FACULTY OF ARTS AND EDUCATION
MASTER’S THESIS
Programme of study:
Master in Literacy Studies
Spring semester, 2013
Open
Author: Miriam Orvik Gjendemsjø
…………………………………………
(Author’s signature)
Supervisor: Ion Drew
Thesis title: A case study of a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) project in a
9th grade EFL class in Norway
Keywords:
CLIL
Second World War
9th grade EFL
Norway
No. of pages: …102………
+ appendices/other: ..36……
Stavanger, …15.05.2013……………..
date/year
i
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Ion Drew for all of his efforts and
dedication in guiding me throughout this process and for his encouragements as well as
valuable insight. I would also like to thank my family and loved ones for their support. A
particular appreciation goes to the EFL teacher who openly invited me into her classroom
over an extensive period of time, as well as the 29 pupils in her class for their participation.
ii
Abstract
This thesis is a study of a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) project in a 9th
grade Norwegian EFL class. History, namely the Second World War from the perspective of
young people’s experiences, was taught with English as the language of instruction. CLIL is a
content-driven approach where the main emphasis is on using a different language than the
mother tongue as a tool for teaching and learning about another subject; the focus is on
meaning and not the forms of language. CLIL creates a dual benefit of developing both
language and content knowledge.
The thesis aimed to investigate the teacher’s motives for initiating the project, the
pupils’ and teacher’s expectations, experiences and challenges, and how the project benefited
the pupils. It is a case study based on multiple methods. Two pupil questionnaires were used,
one in the initial stage of the project and one after the project had ended. Thirteen lessons
were observed, including observing the pupils giving oral presentations on topics they had
been working on connected to the overall theme. The presentations were recorded and
transcribed. In addition, the teacher was interviewed both before the project started and after it
had ended and five pupils were also interviewed at the end of the project.
One of the main findings was that the teacher played a central role. The project was
implemented on the teacher’s initiative and interest in the topic and her view that textbook-
based teaching was too limited. Finding and assessing appropriate materials for a mixed
ability class was a major challenge. These included extracts from books written for native-
speakers, texts from course books for the age group, and films on the subject. The teacher
experienced the project to be generally rewarding for her and beneficial for the pupils. The
pupils’ expectations and experiences were mainly positive. For most of the pupils, learning
about WWII in English was not regarded as difficult in general, although some of the texts
were regarded as difficult. The pupils were mostly focused on the subject matter and not the
fact that they were using English to learn about it. The use of films and activities related to
them were what they liked most, while giving oral presentations, reading and writing were
less popular activities. The project promoted communicative engagement in classroom
discussions. Vocabulary connected to the topic was one of the areas in which the pupils
developed their language, but most of them did not feel that they had developed their
language in other ways.
CLIL has primarily been used at the upper secondary level in Norway. This study has
shown that CLIL also has a potential with young Norwegian EFL learners.
1
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
1.1
Background
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
1.2
The aims and scope of the present study …………………………………………………………… 4
1.3
Outline of the thesis
……………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
2.0
English teaching in Norwegian school education ………………………………………………….. 7
2.1
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
2.2
An historical overview of English curricula in Norway
………………………………………. 7
2.3
The Knowledge Promotion curriculum (LK06) …………………………………………………. 9
2.4
The textbook tradition in Norway ………………………………………………………………….. 12
2.5
Teacher education
………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
3.0
Theory and literature review …………………………………………………………………………….. 15
3.1
The background for CLIL
……………………………………………………………………………… 15
3.2
The nature of CLIL
………………………………………………………………………………………. 17
3.3
Theories of language learning ……………………………………………………………………….. 20
3.3.1
Socio-cultural, constructivist perspectives on language learning …………………. 21
3.3.2
The ‘natural approach’ …………………………………………………………………………… 22
3.3.3
Krashen’s Monitor theory ………………………………………………………………………. 22
3.3.4
‘Natural’ language learning and CLIL ……………………………………………………… 25
3.4
Studies of CLIL …………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
4.0
Method ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 37
4.1
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
4.2
The case study: an approach to qualitative research
………………………………………….. 37
4.3
Risks of bias and validity
………………………………………………………………………………. 38
4.4
The participants and gaining entry into the field ………………………………………………. 39
4.5
Observation
…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40
4.5.1
Semi-structured observation
……………………………………………………………………. 40
4.5.2
The case study observation …………………………………………………………………….. 41
4.6
Interviews …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42
4.6.1
Semi-structured interviews
……………………………………………………………………… 42
4.6.2
The pre-project teacher interview ……………………………………………………………. 43
4.6.3
The post-project interview with the teacher ………………………………………………. 44
4.6.4
Interviews with the pupils ………………………………………………………………………. 45
4.7
Questionnaires …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47
4.7.1
The pre-project questionnaire
………………………………………………………………….. 48
4.7.2
The post-project questionnaire ………………………………………………………………… 49
4.8
Presenting the data
……………………………………………………………………………………….. 50
5.0
Results …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51
2
5.1
Pre-project data
……………………………………………………………………………………………. 51
5.1.1
Pre-project teacher interview…………………………………………………………………… 51
5.1.2
Pre-project pupil questionnaire ……………………………………………………………….. 61
5.2
Observation data ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 63
5.2.1
Summary of observation data
………………………………………………………………….. 63
5.2.2
Pupils’ oral presentations ……………………………………………………………………….. 70
5.3
Post-project data ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 74
5.3.1
Post-project pupil questionnaire
………………………………………………………………. 74
5.3.2
Post-project pupil interviews
…………………………………………………………………… 77
5.3.3
Post-project teacher interview …………………………………………………………………. 83
6.0
Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 92
6.1
The teacher’s motives
…………………………………………………………………………………… 92
6.2
Expectations
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 93
6.3
Experiences
…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 94
6.4
The pupils’ benefits ……………………………………………………………………………………… 96
6.5
Challenges ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 99
7.0
Conclusion
……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 102
References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 104
Appendices …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 109
Appendix 1A
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 109
Appendix 1B
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 111
Appendix 2A
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 114
Appendix 2B
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 116
Appendix 3 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 118
Appendix 4 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 120
3
1.0
Introduction
This thesis is about a case study of a Content and Language Integrated (CLIL) project,
combining History and English, in a mixed-ability 9th grade English class in Norway. Coyle et
al. (2010: 1) define CLIL as a dual approach to education ‘…in which an additional
language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language.’ CLIL
emphasises a focus on content (meaning) rather than on form. The content of the CLIL
project, young people’s experiences during World War II, was taught and learnt with and
through the use of the target language English. The study investigates the expectations,
experiences, challenges and benefits for the pupils and the teacher’s motives, expectations,
challenges and experience of carrying out this CLIL-project. The data for the study was
collected from October 2012 to April 2013 through multiple methods, including observations
of lessons, semi-structured interviews with pupils and the teacher, and two pupil
questionnaires.
