Spanish/English or Spanglish?
Effective Language Acquisition in a Spanish Bilingual Classroom
By
Dejevij, S.H., Kool, A., and Sherlock, M.
BITEP
Utrecht University
23-06-2009
2
Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Research motivation .................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Research objectives ..................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Bilingual education and CLIL methodologies ............................................................. 4
1.4 Spanish bilingual education ......................................................................................... 5
2. Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................... 5
2.1 A framework for language acquisition ........................................................................ 5
2.2 Motivational theory ..................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Target language proficiency level and CLIL provision ............................................... 8
3. Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Data collection ............................................................................................................. 8
3.2 Research question 1: What aspects of language acquisition theory do the CLIL
teachers in Granada employ in their teaching methods to stimulate language output? ......... 9
3.3 Research question 2: What methods do teachers use to motivate/stimulate target
language output? .................................................................................................................... 9
3.4 Research question 3: How does the teachers own target language proficiency level
influence the quality of the methods used to stimulate target language output? .................... 9
4. Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 9
4.1 Personal observations and impressions ....................................................................... 9
4.2
Research question 1: What aspects of language acquisition theory do the CLIL
teachers in Granada employ in their teaching methods to stimulate language output? ....... 10
4.3 Research question 2: What methods do teachers use to motivate/stimulate target
language output? .................................................................................................................. 10
4.4 Research question 3: How does the teachers own target language proficiency level
influence the quality of the methods used to stimulate target language output? .................. 11
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 11
5.1 Research question 1: Use of language acquisition theory ......................................... 11
5.2
Research question 2: Use of motivation ................................................................... 12
5.3 Research question 3: Language proficiency and quality of methods ........................ 13
5.4 General conclusion .................................................................................................... 13
5.5 Implications for CLIL provision in Spain ................................................................. 13
6. Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 15
3
1. Introduction
1.1
Research motivation
"La educación bilingüe puede ayudar a que las culturas se compredan en vez de separarlas.”
“Bilingual education can help cultures be understood instead of separating them.”
By Stephen Pollard 1
Learning a second language is essential for creating both an international awareness and an
intercultural understanding to encourage communication on a global scale. Bilingual
education can offer greater cultural and international awareness for children, giving them a
solid foundation for their future as European citizens. As the European centre for Modern
Languages states, bilingual education offers subject courses in a foreign language: “Bilingual
instruction, also known as teaching content in a foreign language (TCFL), extended language
instruction, language-enhanced content instruction, immersion, or as content and language
integrated learning (CLIL), is the teaching of non language subjects through a foreign
language, with both subject-matter and language learning as goals” (Hellekjaer, 2009).
English is currently the world’s language of business and this is probably why learning English
as a second language is becoming increasingly popular.
In Spain, learning English has become very popular and it is not surprising that this country,
whose economy is taking over an increasingly greater share in the global market, has
implemented ambitious bilingual programs throughout its secondary schools. Although the
bilingual situation is relatively young in Spain, there are some universal problems which all
bilingual programs face. Effective teaching methods to stimulate the use of the target
language in these programs are always a challenge for the bilingual teacher. According to the
Output theory (Krashen, 1985) and language acquisition points by Westhoff (2002) and Ellis
(2004), one of the most important aspects of learning another language is to produce output
in that language. As language acquisition is a major objective of bilingual education, also in
subject courses, this research attempts to explore the methods that bilingual teachers in the
Granada area in Spain used to encourage the students to use the target language. Both
language acquisition theories about output production (Swain, 1985; Krashen, 1985; Ellis,
2004; Westhoff, 2002) and motivational theory (Krashen, 1981; Ryan & Deci, 2000) are
applied to explore the relation between effective teaching methods and theory and to find a
correlation with the teacher’s own language proficiency and the implication of these
teaching methods.
