Vol. V. Año 2020. Número 2, Abril-Junio
83
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
AN ANALYSIS OF THE TEACHERS’ REALITY
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AUTORA: Susana Paola Palma
1
DIRECCIÓN PARA CORRESPONDENCIA: susanappm@gmail.com
Fecha de recepción:
17
-
02
-
2020
Fecha de aceptación:
24
-
04
-
2020
ABSTRACT
The teaching of English as a foreign language in the Ecuadorian public schools
contemplates as one of the core principles the Content and Language Integrated
Learning (CLIL) approach. Therefore, knowledge about CLIL plays an important
role in the teaching-learning process and it is fundamental to define if English
teachers are prepared to apply it. So, the aim of this research is to determine
the knowledge and understanding of English teachers regarding this
methodology, taking into consideration that teachers are crucial for its
implementation inside the educational framework. The method of investigation
is inductive where information from educators is collected in order to evidence
their real expertise and consequently, the effective application of this
educational approach. This study has been carried out in a public educational
institution, with 10 participants, between 25 and 45 years old, female gender
and superior educational level. The present study employs a survey-based
research methodology modeled and the scaling method used to measure
teachers’ answers was Likert scale. Results show teachers have a scarce
knowledge of the features and principles associated to this educational
approach. This limited understanding affects the roles that professors have to
accomplish for an appropriate involvement of CLIL in their current teaching
practice. Based on the results, it is possible to conclude that CLIL is barely
applied by teachers, and its implementation is restrained to the guidelines
defined in the teacher’s guide without having a profound comprehension and
without recognizing its benefits for students.
KEYWORDS: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL); CLIL core
features; CLIL teacher´s roles; National Ecuadorian curriculum; English as a
Foreign Language.
RESUMEN
1
Máster Universitario en Educación Bilingüe por la Universidad Internacional de La Rioja – España. Docente
Titular de Inglés. Unidad Educativa del Milenio ¨Dra. Guadalupe Larriva¨. Ecuador.
Susana Paola Palma
84
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. ECUADOR.
La enseñanza del Inglés como lengua extranjera en las escuelas públicas
ecuatorianas contempla como uno de los principios centrales el Aprendizaje
Integrado de Contenido y Lenguas (AICLE). Por lo tanto, el conocimiento sobre
CLIL juega un papel en el proceso de enseñanza aprendizaje y es fundamental
definir si los docentes de Inglés están preparados para aplicarlo. Así, el objetivo
de esta investigación es determinar el conocimiento y entendimiento de los
docentes respecto a esta metodología, considerando que los docentes son
cruciales para su implementación dentro del marco educativo. El método de
investigación es inductivo donde la información proporcionada por los
educadores es recopilada con el fin de evidenciar su real experticia y
consecuentemente, la aplicación efectiva de este enfoque educativo. Este
estudio se ha desarrollado en una institución educativa publica con 10
participantes, entre 25 y 45 años, de género femenino y nivel educativo
superior. El presente estudio emplea una metodología de investigación basada
en encuestas y el método de escala utilizado para medir las respuestas de los
maestros fue la escala Likert. Los resultados muestran que los maestros tienen
un escaso conocimiento de las características y principios asociados a este
enfoque educativo. Esta comprensión limitada afecta los roles que los
profesores tienen que cumplir para una participación adecuada de CLIL en su
práctica docente actual. En base a los resultados, es posible concluir que los
maestros apenas aplican CLIL, y su implementación se limita a las pautas
definidas en la guía del maestro sin tener una comprensión profunda y sin
reconocer sus beneficios para los estudiantes.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenido y Lengua (AICLE);
Principios de AICLE; Roles de los docentes AICLE; currículo nacional
ecuatoriano; Inglés como Lengua Extranjera.
INTRODUCTION
The Ecuadorian government has implemented from 2016-2017 a new
curriculum which establishes the application of English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) from second grade in primary schools, where the goals for proficiency are
aligned to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The core
principles in this new curriculum are communicative language approach,
international standards, thinking skills, learner-centered approach and Content
and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador,
2016). Most of these principles have been considered for some years in the
academic instruction except the CLIL approach.
The communicative language approach has been promoted inside the teaching-
learning process from 2010 promulgating the acquisition of language by means
of interactions rather than memorization, and involving the four language
skills: listening, reading, writing and speaking. At the same time, national
policies have constantly advocated to international standards so as to measure
the foreign language proficiency. Also, as a complement of the communicative
approach, the educational policies have included the students’ voice in the
Revista Cognosis. Revista de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación ISSN 2588-0578
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSY
Vol. V. Año 2020. Número 2, Abril-Junio
85
learning process in order to promote the autonomous learning, taking into
consideration that learners are the center of the instruction.
Nevertheless, CLIL is only included in this last curriculum where an additional
language is used to promote both content and language acquisition. This model
also involves four interconnected dimensions (4 Cs): content, culture,
communication and cognition. Thus, the curriculum states ¨The methodology
and classroom procedures to be applied when teaching within a CLIL model
form part of the teaching and learning specifications of this curriculum¨
(Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016). Furthermore, this curriculum
involves the development of thinking skills which are contemplated in the
cognition component of the CLIL framework allowing to students to move on
from the understanding to the creation of knowledge.
Hence, the teachers’ comprehension about the CLIL approach is essential for
the consecution of students’ achievements regarding the English language
acquisition which is focused on learners reach a B1 level at the end of their
secondary education. Nonetheless, according to the official website devoted to
teachers’ training and belonging to the Ministry of Education, there are not
training programs for English teachers focused on the comprehension of CLIL
fundamentals which allow them to develop competences for the implementation
of a successful CLIL lesson. Current conferences, discussions or workshops
endorsed by national authorities are centered in general guidelines. So that, it
is difficult to determine if public schools and its teachers are prepared to put
into practice the CLIL approach in accordance with the principles outlined in
the national curriculum.
