comparative perspective of a clil lesson in spain vs. …
TRANSCRIPT
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
FINAL DEGREE PROJECT:
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE OF A CLIL
LESSON IN SPAIN VS. NORWAY
AUTHOR: MIGUEL TORRES SÁNCHEZ
TUTOR: ANA ANDÚGAR SOTO
ACADEMIC YEAR: 2020/2021
2
ABSTRACT
Since the acquisition of English as a lingua franca has become a relevant matter
this century, educators have tried to offer new strategies to increase the use of this
language in the curriculum. Approaches like CLIL (Content and Language Integrated
Learning) are one of the best choices regarding the teaching of content in a foreign
language. This study will examine two CLIL lessons in the 6th grade of primary
education. One from a Spanish school and the other from a Norwegian school. These two
classrooms will be compared to find out which country is following a proper teaching
procedure from the CLIL perspective as well as profoundly analyze how the lessons are
imparted. Moreover, in the document, general information about the origin and the
development behind CLIL approach will be stated since it was introduced in 1994 by D.
Marsch. To conclude, the dichotomy of hard vs. soft CLIL will be treated, to later contrast
the observations at the schools and offer some conclusions.
Keywords: CLIL approach, 6th grade, comparative perspective of a lesson, Spain,
Norway.
.
3
ACKNOLEDGEMENTS
Firstly, I wish to thank my friend Hanna who has been my eyes and ears during
my time in Norway. Secondly and foremost, I acknowledge my tutor Ana for enlightening
me during the dark periods of inspiration and encouraging me to keep developing this
document. Lastly, I would like to show my appreciation to my practice teachers in Spain
and Norway, and to my friends and mother. They have supported me in the idea of
accomplishing this personal project in the best possible way.
4
DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP
Mr. MIGUEL TORRES SÁNCHEZ, with DNI number 74018414K, student of the
Degree in Primary Education at University of Alicante completed within the period 2020/
2021.
DECLARES THAT:
This “Final Degree Project” has been developed following and respecting the
intellectual property rights of third parties according to all citations stated on the pertinent
pages and which sources are incorporated into the bibliography, like any other right, for
instance of image, that may be subject to copyright protection.
Considering that, I affirm that this document is original and part of my authorship,
therefore I assume my responsibility of the content, veracity, and range of this “Final
Degree Project” as well as the administrative and legal derivated consequences in case of
unfulfillment of this declaration.
Then, for the record, I sign the present declaration in Alicante on May 26th of 2021.
Yours sincerely,
5
INDEX
1. INTRODUCTION AND JUSTIFICATION ………………..…..………… p. 7
2. STATE OF THE ART ……………………………………...……………… p. 8
2.1 What is CLIL? Origins and background ………………………...………. p. 8
2.2 The 4C’s ……………………………………..……………………...….. p. 10
2.3 Hard vs. Soft CLIL …………………………………………….……….. p. 11
2.4 CLIL in Europe ………………………………………………………… p. 12
2.5 CLIL in Norway …...…………………………………………………… p. 14
2.6 CLIL in Spain ………………….……………………………………….. p. 16
3. OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS ………….…………………………. p. 16
4. METHODOLOGY …………………………….………………………….. p. 17
4.1 Explanation …………………………………………………………….. p. 17
4.2 Context and observations: Norway vs. Spain …………………………. p. 17
5. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS ………………….……………………… p. 20
5.1 Results in Norway ……………………..………………………………. p. 20
5.2 Results in Spain ….………...………….…………...….…………...…. p. 23
6. CONCLUSIONS ………………………………………………..……….... p. 26
7. LIMITATIONS, DIFFICULTIES AND/OR PROPOSSALS ………….. p. 27
8. REFERENCES …………………………………...……………………….. p. 28
9. ANNEXES ……………………………………………………...………….. p. 33
6
9.1 Annex I …………………………………………...……………………. p. 33
9.2 Annex II ………………………………………………..………………. p. 34
7
1. INTRODUCTION AND JUSTIFICATION
The relevance of language acquisition today reflects the growing concern among
the didactic community to develop or/and improve effective strategies to teach students
to learn a second language (L2).
On the one hand, since English has changed its status to lingua franca in recent
years, the global scene has focused on studies and brand-new procedures such as CLIL
(Content and Language Integrated Learning). The term CLIL introduced by David Marsh
and Anne Maljers in 1994 is an approach that aims to connect didactic content and a
language lesson in a classroom at the same time.
On the other hand, the fame and trendiness of Nordic didactic models have settled
an idea of how the education of the 21st century looks like. Consequently, as a part of a
researching process during my period being an Erasmus student in Norway and some
personal curiosity, this document is created to offer a comparative spotlight on how two
examples of CLIL lessons in the 6th grade are implemented in a Norwegian and a Spanish
primary school.
The following project will be divided into three main sections: first, a theoretical
part explaining what CLIL and its principles are. Then, a short commentary of the
controversy of hard CLIL vs. soft CLIL. In this part, also it will be found research about
the general outlook of today’s CLIL good practices in Europe as well as in Norway and
Spain.
The second part will consist of a proposal of two objectives and an explanation of
the methodology to accomplish these goals. Next to this, the main hypothesis will be
stated: Are Norwegian CLIL lessons more effective for learning than the Spanish
lessons? Continuing with the third part, here will be analyzed and discussed the previous
question adding the conclusions and answers of the whole work.
Finally, in the end, it could be found some reflections about the limitations,
difficulties, or proposals for further studies in the fieldwork. This document will conclude
with citations and references as well as the annexes with all extra information.
8
2. STATE OF THE ART
2.1 What is CLIL? Origins and background
The term CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) first arose in 1994
and was coined by Professor David Marsch and her colleague Anne Maljers at the
University of Jyväskylä (Finland). According to Marsch (2002), CLIL occurs in situations
where a subject or a content is taught through a second (L2) or foreign language (FL) to
acquire both the content and the language.