1.2
Research objectives
The aim of this research project is to provide an assessment of how CLIL methodologies are
implemented in four schools in Granada, Spain. The focus is on methods of language
acquisition, rather than methods of content learning. Consistent with the viewpoints of
Swain (1985), the research questions focus on the circumstances surrounding language
1 Published In Motion Magazine August 29, 1998, online article visited 22-06-2009
4
output in the classroom. Learner production of language is relevant both theoretically and
practically (Ellis, 2004). It shows how much implicit knowledge a learner already has and
what gaps are still present. Producing output is linked to language use and acquisition. This
research aims at clarifying and explaining which tasks or methods teachers could use to
encourage proficiency in the target language. Also, according to the affective filter theory by
Krashen (1981) the emotions of an individual can directly influence the effectiveness of
learning a new language. Therefore, the kinds of student motivation the methods indicate
could say something about their effectiveness. This research attempts to investigate which
aspects of language acquisition occur in the methods the CLIL teachers in Spain used to
encourage language use and which kind of motivations they address.
The research questions are:
1. What aspects of language acquisition theory do the CLIL teachers in Granada use in
their teaching methods to stimulate language output?
2. What methods do teachers use to motivate/stimulate target language output?
3. How do the teachers own target language proficiency level influence the quality of
the methods used to stimulate target language output?
1.3
Bilingual education and CLIL methodologies
Bilingual education refers to a system of education whereby school students are taught
some subjects in their mother tongue, and some (non-language) subjects using a second
language (i.e. the target language). In some cases students are taught in three languages.
The aim is that students acquire a very high level of language proficiency in the second (or
third) target language, which is seen as being highly advantageous to gaining placements at
foreign universities, enhancing career prospects. Bilingual education can also help promote a
multicultural way of thinking, and enhance motivation through learning in different
classroom work forms.
Bilingual education systems have been implemented globally: the exact form of
implementation, in terms of the second language, and the proportion of teaching hours
given in the second language varies between educational systems. At one extreme, the
French immersion system in Canada means that students receive all of the subjects in the
second language, i.e. French, at least in the first few years of their education. Despite
concerns, research shows that this form of education is not to the detriment of the mother
tongue proficiency level. The European approach is less extreme, in that subject lessons are
given in both the mother tongue and the target language.
The European system of bilingual education revolves around the concept commonly known
as Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). CLIL programs are now offered in most
countries in Europe, though only Malta and Luxembourg offer CLIL programs in all schools.
Data from the Eurydice Network show that English, French and German are the most
common target languages used in CLIL programs.
The popularity of bilingual education is evidenced by the ever increasing numbers of schools
across Europe which are offering CLIL programs. For example, in The Netherlands, over 100
schools offer a bilingual program, and this number is currently increasing by about 10% year
5
upon year (National Network for TTO website). Schools in The Netherlands are keen to
initiate CLIL programs for a number of reasons (demand from parents, reputation). While a
similar increase in the number of schools offering CLIL programs is evident in Spain, the
increase is more due to government legislation.
The underlying aim of CLIL (content and language integrated learning) is that students attain
a much higher target language proficiency level than had they only followed language
classes. In the CLIL lessons, the focus is on learning subject matter using reading, listening,
writing and speaking skills in the foreign language. These disciplines of language skills are
necessary in order to understand the subject content. It seems obvious then that CLIL
methodologies should focus on activities which involve one or more of these language
disciplines while studying the subject matter.
CLIL teachers are often faced with the problem that students prefer to speak in their mother
tongue instead of using the target language. Much time and effort can be spent on
encouraging the students to use the target language (Carless, 2007). However, the way in
which the class tasks are designed can go some way to resolving this issue.
1.4
Spanish bilingual education
Spain doesn’t have a long history of foreign language use. In the early 1990s Spain became a
member of the EU and had to implement new education laws according to the EU laws.
Compared to other European countries Spain was clearly lagging behind regarding the use of
the English language. The government decided that the amount of bilingual schools with
English as the target language had to increase. A shortage of teachers with sufficient English
language proficiency skills immediately became apparent. Teachers had studied English
previously; consequently the overall level of English in bilingual schools often stagnates at a
poor level. Until now, government projects are mainly based on availability and willingness
to keep trying of teachers.