Consequently, it is relevant to formulate some questions such as: do
Ecuadorian teachers know about CLIL or do they only ignore this term? Do
teachers recognize the main features of the CLIL approach? Are teachers
prepared to apply CLIL in an effective way? Are teachers aware of the
competences that they have to develop for a successful instruction under the
CLIL standards? What are the roles that CLIL teachers have to assume in their
current practice? Answers to these and other questions allow evidencing the
teachers’ current knowledge regarding CLIL and provide a more real perspective
about the application of this approach in public educational institutions.
Furthermore, according to Hanushek and Rivkin (2016) “teachers are central to
any consideration of schools, and a majority of education policy discussions
focus directly or indirectly on the role of teachers” (p. 1053). For that reason, it
is imperative to recognize what the teachers’ understanding of CLIL is, because
they are the ones who guide and support the learning process, by engaging and
motivating students to attain their goals. Thus, teachers with a lower
performance influence their students’ performance, and this performance is not
only linked to academic achievements, but also encompasses personal and
professional accomplishments throughout the development of knowledge, skills
and values.
Susana Paola Palma
86
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. ECUADOR.
This research was centered in a public school since in keeping with the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in
Ecuador “Enrolments in private schools have been fairly stable in recent years,
while public enrolments have risen” (British Council, 2015, p. 16). Moreover,
the public school considered for this investigation is part of the eighty-two
“millennium” schools built by the government with a modern structure
(Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2017). Nonetheless, learners in different
grades of instruction have demonstrated a basic level (A1) in EFL which must
vary in accordance with the curriculum. So, a test taken by Education First in
2016 showed the same level (A1) for students in both tenth and eighth grade
(Education First, 2016).
Therefore, it is necessary to examine all elements implicated in the teaching-
learning process in order to distinguish the factors associated to the students’
low performance in the target language. Thus, this investigation aims to identify
the teachers’ expertise with regard to CLIL as an indicator of their performance
in current practices recognizing their limitations so as to support and scaffold
students in the foreign language acquisition, taking into account that the CLIL
approach constitutes a remarkable principle of the national English curriculum
which encompasses notions, strategies and activities to be applied for the
consecution of students’ academic achievements.
DEVELOPMENT
Marsh (1994) states that Content and Language Integrated Learning “refers to
situations where subjects, or part of subjects, are taught through a foreign
language with a dual-focused aims, namely the learning of content and the
simultaneously learning of a foreign language”. Also, Coyle, Hood, & Marsh
(2010) claims that “CLIL is a dual-focused educational approach in which an
additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and
language” (p. 1). Then, CLIL seeks the acquisition of new academic content and
linguistic competences by means of an additional language. Further, “CLIL
plays an important role providing a pragmatic response towards overcoming
linguistic shortcomings, and in promoting equal access to education for all
school-aged students, including those with additional support needs” (Coyle et
al. 2010).
Additionally, Lightbown and Spada (2006) declare that “CLIL provides the basic
conditions under which humans successfully acquire any new languages: by
understanding and then creating meaning” (p. 16). Since “whereas methodology
relies heavily on specific conditions for successful implementation, CLIL is
instead guided by six relational pedagogical principles for integrating language
and content that work across different contexts and settings, while
incorporating all four key elements of 4Cs framework” (Cross and Gearon,
2013). The 4Cs framework endorses the development of content,
communication, cognition and culture. These dimensions are strongly
interconnected and should not be observed as standing alone. This framework
Revista Cognosis. Revista de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación ISSN 2588-0578
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSY
Vol. V. Año 2020. Número 2, Abril-Junio
87
is a tool for planning CLIL activities and for boosting the learners’ potential at
dissimilar levels and ages.
Thus, an effective CLIL practice should combines the four dimensions: content,
communication, cognition and culture (British Council, 2006). Content refers to
knowledge, skills and understanding associated to subject matters of the
curriculum. Communication declares the usage of language as a vehicle for
learning whilst it is developed the target language by itself. The involvement of
Cognition implicates the development of thinking skills while is promoted an
additional language and academic content. Culture is the core of this
framework and promotes the understanding of both local cultures and foreign
cultures (British Council, 2006). Thereby, the development of a subject
knowledge and linguistic skills foster critical and creative thinking skills with
cultural awareness.
Moreover, Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008) also determine six core features of
CLIL methodology: multiple focus, which obeys to the integration of diverse
academic contents from different subjects; safe and rich learning environment,
which claims to the implementation of meaningful activities using appropriate
materials; authenticity, which refers to the learners’ involvement in real life
situations where they are able to interact with others in different contexts;
active learning, which contemplates students as the center of the instruction
where they work cooperatively; scaffolding and co-operation, which endorse the
supporting to learners taking into consideration their learning styles, interests
and needs; and cooperation, which insists in the collaboration of the
educational community for the students’ improvement. (Moya, 2015)
Furthermore, Marsh, Coyle, Kitanova, Maljers, Wolff and Zielonka (2005) point
out that CLIL involves some variants, some of which are oriented to language
teaching whilst others are centered in content teaching. Its main feature is the
application of a new educational approach which encompasses both subject
and language teaching, by transcending traditional approaches. According to
Prasetianto (2015) there are three kinds of CLIL: Soft CLIL, Mid CLIL and Hard
CLIL. Soft-CLIL asserts the teaching of academic topics from the curriculum
during a language course. So, this CLIL version is language-driven since the
teaching and learning is focused on language. On the other hand, Hard CLIL
sustains the teaching of half the curriculum in the target language inside of
partial immersion programmes. Thus, this CLIL version is content-driven since
the target language is only used as a tool for the learning of content. Finally,
Mid CLIL supports the teaching of a subject for a certain numbers of hours in
the target language (Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d' Educació, 2008).