Nowadays, CLIL is understood as a methodology with certain features from
language immersion and content-based instruction. Therefore, it is considered an
“umbrella” approach that encompasses several linguistic and didactic methods adapted to
a context (Coyle et al., 2010). But, despite that, there is no single blueprint for CLIL
(Coyle, 2005).
Apart from these two elements (Content and Language), a third element comes
into this triad group, which is the Learning skills. Thus, since CLIL is not a single process
procedure, it drinks from several psycholinguistic and educative sources (Hillyard, 2011);
(Alonso Losada, 2020) to integrate these three elements into the teaching process. Some
of these learning strategies come from theories such as:
- Bloom’s taxonomy of learning domains (1956).
- Vygotsky’s scaffolding and ZPD theory (1978).
- Model of CUP (Common Underlying Proficiency) by J. Cummins (1981).
- Theory of learning styles and multiple intelligences by H. Gardner (1983).
- Five hypothesis of Theory of Second Language acquisition by S. Krashen
(1987).
Moreover, this compendium of theories and strategies establishes a list of core
features that later in this paper will be used to identify which country (Norway or Spain)
is applying some or all of these teaching strategies and hence acquiring the best results in
their praxis. According to Mehisto et al. (2008), the list of CLIL core features includes:
➢ MULTIPLE FOCUS
Since CLIL aims to relate both content and language, subjects taught through
CLIL must be content-driven and language-driven, meaning the focus is not only in just
9
content or language but all of them. Language here becomes a tool to archive knowledge
of content. Therefore, multiple focus approach is a key feature in every session e.g.,
supporting language learning in content classes, creating cross-curricular projects,
integrating several subjects and so on.
➢ AUTHENTICITY OF LANGUAGE, MATERIALS AND PRACTICES
One of the reasons to choose CLIL is that it encourages the children to learn useful
and real language such as everyday expressions, tenses, vocabulary, and others, to later
apply it to real life situations. That is why the realia ought to reflect veracity in the
contents and classroom language. Thus, materials intended to be “meaningful,
challenging and authentic” (Meyer, 2010, p.13).
➢ ACTIVE LEARNING
Active learning is one of the main principles for today’s education it “consists of
short course-related individual or small-group activities that all students in a class are
called upon to do, alternating with instructor-led intervals in which student’s responses
are processed and new information is presented” (Felder & Brent, 2009, p. 2). Then, for
the session to work properly, it is needed a correct attitude from teachers and students.
Some of the events that may happen are more communication from the part of the students
instead of the teacher, students guess new words and test their own skills and outcomes,
teachers facilitate kid’s learning…
➢ SCAFFOLDING
Based on Vygotsky’s and Bruner’s theories of ZPD (1978) and Scaffolding
(1976), this methodology aims to help the learner to acquire the knowledge far from its
previous ideas with the help of a tutor acting as a “scaffold”. “Scaffolding therefore is not
only teacher support but assistance that is designed to help learners to work with
increasing independence” (Hammond, & Gibbons, 2005, p.10).
➢ COOPERATION
Cooperation is key in every project involving a group of individuals. Especially
in schools, partnership between teachers and work colleagues is essential. All of the
contents and ways of teaching must be pre-established. However, not only pedagogues or
students need to create bonds among themselves. Families also play a part in schools,
10
therefore involving parents or local communities in their projects make enriching more
members of the society and construct a lifelong learning.
➢ SAVE AND ENRICHING ENVIRONMENT
At the class, students must know that they can feel free to communicate and
express their ideas knowing that they are not going to be judged or questioned whatever
their opinion is. For that reason, the CLIL teacher has to encourage that all pupils hear
what their mates have to say and help them remember the vocabulary or the structure in
that lesson. It is worth remembering that the entire lesson should be spoken in the second
or foreign language so kids’ participation too. Then educators could create visual aids like
posters with all the linguistic data to make them speak easily.
2.2 The 4C’s
The way CLIL was meant to be implemented involves a subject or content of
focus, then a way to link this knowledge to previous data and rebuild it. After that,
communicate this knowledge in an L2 and make it part of everyone’s mind through a
social process. For that reason, some of the main researchers of CLIL (Coyle, Hood &
Marsch), generated a framework where this process was sequenced in 4 steps to
accomplish in the classroom. These steps are also known as the 4C’s:
1. Content
2. Cognition
3. Communication
4. Culture
CONTENT: According to Scott & Beadle (2014), the students must take the knowledge
and understand it through the learning skills (personalized learning).
COGNITION: Content that the students acquire is important but the stress is in what the
students do with that content and how they interpret it to further use (Scott & Beadle,
2014). This process is also known as cognition has its roots in the theories of
Constructivism by the end of 20th century.
COMMUNICATION: As Vygotsky (1978) said, learning is a social activity.
Communication in this activity is the element that ties us with other individuals to
11
reconstruct the knowledge and integrate it through the cognitive process. This language
has to be transparent and accessible considering in this context, it is a foreign language
(Scott & Beadle, 2014).
CULTURE: Especially in this medium of instruction, intercultural awareness of the FL
becomes one of the cores of CLIL (Scott & Beadle, 2014).
Fig. A: The 4C’s framework for CLIL (Coyle, 2005)
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-4-C-framework-for-CLIL-Coyle-
2005_fig1_320146443
2.3 Hard vs. Soft CLIL
Among all the studies, experiences and lines of work that CLIL provides, the
researchers seem to distinguish two types of CLIL. On the one side, Coyle, Hood and
Marsh (2010) define CLIL as an “umbrella term”, which means that this approach could
be used in any situation where the integration of content and language takes place. Then
it has a double focus, language and content.