The European Union supports Spain with this problem by providing a subsidy for 2 language
assistants per bilingual school. The language assistants, usually native speakers of English,
help and assist the teachers with oral expression of the English language.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1
A framework for language acquisition
Westhoff’s language acquisition penta pie (Westhoff, 2002) provides a useful framework for
analysing the overall effectiveness of learning materials with regards to second language
acquisition. The framework contains the five essential components to which any language
learning material should comply. The framework emphasises the importance of language
input given to the students. Until the 1980’s, language acquisition theories were strongly
influenced by the work of Stephen Krashen, a staunch advocate of the input hypothesis
(Krashen, 1985). In brief, the input hypothesis states that language can be acquired purely by
learners receiving comprehensible input (defined as second language input just beyond the
competence of the learner, or i+1), and that language production (or output) was not a
fundamental part of the language acquisition process.
6
The second and third components in Westhoff’s framework also relate to Krashen’s input
hypothesis, and focus on the processing of content and learning the form of a language.
Input can only be effective when the learner realizes the extent of that input and can focus
on its meaning (i.e. processing of content). Practical examples from daily life can help to
accomplish this. Researchers are divided as to the importance of grammar in education, but
studies show that grammatical instruction helps students advance quicker and better (Ellis,
2004). Input is very important here so that the learner can develop a feeling for the form and
structure of a language.
The fourth component in Westhoff’s framework is pushed output, which is used to improve
students’ active language proficiency but allowing them to use and experiment with the
language they are learning. Even when producing errors, this can help for their language
development as they learn to recognize faults in their own language ability. Westhoff further
distinguishes between producing so-called ‘chunks of language fragments’. Practicing with
chunks should lead to a greater skill in using different combinations of these fragments,
which are also called formulaic speech. Creative speech is another example of produced
output. This is almost the opposite of formulaic speech, because it follows the rules of
grammar and structure. The goal is to make these grammar rules inherent to the student’s
language skills. This component of the framework relates to the output hypothesis of Merrill
Swain (Swain 1985), which was intended to complement the ideas of Krashen. She suggested
that, while input was fundamental, language output was crucial in the development of
grammatical understanding. While most researchers would agree that language output
increases fluency, Swain’s view is more extreme, in that she views language output as an
essential component of language learning. Other studies, which examine the value of target
language output, have shown clearly that output encourages the acquisition of vocabulary
(de la Fuente, 2002; Ellis & He, 1999).
The last component of Westhoff’s penta pie framework concerns strategic action, which
enables the learner to communicate his wants without having to know all vocabulary. Again,
the focus here is on the importance of output. There are receptive and productive strategies,
which both help students understand texts or speech by guessing unknown words as well as
being able to make one’s point without having all the words and phrases ready in their own
speech.
While this framework for language acquisition focuses on the key roles of both input and
output, research by Izumi et al. (1999) and Shehadeh (2002) noted that there is little to
suggest that language output is conducive to the development of grammar, though
Shehadeh (2002) pointed to a dearth of data in this research field. Further, Schmidt (1983)
found that output can hinder acquisition in some cases, where fluency is attained at the
expense of accuracy. Skehan (1995) identified three important characteristics of output:
fluency, accuracy and complexity. Different language learners will have different priorities
(and the same could also be said for the language teacher), the result being that one or more
of these aspects suffer at the expense of the other(s). Skehan (1995) then identifies the
following six functions of language output, and the seventh was added by Ellis (2004):
1. Generates better input through feedback from learner production.
7
2. It focuses learners’ attention on grammar.
3. It enables learners to test hypotheses about the grammar.
4. It helps to automise existing second language knowledge (so language output
becomes more natural/instinctive)?.