Therefore, the development of a successful CLIL lesson involves some concepts
such as critical thinking, multiple and emotional intelligences, scaffolding,
cooperative learning and collaborative work, which teachers should consider in
order to encourage students’ knowledge and skills in a second language.
Additionally, teachers should master content and have linguistic competence in
order to produce functional language required for the teaching of that content
Susana Paola Palma
88
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. ECUADOR.
(Papaja, 2013). Hence, CLIL demands from teachers, linguistic skills in the
foreign language as well as a certain proficiency level in subject-content.
Besides, teachers need to be aware of methodological changes because this
approach differs from the way of learning languages as well as from the way of
learning regular non-linguistic subjects.
Frigols, Marsh, Mehisto and Wolff (as cited in Pavon & Ellison, 2013), state that
“the pedagogical qualification of teachers giving instruction through a second
language and the accuracy of the language itself is of paramount importance
for the success of CLIL programmes” (p. 70). Thus, the professional
development of CLIL teachers are crucial to promote a deep understanding in
students. “Meaningful professional development encompasses more than a
simply adding new knowledge and technical skills to teachers’ existing
repertoires” (Luna Scott, 2015). According to Bull and Gilbert (2012), it requires
teachers to “shift the paradigm - to break with and replace their past ways of
thinking and knowing with a totally new understanding of their role and its
purpose” (p. 6).
The European Centre for Modern Language established a European Framework
for CLIL Teachers Education (EFCT). This publication proposes “a teacher
training curriculum for CLIL that may be linked to learners' curricula” (Marsh,
Mehisto, Wolff, & Frigols Martín, 2011, p. 3). “Marsh (2002) report lists the
theoretical and methodological competences for a CLIL teacher who is not
expected to have either native speaker or near-native speaker level of the target
language” (Pistorio, 2009, p. 2). In this way, CLIL teachers will be able to
develop professional competences aligned to students’ needs as well as content
and language aims defined in the curriculum, by closing the gap between
language policy theory and classroom learning practice.
The target professional competences that a CLIL teacher should attain
according to the EFCT are: personal reflection, CLIL fundamentals, content and
language awareness, methodology and assessment, research and evaluation,
learning resources and environment, CLIL classroom and CLIL management
(Marsh et al., 2011). These competences endorse an effective instruction. Also,
Marsh, Mehisto, Wolff and Frigols (2010) point out: Teachers undertaking CLIL
will need to be prepared to develop multiple types of expertise among others in
the content subject; in a language; in best practice in teaching and learning; in
the integration of the previous three; and, in the integration of CLIL within an
educational institution (Marsh et al., 2010, p. 5)
Further, Coonan (2013) states that CLIL teachers have to play eight different
roles: Planner, focused on the lesson planning taking into account the
development of both content and language and embracing a critical thinking;
Language user, centered in the teachers’ language expertise to use an accurate
language in different academic sceneries and according to the students’ levels;
Language promoter, oriented to the employment of strategies designed to
motivate the production of the target language; Discipline protector, tied to the
Revista Cognosis. Revista de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación ISSN 2588-0578
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSY
Vol. V. Año 2020. Número 2, Abril-Junio
89
implication of students’ needs and interests in the teaching-learning process;
Material designer, related to the creation of engaging materials; Team partner,
associated to the collaboration with colleagues so as to foster the students’
comprehension based on the curriculum; Evaluator, linked to the designing of
assessment involving content and language; and Methodological innovator,
allied to self-reflection on applied methodology.
The implementation of CLIL in Ecuador is very new, at least in public
educational institutions although this approach appeared around 1990 as a
result of multiculturalism in Europe and the necessity of improving learners’
skills in the 21st century by taking into account different contexts and realities.
In fact, the CLIL approach only emerges in the new curriculum guidelines
defined in 2016 as a foremost principle to prepare learners for a “successful
participation in a globalized, democratic society in the 21st century by focusing
on the development of life skills, work skills, and entrepreneurship skills”
(Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016, pag.7).
The National English curriculum conceives the 4Cs framework (content,
culture, communication, and cognition) conceptualized by Coyle (as cited in
Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016). However, its specifications
determine the implementation of a language-driven CLIL approach, “where
content from other disciplines is used for meaningful and purposeful language
use” (Met, as cited in Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016). Likewise, the
Introduction of English as a Foreign Language in Ecuador (Ministerio de
Educación del Ecuador, 2016), document that stipulates the general guidelines
of English curriculum, defines “CLIL as a means to access and learn English in
an authentic, meaningful context. Thus, the focus will be on language and
language use, rather than knowledge of content” (p. 17). Therefore, the
methodology and procedures to be applied for teachers will be oriented to the
enhancement of English linguistic competences using cross-curricular topics,
fostering culture and promoting the students’ cognitive skills.
The development of learner’s cognition will be promoted throughout the use of
Bloom’s Taxonomy, since the new English Curriculum states that “The
integration of critical thinking skills as defined in Bloom’s Taxonomy and the
development of communicative linguistic competences are presented in this
proposal as interdependent processes within a CLIL model” (Ministerio de
Educación del Ecuador, 2016, p. 3). Hence, content will be the vehicle for the
context in which the language will be practiced, and through CLIL, learners will
be provided with opportunities to develop and improve their thinking skills.