On the other side, authors like Ball, Clegg and Kelly (2015), mention that CLIL
is a methodology where non-linguistic subjects emerge to a language that is not native
among the students. Therefore, the aim of CLIL is not dual-focused because languages
and subjects cannot be treated equally. Hence according to these two lines of thought, we
can find:
1. Hard CLIL (content-focused)
2. Soft CLIL (language-focused)
12
Hard CLIL is a type of CLIL where the focus in content takes precedence and
simply includes a foreign language to teach the content. Lectures are taught by a content
teacher who might but is not usually a native speaker of the target language. The goals
that pursuit this method are subject-driven, meaning that the subject curriculum dictates
the language objectives.
However, Soft CLIL is an opposite approach where language teachers offer some
content in a foreign language in the lectures to the students. For instance, an English or
French teacher in Spain. It is important to emphasize that this kind of approach also must
be subject-driven (Luis Banegas, 2018). E.g., an English teacher in Spain teaches
vocabulary about the landscape in English (which is part of the geography subject).
2.4 CLIL in Europe
The European Union defends CLIL as one of the best methodologies to learn
languages and content since some of its ambitious goals are making students proficient
in two EU languages (Busse, 2011 cited in Ruiz de Zarobe, 2011).
CLIL is well-known worldwide for its benefits. According to Eurydice (2006),
CLIL aims to prepare students for future life and jobs in a globalized market, providing
pupils values of respect and tolerance to other cultures and languages and enabling them
to develop language skills (effective communication) and use them in real practical
purposes. Meaning learn language to apply it now rather than later. Furthermore, it is
effective in acquiring subject-related knowledge in an innovative stimulant way
(Eurydice, 2006). The European Commission (2006), has created several acronyms to
distinguish CLIL approach across other languages such as French or Spanish:
1. EMILE (Enseignement d’une matière intégrée à une langue étrangère).
2. AICLE (Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lenguas Extranjeras)
Since its benefits have been highly reported, through the 21st century, the European
Union has been conducting various didactic CLIL experiences, courses and programs
across Europe. Some of these well-known programs are: Lifelong Learning Programme
and Erasmus + Programme. A range of these highlighted experiences are:
13
• C4C (2016)
CLIL for Children is an ambitious report made by the Erasmus + Programme about
the implementation of CLIL methodology in primary schools in Italy, Portugal, Romania
and Poland. In certain parts, Spanish teachers near Portugal were participants too. The
study is divided into four parts. The first one, deeply analyzes the FL context in those
countries, the national policies for bilingual education and the implementation of CLIL
in these territories. In the second part, the study describes the results obtained in a survey
carried out by participants (teachers of all subjects and high posts in schools and educative
institutions). In the third part, the study makes a review of the CLIL theoretical part such
as the 4C’s and some useful pieces of advice to teach through CLIL. Finally, we find the
summaries and the conclusions, which throw some important but scary results.
According to CLIL 4 Children (2016, p. 144), “the CLIL approach is scarcely used in
primary schools in partner countries and it is not compulsory”. “The CLIL teacher’s
profile is vaguely defined” (CLIL 4 Children, 2016, p. 145). Hence, we conclude that
these investigations are very important and they throw some light on how the European
educational scene is dealing with this and how it can be improved.
• Playing CLIL (2014)
Playing CLIL is a European project created by Zukunftsbau which is a center for
youth vocational assistance and trained company (Zukunftsbau, 2021). This organization
collaborates with four more entities in the countries of Germany, the UK, Spain and
Romania. The project last two years and its intention is to combine gamification with
CLIL theories to conform to a new CLIL approach (Playing CLIL, 2014). Some of the
aims that this project wants to reach are (Playing CLIL, 2014):
A) Strengthen linguistic and professional learning.
B) Develop social and communicative skills.
C) Adress more target groups than the participants of this study.
• CLIL4U (2016)
This is a report part of the Lifelong Learning Programme made by D. Marsch and M.J
Frijoles Martín an article publisher and associated professor at UV (Universidad de
Valencia). The study aims to evaluate and monitor the project CLIL Implementations
14
with Pools of resources for Teachers, Students and Pupils (CLIL4U). This program has
offered group understanding of the CLIL theories, it has provided feedback on several
processes of the CLIL method and also has given resources and information (translated
into 6 European languages) among others (Marsch & Frigols, 2016).
The results that this project of around 30-month duration has brought are the
following: “the drive and motivation within the partnership have been substantial (...)
successfully fulfilling the personal aspirations of the project partner experts which has
been very strong as evident throughout the final questionnaire results” (Marsch & Frigols,
2016, p. 35).
2.5 CLIL in Norway
Norway and Scandinavian countries, as well as the rest of northern Europe, had been
vastly employing CLIL programs (Perez-Cañado, 2012). Considering that the inventor of
CLIL, David Marsch, has been instructing in a Finish university and perhaps is the most
renowned figure (Perez-Cañado, 2012), not surprisingly northern Europe has been
investigating and implementing this approach that much.
The first CLIL initiative sponsored by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research was in 1993 (Svendhard et al., 2007). The majority of CLIL classes today in
Norway are from upper secondary or tertiary level (Svenhard et al., 2007). Even though
some primary and lower secondary classes have chosen languages like French or German
instead of English (Svenhard et al. 2007).
Several studies have proven CLIL efficacy. A study conducted by Hellekjaer (2004)
reflects that when it comes to reading proficiency, there is and actual vocabulary
acquisition. Other studies are the ones made in 9th grade by Gjendemsjø (2013, p. 2) that
shown that “CLIL also has a potential with young Norwegian EFL learners”.
Another recent and remarkable study is the one made by Rose et al. (2021) which
analyzes the filmed results in a 9th grade classroom of science and mathematics.
According to Rose et al. (2021, p. 47). “The CLIL teaching was content-driven, with rich
explanations, and intellectually challenging”.
