data regarding the team-teaching method and those about the teachers involved. The data show

that most of those teachers prefer to team-teach (12 out of 20) [4]; when team-teaching is

adopted, it is carried out either by the subject teachers and the language teachers (7 out of 12) or

by the subject teachers only (5 out of 12) [5]; the work is planned together by the subject teacher

and the language teacher in 15 schools (three partners don’t answer; for the French school this is

“not relevant”). All these data contradict the statements about the teachers involved in the

project (just 9 schools declare to involve both subject matter and language teachers).

Furthermore, cooperative planning is reported as foreseen by the education authority by 13

schools (5 answered negatively, two give no answer)

Teachers are especially trained for CLIL in 12 schools (6 in in-service training, 2 in pre-service

training, 4 give no answer), but they aren’t in the remaining 8 schools. It could be interesting to

compare these data with national reports on CLIL.

THE CURRICULUM

It is interesting to observe that near half of the schools (9 out of 20) include CLIL in their

mainstream curriculum and near half include it only as occasional project (11 out of 20) [6]. This

may entail that the first ones have developed special awareness about CLIL principles and that

they shape the school curriculum accordingly. It will be interesting to compare the units produced

by these schools with the ones produced in schools where only occasional CLIL projects are carried

out.

CLIL teaching covers the whole year in 12 schools and a shorter period in 7 (one gives no answer)

[7]. There seems to be no relationship between the CLIL teaching period and the school type; the

data should be considered in relation to the national situation.

CLIL modules range from 10 to 20 hours and foresee from 1 to 4 hours a week.

UNIPV 2010

6

THE SUBJECTS

CLIL-lessons cover the following subject matters: both scientific subjects, such as biology,

chemistry, electro-technics, computer, science, electronics, physics, maths, astronomy,

economics, business, and the humanities, such as geography, history, social studies, law, music,

art, drama, literature [8]. That means that CLIL methodology covers all possible subjects. It will be

very interesting to observe if it is possible to identify differences in methodologies, approaches

and teaching materials depending on subjects.

Subjects are taught entirely in the L2 by 5 schools and partially in the mother tongue by 15

schools. It will be interesting to investigate the reason for using also the mother tongue in CLIL

lessons and the eventual benefits offered by such a mixed methodology [9].

THE LANGUAGES

The main used language is English (17); then French (7), German (2), Spanish (2).

13 schools include only one language in CLIL-projects (11 English; 2 French); 6 schools include two

languages (4 English and French; 1 English and German; 1 German and Spanish); 1 school includes

three languages (English, French and Spanish) [10]. In 19 schools out of 20, the CLIL language is

one of the main studied languages. Only one school includes two less studied languages (German

and Spanish) at the same time. This is obviously the only negative answer to the question, if the

languages used in CLIL belong to the main studied languages in the region/country.

In all cases the languages have been previously taught. But the more significant datum is that 2

schools do not have specific language courses.

In no case does the CLIL language belong to the minority language of the country. The data show

that CLIL methodology is correctly used as it “focuses on content” rather than being used as a

strategy for integrating language minorities.

THE METHODOLOGY

About the method, the data reveal that in most schools (15 out of 20) CLIL teaching differs from

teaching in the mother tongue [11]. It is interesting to observe that the difference concerns the

use of a variety of teaching strategies -such as redundancy, team-teaching, team-planning- and

materials, especially ICT and the new technologies.

Moreover in 15 of the 20 schools the teaching is carried out partly in mother tongue and partly in

the CLIL language, while in the other 5 schools only the CLIL language is used [9].

Teaching strategies are extensively implied to support CLIL teaching and learning; each school uses

at least two, and some use all of them: working groups, graphic organizer, internet research,

UNIPV 2010

7

visuals and teacher’s speech. Also the used materials are very different and include books,

articles, Dvds, maps, internet, Tv, work sheets, smart board. Some partners declare that those

materials are not (6) or only partially (4) available.

ASSESSMENT

Finally, it is interesting to observe that in most schools (15 out of 20) students receive a global

mark, i.e. their language performance is not assessed separately from their knowledge of subject

matter contents [12]. This attitude reflect awareness of the basic principles of CLIL

teaching/learning, which involve integration between language and content at all levels.

The absolute majority of the CLIL projects are monitored (17 out of 20) [13], mostly by somebody

belonging only to the school’s staff (9) or together with a University or a teacher training

institution (5). Three (3) of them are monitored just by a University (3).

10 schools certify CLIL learning and achievements.

SOME REMARKS/INSIGHTS ABOUT THE DATA

- About the impact of the CLIL teaching on the general teaching methodology: the data

reveal the use of a large variety of techniques and the use of different materials and media.

Does this mean that students are exposed to a differentiated input and a high level of

interaction?

- In near half of the schools, CLIL is part of the mainstream curriculum and not only an

occasional project. Is this difference relevant in order to evaluate the methodology? Will

this be relevant for the creation of CLIL modules?

- The data don’t show a specific correlation between the presence of a specific training for

teachers and the teaching methodology. What factors influence the development of a

specific teaching strategy for CLIL?

UNIPV 2010

8

ANNEX

[1] The type of the schools

Primary Lowersecondary

Uppersecondary

Vocational Technical Univerity

Type

[2] What is the teachers’ level of language proficiency?

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

Level

[3] What teachers are involved in the project? Subject matter teachers (ST), language teachers

(LT) or both?

ST

LT

ST + LT

STLT

ST + LT

UNIPV 2010

9

[4] Is the team-teaching adopted?

Team 12

Individual8

Team Individual

[5] What teachers are involved in the team teaching? Subject matter teachers (ST), language

teachers (LT) or both (ST + LT)?

7

7

5

12

IndividualteamTeam ST+ LTTeam ST

UNIPV 2010

10

[6] Is CLIL included in the mainstream curriculum of the schools or is it an occasional project?

Occasional

Mainstream

MainstreamOccasional

[7] Does the CLIL project cover the whole school year?

Whole year

Shorter period

Whole yearShorter period

UNIPV 2010

11

[8] The subjects of the project

Chemistry

Physics

Techniques

Computer

Economics

Science

Biology

Maths

Astronomy

Geography

History

Law

Social studies

Music

Art

Drama

Literature

Sport

Subject

[9] Is teaching carried out partly or entirely in the CLIL language? Is the mother tongue also

used?

Partly

Entirely

PartlyEntirely

UNIPV 2010

12

[10] How many languages are involved in the CLIL teaching?

3 Languages

1 Language

2 Languages

1 Language2 Languages3 Languages

[11] Does CLIL teaching differ from the teaching of a subject in the mother tongue?

Different

Not different

DifferentNot different

UNIPV 2010

13

[12] Do students receive a global mark for their language performance and their knowledge of

subject matter contents?

Global mark

Separate mark

Global mark

Separatemark

[13] Is the CLIL project monitored?

Monitored

Not monitored

Monitored

Notmonitored