Additionally, considering that the Ecuadorian population is linguistically and
culturally diverse, the Ministry of Education (2016) indicates that “this
curriculum presents a rationale and framework for learning English while
acknowledging authentic, culturally relevant production and practices in order
to facilitate educational inclusion of learners regardless of their L1” (p. 2). So,
the learning of language is integrated with cultural and cognitive aspects where
the language acquisition serves as a driver for learners’ development.
Susana Paola Palma
90
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. ECUADOR.
In order to guarantee the accomplishment of curriculum goals, the Ministry of
Education implemented some official programs for teachers so as to improve
their English language proficiency and their methodology for instruction. The
first one was called “Go Teacher” where educators had opportunities to acquire
English language abroad and to obtain a Teaching English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL) certificate. Nevertheless, this project was only carried out
until 2015 incorporating to 1047 English teachers (La Hora, 2018). Another
project, “It is time to teach in Ecuador”, was launched in 2016 with the
objective of improving English language teaching in public schools
incorporating native English language speakers in classrooms (Ministerio de
Educación del Ecuador, 2016). However, at the end of 2017 this project was
cancelled (El Telégrafo, 2018).
Apart from that, the Ministry of Education launched the Standards of
Educational Quality (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2012), which
establish five areas in which Ecuadorian English teachers must excel:
language, culture, curriculum development, methods and technology,
assessment, and professionalism and ethical commitment. Concerning to
language, this standard determines the importance of the learners' first
language for the second language acquisition. Regarding culture, teachers are
expected to boost culture as scaffolding for the students learning. Curriculum
development refers to teachers’ understanding about different principles and
theories outlined in the curriculum. Assessment determines the usage of
accurate instruments to measure students’ progress. The last standard,
Professionalism and ethical commitment appeal to the participation of
educational community.
The application of the Ecuadorian English language curriculum involves the
instruction of three hours per week in primary education and students have to
reach an A1 level at the end of this academic period. Before 2016 the teaching
of English was optional in primary schools. At the same time, learners in
secondary education must receive five hours per week and they have to attain a
B1 (Threshold) level at the end of high school, demonstrating an ability to
interact quite clearly, confidently, and appropriately in a range of formal and
informal social situations with a limited but effective command of the spoken
language (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador, 2016). Nonetheless, two big
issues threaten these goals. Firstly, the lack of educators in this area since the
national educational authorities claim the necessity of 4.273 English teachers
for public schools. Secondly, the teachers’ low linguistic competences inasmuch
as only 34% of English teachers reach a B2 level according to CEFR (La Hora,
2018).
Thus, this study is conducted through a quality paradigm because it involves
the use of some data collection instruments in order to evidence the current
knowledge of English teachers about CLIL fundamental and principles as well
as their roles and competences developed for the implementation of the CLIL
approach. It uses a survey-based research methodology modeled on that used
Revista Cognosis. Revista de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación ISSN 2588-0578
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSY
Vol. V. Año 2020. Número 2, Abril-Junio
91
to prepare the 2006 CLIL report by the European Union’s research bureau
(Eurydice, 2006). Questionnaires used in the current study included simple
factual information requiring yes or no responses, complex factual questions
which required some interpretation or analysis by the reader, and opinion or
attitudinal questions which required more alternatives and deeper
concentration. The scaling method used to measure teachers’ answers was
Likert scale.
The present study employs the descriptive method to evaluate the features of
10 English teachers in the public school ¨Dra. Guadalupe Larriva¨ which is
located in Jaramijó, Manabí, a small town with 18,500 habitants (Fundación
Wikimedia, Inc., 2017). This institution was inaugurated in 2016 based on
quality standards for infrastructure. This public school is not considered
bilingual since it does not accomplish the policies outlined for this. However, in
concordance with the new national curriculum, it is supposed to implement at
CLIL in practical lessons. This public school offers to the local community an
educational service for learners in kindergarten, primary and secondary
education. In every academic year, this institution caters for more than two
thousand students with a medium-low socioeconomic status. This research also
involves an inductive method which allows reaching general conclusions after
results gained from data collection.
Results showed that 30% of teachers
have an A2 level while 60% have a B1
and only 10% indicated a B2 level of
proficiency in English a foreign
language. No one stated a C1 or C2
level. These results contrast with the
requirements defined in the national
English curriculum which demands
that English teachers must have a B2 level. Likewise, the outcomes evidenced a
non-fulfillment of the Standards of Educational Quality which specify the
teachers’ expertise in the target language considering that an A2 or B1 level of
linguistic competence is poor in order to provide rich and comprehensible input
to students for learning (Krashen, 1981).
Apart from that, the implementation of CLIL also requires of the second
language domain bearing in mind that this approach comprises the instruction
of subject matter. And, even though the national guidelines settle the
application of a Soft CLIL, language is used for different purposes in different
contexts such as academic or social. It is important to mention that most of
teachers have a third level of academic instruction with major in Education.
However, these results also reflect a huge necessity of improving the linguistic
competences by teachers.
Concerning to teachers’ knowledge about CLIL, the findings evidenced that 30%
of English teachers do not recognize this approach. Therefore, they do not have
any idea about its principles, methodology or benefits and they do not apply it
Susana Paola Palma
92
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. ECUADOR.
in their formal instruction. Also, 50% of participants declared to have a little
understanding about this approach. They expressed that they found this
terminology in the new national curriculum and the information was concise for
them. So, the understanding is restricted to the curriculum guidelines.
Further, 10% of surveyed people
estimated to have a medium
comprehension about CLIL and its
implications, but in a general way.