5. Helps learners develop communicative (discourse) skills
6. Helps learners steer conversations on topics they are contributing to.
7. Output makes the learner aware of gaps in the knowledge of the target language,
thereby providing auto-input. (Ellis, 2004 pp 110-111).
Points 1, 3, 6 and 7 are related to production and put focus on the syntactic structure of the
language. They explain why output needs to be ‘pushed’ before it “engages the learner’s
syntactical knowledge” (Ellis, 2004, p. 114). Points 2, 4 and 5 directly support the notion that
production plays a key role in language acquisition, while points 4 and 5 also relate to the
theory that language output is directly linked to language automisation. The key question,
therefore, is how are the various aspects of language acquisition theory presented here
actually applied in the bilingual classroom (i.e. research question 1).
2.2
Motivational theory
According to the ‘affective filter hypothesis’ individual’s emotions can directly influence the
results of language learning (Krashen, 1981). This influence can either be positive or
negative. Therefore it is very important for teachers to determine to what extent the pupils
are motivated for a certain assignment, as the amount of motivation can significantly
influence the final results of the task. In this research we look into methods Spanish teachers
use in the classroom in order to stimulate or motivate their pupils to speak English (research
question 2). According to Ryan & Deci (2000) motivation is explained as “being moved to do
something”. A person that is considered motivated is “energised or activated toward an
end”, while an unmotivated person “feels no impetus of inspiration to act is thus
characterised”.
Motivation can come from different sources. The most basic distinction is the division
between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is motivation to do
something because you like it or because you find it interesting. The activity itself is the
reward. This contrasts with extrinsic motivation whereby a person does something because
he/she will gain by it. The outcome of the activity is the reward. Intrinsic motivation is
considered a valuable form of motivation which results in high quality learning: it is seen as
the ‘natural motivation’ (Ryan & Stiller, 1991). Intrinsic motivation can be stimulated by
certain methods. Causes that are initially extrinsically motivated can eventually become
intrinsic, a process referred to as internalization (Woolfolk, Hughes & Walkup, 2008). In
general, intrinsic motivation seems to be promoted with activities that have a higher level of
autonomy and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Ryan and Deci (2000) designed a useful overview of different forms of extrinsic motivation
and the factors that either promote or hinder internalization. At one extreme of the
taxonomy is intrinsic motivation. “Amotivation” is placed at the other extreme, whereby the
learner does not show intentions to work on a task nor does the person see the relevance of
it. The central section of the overview concerns four types of extrinsic motivation with
increasing autonomy: external regulation, introjection, identification, and integration.
8
External regulation is associated with a low level of autonomy. Learners who are motivated
by external regulation perform tasks because a reward or punishment is related to the
outcome. Introjection involves more autonomy, but remains controlled. This form of
motivation is focused on the approval of oneself or others: a person might work on a task
because the outcome is linked to pride or guilt. With motivation by identification, learners
can identify with the results of a task. The activity is valued and the motivation is somewhat
intrinsic. Finally, motivation by integration is close to intrinsic motivation. A person
understands the goals of a task and recognizes that the outcome contributes to achieving his
own ambitions.
Assessment of the motivational approaches employed in bilingual classrooms is key to
understanding the effectiveness of the language acquisition process, with the essential
thesis being that there is a positive correlation between the autonomy and the quality of
learning (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987).
2.3
Target language proficiency level and CLIL provision
According to the standard of the European Platform for bilingual teachers in the
Netherlands, students have to be able to attain B2 level of the Common European
Framework of References (CEFR) at the end of the bilingual program. The bilingual teachers
should have at least the level of B2 (CEFR) as well. At least one subject needs to be taught by
a native speaker. Extra courses and trainings need to be offered to allow the bilingual
teachers to obtain these requirements. Content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
involves an internationalisation of education and a greater involvement of the role of the
English teacher in the bilingual program.