The study falls within the field of evaluative educational research. According to Borg
and Gall (1989: 742): ‘Educational evaluation is the process of making judgements about the
merit, value or worth of educational programs.’ The practice of CLIL in Norway has
primarily been at the upper secondary level (Paulsen 2010b: 10). The present study, in
contrast, focuses on a level which is under-researched, namely introducing CLIL to younger
pupils aged 14/15. In addition, the research will add to the limited evaluative research on
materials/tasks in CLIL projects in general (Coyle et al. 2010).
There is a strong tradition for using the textbook approach in Norwegian EFL teaching
(Drew 2004; Charboneau 2012; Hellekjær 2007), namely basing teaching mainly or entirely
on one textbook. The present study in contrast investigates the implementation of a non-
traditional approach to foreign language teaching in Norway, one which provides pupils with
the opportunity to acquire language through a focus on meaning and natural language usage,
and exposes them to large amounts of input through the use of a wide variety of materials. In
the report Språk åpner dører (Languages Open Doors), produced by the Ministry of
Education (2007:54), a need is expressed for more research and more experimental and
developmental work with regard to teaching foreign languages. Thus the present study also
hopes to contribute to the limited research into experimental approaches to EFL practices in
Norway.
4
1.1 Background
The ideas upon which CLIL is based are in no way new, even though the modern version of
CLIL is (Simensen 1998: 103). Coyle et al. (2010: 2) point out that: ‘Education in a language
which is not the first language of the learner is as old as education itself.’ CLIL has a dual
focus: there is not just a singular focus on teaching and learning either content or language.
Even though the emphasis may be placed heavier on one of the two, content and language are
interwoven in the teaching and learning process (Coyle et al. 2010: 1). Mehisto et al. (2008: 7)
argue: ‘We have known for a long time that teaching languages and other subjects separate
from one another, in a vacuum, does not produce optional outcomes.’ CLIL combines
language and content which otherwise have been fragmented into separate subjects (Mehisto
et al. 2008:7-9).
Krashen’s (1982: 10) acquisition-learning hypothesis supports the dual focus and
interwoven processes in CLIL. Krashen distinguishes between ‘acquisition’ of language as a
subconscious process and ‘learning’ as a conscious one. This definition of acquisition implies
that when pupils are immersed in the learning experience, and use language purposefully and
meaningfully, they will automatically acquire language in a natural manner. Thus, placing the
emphasis on meaning (the content) rather than on form (e.g. grammar instruction) promotes
language development, and allows for the development of both language and content
irrespective of where the main emphasis is placed in a given situation. The CLIL approach
presupposes that pupils can develop their language without a focus on conscious learning of
vocabulary and grammar through direct language instruction.
1.2 The aims and scope of the present study
The present CLIL project focuses on the early stages of the Second World War and
emphasises the war experience from the perspective of young people. The 29 pupils were
introduced to the topic for the first time in English, but would learn more about the Second
World War in Social Studies at a later time during their 9th year. The project lasted from
October to March and was restricted to the context of the English classroom, where pupils
have three lessons a week. It was based on multiple materials and tasks and was conducted
almost entirely in English. Authentic text excerpts and texts from several textbooks were
provided, representing various genres and levels of difficulty. Films were also used. Shorter
writing tasks, where pupils could choose between several options, and oral tasks, were given
5
in relation to the texts and films. In addition, the pupils did a longer process-writing task,
choosing between writing a WWII-related article, a diary entry or a letter, writing about their
own reflections or making a story, which they worked on both at school and at home. The
pupils also chose a topic and presented it orally to the class.
The main research questions of the study are:
What are the expectations, experiences, benefits and challenges of the project for the
pupils?
What are the motives, expectations, challenges and experiences of the teacher?
It was expected that the teacher would be a key variable, both for implementing CLIL and for
its efficacy. In addition, by exposing the pupils to the English language through a focus on
meaning and content, it was expected that the project would provide them with a natural and
motivating context for developing their language skills. It was anticipated, however, that some
pupils may experience challenges, due to their low abilities in English, or as a lack of
motivation and interest in the content or the language. However, if the materials and tasks
were well-adapted to the individual pupil’s level, and proper assistance from the teacher was
provided, these pupils could also develop both language and content knowledge.