Additionally, they indicated that
the most understanding was
gained throughout non-official web
sites, so that they do not feel sure
about the information acquired.
Finally, only 10% of the
respondents manifested to have an enough comprehension about CLIL
approach due to professional training received. These participants declared that
guidelines in the curriculum do not include a vast of information regarding this.
Data also revealed that only 10% of English teachers have attended to
specialized training with regard to CLIL which have been supported by personal
efforts in order to acquire an appropriate knowledge. This is consistent with
teachers who declared a profound comprehension of CLIL. Moreover, 10% of
participants have only searched information about this methodology on their
own, guided by a self-training decision. However, they expressed that
information on internet is scarce. This is a positive factor but it can mean a
lack of appropriate proposals. As Hillyard (2011) defined, the competences
needed for carrying out CLIL require a long assimilation time so that they can
be confident about integrating content and language.
Also, 50% indicated that they have acquired information regarding CLIL asking
to other colleagues but they are not sure about the information gathered.
Finally, 30% of polled people indicated that they had not attended to any formal
or informal training. These outcomes are directly proportional to teachers’ self-
confidence regarding CLIL where 50% affirmed to have a little comprehension
and 30% uttered a lack of knowledge. It was also evident that no one has
attended to a CLIL training set up by national authorities. Surveyed people
indicated that they have not been notified about some training organized by the
Ministry of Education.
The same question also reveals an interesting issue. This is that most of
English teachers who have a scarce or any information about CLIL are centered
in primary school whilst teachers with more understanding are positioned in
secondary education. This information suggests that teachers need an urgent
training to improve their skills regarding this approach since everyone must
have the same knowledge level in order to guarantee an appropriate
application. All participants expressed their willingness to know more about
Revista Cognosis. Revista de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación ISSN 2588-0578
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSY
Vol. V. Año 2020. Número 2, Abril-Junio
93
CLIL. Nonetheless, when they were questioned about their interest in the
teaching of subject-content, most of them manifested a negative decision.
Among their allegations are:
This approach is completely new for them and official web sites belonging to
Ministry of Education do not provide extra information of this framework and
its implementation in classroom. There are not activities or resources to carry
out lessons under this approach. Apart from that, teachers have not received
neither face-to-face nor virtual training which guide them in the CLIL
implementation and help them to clarify their doubts. Even, they have not
received any training focused on both linguistic competences or principles
described in the new English curriculum, according to their statements.
Some participants also declared that the inclusion of academic content
obviously involves specialized vocabulary or terms. As a result, this would
demand them an additional preparation for the lesson planning which could
take them more time and effort without taking into consideration the creation of
needed material for fostering the students’ learning. Likewise, teachers stated
limitations in their times due to they have to accomplish some administrative
functions which restrain their time for the researching and acquisitioning of
new professional skills.
The knowledge about CLIL for teachers has a direct impact in the teaching of
academic content in their practical lessons. Even, when the English book
assigned by the Ministry of Education includes the teaching of academic topics
for the development of linguistic skills, results evidence that 60% of teachers do
not include academic topics in their instruction. In contrast, 40% of the
surveyed people expressed the implementation of academic content in their
lessons. They alleged that the teachers’ book provides them some useful
information that guides them in the development of academic topics. The
participants who have taught academic topics in their instruction are those
who have a medium or high comprehension of this approach.
This is an indicator that most of teachers are not ready to teach subjects
matters in English because most of them exhibit limited language proficiency
and do not have a clear notion about the elements involved in CLIL approach.
In spite of this, they have to teach some academic topics included in English
books. A resource that supports their teaching process is the teachers’ guide
which specifies step by step activities that they have to develop during their
instruction. Thus, although teachers do not have a strong knowledge about
CLIL theories and other tenets encompassed in the curriculum, they follow the
directives stated in their guides.
With regard to the teachers’ perception about CLIL benefits, results confirm
that 20% agreed on the good results that this approach can bring to students
since these are oriented to the acquisition of English as a second language
through content taking into consideration the development of students’ creative
and thinking skills. Otherwise, 80% indicated a disagreement which could be
Susana Paola Palma
94
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. ECUADOR.
related to 30% of teachers who do not know about CLIL and 50% who have a
little understanding. For this same reason, it would be impossible for them
evaluate the benefits gained by learners.
Similarly, participants’ opinions about the appropriate age to implement CLIL
revealed that teachers believe that the CLIL application is possible according to
the students’ educational level (kindergarten, primary, secondary) which is
linked to language proficiency level in this educational institution. So, most of
teachers (80%) agreed that CLIL can be applied in secondary schools for older
students. This agreement decreased for young learners since 50% agreed with
the CLIL instruction at primary level. And even, it was lowest for students in
kindergarten since only 20% of participants agreed with the implementation of
CLIL in this academic level.
Regarding the roles fulfilled by teachers, the tabulation of data displayed a
homogeneous perception of 100% of surveyed people who strongly agreed that
CLIL requires a deeper understanding of the methodology and content, so that
CLIL teachers require more knowledge in both aspects. These outcomes are
relevant because they reflect the teachers’ need to receive CLIL training courses
or workshops oriented to foster CLIL competences.
Surveyed teachers,
who applied CLIL or
have an
understanding about
it, expressed a high
agreement (90%) about
the time consumed in
the planning and
teaching of a lesson
throughout CLIL. They
indicated that time is
usually limited because they have to comply with an annual plan stated in the
national curriculum. Teachers conveyed their concerns about the time needed
to embrace the 4Cs (communication, content, cognition, and culture)
established in Coyle’s framework. Most of teachers indicated that apart from
investing a large quantity of time planning and developing a lesson, they have
to lead with school authorities who do not recognize the needed time to carry
out an effective instruction. This is something that influences teachers in
adopting CLIL in classrooms.