Effective CLIL provision in the classroom requires that the learners have exposure to five
core ‘CLIL dimensions’: the culture, environment, language, content and learning dimensions
(Marsh et al., 2001). The language dimension is concerned primarily with the acquisition of a
high target language proficiency level by the learner. It is therefore dependent on the ability
of the educational institution in question to provide subject teachers who have attained
themselves a high target language proficiency level. Effective use of diverse work formats in
the CLIL classroom requires that the CLIL provider has good pedagogic and didactic skills, in
addition to target language skills. There is a need, therefore, to examine the relationship
between the quality of CLIL provision in the classroom and the target language proficiency
level of the CLIL teacher. This research will address this issue.
3. Methodology
3.1
Data collection
Structured interviews with teachers in the bilingual departments were the primary source of
data for this research project. The interview as a tool for data collection was chosen
primarily so that the respondents could express detailed answers to the key questions. This
approach also allows for clarification by the interviewers, where needed. The only selection
criterion was that the interviewees had to be actively teaching in a bilingual program.
Four schools were visited during the data collection phase (March-April 2009). A total of 11
interviews were conducted. Detailed notes of the answers were taken during all of the
9
interviews, eight of which were also digitally recorded. Cross interviews were also conducted
with two of the authors of this paper, in order to record an objective assessment of the CLIL
programs in the schools.
3.2 Research question 1: What aspects of language acquisition theory do
the CLIL teachers in Granada employ in their teaching methods to stimulate
language output?
In order to research which aspects of language acquisition the respondents used when
employing English in their own lessons, they were asked about their use of the English
language in the classroom. The moments they switch to Spanish or their opinions about the
importance of using the target language can give some insights into their ideas about how
their students learn a language. The respondents were asked their opinion about the
importance of using English in the classroom and whether or not they were satisfied with the
amount of time their students used English during their lessons. Also, they were asked
whether they were satisfied with their student’s level of English. In addition, they were
asked how much English they themselves used in their lessons and at which moments they
switched to Spanish.
3.3 Research question 2: What methods do teachers use to
motivate/stimulate target language output?
In order to determine the different methods used by Spanish bilingual teachers to increase
spoken output of their pupils, respondents were asked to give examples of methods they
employ in the classroom that work to encourage the pupils to speak English (Interview
question 6). Further, the respondents were asked to motivate their answer. The examples
given were categorized using the taxonomy on human motivation by Ryan & Deci (2000)
Only valuable answers were used for the analysis of the results.
3.4 Research question 3: How does the teachers own target language
proficiency level influence the quality of the methods used to stimulate target
language output?
The quality of the answers on the question on methods used to stimulate target language
output and the apparent proficiency level of the target language were categorised. By
implementing this categorisation approach, simple correlations can be drawn between the
quality of used methods and the language proficiency of the respondent.
4. Analysis
4.1
Personal observations and impressions
From the cross-interviews with two members of the research team it became clear that CLIL
programs in the four schools visited suffer because the English proficiency level of most
subject teachers is poor. While the teachers believed it was important that the students
produce output in the target language, there was often little emphasis placed on such
production. As a consequence, there was little expectation for the students to produce
output in the target language. The classroom activities designed for content and language
acquisition were mostly straightforward, often involving nothing more than reading aloud
10
from a text. Such activities offered little to motivate the students. Some activities, when
used (such as quizzes), were met with more enthusiasm. When the respondents of the cross
interviews tried to implement more varied CLIL-type activities (for example cooperative
learning work formats, presentations, role-play), they were faced with the problem that
many students were not used to spontaneous target language output. They needed to get
used to the idea of interacting in the target language by default. In general, the students had
a low target language proficiency level and were consequently shy and afraid to make
mistakes. One of the key issues that arise from the cross interviews is that there is seemingly
no specific training offered to teachers in the CLIL programs.
4.2 Research question 1: What aspects of language acquisition theory do
the CLIL teachers in Granada employ in their teaching methods to stimulate
language output?
The respondents were asked their opinion about the importance of using English in the
classroom and whether or not they were satisfied with the amount of time their students
used English during their lessons. Also, they were asked whether they were satisfied with
their student’s level of English. In addition, they were asked how much English they
themselves used in their lessons and at which moments they switched to Spanish.