1.3 Outline of the thesis
Chapter 2 ‘English teaching in Norwegian school education’, provides an overview of English
teaching in Norway. First it shows how English teaching practices, the status of English
teaching and English curricula have changed through time. Secondly, the current status of
English teaching in Norwegian education is presented, both in terms of the current curriculum
LK06, the English subject curriculum’s goals for pupils at the lower-secondary level and how
English teaching is commonly practised in Norway. Teacher education in Norway is also
described in this chapter.
Chapter 3 ‘Theory and literature review’, presents the CLIL approach. It gives as
description of the origin of CLIL, an explanation of the nature of CLIL, theories on language
learning in support of this approach and some of the studies of CLIL in Europe, including
CLIL research in Norway.
In Chapter 4 ‘Method’, the methodology used and the process of collecting data for
the study is presented, namely the case study as a form of research and the use of multiple
6
methods, including semi-structured interviews, observations of lessons and questionnaires to
study the case in question.
Chapter 5 ‘Results’, provides summaries of two interviews with the teacher,
summaries of interviews with selected pupils, presents data from two questionnaires which
were filled out by the pupils and provides a summary of the occurrences in several observed
lessons during the project, including examples of and comments on several pupils’ oral
presentations.
Chapter 6 discusses the findings from the case study and also views them in the light
of CLIL theory and research.
Chapter 7 presents a conclusion of the findings, suggests areas for future research on
CLIL in Norway and also considers the limitations of this case study.
7
2.0
English teaching in Norwegian school education
2.1 Introduction
The main foreign language taught in Norwegian education today is English (Bøhn et al. 2007:
139). English is a school subject with its own subject curriculum and is the only foreign
language that is compulsory from grades 1 to 10.
From year 1 to 7 in primary school, 328 hours are provided for teaching English,
whereas the number of teaching hours in lower secondary school from grades 8 to 10 is 227.
According to the curriculum, the English lessons should be provided as 60-minute units, but
the common teaching practice is that the lessons are taught in 45-minute units. Moreover,
English is one of three subjects that pupils can have a written exam in at the end of lower
secondary school. After year 10, the last year of compulsory education, pupils are given two
grades for their overall achievement in EFL, namely one grade for their written work and one
for oral performance
2.2 An historical overview of English curricula in Norway
The educational system in Norway has been through numerous changes in terms of reforms
and curricula which have changed the role of EFL teaching. Changes were often made as new
methodologies were developed and introduced. Drew and Sørheim (2009: 22) point out that
numerous approaches to foreign language learning have been tried as experts and teachers
continuously attempt to discover the ‘optimal way’ to teach and learn languages.
It was not until 1959 that a new law for 9-year compulsory schooling was made,
making English as a foreign language (EFL) a compulsory subject for all pupils (Drew and
Sørheim 2009: 28). From the ‘Normalplan’ in 1939 and until the new law in 1959, EFL
teaching had been optional. However, English was offered primarily to the academic elite, as
it was consistently made obligatory in large towns and city areas while in the countryside it
was primarily offered to those wishing to enter grammar school (‘realskolen’). EFL teaching
at the primary levels during that time only consisted of eight lessons, provided during the 6th
and 7th year, where the focus was on developing a basic competence in English. In 1969 an
act was passed making it compulsory for all pupils to learn English in primary school, with a
focus on developing practical skills (Drew and Sørheim 2009: 28). Since English was
introduced in the final years of primary school, and to such a limited degree, the lower
8
secondary levels were given the responsibility of ensuring rapid development, and oral skills
were largely limited to reading aloud.
In Norway and Europe, the grammar-translation method dominated EFL teaching for
centuries up until the 1960s (Drew and Sørheim 2009:23). Pupils spent most of the English
lessons reading and translating texts, and learning grammatical rules. Accuracy was
emphasised and practised by writing a predefined set of sentences. Speech was not a part of
the language learning process. It was in the study of Latin and Greek that the method had its
origin. The focus was on learning large numbers of words and grammar rules ‘by heart’ in
order to achieve the aim of being able to read authentic texts and translate them into the
mother tongue. For the pupils in Norway, the grammar-translation method normally entailed
‘learning vocabulary lists by heart, doing grammar exercises and translating to and from
English’ (Drew and Sørheim 2009: 23). The language of instruction was predominantly
Norwegian. Writing was practised on a regular basis and the lessons regularly consisted of
translating texts and reading aloud in class. There was little speech involved. Although the
curriculum in the 1960s stated that the pupils should learn the English language as a tool for
communication, it took a long time for it to become a common practice in the secondary
schools.
In 1974, the M74 curriculum made it possible to introduce English in the 3rd grade
and obligatory to do so in the 4th grade. By lowering the onset age of English, the teachers
were in great need of developing new methods for EFL instruction. The main goal of the
curriculum was to develop the pupils’ oral abilities in English and comprehension. The M74
curriculum was clearly based on the audio-lingual approach, a method emphasizing oral
language, practice and language drills (Drew and Sørheim 2009: 25-29).
The M74 curriculum provided a list of vocabulary and grammatical items for the
various levels which were to be introduced by using them in ‘familiar structures’ (Drew and
Sørheim 2009: 29). The texts in the textbooks were constructed in order to practise the words
and grammatical items in the curriculum. The pupils got to practise their oral language skills
more, but in a very artificial and repetitive manner, making lessons boring and monotonous.
Moreover, the audio-lingual method required the teachers to be skilled speakers of English,
which they often were not. Thus many teachers returned to the grammar-translation method
(Drew and Sørheim: 2009: 29).