Regarding the creation of new material for the development of CLIL lessons,
60% of teachers indicated that they create some additional materials in order to
provide a deeper understanding to learners. Conversely, 40% manifested a
usage of regular materials such as markers and books. However, all of them
agreed on the necessity to produce new materials based on the students’ needs.
But, this is other factor that worries teachers since they mentioned the lack of
Revista Cognosis. Revista de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación ISSN 2588-0578
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSY
Vol. V. Año 2020. Número 2, Abril-Junio
95
resources in public institutions for the development of activities. Apart from
that, it is forbidden to ask students and parents for economic contributions or
materials and teachers are not able to produce the required materials for two
hundred students every day. However, most of them try to create comfortable
environments with available resources.
As to CLIL requires a lot of administrative support, 50% of the participants
declared they strongly agree with this premise whilst the other 40% indicated
that they agree. Surveyed teachers highlighted the importance of this support
for the application of this methodology. Additionally, some teachers indicated
that administrative personal should also know about the implication of this
methodology in order to promote and facilitate the needed tools for its
successful implementation.
On the other hand, only 20% of the teachers strongly agreed with the
cooperation of other teachers for a successful CLIL implementation whilst 40%
agreed. According to some participants’ statements although CLIL appeal to the
cooperation, in this educational institution it is almost impossible to coordinate
a meeting among teachers since practically all hours are dedicated to the
practical teaching. They cited that frequent meetings only involve teachers of
the same area without taking into consideration teachers of other subjects.
Thus, although the national curriculum advocates the implementation of CLIL
and students’ books contains academic topics, teachers work independently.
The teachers’ meetings by grade or course are only developed for the analysis of
students’ academic and behavioral performance. For this same reason, 40% of
respondents disagree with the requirement of teachers’ cooperation.
Thus, we can observe that there is an opposite point of view between questions
regarding teamwork and administrative support since in the first one,
participants claim the supporting of administrators whilst in the second,
teachers do not appeal to the cooperative work as an important aspect of the
CLIL implementation and students’ success.
In relation to the integration of several subjects, it is observable that this
feature is not maximized in the current instruction since although 40%
indicated “much” exposure to other subjects, 30% affirmed some integration
and 30% indicated a sporadic inclusion of topics from other subjects. According
to participants, this integration is carried out throughout cross-curricular
activities where students are exposed to a wide variety of topics and activities
from areas such as natural science, technology, social studies, literature, arts,
etc. Thus, most of participants agreed that they do not promote the target
language in content classes, rather they encourage content learning in
language classes.
Regarding the creation of safe and rich learning environment, outcomes from
surveys reflect that most of English teachers understand the importance of
creating comfortable environment for learners in order to motivate them to take
risks in language production. Thus, 80% affirmed to apply very much routine
Susana Paola Palma
96
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. ECUADOR.
activities and discourse to create meaningful conditions for learning. For this,
participants consider the inclusion of multiples intelligences, recognition of
students’ progression, application of strategies for correction of students’
mistakes and provision of permanent feedback. Additionally, they support the
teaching practice in activities outlined in books which provide a model for
lessons. These lessons follow predictable structure, namely Warm Up,
Presentation, Practice and Application (Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador,
2015, p.8). Activities suggested in this structure involve students’ prior
knowledge, discussions and games. Based on this, 60% indicated a high
integration of activities for building students’ confidence while 40% manifested
much implementation.
On the other hand, concerning the access to authentic learning material and
environments, it is observable a decrease since only 20% manifested an
inclusion of very much activities and 30% much. Consequently, 20% indicated
some guide and 30% scarce access to authentic environments. According to the
participants’ opinions there is a lesson in every unit devoted to foster a real
communication where students have the opportunity to establish dialogs
related to cultural aspects fostering self-reflections and values. However, some
teachers do not feel prepared to reproduce this kind of activities, especially in
primary education.
With regard to the immersion of students in classroom’s decisions, less than
50% do not involve students, and even 20% expressed a cero participation of
students in decisions related to the classes’ performance. Teachers immersed in
this percentage also belong to primary education. They indicated to follow
activities planned in the current English books.
In questions related to authenticity, answers revealed a deficit in this feature in
practical instruction, since in the last three requests which were oriented to
know the integration of students’ lives in the learning, connections with other
speakers of the CLIL language and usage of materials from media, around 50%
of applicants declared an almost null implementation. Nonetheless, in the first
inquire “let the students ask for the language help they need”, 40% of
respondents supported a very much encouragement while 40% sustained a
much involvement and 20% declared some consent. Regarding the
maximization of students’ interest, 40% exposed a high application of activities
based on learners’ likes, interests and needs.
Results also reflect a limited usage of material from media since only 10%
indicated a great integration of these in current practices, and 10% sustained
“much” involvement. Simultaneously, 40% divided their opinions equally
between some and not much implementation. But, a high percentage (40%) of
surveyed teachers expressed a rare use. Participants commented that the
incorporation of technology is complicated due to most students do not have
access to technological resources in their homes and the implementation in
classes become challenging due to the large number of students.
Revista Cognosis. Revista de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación ISSN 2588-0578
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSY
Vol. V. Año 2020. Número 2, Abril-Junio
97
Other parameter that suggests a low level of authenticity is the connection with
other speakers of the CLIL language since 50% of English teachers expressed a
complete absence of this whilst 40% affirmed some and not much connections,
and only 10% manifested an implementation like this. English teachers pointed
out that they are not able to establish this type of connections because their
schedules do not involve coordination with subject teachers, or covenant with
other schools.