Despite that CLIL has been around for quite some time and it has created a big impact
in the community, CLIL in Norway has been the least represented among the European
15
contexts (Lialikhova, 2021) that is why perhaps it is needed a deep investigation in the
context of primary education.
2.6 CLIL in Spain
As well as in Norway and other European countries, Spain has also been
implementing this approach maybe because it is a country with a strong interest in this
kind of methodology due to its prevailing multilingualism. (Busse, 2011). In fact, in the
process of reading previous studies and developing this paper, it was difficult not to see
the name of Spain as a frequent contributor.
Spain is a state with an official language, Spanish or Castilian, and four co-official
languages: Galician, Basque or Euskera, Catalonian and Aranese, spoken in a small valley
in the Pyreneess (Cassany, 2005). On account of this or either the teaching of English as
a FL, CLIL is a key approach and highly suits Spain for two main reasons:
▪ “CLIL provides exposure to the language without requiring extra time in the
curriculum” (Action Plan for Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity
(2003, p. 8). Therefore, it saves valuable time for both students and teachers.
▪ In CLIL lessons, the learner is not expected to dominate the target language
completely (Graddol, 2006). Then it is easy to gradually develop a language
proficiency and acquire a better level.
To continue, we will revise some of the most important CLIL studies carried out in
some of the regions of the Spanish territory:
• Andalusia:
In a study by Francisco Lorenzo professor at Universidad Pablo Olavide (Sevilla),
gathered in (Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010), the author treats the EU language
policy of 2002 in this Spanish region, also the resulting swift transition from
monolingualism to bilingualism and finally the landslide effect from L2 to L1 education
policies that CLIL has brought.
• Basque County:
In this same book (CLIL in Spain), we find a study by Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster
(2010) about a research teaching experience in Basque County. This experience has used
16
three samples of various local schools where the first sample did not use a CLIL approach
(A), the second used a CLIL approach including Spanish and Euskera as target languages
(B), while the third employed CLIL with Spanish, Euskera and a minimal presence of
English in the teaching process (C). The results have shown that the third group (C) which
is the one with more target languages, showed astonishing results in variables such as
pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency or content as well as organization and
learning (Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010).
• Catalonia
In this exhaustive study carried by T. Navés and M. Victori (gathered in Ruiz de
Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010) in the region of Catalonia, first the authors review the
history and background of Catalonian immersion programs, after that, they treat the
implementation of CLIL programs using Catalonian as a target language in primary and
secondary school. Finally, they analyze various target groups from 5th to 12th grade. The
authors conclude that the actual programs applied in Catalonia may offer the necessary
conditions (Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010). However, they recommend making
CLIL a long-term program (Navés, 2009 cited in Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010).
To conclude, despite that CLIL in Spain has been widely implemented, perhaps it is
needed a national policy since “not all the Autonomous Regions have fully implemented
these programs as part of mainstream education, the great majority have done so through
pilot and/or experimental programs (Martin, 2008).
3. OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS
As stated, the main goal of this study is to compare any differences between CLIL
lessons in both Spain and Norway. Although, the annotations made there only correspond
to a lapse of time of one week, this study simply pretends to show a small sample and
inspect how the CLIL approach is being carried out in two concrete contexts. Hence these
results would not be comparable to the rest of educative institutions in Norway or Spain.
The specific objectives settled for this project are:
1. Identify which country is following a correct CLIL teaching procedure.
2. Analyze how the lessons are imparted to learners in each country.
17
The information extracted from these two goals, will lead us to conclude thus,
where the methodology is being more effective for learning.
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Explanation
Once reviewed the main objectives above, the focus in this bullet point will be to
explain the methodology followed which will take its basis from a scientific method
called Direct Observation (DO). According to Jersild and Meigs, “several factors have
given impetus to its use, including the establishment of centers for research in child
development” (1939, p.472).
Considering my own observations made during the period as an Erasmus student
and following the DO method, the observations made in Charlottenlund Barneskole in
the city of Trondheim (Norway), within the first week of March 2020, these observations
will be compared to the ones made in CEIP Reyes Católicos in San Vicente del Raspeig
(Alicante, Spain).
These observations have been gathered in one chart (ANNEX II, Chart 0). This
chart contains three columns in which appears: first, the list of six CLIL core features
(Mehisto et al., 2008) plus two more items considered essentials in the CLIL approach
(student’s participation and continued use of L2), second, a list of items derived from
each core feature and lastly the observations taken in the class of those items ordered in
a scale 1-4 being 1: not observed at all and 4: always observed. The same charts will be
used to compare a CLIL lesson in Norway and Spain and commented further on in the
section.
4.2 Context and general outlook: Norway vs. Spain
To fully understand the following comparison between these two countries and
their education, it is required an introduction of what their educative systems look like
plus some observations and comments about it.
Norwegians take its education very seriously and complement it both with values
and a naturalist path in every task that they do (Norwegian Directorate for Education and
Training). In fact, “Norway has the highest proportion of locally funded educational
18
expenditure of all OECD countries” (OECD, 2016, p.1) and it is a country that invests
around 2% of its GDP and a significant amount of resources into early childhood (OECD,
2016).
Since the beginning of the 21st century, the government has only changed its
educational curriculum once. The last update occurred in August 2020, which substitutes
the previous document from 1994 (Eurydice, 2021).
Primary education comprehends grades 1-7, which corresponds to the ages of 6 to
13 years old (one more year than the Spanish education system), and the school calendar
starts by the end of August, finishing by the beginning of June. According to the
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2020), nowadays the average of
English subject hours per year is 138h from grades 1-4 and 228h from grades 5-7 (ANNEX
I, Figure 1).
Regarding CLIL use in Norwegian classrooms, the curriculum establishes that at
least 30% of the content subjects must be taught through an L2 (Brevick and Moe, 2012).