Communication was the main focus of language teaching in the 1970s and 1980s. In
1972, Dell Hymes introduced the concept of ‘communicative competence’ (Drew and
Sørheim 2009: 26). In his view, learners needed cultural and social knowledge in order to
9
understand and use meaningful units of speech, such as words, phrases and sentences. Thus
both learning about culture and society, and being able to use that knowledge in
communication, were important parts of language learning. Hymes argued for the importance
of developing the language but also for the importance of being able to adjust the use of the
language according to contexts (Simensen 2007, cited in Drew and Sørheim 2009: 26).
The M87 curriculum in Norway was largely influenced by communicative approaches
to language teaching. Communication was central. Creative use of the target language was
encouraged and for the first time local material was introduced into English lessons, e.g. local
history and culture. Another new trend was that it addressed mixed ability teaching in terms
of adapting texts and tasks, as well as grammar instruction, to the levels of the individual
pupils. Furthermore teaching was based on various themes (Drew and Sørheim 2009: 27-30).
The L97 curriculum introduced English as a compulsory school subject for the first
four years of primary school. The underlying belief was that L1 competence was the basis for
L2 learning. Language was viewed as a tool for communication and for comprehending the
world. The primary aim was to develop the pupils’ written and oral language skills, and
reading and writing a wide variety of genres was also emphasised. Furthermore pupils were
expected to ‘learn how to learn a language’. Language input and language production should
be authentic, thus reflecting how the language is used in the real world. The curriculum also
included a focus on using English as a medium through which pupils could discover English
speaking cultures (Drew and Sørheim 2009: 30-31).
Two of the new features introduced in L97 were the emphasis on project work, so
called theme-oriented group tasks, and the introduction of ‘learner-autonomy’. However, both
of these features were criticised for not providing pupils with enough structure in their
learning (Drew and Sørheim 2009: 31).
2.3 The Knowledge Promotion curriculum (LK06)
The current English subject curriculum, LK06, emphasizes the important role of English as a
foreign language in Norway. It states that in order to ‘succeed in a world where English is
used for international interpersonal communication, it is necessary to master the English
language’ (LK06, English subject curriculum). Moreover, English is necessary for people both
within the country and abroad. It is a necessity in order to communicate with people whose
mother tongue is not Norwegian. Norwegian pupils encounter English outside of school
through ‘films, literature, songs, sports, business, products, trades and entertainment’ (LK06,
10
English subject curriculum). In addition, English words and phrases have entered the
Norwegian language and the use of English in education and professions is increasing in
Norway and all over the world. Thus, EFL teaching and learning in Norwegian education is
viewed as a requirement for preparing pupils for real life experiences in a global village where
English is an increasingly common tool used for communication as well as for ‘gaining
knowledge and personal insight’ (LK06, English subject curriculum).
All Norwegian schools, teachers and pupils at the primary, lower-secondary and upper
secondary levels, are obliged to follow LK06 (Bøhn et al. 2007: 139). LK06 has subject
curricula for each school subject including English, but with the exception of having one
shared curriculum for other foreign languages. The English subject curriculum consists of
various sets of competence aims, which are to be achieved by the end of the 2nd, 4th and 7th
years of primary school, by the 10th year of lower secondary school and after the first and
second year of upper secondary school. Thus the goals are not separated according to each
school year and as such each school and teacher is required to organize when and how the
aims are to be learned. Moreover, the competence aims are structured in three main areas:
‘Language learning’, ‘Communication’ and ‘Culture, society and literature’(LK06, English
subject curriculum).
For the lower-secondary level, the focus in ‘Language learning’ is on the pupils
gaining knowledge about the English language, how it is used, and understanding how the
language is learned. The pupils are required to be able to self-assess their own language
proficiency and select appropriate strategies for further development. Furthermore, they are
required to develop an understanding of how various languages are related to English.
The second main area’ ‘Communication’ focuses on how the English language is used
for communication purposes. Communicative skills are to be achieved through reading,
writing, listening, spontaneous oral interaction, e.g. classroom dialogue, and prepared oral
presentation. Moreover, the area emphasizes that pupils should learn to use communication
strategies. There is also a focus on the importance of developing language knowledge,
vocabulary and various skills in order to create ‘good communication’. The competence aims
after year 10 for ‘Communication’ include pupils being able to (LK06, English subject
curriculum):
master vocabulary that covers a range of topics
understand spoken and written texts on a variety of topics
express himself/herself in writing and orally with some precision, fluency and
coherence
11
present and discuss current events and interdisciplinary topics
read and understand texts of different lengths and genres
select listening, speaking, reading and writing strategies adapted to the purpose
and situation
The main area ‘Culture, society and literature’ involves both content-learning and
language learning in the English school subject. Some of the competence aims are for pupils
to be able to:
explain features of history and geography in Great Britain and the USA
read and discuss a representative selection of literary texts from the genres
poetry, short stories, novels and drama from the English-speaking world
Thus, the English curriculum as a whole contains elements of content as well as language.
Both history and communication are represented in the competence aims. Moreover, the main
subject areas are to be considered as intertwined, supplementing one another, which
corresponds with the CLIL idea of integrating language and content learning.
Moreover, LK06 has a deep emphasis on ‘basic skills’. Several basic skills are
integrated into the competence aims of the various school subject curricula. For the subject of
English, five basic skills are mentioned. First, ‘being able to express oneself in orally and in
writing’ is considered as a major part of developing the pupils’ linguistic competence and as
tools for language usage and comprehension.
Second, ‘being able to read’ refers both to the act of reading and comprehension.
Through reading, pupils are expected to explore and reflect upon texts. Moreover, the texts
should provide increasing challenges in order to further develop the pupils’ reading skills.