In relation to connections with students’ lives, results show a balanced division
of practices with 20% for every option. Therefore, it is feasible to deduce that
the half of English teachers take into consideration real life situations for
engaging students in the learning process. According to the Ministry of
Education (2015) “one of the most important ideas in the application activities
is that students have the chance to make personal connections with learning”
(p. 9).
Likewise, concerning the maximization of students’ interests, 40% affirmed to
provide an instruction focus on students’ interest, needs and likes while 40%
expressed some incorporation, and 20% an unusual integration. Therefore, less
than 50% estimated the impact that this feature produce in learning so as to
engage students’ attention and foster a deeper and faster comprehension. This
result could be attributable that some teachers follow books’ schemes where
dialogs or reports are not meaningful for students.
Regarding active learning, there are similar responses in different items. In this
manner, there are proportional percentage (20%) in the encouragement of active
participation of students where teachers act as facilitators. These percentages
are equal in listen actively students’ ideas and opinions, promotion of students’
self-reflection and self-assessment, and the assistance by students in the
setting of language, content and learning skills. Teachers explain that every
unit in books has a self-evaluation chart that provides an opportunity for self-
reflection. This encourages students to understand their strengths and
weaknesses, to direct their efforts towards the achievement of goals, as well as
to be responsible for and committed to their learning. Nevertheless, not all
teachers use it.
Otherwise, there is big difference in the creation of cooperative groups for
interaction and participation since 40% foster very much the collaborative
working, 40% much and 20% some. Cooperative learning is the basis of many
of the activities in English books, since students adopt a variety of interaction
patterns: individual, pair and group work, which are applied by teachers.
In the same way, negotiation for meaning is a parameter that participants
consider during their instruction since 40% expressed a very much
implementation and 40% much application. Respondents indicated the main
activities focus on this feature are associated to asking for clarification,
rephrasing, and confirming thoughts and ideas.
Susana Paola Palma
98
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. ECUADOR.
Scaffolding is a feature that shows diverse results. Thus, regarding students’
prior knowledge 100% of participants use it as an instrument to engage
students in the learning process. According to respondents, this is the first step
in practice lessons which is known as WARM UP. “The purpose of the Warm Up
stage is to assess students’ prior knowledge, so that they become aware that
they also have a lot of ideas to contribute to the class” (Ministerio de Educación
del Ecuador, 2015, p. 7).
With respect to use of diverse resources, 50% sustained a “very much” and
“much” inclusion of varied resources and 50% expressed a minority
implementation. English teachers suggested that most of them work with books
and those offer some strategies such as word bank, crossword and pictures,
but sometimes they do not use them.
Regarding creative and critical thinking, 20% expressed a high involvement in
activities to promote cognitive skills such as discussions or projects where
learners are called to solve a problem. Similarly, 20% manifested much
development, but the last 60% percentage were divided in 30% for some
application and 30% for occasional application. A peculiar fact is that, although
current written materials have been designed by educational authorities to
foster thinking skills, many teachers are not aware about the implications of
this theory. Likewise, most of English teachers are not familiarized with the
Bloom’s taxonomy.
With regard to the inclusion of different learning styles, all participants
recognized that everyone learns differently. Thus, great percentage (60%) of
participants affirmed to consider very much techniques in order to attend
different ways of learning, while 40% confirmed much integration. Hence,
answers demonstrate that English teachers appreciate the integration of diverse
and varied resources to motivate the students learning and facilitate them the
acquisition of new knowledge. Even, some of surveyed people highlighted the
successful application of visual, kinesthetic and musical skills for the
improvement of linguistic competences. Additionally, they asserted that
teachers’ English books explain in its general description that learning activities
have been designed taking into account the theory of the Multiple Intelligences
developed by Howard Gardner.
Results obtained in cooperation demonstrate a clear necessity to develop a plan
to include the educational community. Since, in the three parameters used to
measure the involvement of external support, only 20% of participants declared
to involves “some” cooperation and 80% stated a limited or nothing involvement
of educational community for promoting the teaching-learning process.
Finally, a summary of collected data reveals that some features need more
attention than others. Thus, scaffolding and safe and rich learning environment
are applied in more than 60%. Moreover, active learning, authenticity and
multiple focus need to be developed since these features reach between 40%
and 60% of implementation. However, cooperation need to be analyzed deeply
Revista Cognosis. Revista de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación ISSN 2588-0578
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSY
Vol. V. Año 2020. Número 2, Abril-Junio
99
in order to promote methods of cooperation since only 20% indicated some
integration of educational community.
CONCLUSIONS
Results revealed that Ecuadorian English teachers in public educational
institutions do not have sufficient knowledge about the CLIL approach since
90% have not received a formal training. As a result, educators apply activities
and strategies based on their own understanding from the information
gathered. Apart from that, only 10% of English teachers have a B2 language
level. This not only reflects the language proficiency but also exposes a reality
opposite to the minimum international standards established in national
guidelines for the teaching of English which require that all teachers
demonstrate a B2 level according to CEFR. This limited preparation exerts a big
influence in the implementation of CLIL core features which are aligned to the
main features of English curriculum. Therefore, CLIL teachers need more
professional orientation so as to improve their competences such as CLIL
fundamentals and content and language awareness, for a successful
application of this approach. It is important to mention that majority of the
teachers are aware of their low knowledge since they reported the need to
acquire more knowledge on methodology and/or subject.