CLIL uses different methodologies and approaches to combine various subjects and
pieces of knowledge to create projects or bigger educative purposes alongside a useful
approach for life (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2003-2004).
The first initiative to use this approach was encouraged by the government in
1993 (Svenhard et al., 2007). Although “implementing CLIL is the responsibility of the
individual county, school, or teacher”, (Rose et al., 2021, p. 7), many schools are
including this didactic approach in their institutions.
In contrast to this, the Spanish education curriculum has been changed four times
since the beginning of this century. The latest law is LOMCE (2013) which soon will be
replaced by LOMLOE approved on December 29th, 2020 and applied for the next course
2021/2022.
Spanish school calendar starts in September and finishes by mid-June. Although
both Norwegian and Spanish calendars have a similar time configuration, Spaniards have
more days of national and Christian holidays such as Christmas, Easter, saint celebrations,
regional festivities and so. Therefore, Spanish schedules lack more teaching hours as we
will discover soon.
19
According to DECRETO 108/2014 (2014), 4th of July which establishes the
curriculum of Primary Education in Comunidad Valenciana, all students from first to
sixth grade attend 3 sessions of 45 minutes per week (ANNEX I, Figure 2). By doing some
simple calculations we find that if school calendar has 9 months (10 months minus 1
month of holidays: Easter, Christmas…) and every month has 4 weeks with 3 English
sessions per week, this equals to 108 hours of English teaching. Which means that
Spanish students lose around 30 hours of language acquisition in the lower grades
compared to the Norwegian students.
As seen, the quantity of English taught in Norway is superior to Spain, although
several factors (holiday periods, the inclusion of other languages, school calendar...) can
vary the data numbers in both countries. In spite of that, this research only wants to offer
a general outlook of the features in both countries and since the purpose of this
investigation is not how or why Norway teaches more English than Spain, this matter will
be ended here.
In Spain, subjects are very strictly marked, meaning that some content rarely
engages with content of other subjects. Despite this, more and more schools are updating
their methods and including projects multi-dimension and new approaches in standard
education such as CLIL (Breeze et al., 2014). Nevertheless, the subject of PE, Science
and Arts and Crafts in the Spanish curriculum have been modified to be taught in English
through methods like CLIL.
Besides, the different communities, administrations and schools decide if they
teach English through these subjects or not so we cannot count on them for our research.
“In the last decade, CLIL has undergone a rapid development in the Spanish scenario.
This is the result of a commitment with European policies aimed at fostering
multilingualism and a growing awareness of the need to learn foreign languages” (de
Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010, p. 9).
To conclude, those observed discrepancies may determine the results of why CLIL
and English language teaching differ between these countries.
20
5. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
To give an answer to our two principal goals, in this bullet point it will be analyzed
the results of the investigation based on the observations following the DO (Direct
Observation) method. Next, the investigation will be itemized gradually.
5.1 Results in Norway (ANNEX II, Chart 1)
CLIL CORE
FEATURE
ITEM
OBSERVATIONS IN THE LESSON
1: Not
observed
at all
2: Often
observed
3: Usually
observed
4:
Always
observed
MULTIPLE FOCUS
The lesson is
focused on both
content and
language
simultaneously.
✓
Multiple focus is definitely one of the main characteristics that make CLIL
approach as it is. Lessons in Norway were always both language-focused and content-
focused since the introduction of the lesson were explained some linguistic vocabulary
(useful for further interventions) and then the content was explained. For instance, the use
of the article (definite, indefinite and zero articles) in a history lesson.
AUTHENTICITY OF
LANGUAGE
MATERIALS AND
PRACTICE
Use of “everyday language” in
L2.
✓
Realia reflects veracity and can
be applied to real life
situations.
✓
The usual application of activities to a very real context was one of the impressive
things observed in Norway. As an example, the resolution of difficult riddles (written in
21
English) that could be perfectly applicable to real life in the context of logical
development and problem resolution in the subject of Math. Regarding the use of not
native language, expectations of using daily expressions in L2 were accomplished.
SCAFFOLDING Teacher offers support to
students
✓
The knowledge that the students received was “chopped” and sequenced so
students could learn by little and accomplish reaching to ZPD (Zone of Proximal
Development) with the help of the educator most of the time.
COOPERATION Students work in groups ✓
Students mostly did tasks in groups of 4 or 6. Cooperation values and teamwork
were a big part of the taught values.
SAVE AND
ENRICHING
ENVIRONMENT
SAVE AND
ENRICHING
ENVIRONMENT
There is an atmosphere of
comprehension and respect
towards all classmates.
✓
Students can express themselves
freely
✓
Safety and tolerance are two things well-appreciated in Norway. Schools,
therefore let kids create and learn most of the time doing whatever they want. Tutors help
and advise their students to embrace the creation of a warm space to develop their minds.
As a matter of fact, almost all class walls were covered with maps, data, new vocabulary
words and so.
ACTIVE LEARNING Students build their own
knowledge by doing
activities.
✓
22
The structures of the lessons always had at least 20-30 minutes of practice
combinig some time periods with explanations and activities. The classic principle of
learning by doing was accomplished.
CONSTANT USE OF L2 Teacher uses L2 to
communicate the content
and to the students.
✓
Even though students cannot always explain their thought in L2, the teacher must
enhance linguistic competence of pupils and try to speak all the time in the second
language (English in this case). In Norway, all teacher interventions were in L2 from
simple everyday language such as “close the door” to more complex content explanations.
STUDENT’S
PARTICIPATION
In the classroom there is a
general participation.
✓
In the lessons observed there was often acceptable participation. All kids tried to
speak L2.
With all of this being said, we can come to the conclusion that in the CLIL lesson
in Norway 9 of the 10 items were always observed (4) while only one item was seen
frequently (3) which corresponds to the CLIL core feature: Authenticity of language
materials and practice, more specifically “Realia reflects veracity and can be applied to
real life situations”.