Through reading, pupils should gain knowledge about various cultures and genres. By
developing reading skills, the pupils’ general reading abilities will improve; practice in
reading enhances the reading skill.
Third, pupils should develop necessary English terms in order to make use of the
mathematical knowledge that has been learned in the mother tongue. ‘Numeracy in English’
is seen to be important in order to extract and grasp numeric data in texts, including statistics,
graphs and tables.
Finally, ‘being able to use digital tools in English’ is considered important as it
provides opportunities for both language production and language learning. Computers may
be used both for reading, writing, research, enjoyment and communication. Competence in
12
the English language is often required in order to use modern technology and the use of
technological tools may assist pupils in developing their English-language competence.
Schools are also required to teach pupils to be critical of sources when searching on the
Internet and to understand the concept of copyright and other risks (LK06, English subject
curriculum).
The English subject curriculum states what the pupils are expected to be able to do,
but does not provide any specific guidelines as to how these aims are to be achieved. Thus, the
curriculum is relatively open concerning content and methods.
2.4 The textbook tradition in Norway
Norwegian EFL textbooks normally contain a number of short texts on a wide range of topics,
including history, geography and culture related to the target language. In two teacher
questionnaire surveys, one among primary school teachers and the other among secondary
school teachers, Drew (2004; 2006) found that there is a strong tradition in Norway of using
the textbook in EFL teaching at these levels. In the survey conducted in 2003, Drew (2004:
20-23) found that 70 per cent of the participating primary school teachers only used or
frequently used the textbook. In addition, most teachers rarely or never used either DVDs,
computer programmes, the Internet, books for native speakers or other additional reading
materials. The 2005 survey on EFL teaching in lower secondary schools showed that an even
higher number of EFL teachers, namely 80 per cent, used the textbook either frequently or all
the time at that level (Drew 2006).
Drew (2004: 33) argues that young language learners in EFL classrooms should be
exposed to the target language as much as possible. Pupils should be able to make use of the
target language in reading, writing and orally through different types of communicative
activities, and through the use of modern technology, such as the Internet or films. Drew
(2004: 35) also found the trend of not using additional reading materials to be unexpectedly
frequent in spite of the fact that several studies into the effect of extensive reading have
shown that allowing pupils to read extensively provides ‘enormous benefits for language
development’.
In a later study, Charboneau (2012: 57) also found that the majority of teachers in
Norwegian primary schools based their English reading instruction on a textbook; non-
traditional approaches were rarely used. Charboneau argues that in the textbook approach the
13
materials and topics are highly limited because they are chosen by the textbook writer, and
they do not consider the pupils’ different interests or motivation.
Furthermore, Hellekjær (2007: 27) has commented on the textbook tradition, pointing
to deficiencies in current EFL instruction practices in Norway. Before the implementation of
the LK06 curriculum, PISA surveys showed deficiencies in Norwegian pupils’ first language
(L1) reading abilities; they lacked competence in reading strategies and information
processing (Hellekjær 2007: 26). The results showed that there was a wide range of pupils’
levels of reading proficiency within classes. In a doctoral study, Hellekjær (2005) found that
the same problems were found in Norwegian EFL classrooms. According to Hellekjær (2007:
27-28), the main issues in Norwegian EFL classrooms are the heavy reliance on the textbook
and intensive reading, focusing on form rather than content. Hellekjær argues for the
importance of introducing extensive reading and incidental learning of vocabulary in
Norwegian EFL classrooms as a way of promoting reading and language development.
The present study investigates an alternative to the textbook approach, one where a
variety of materials is used and where incidental learning is likely to take place.
2.5 Teacher education
There are primarily two ways to become an English teacher in Norway. A Bachelor of
Education qualifies for teaching at the compulsory school levels (grades 1-10), whereas a
university degree is normally required for the upper secondary level together with a
Postgraduate Certificate of Education, known as ‘praktisk pedagogisk utdanning’ (Bøhn et al.
2007: 142). Moreover, the latter combination also qualifies for teaching at the primary and
lower secondary levels, from grade 5 onwards. A Bachelor of Education involves studying at
teacher training universities or colleges. Until 2010, the first two years included a number of
obligatory subjects, such as Norwegian, Religion and Pedagogy, while the last two years
provided optional courses, from which the students could select their specialization areas.
English was one of several subjects offered. However, from 2010 student teachers have to
choose between two separate programmes: one qualifying to teach grades 1 to 7 and the other
qualifying to teach grades 5to 10.
A Bachelor of Arts degree involves studying two or more subjects. Thus, taking a
degree in Norway qualifies for teaching competence in more than one subject. As a
consequence, many teachers working within the Norwegian educational system normally
teach two or three subjects they have studied. According to Bøhn et al. (2007: 142), many
14
combine studying a ‘foreign language and a non-linguistic subject’, and most common is the
combination of English and subjects within the branch of social studies. Combining natural
sciences, vocational subjects or economic subjects with a foreign language is, however, a rare
phenomenon.
It seems likely that teachers make the link between the subjects they have studied,
considering cross-curricular possibilities. Despite a lack of formal training in CLIL in
Norway, many teachers have qualifications to teach several subjects (often across disciplines).
Thus a large number of teachers are ‘formally qualified for teaching a CLIL subject’ (Bøhn et
al. 2007: 143).
15
3.0
Theory and literature review
3.1 The background for CLIL
Teaching learners in a second or foreign language ‘is as old as education itself’ (Coyle et al.
2010: 2). A two thousand year old example is when the Roman Empire took over Greek land.