Also, results gained in this study demonstrate that the CLIL core features
applied in current classroom are safe and rich learning environment and
scaffolding. This does not mean that teachers have an accurate understanding
of these theories but implicates that they are able to apply some techniques
linked to these features in order to improve the students’ learning. Otherwise,
results show that cooperation reaches a highest peak with less application and
it is important that teachers find a mechanism to improve this ability since this
deficiency affects both teachers and students. As is evident, most of teachers
need a professional training in order to acquire an adequate understanding of
CLIL and develop their teaching skills under the principles of the CLIL
approach.
These results provide a first outlook at the implementation of CLIL in an
Ecuadorian public school based on the teachers’ knowledge. However, it would
be interesting to examine the implementation of CLIL from students’
perspectives taking into account the same fundamentals and principles
considered in this investigation. Thus, it would be possible to have a complete
view of the CLIL application as well as its successful in the teaching-learning
process.
REFERENCES
British Council. (20 de January de 2006). Teaching English. Retrieved from Content
and Language Integrated Learning:
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/content-language-integrated-learning
Susana Paola Palma
100
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. ECUADOR.
British Council. (May de 2015). Education Intelligence. Retrieved from English in
Ecuador: An examination of policy, perceptions and influencing factors:
englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/.../english_in_ecuador.pdf
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). A window on CLIL. En D. Coyle, P. Hood, & D.
Marsh, CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning (pág. 10). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from CLIL: Content and Language Integrated
Learning: www.cambridge.org
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). The CLIL Toolkit: Transforming theory into
practice. En C. -C. Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
El Telégrafo. (11 de June de 2018). eltelégrafo. Obtenido de Ecuador perdió $ 6,5
millones en un año con programa "Time to teach":
https://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/politica/3/time-to-teach-ecuador-
investigacion-corrupcion
Fundación Wikimedia, Inc. (24 de May de 2017). Wikipedia. Retrieved from Jaramijó:
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cant%C3%B3n_Jaramij%C3%B3
Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d' Educació. (2008). XTEC. Retrieved from
https://sites.google.com/a/xtec.cat/clil-principles/what-is-clil
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2016). Teacher Quality. En E. A. Hanushek, & S. G.
Rivkin, Handbook of the Economics of Education (págs. 1051-1078). Dallas: Elsevier
B.V.
Hillyard, S. (2011). 2011). First steps in CLIL: Training the teachers. Latin American
Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 1-12.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.
London: Pergamon Press.
La Hora. (23 de January de 2018). la Hora. Retrieved from
https://www.lahora.com.ec/noticia/1102130417/solo-34_-de-maestros-con-
suficiencia-para-el-ingles
Luna Scott, C. (15 de December de 2015). THE FUTURES of LEARNING 3: What kind
of pedagogies for the 21st century? UNESCO Education Research and Foresight, Paris.
[ERF Working Papers Series, No. 15]. Retrieved from The futures of learning 3: What
kind of pedagogies for the 21st century?:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002431/243126e.pdf
Marsh, D. (2008). Language Awareness and CLIL. En N. (. Hornberger, Encyclopedia of
Language and Education (págs. 1986-1999). New York: Springer US.
Marsh, D., Coyle, D., Kitanova, S., Maljers, A., Wolff, D., & Zielonka, B. (November de
2005). Report of Central Workshop 6/2005: CLIL QUALITY MATRIX. Project D3 –
CLILmatrix The CLIL quality matrix. Austria: EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR MODERN
LANGUAGE. Retrieved from
http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/DOCS/wsrepD3E2005_6.pdf
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols Martín, M. (2011). European Centre for
Modern Languages of the Council of Europe. Retrieved from European Framework for
CLIL Teachers Education:
http://www.ecml.at/tabid/277/PublicationID/62/Default.aspx
Revista Cognosis. Revista de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación ISSN 2588-0578
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLSY
Vol. V. Año 2020. Número 2, Abril-Junio
101
Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. (2012). Estandares de Calidad Educativa.
Retrieved from http://www.educacion.gob.ec/estandares-de-ingles/
MINISTERIO DE EDUCACION DEL ECUADOR. (2016). Acuerdo Ministerial MINEDUC-
ME-2016-00020-A.pdf. Retrieved from http://educacion.gob.ec/wp-
content/uploads/downloads/2016/02/MINEDUC-ME-2016-00020-A.pdf
Ministerio de Educación del Ecuador. (June de 2017). Ministerio de Educación del
Ecuador. Retrieved from Unidades Educativas del Milenio:
https://educacion.gob.ec/uem-en-funcionamiento/
Moya, V. (15 de March de 2015). Capacitación para la enseñanza en inglés . Retrieved
from THE CORE FEATURES OF CLIL AND THE IMPORTANCE OF INCLUDING THEM
IN THE TEACHING REPERTOIRE :
http://vanessacapacitacioningles.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-core-features-of-clil-
and.html
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (November de 2012).
OECD. Retrieved from Education Indicators in Focus:
www.oecd.org/edu/skills.../EDIF%202012--N9%20FINAL.pdf
Papaja, K. (2013). The role of a teacher in a CLIL classroom.
Pistorio, M. I. (2009). Teacher Training and Competences for effective CLIL Teaching in
Argentina. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 37-
43. doi:10.5294/laclil.2009.2.2.14
Prasetianto, M. (2015). CLIL as suggested English material for curriculum 2013.
Indonesia Context: LangLit.
The European Center for Modern Language. (2004). Retrieved from The CLIL Matrix:
http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/index.htm
UNESCO. (2013). UNESCO Institute for Statistics data, 2013 - Ecuador. Retrieved from
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Pages/default.aspx
Susana Paola Palma
102
Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y Ciencias de la Educación. Universidad Técnica de Manabí. ECUADOR.