23
5.2 Results in Spain (ANNEX II, Chart 2)
CLIL CORE
FEATURE
ITEM
OBSERVATIONS IN THE LESSON
1: Not
observed
at all
2: Often
observed
3:
Usually
observed
4:
Always
observed
MULTIPLE
FOCUS
The lesson is
focused on both
content and
language
simultaneously.
✓
Although the focus in this subject was the language, the content from vocabulary
could correspond to some other subjects if we consider a soft CLIL approach. During a
huge part of the time at that school, students were practicing description of objects, used
subsequently to present a poster about an invent and their creator. This knowledge could
correspond to the subject of History since most of the kids talk about electrical devices
and their historical evolution.
AUTHENTICITY OF
LANGUAGE MATERIALS
AND PRACTICE
Use of “everyday
language” in L2.
✓
Realia reflects veracity
and can be applied to real
life situations.
✓
Students at class knew that all the inquiries or sentences that they could
formulate in English must be spoken in that language e.g. “Can I go to the toilet?”,
“What page is it?”. This everyday practice allows them to start creating a valuable
treasure of real language to later apply it in real contexts (trips, internships, helping
foreigners in the street…). Regarding the authenticity of practices, perhaps this should
be more authentic and applicable to real contexts because all exercises commonly were
classic drilling grammar activities.
24
SCAFFOLDING Teacher offers support to
students
✓
Scaffolding of course was one of the measures done at every session. Being two
teachers in class, this support towards all students could be bigger. Students struggle
with language mainly because those who are learning a foreign language need enormous
support. Norwegian and English come from 2 Germanic roots, against that, Spanish and
English have very different structures since one comes from Latin and the other from
Germanic languages as said.
COOPERATION Students work in groups ✓
Cooperation in normal conditions should be effective among the educative
community. Unfortunately, this year due to the spread of the pandemic COVID-19, the
educative authorities have decided to set the structure of the classrooms individually, so
teamwork had been certainly cut off. Despite that, telecommunication or other types of
classroom activities through electronic devices had been a quick fix to that.
SAVE AND ENRICHING
ENVIRONMENT
SAVE AND ENRICHING
ENVIRONMENT
There is an atmosphere of
comprehension and respect
towards all classmates.
✓
Students can express
themselves freely
✓
6th grade class was a safe place to speak freely and tolerate other’s opinions,
even though not certainly as free as was in Norway. Frequently the same students were
the ones engaging with the lesson because those were the ones who felt completely
comfortable speaking the L2. An increasing number of work and free speaking activities
with students, ought to be applied to solve this situation of discomfort at school class.
25
ACTIVE LEARNING Students build their own
knowledge by doing
activities.
✓
As well as in Norway, all sessions had at least half of the sessions to practice,
combing periods of explanations and then individual or group activities.
CONSTANT USE OF L2 Teacher uses L2 to
communicate the content
and to the students.
✓
Despite the fact that the teacher made great efforts to explain everything in
English, the lessons were not taught in this language at all. Often some specifications
were in L1. Get students used to speak only in L2 will take some more time.
STUDENT’S
PARTICIPATION
In the classroom there is a
general participation.
✓
As it is commented above, there was participation among students but not from
all the members of the group. Others always took part in the discussions speaking the
L1, which certainly does not help much their Communicative Competence in L2.
With all this being said, it could be concluded that the lesson in Spain (from a
CLIL perspective) was not as richest as it was in Norway. We observe that only 4 out of
10 items were answerered with 4: Always observed corresponding to the items: Use of
“everyday language” in L2, the support offered from the teachers to students, a good
atmosphere of respect, comprehension towards all classmates and active learning.
Furthermore, we find two items observed frequently (3) corresponding to the
items of multiple focus and general student participation. To continue, we find three
items observed sometimes (2) corresponding to the veracity of materials and practices
and the freedom of expression on the part of the students. Finally, we find only one item
ticked as never observed (1) which is teamwork cooperation.
26
6 CONCLUSIONS
In today’s educative scene, a term such as CLIL (Content and Language Integrated
Learning) is growing significantly. Since its introduction by the beginning of the 21st
century, this approach has demonstrated enormous effectivity in teaching simultaneously
content and a target language such as English.
Summarizing this study, we can comment that the majority of CLIL core features
(Mehisto et al., 2008) in the 6th grade Norwegian classroom were widely observed, while
in the Spanish 6th grade, the lack of items such as meaningful realia and the ability of
freedom speaking by the students, were not optimally accomplished. In addition, the
dichotomy of Hard vs. Soft CLIL was also observed.
For the Norwegian part, long-term experiences and English as a target language
in several subjects such as history, math, or science were highly evident. Thus, Norwegian
educators were applying Hard CLIL approach. In contrast, the Spanish educators were
more focused on the target language but not forgetting to center the lessons in a content-
driven way (Luis Benegas, 2018). Hence, they were applying a Soft CLIL approach.
Regarding the two main objectives: first, identify which country is following a
correct CLIL teaching procedure and second, analyze how the lessons are imparted, it
might be said that both Spanish and Norwegian lessons were well performed. All of the
objectives were accomplished in a significant or more minor way. The Norwegian
classroom had better accomplishment of the CLIL objectives. Although if the students
learned more than the Spanish six-graders cannot be proved. Therefore, this study is not
conclusive enough.
With all that being said, CLIL in Spain and Norway have followed a great path
thanks to researchers and teachers interested in implementing this marvelous approach.
However, it may be suggested for future generations of teachers and educators to develop
a clear training method to cover all kinds of approaches and perspectives that CLIL offers.