As a result, children of Roman families were taught non-language subjects in Greek by Greek
tutors; it provided them with a second language, expanded their professional opportunities and
even gave them the possibility to settle down in Greece. Another example is when Latin
became and remained the lingua franca in European education until the sixteenth century
(Simensen 1998: 103).
It was primarily the wide experimentation of immersion programmes in the 1960s in
Canada that led to the modern version of CLIL (Simensen 1998: 103). This is where the main
evidence for the CLIL approach lies (Marsh 2009: vii). The target language for English
speaking communities in Canada has been French, whereas English has been the target
language for the French-speaking communities (Navés 2009: 22). Some schools in Quebec
have taught the majority of their curriculum in French to English speakers. In early immersion
programmes, instruction in the target language starts in the first grade (kindergarten). In these
programmes pupils are taught second language literacy before literacy in their first language.
While delayed immersion programmes take place in elementary schools when pupils are
between 9 and 10 years old, late immersion programmes are initiated with pupils between 11
and 14. Furthermore, during the first three years of French total immersion programmes, the
pupils are taught entirely in French. Later on the amount of English instruction is gradually
increased. In comparison, around half of the classes are taught using French in partial
French-immersion programmes (Navés 2009). Immersion promotes language development by
immersing or ‘bathing’ learners in extensive target language input and using the target
language for instruction in at least half of the school subjects, in addition to the traditional
EFL teaching (Elsner and Keßler 2013: 2).
In the 1970s and 1980s immersion programmes in Canada were monitored in order to
investigate to what degree the pupils learned and developed both first and second language
abilities and content. The research was initiated because of parents’ and schools’ concerns
over whether teaching content exclusively in a second language would be beneficial.
According to Navés (2009: 23), the research data of Canadian immersion programs results in
some generalizations. Firstly, pupils are required to reach threshold levels of second language
16
abilities in order to attain the expectations of the immersion subjects. Secondly, pupils
participating in total immersion programmes ‘performed as well as their unilingual, English
instructed peers on content-subject tests [but] early partial immersion students did not’ (Navés
2009: 23). In addition, even though early immersion programmes were believed to have a
negative impact on first language development, research showed the opposite. Despite the fact
that the first language (English) abilities of early immersion pupils were lower than those
being instructed in English during the first years, they reached the same level or even
outperformed their non-immersion peers during the following years.
However, a generalization can also be made about the deficiencies of immersion
programmes. Although all pupils in immersion programmes reached the same level of writing
proficiency in French, they did not reach the same level of achievement as pupils being taught
in their first language. According to Navés (2009: 23), the deficiencies in immersion
programmes are mainly found in the pupils’ grammar and vocabulary competence as opposed
to ‘discourse aspects of performance’.
In another context, the multilingual population in the USA, there has been a concern
for developing all pupils’ abilities to master the English language, particularly for academic
purposes (Navés 2009: 22). Content-based approaches to the teaching of academic content
matters have increased in North American universities, as more and more foreign students
choose to study at their schools. The language and content integrated approach to teaching has
long been practised in American education (Navés 2009: 23). Two traditions have been
content-based instruction programmes (CBI) and bilingual education (BE) programmes. CBI
programmes integrate the teaching of academic topics and skills in the second language
(Brinton et al. 1989, cited in Navés 2009: 24). In these approaches, language is viewed as a
tool to learn subject matter content rather than as the immediate object of the study. In BE
approaches, education is conducted completely or partly in the second language, with the aim
to develop second language competence in addition to addressing and ensuring development
of pupils’ first language abilities and achieving sufficient educational outcomes. In most
recent BE programmes in the United States, the language of instruction has primarily or partly
been the English language learners’ native language. Research has shown that when properly
implemented, the outcomes of BE programmes have been at least equally as successful, or
perhaps even more successful, than non-bilingual education and programmes which only use
the target language as the language of instruction. They have, however, been viewed as
controversial (Navés 2009). Bilingual education promotes teaching and learning in both the
target language and the pupils’ mother tongue (Elsner and Keßler 2013). Elsner and Keßler
17
(2013: 3) suggest that bilingual modules should be integrated into traditional foreign language
settings in primary schools. The reason why CLIL is not practised as much in regular schools,
but rather is constrained to so-called immersion or bilingual schools in Germany, where at
least half of the school subjects are taught in the target language, is that: ‘Very often these
[regular] schools cannot afford content-based lessons in the foreign language to their learners
simply due to practical and organisational reasons’ (Elsner and Keßler 2013: 2). However,
bilingual modules could provide an excellent opportunity to teach subject-specific content
both in the mother tongue and an additional language. Several bilingual programmes have
been implemented into German schools at the elementary levels in recent times (Elsner and
Keßler 2013).
3.2 The nature of CLIL
The term ‘Content and Language integrated Learning’ (CLIL) was established in 1994 by a
company of experts financially supported by the European Commission. In an interview,
Marsh (2010) stated that when he was working in Northern Europe for the European
Commission, children were leaving school after eight years of French and Spanish without
hardly being able to string a sentence together. Marsh then became part of a research team
investigating practices where the methodologies were successful at language and content
learning and provided pupils with an enjoyable experience. The term ‘CLIL’ was chosen in
order to reflect the experts’ shared perception of the similarities which they found in different
‘methodological practices’ of bilingual teaching across the world (Marsh 2009: vii). Thus,
CLIL was launched as an umbrella term to include the common characteristics found in how
bilingual teaching was practised worldwide. CLIL was used to ‘describe and further design
good practice as achieved in different types of school environment where teaching and
learning take place in an additional language’ (Coyle et al. 2010: 3).