Depending on whether the teacher is proficient enough in English he or she only uses English
in the classroom during bilingual lessons, when there is a language assistant present, or
during English lessons. One of the schools let the students sign a contract at the beginning of
the year saying that they have to use English to make them aware of the importance of this.
Another teacher mentioned the importance of learning English in the European context; for
international communication. The level of the students’ English is considered satisfactory by
most teachers, as they all take into account the low exposure to the language in the Spanish
primary schools. Most teachers state that first year classes speak less English, mostly
because of their lower language level. Most teachers believe that because bilingual students
experience more exposure to the language this will probably mean that their language level
will be higher than regular students.
4.3 Research question 2: What methods do teachers use to
motivate/stimulate target language output?
In this research, more than 50% of the respondents who gave a valuable answer indicated to
use methods that belonged to the external regulation category. Examples given outside of
this category were equally divided over the two categories of introjection and identification,
30% of the respondents gave examples that could be placed in these groups. It is notable
that only English teachers used examples of methods that stimulate the identification of
pupils with the English language. No such examples were identified in answers of teachers of
other subject.
The second question shows that allowing mistakes is clearly the most popular. In this
research, more than 80% of the respondent considered this a valuable method to stimulate
pupils to speak English. Giving grades and discussing pupils’ motivation was believed to be
useful for 36% and 46% of the respondents respectively.
11
4.4 Research question 3: How does the teachers own target language
proficiency level influence the quality of the methods used to stimulate target
language output?
The target language proficiency levels were plotted against the pedagogic understanding of
target language output methods for each of the respondents. Some respondents exhibited
both a high target language proficiency level, coupled with a good pedagogic understanding.
These teachers were invariably English teachers, and also the bilingual program coordinator.
There was a tendency for the non English language teachers to have a lower target language
proficiency level.
H
Language proficiency
3
I, J, K
F
2
D, E, G
1
C
A,B
0
0
1
2
3
CLIL method quality
Figure 1 Scatter plot of quality of methods versus English language proficiency. The letters
refer to the respondent’s letter code.
5. Conclusion
5.1
Research question 1: Use of language acquisition theory
From the data collected in the interviews with the teachers, some links stood out. It soon
became clear that the teachers’ own level of English influenced how and when they used
English in their own lessons. This seemed also linked to the kind of methods they used to
stimulate their students to speak English and the extent to which they presented
pedagogical or didactical viewpoints about these methods. When looking at Westhoff’s pie
of five prerequisites for language acquisition (Westhoff, 2002), it turns out there are also
links between some parts of language acquisition theory the teachers show in the kinds of
methods they indicated to use.
12
Most teachers seemed to be concerned whether or not their students understood the
English parts of their lessons and therefore switched to Spanish to explain content or form
related topics. Many also pointed out they would relate the English to the Spanish
translation or tried to relate it to Spanish culture. In a way, this is in accordance with
Westhoff’s penta pie to make the content of a lesson meaningful and interesting to the
students. Considering the fairly low level of English of both students and teachers in Spanish
bilingual classes, this is indeed a good way to keep the students involved with the material.
One teacher mentioned the importance of selecting material close to the students’ own
interests, so that they can relate the lesson material to what they care about. Making the
material meaningful and interesting was for her definitely a way to make an assignment real.
A focus on form turned out to be an important factor for most teachers. From personal
experiences (interview interns) it was noted that grammar education was considered an
effective way to stimulate especially written output. Most students showed excellent skills in
textual analyses and dictating grammar rules, which also accounts for their relatively lower
spoken output production. It needs to be pointed out that creating a so-called ‘feeling’
(Westhoff, 2002) for language is very hard in the Spanish context with very little exposure to
English outside the classroom. This is probably why learning the form of a language plays a
greater part in Spanish bilingual classes.