27
7. LIMITATIONS, DIFFICULTIES AND/OR PROPOSSALS
Although this study has been developed with the best purposes, some
complications may occur. First of all, the global pandemic that we are testifying difficult
the possibilities of putting research studies into practice. Also, the imposed periods of
lockdown and quarantine make a real challenge to writing this document because being
all day at home severely affects motivation.
On the other hand, the idea of developing this paper came months after my trip to
Norway, then the information of these experiences treated in bullet point 5: analysis of
the results might not be as accurate as if the information were gathered at the moment of
my stay there.Regarding some proposals for further studies, a deep investigation and
comparative between CLIL implementations in these two countries (Norway and Spain)
may be interesting and conclusive to solve this subject.
Finally, some matters could not be treated through this paper, such as why Norway
uses more, in this case, a Hard CLIL approach and Spain on the contrary, employs a Soft
CLIL approach? Does this have to be with the reduced English schedule that the Spanish
curriculum in the Comunidad Valenciana has compared to the Norwegian curriculum?
To sum up, these comparatives perspectives between European countries may
keep going on so we can learn from failure and success and continue implementing this
approach.
28
8. REFERENCES
Action Plan for Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity. (2003).
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0449:FIN:EN:PDF
Alonso Losada, A. (2020). Theory of Multiple Intelligences and CLIL.
http://tauja.ujaen.es/handle/10953.1/13095
Ball, P., Kelly, K., and Clegg J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University
Press. 320pp. ISBN 978 0 19 442105 8.
Breeze, R., Llamas Saíz, C., Martínez Pasamar, C. y Tabernero Sala, C. (Eds.) 2014.
Integration of Theory and Practice in CLIL. Ámsterdam: Rodopi. B.V., pp. 197. Peter
Lang AG.
Bloom, B. S. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The
classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners.
Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York City, NY: Longman.
Brevick, L. & Moe, E. (2012). Effects of CLIL Teaching on Language Outcomes. pp.
(213-227)
British Council. BBC. (s.f). Teaching English: Communicative competence.
https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/communicative-competence
Busse, Vera. (2011). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. System. 39. 123-
125. 10.1016/j.system.2011.01.001.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251576256_CLIL_Content_and_Language_In
tegrated_Learning
Cassany, D. (2005). Plain language in Spain. Clarity: Journal of the international
association promoting plain legal language. 2005;(53): 41–4.
Consellería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (July 4th, 2014). DECRETO 108/2014, de 4
de julio, del Consell, por el que establece el currículo y desarrolla la ordenación general
de la educación primaria en la Comunitat Valenciana. [2014/6347].
https://dogv.gva.es/datos/2014/07/07/pdf/2014_6347.pdf
29
Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a Theory of Practice. APAC Monograph
6. APAC: Barcelona
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning.
Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language proficiency in
bilingual children. Language processing in bilingual children, 70-89.
CLIL 4 Children. (2016). State of the art report about the use of CLIL methodology in
Primary Schools. http://www.clil4children.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/C4C_State_of-the-Art_Report_v01.pdf
Eurydice. European Commission (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL) at school in Europe. European Commision for Education and Culture. ISBN 92-
79-00580-4.
Eurydice. European Commission. National Reforms in School Education (April
14th,2021).https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/nationalpolicies/eurydice/content/national-
reforms-school-education-48_en
Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ higher
education brief, 2(4), 1-5.
Gardner, H. (2001). La inteligencia reformulada: las inteligencias múltiples en el siglo
XXI (No. 159.955 G171i Ej. 1 020338). Paidos.
Gjendemsjø, M. O. (2013). A case study of a Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL) project in a 9th grade EFL class in Norway (Master's thesis, University of
Stavanger, Norway). https://uis.brage.unit.no/uis-xmlui/handle/11250/185458
Graddol, D. (2006) English Next. British Council Publications.
Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). What is scaffolding. Teachers’ voices, 8, 8-16.
Hellekjaer, G. (2004). Unprepared for English-medium instruction: A critical look at
beginner students. In Integrating content and language. Meeting the challenge of a
multilingual higher education, Edited by: Wilkinson, R. 147–71. Maastricht: Maastricht
University.
30
Hillyard, S. (2011). First steps in CLIL: Training the teachers. Latin American Journal of
Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 1-12.
Jersild, A. T., & Meigs, M. F. (1939). Chapter V: Direct observation as a research
method. Review of Educational Research, 9(5), 472-482.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.
University of Southern California.
Lantolf, J. P., & Beckett, T. G. (2009). Sociocultural theory and second language
acquisition. Language teaching, 42(4), 459.
Lialikhova, D. (2021) The impact of a short-term CLIL intervention project on
Norwegian different ability ninth graders’ oral development. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24:5, 671-692, DOI:
10.1080/13670050.2018.1509055
Luis Banegas, D. (2018). Putting CLIL into practice. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 21:2, 265-268, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2016.1146425.
Marsh, D. (2002): CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and
Foresight Potential. Bruxelles: The European Union.
Marsch, D., Frigols, M. J. (2016). CLIL Implementation with Pools of Resources for
Teachers, Students, and Pupils (CLIL4U).
https://languages.dk/archive/clil4u/evaluation/Frigols-Marsh_FINAL_REPORT.pdf
Martín, M. J. F. (2008). CLIL implementation in Spain: An approach to different models.
In Coonan, CM (ed.), CLIL e l'apprendimento delle lingue. Le sfide del nuovo ambiente
di apprendimento, Venezia, settembre 2008. Venezia: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina,
2008, pp. 221-232. Venezia, Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.
Mehisto, P. Marsh, D. and Frigols, M. 2008. Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language
Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan
Education.
Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality CLIL: successful planning and teaching
strategies. PULSO. Revista de Educación, (33), 11-29.
31
Ministerio de Educación (December 30th, 2020). Una educación para el siglo XXI.
https://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/destacados/lomloe.html
Navés, T. (2009). Effective content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
programmes. Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in
Europe, 22-40.