In order to get a grasp of the theoretical concepts of CLIL, the experts first closely
examined the works of Vygotsky, Piaget, Bruner and Skinner (Marsh (2009: vii). As a second
step, available research evidence was analysed. The purpose was to view the outcomes from
different teaching approaches towards bilingual education in order to find elements that could
be useful and suitable for various contexts.
In the CLIL approach the focus is on learning through and with a foreign or additional
language, as opposed to simply learning in a foreign language. The dual focus in CLIL is
essential to understanding how CLIL is different from other practices consisting of teaching in
18
another language than the pupils’ mother tongue. CLIL is different from other language
teaching practices in that it is content-driven (Coyle et al. 2010: 1). Marsh and Marshland
(1999), cited in Alba (2009: 131), claim that CLIL is not meant to replace explicit language
instruction that provides a focus on form. Rather, CLIL should be viewed and practised as a
complement to traditional language teaching. It creates a setting which requires teachers to
adapt their traditional teaching practices. It is flexible and adaptable for various contexts. It
includes several models which are practised in several ways with different learner types.
According to Coyle et al. (2010: 1), ‘Good CLIL practice is realized through methods which
provide a more holistic educational experience for the learner than may otherwise be
commonly achievable’. What creates the ‘dual-focused form of instruction’ in CLIL are the
multiple methodologies applied to support language (Coyle et al. 2010: 3). The methodologies
used and the degree of focus on language differ according to the CLIL context. Whether
language is addressed through a focus on meaning or a focus on form, it still needs to be paid
attention to, and to be learned in a natural context (Coyle et al. 2010: 35). In one situation the
dominant focus may be on language, whereas content may be the primary focus in another
setting. However, Coyle et al. (2010: 6) state that no matter where the dominant focus is
placed, the methodologies of CLIL create the ‘fusion’ between content and language of which
positive educational outcomes can be achieved. According to Coyle (2002:45), cited in Coyle
et al. (2010: 6), what makes CLIL unique is ‘the planned pedagogic integration of
contextualized content, cognition, communication and culture into teaching and learning
practice’.
Coyle et al. (2010: 41) present a framework, the 4Cs, for understanding the main
principles of CLIL practices, which they propose are key aspects for the successful planning
and implementation of CLIL:
The 4Cs Framework…integrates four contextualized building blocks: content (subject
matter), communication (language learning and using), cognition (learning and
thinking processes) and culture (developing intercultural understanding and global
citizenship).
CLIL is considered to promote a more holistic view on integrated learning, as it acknowledges
content and language as interconnected and interdependent elements. Crandall (1994), cited in
Coyle et al. (2010: 41), argue that it is not possible to develop academic knowledge and skills
without language, since content knowledge is embedded, discussed and constructed through
language. In addition, academic language skills cannot be acquired in a context without
19
content. Language and content are thus closely linked together and neither can develop
without the other. According to Coyle et al. (2010: 41), the 4Cs propose that CLIL is effective
through:
progression in knowledge, skills and understanding of the content
engagement in associated cognitive processing
interaction in the communicative context
development of appropriate language knowledge and skills
the acquisition of a deepening intercultural awareness, which is in turn
brought about by the positioning of self and ‘otherness’
CLIL promotes learning language and using language to learn. It is built upon seven
principles (Coyle et al. 2010: 42). Firstly, developing content knowledge and skills not only
occurs through acquisition, but learners also actively create knowledge and comprehension.
Thus, learners are actively engaged in the learning or acquisition process. Secondly, content
learning is connected to cognition (reflection and thought). In order for cognition and
development to occur, the teacher must consider the linguistic demands of the content (e.g.
materials and academic language). A third principle is that the cognitive tasks of the learners
should be analysed to understand the linguistic demands that the learners will encounter. The
fourth principle is that language which is connected to the content needs to be learned, in
order to learn through language in addition to learning content connected to the language.
Thus, language needs to be comprehensible and available. Learners need to be exposed to the
language and they need to understand it in order to develop content knowledge as well as
language. Fifth, interaction is a fundamental prerequisite for learning to take place. Through
interaction learners get to practise their language skills and reflect on and discuss the content
to which they are exposed. The sixth principle is for CLIL to promote cultural awareness in
order to understand the relationship between the language and the culture of the speakers of
that language. Finally, since CLIL is a part of a larger educational context, there is a need to
consider several contextual factors, such as age and mixed ability within the class, and
teachers’ need to review and adapt their teaching methods. Importantly, Marsh (2009: viii)
points out that there does not exist a ‘CLIL blueprint’. CLIL has been used in various ways,
but the one thing that they have in common is that they all promote development of both
content and language.
20
The content in CLIL can vary according to the context of the setting. The content of a
project can be chosen from learning aims in the current national curriculum or to provide a
certain angle to a topic which is somehow connected to the curriculum. The flexibility of
content choice in CLIL brings multiple opportunities for starting up a CLIL project or
programme in schools. CLIL can bring opportunities to enhance learning, the acquisition of
skills and development, but the essence of those opportunities will depend on what focus the
content requires (Coyle et al. 2010: 28). Thus, some CLIL cases may need to be content-
driven while others demand a stronger focus on language. Despite where the main emphasis
may be placed at a certain point, it is crucial for CLIL that the link between language and
content is upheld. Each is dependent on the other in order for learning to occur.