The amount of time and the specific moments the teachers use English in their lessons
shows they have more or less common perceptions about ‘pushed’ output (Westhoff, 2002).
Most teachers used a different range of strategic methods to stimulate language output. By
asking repeatedly to reply question in English and to focus on pronunciation, most teachers
managed to get their students to use some English during classes. All teachers agree that
that using English in their lessons is very important, but they are quite lenient towards lower
grade students when demanding their use of English. The underlying cause seems to be the
fact that most students haven’t received much input prior to secondary education. Most
teachers also believe that the increased exposure to the language in the bilingual classes will
eventually lead to higher levels of language proficiency.
5.2
Research question 2: Use of motivation
From the examples of methods respondents gave regarding the encouraging of the pupils to
speak English, it becomes clear that most respondents present examples that only belong to
one of the four categories of motivation. Only two respondents mentioned examples that
fall into two different categories. This suggests that most teachers mainly focus on one form
of motivation while trying to encourage their pupils to speak in English. The form that was
identified mostly in the examples is external regulation, the form associated with the least
autonomy of the pupils. Apparently, teachers are inclined to use less autonomy and a
relatively high degree of force in order to stimulate the pupils. Introjection and identification
were also used to motivate pupils, but less so than regulation.
When comparing these results to the general feeling of the respondents about the three
proposed methods on the cards a difference can be noticed. In this case making clear that
mistakes are allowed, a form of introjection, is considered the most valuable method. This
method focuses on keeping the pride of the pupil intact. According to some respondents the
13
pupils are not encouraged to speak when they think their pride might be affected. The other
2 methods, referring to external regulation and integration, seem to be more or less equally
popular, but less than half of the teachers considered these methods to be successful for
their pupils. One of the reasons for this is that some teachers considered the students too
young for methods that focus on integration, for example respondent A: “The students are
too young to understand that”, or respondent F: “I don’t consider this one, not really. The
pupils are really children, young, they don’t understand why or why not it’s important”.
In this research it stands out that in the classroom respondents seem to use methods that
are associated with less autonomy, whereas if confronted with three different methods they
seem to prefer the ones that are associated with more autonomy. It might be that when
asked for examples the methods linked with more force or less autonomy are the first that
come into the mind. Another option is that there may be a difference in what the
respondents aim for and what they employ.
5.3
Research question 3: Language proficiency and quality of methods
The respondents exhibited a wide range in the level of English language proficiency and the
quality of the answers on methods used for stimulating target language output (Figure 1).
Respondent H can be ignored for the purpose of this question (see Dejevij et al., 2009), and
by doing this, it would seem that there is a link between the quality of target language
output methods and target language proficiency. The respondents who had the highest
target language proficiency levels also tended to have a greater pedagogic understanding of
classroom methods for motivating target language output. Those who exhibited lower target
language proficiency seemed to have less pedagogic understanding in this area. Caution
must be exercised, because it is possible that the respondents with a lower language
proficiency level were simply not able to express their pedagogic understanding during the
interview [which was conducted in the target language].
5.4
General conclusion
From the analysis about different kinds of motivation and the link with the methods the
teachers opted themselves as well as the three methods they were handed, it became clear
that the methods the teachers opted showed rather low student autonomy. When given the
three methods, the teachers chose those with higher student autonomy more often. Those
teachers who selected the methods with the most autonomy (identification) were the three
bilingual coordinators, who were also all English teachers. These teachers also had the
highest (near-native) language proficiency and they showed more aspects of language
acquisition theory (Westhoff, 2002). They also showed the highest quality in the methods
they showed (table 3.4) Therefore, there appears to be a link between language proficiency,
knowledge and application of pedagogical and language acquisition theory and the level of
autonomy in teaching methods.