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (May 30th, 2020). Subject and hour
distribution and offer structure for the Knowledge Promotion Udir-1-2020.
https://www.udir.no/regelverkstolkninger/opplaring/Innhold-i-opplaringen/udir-1-
2020/vedlegg-1/2.-grunnskolen/#2.1bestemmelser-alle-i-grunnskolen
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (s.f). Values and principles for basic
education. https://www.udir.no/lk20/overordnet-del/opplaringens-verdigrunnlag/1.5-
respekt-for-naturen-og-miljobevissthet/
OECD (2016), "Norway", in Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators, OECD
Publishing, Paris. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-
2016/norway_eag-2016-73-en#page1
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012) CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future,
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15:3, 315-341, DOI:
10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
Playing CLIL (2014). http://www.playingclil.eu/
Rose Mahan, K., Brevik L. M., Ødegaard M. (2021). Characterizing CLIL teaching: new
insights from a lower secondary classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 24:3, 401-418, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2018.1472206
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Lasagabaster, D. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation,
results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J. M., Gallardo del Puerto, F. (2011). Content and Foreign
Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts.
(Eds.). Peter Lang, Bern (2011). 343 pp.
Scott, D. & Beadle, S. (2014). Improving the effectiveness of language learning: CLIL
and computer assisted language learning. European Comission. J60173.
32
https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/working-group-
report-clil-language-learning_en.pdf
Shanker, S. G., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). The house that Bruner built. Jerome Bruner:
Language, culture, self, 50-70.
Svenhard, B., Wenche. K. S., Glenn, O. H. And Henrick B. (2007). “Norway” in
Windows on CLIL.139-146. The Hague: European Platform for Dutch Education.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S., Kozulin, A., & Abadía, P. T. (1995). Pensamiento y lenguaje (pp. 97-
115). Barcelona: Paidós.
Zukunftsbau GmbH. (May 28th, 2021). Über uns - Der Träger. Zukunftsbau.de
Zukunftsbau . https://www.zukunftsbau.de/ueber-uns/der-traeger
33
9. ANNEX I
Figure 1
Source: Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training.
Figure 2
Source: Consellería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.
34
ANNEX II, Chart 0: MODEL FOR OBSERVATIONS
CLIL CORE FEATURE
ITEM
OBSERVATIONS IN THE LESSON
1: Not
observed
at all
2: Often
observed
3:
Usually
observed
4:
Always
observed
MULTIPLE FOCUS The lesson is focused on both content and
language simultaneously.
AUTHENTICITY OF LANGUAGE
MATERIALS AND PRACTICE
Use of “everyday language” in L2.
Realia reflects veracity and can be applied to
real life situations.
SCAFFOLDING Teacher offers support to students
COOPERATION Students work in groups
SAVE AND ENRICHING
ENVIRONMENT
There is an atmosphere of comprehension
and respect towards all classmates.
Students can express themselves freely
35
CLIL CORE FEATURE
ITEM
OBSERVED IN THE LESSON
1: Not
observed
at all
2: Often
observed
3:
Usually
observed
4:
Always
observed
ACTIVE LEARNING Students build their own knowledge by doing
activities.
CONSTANT USE OF L2 Teacher uses L2 to communicate the content
and to the students.
STUDENT’S PARTICIPATION In the classroom there is a general
participation.
36
ANNEX II, Chart 1: OBSERVATIONS IN NORWAY
CLIL CORE FEATURE
ITEM
OBSERVATIONS IN THE LESSON
1: Not
observed
at all
2: Often
observed
3:
Usually
observed
4:
Always
observed
MULTIPLE FOCUS The lesson is focused on both content and
language simultaneously.
✓
AUTHENTICITY OF LANGUAGE
MATERIALS AND PRACTICE
Use of “everyday language” in L2. ✓
Realia reflects veracity and can be applied to
real life situations.
✓
SCAFFOLDING Teacher offers support to students ✓
COOPERATION Students work in groups ✓
SAVE AND ENRICHING
ENVIRONMENT
There is an atmosphere of comprehension
and respect towards all classmates.
✓
Students can express themselves freely ✓
37
CLIL CORE FEATURE
ITEM
OBSERVED IN THE LESSON
1: Not
observed
at all
2: Often
observed
3:
Usually
observed
4:
Always
observed
ACTIVE LEARNING Students build their own knowledge by doing
activities.
✓
CONSTANT USE OF L2 Teacher uses L2 to communicate the content
and to the students.
✓
STUDENT’S PARTICIPATION In the classroom there is a general
participation.
✓
38
ANNEX II, Chart 2: OBSERVATIONS IN SPAIN
CLIL CORE FEATURE
ITEM
OBSERVATIONS IN THE LESSON
1: Not
observed
at all
2: Often
observed
3:
Usually
observed
4:
Always
observed
MULTIPLE FOCUS The lesson is focused on both content and
language simultaneously.
✓
AUTHENTICITY OF LANGUAGE
MATERIALS AND PRACTICE
Use of “everyday language” in L2. ✓
Realia reflects veracity and can be applied to
real life situations.
✓
SCAFFOLDING Teacher offers support to students ✓
COOPERATION Students work in groups ✓
SAVE AND ENRICHING
ENVIRONMENT
There is an atmosphere of comprehension
and respect towards all classmates.
✓
Students can express themselves freely ✓
39
CLIL CORE FEATURE
ITEM
OBSERVED IN THE LESSON
1: Not
observed
at all
2: Often
observed
3:
Usually
observed
4:
Always
observed
ACTIVE LEARNING Students build their own knowledge by doing
activities.
✓
CONSTANT USE OF L2 Teacher uses L2 to communicate the content
and to the students.
✓
STUDENT’S PARTICIPATION In the classroom there is a general
participation.
✓