Only a small number of articles on CLIL in Norwegian education have been published
(Bøhn et al. 2007: 144). One of the first was produced by Hellekjær (1996), cited in Bøhn et
al. (2007: 144), and examined the challenges of implementing and teaching CLIL classes at
the upper secondary level. Hellekjær (1996) presents several challenges and important factors
that the teacher needs to be aware of when practising content-based or bilingual instruction. In
content-based instruction the primary goal is to teach the particular content with language
learning as an additional benefit. According to Hellekjær, the teacher should find an
appropriate balance between content- and language-matter and that any direct language
instruction should be a matter of facilitating ‘subject-matter learning’. Hellekjær suggests that
a general rule for bilingual teaching is to acknowledge that what is considered as proper and
sufficient teaching of subjects such as History in the mother tongue (L1) is equally applicable
in bilingual classrooms. Moreover, Hellekjær also states that teaching and using a foreign
language requires adjustments. First and foremost, introducing the target language carefully
into the classroom is important in order to prevent pupils from getting discouraged. Secondly,
instruction should be organized in terms of balancing the subject-matter and language-
instruction in order to find a successful combination. Finally, teachers need to address
problems that occur and be original in their attempts to solve them.
3.3 Theories of language learning
The rationale for CLIL is found first and foremost in ‘theories and research on second
language acquisition’ but also in socio-cultural, constructivist theories on second language
learning (Crandall 2012: 151).
21
3.3.1 Socio-cultural, constructivist perspectives on language learning
According to Graddol (2006:86), cited in Coyle et al. (2010: 5), CLIL is the ‘ultimate
communicative methodology’. However, CLIL is different from the movement of
communicative language teaching that occurred in the 1970s and 80s in that it has the ability
to incorporate the importance of ‘purpose’. Thus, one learns language not just for the sake of
it, but to make use of the language for communicative purposes both in writing and speech;
one also develops knowledge about a topic and processes it through the language (natural use
of language). As Coyle et al. (2010: 5-6) argue, many of the activities in CLIL settings
promote learners to be actively involved in their own learning and acquisition process. CLIL
practices tend to encourage pupils to take part in developing their own skills and acquiring
knowledge through activities where they can explore and investigate, and are able to make use
of cognitive skills (reflect, process information, form opinions, reasoning, making
comparisons and so on), for instance through ‘problem solving’. Thus, the teacher does not
simply hand over knowledge to the pupils (the banking model) (Coyle et al. 2010: 28).
Rather, the teacher makes it possible for learners to acquire knowledge by actively employing
their own or a group’s abilities of ‘perception, communication and reasoning’ (Coyle et al.
2010: 6). This can be viewed as a move away from ‘learning by instruction’ towards ‘learning
by construction’. In the socio-constructivist approaches, there is a main emphasis on
providing opportunities for pupils to learn through experience and promoting active learning
(Cummins 2005: 108, cited in Coyle et al. 2010: 29).
CLIL promotes a socio-constructivist view, which can influence how learners think
and process new knowledge, and develops their ability to comprehend concepts. A socio-
constructivist approach requires learners and the teacher to interact. Moreover, it focuses on
supported learning (scaffolding) in social interaction, by the teacher or peers (someone at a
higher level), or resources such as films and pictures or level appropriate texts. According to
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD), there is a difference between what someone
can learn alone and what is achievable through scaffolding, guidance and support (Coyle et al.
2010: 29). Coyle et al. claim that in practices which are influenced by socio-constructivist
methods (such as CLIL), teachers need to promote cognitive challenges that are within the
pupils’ reach (ZPD). Furthermore, teachers are required to use various supportive methods
and strategies to reduce the amount of support as learners develop.
22
3.3.2 The ‘natural approach’
Krashen and Terrell (1988: 7) point out that most people probably acquire most of their
abilities to communicate in an additional language through practices such as communicating
in real situations, which allows for natural use of language for particular purposes. The natural
approach can be defined as ‘a method of acquiring the ability to communicate in another
language directly without instruction in its grammar’ (Krashen and Terrell 1988: 7).
Moreover, everyone can acquire language when having the need or desire to do so, and when
given opportunities to practise using the language for ‘real communicative purposes’
(Krashen and Terrell 1988: 17).
The natural approach is based upon several theories of language acquisition. The
‘acquisition-learning’ distinction is considered as the most important. According to this
hypothesis, there are two distinct ways to learn language, namely subconscious acquisition
(incidental) and conscious learning (intentional). Language ‘acquisition’ is considered to be
closely connected to the way children develop first language abilities (Krashen 1982: 10).
Both the process and the results of language acquisition are considered to be subconscious,
otherwise referred to as ‘picking up language’ and sensing what is correct and incorrect.
‘Learning’, however, is viewed as a conscious process, often involving explicit instruction.
The learner is aware of grammatical rules and grammatical features, thus being able to speak
about those features. Krashen and Terrell (1988: 19) claim that evidence has shown
acquisition to be more significant for developing communicative skills than learning.
3.3.3 Krashen’s Monitor theory
The ‘acquisition-learning’ hypothesis is part of Krashen’s Monitor theory, which also
incorporates other hypotheses (Krashen 1982). The monitor hypothesis claims that language
which is learned can only be used as an editor, making changes to language production
(Krashen 1982: 15). The alterations can be made before an utterance is spoken or a sentence is
written, or as self-correction afterwards. The function of conscious learning is considered to
be further limited. First, in order to make corrections, pupils need sufficient time to reflect and
make use of conscious rules, which in most cases is considered to be impossible in natural and
unprepared speech. Furthermore, a tendency to over-correct may lead to a lack of focus on
what is being said, in addition to a hesitant form of speech. Secondly, in order to self-correct,
a focus on form and a concern for what is correct is required. Third, the speaker needs to have
knowledge of the rules in order to make use of them. Krashen and Terrell (1988: 19) claim