5.5
Implications for CLIL provision in Spain
If one of the determinants of better pedagogic understanding of CLIL provision is the target
language level of the teacher, then it is important to ensure that the target language
proficiency of CLIL teachers exceeds a given standard. In the current Spanish situation, no
such standard is required at the moment which seems to influence the quality of the CLIL
14
methods used in bilingual classes. However, as the Department of Education awards the use
of language assistants to these classes, there is potential for improving this quality. This
research did not study the tasks of the language assistants in-depth and only has personal
observations (see cross interviews) to deduct the implications for CLIL methods. From what
was observed, the language assistants were given relatively minor roles in stimulating the
language acquisition process of the students. It seemed that, from personal observations,
these language assistants could be used more effectively, as they were native speakers and
could be assigned more task-based activities in the classroom. Especially in those situations
where the teacher’s proficiency made effective use of CLIL methodology difficult. An official
guideline explaining and clarifying CLIL methodology for these language assistants could, in
combination with more specific guidelines about CLIL methods for bilingual teachers could
contribute to more effective language acquisition.
From the data it was concluded, that the language level of the teacher was linked to less
autonomy in applying teaching methods to stimulate language production. Higher student
autonomy in teaching methods can encourage output production and student motivation
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). The English teachers opted for methods with higher student autonomy
and used more aspects of Westhoff's language acquisition theory (2002), therefore more
collaboration between these teachers and the subject teachers could improve the bilingual
classes. Using different forms of motivation could improve the effectiveness of the teaching
methods, as there are differences in adjustment and attitude among pupils. According to the
work of Ryan & Deci (2000), motivation forms associated with more autonomy lead to more
engagement and higher quality of learning. However considering the age of these pupils
and the sometimes difficult circumstances in Spanish classes, sometimes a relatively higher
degree of force might be necessary. In general it could be assumed that creating a greater
awareness of motivational and language acquisition theory among the CLIL teachers could
improve the quality of bilingual education.
15
6. Bibliography
Carless, D. (2008). Student use of the mother tongue in the task-based classroom. ELT
Journal, 62(4).
Cummins, J. Immersion Education for the Millennium: What We Have Learned from 30 Years
of Research on Second Language Immersion. Retrieved May 29, 2009, from
http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/immersion2000.html
de la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of
input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24, 81-112.
Deller, S. & Price, C. (2007). Teaching other subjects through English. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2004). Task-based learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Ellis, R. & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in incidental acquisition of
word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.
Eurydice Network (2008). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe - 2008
Edition. Brussels: Eurydice.
Grolnick, W. S. & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental
and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 890–898.
Hellekjaer, G. O. Redefining formal foreign language instruction for a bilingual environment.
Retrieved June 22, 2009, from
http://www.ecml.at/html/thematiccollections/BE/Expert.htm#ref3
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M. & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis.
Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 21, 421-452.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
Landelijk Network Voor TTO website. Visited 28th June 2009 Standaard Europees Platform
tto Engels-VWO http://www.netwerktto.europeesplatform.nl/files/standaard_tto_vwo.pdf
16
Malinovska, L. and Ziedmane, A. (no date) CLIL Crosscultural Dimensions. from
http://www.clil-axis.net/new_pdfs/CLIL%20cross-cultural%20Dimensions.pdf
Marsh, D., Maljers, A. & Hartiala, A. (2001) Profiling European Classrooms: Languages Open
Doors. European Platform for Dutch Education, The Netherlands & University of Jyväskylä,
Finland.
Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology,25, 54–67.
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers,
parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 14, 226–249.
Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: an agenda for
acquisitional research. Language Learning, 52, 597—647.
Skehan, P. (1995). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied
Linguistics, 17 (1), 38-62.
Schmidt, R. (1983). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative
competence. In: N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp.
137-174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In: Gass, S. & Madden, C. Input in Second
Language Acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House.
Westhoff, G. J. 2002. Een "schijf van vijf" voor het vreemde-talenonderwijs. Bedrijvige talen,
26, 9-15.
Woolfolk, A., Hughes, M. & Walkup, V. (2008). Psychology in Education. Harlow: Pearson
Longman.
17