Luận văn thạc sĩ an exploratory study on teachers’ opinions about math and english integrated teaching and learning program at an educatison center in hanoi

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐỖ THỊ NHÂM

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON TEACHERS’ OPINIONS
ABOUT MATH AND ENGLISH INTEGRATED
TEACHING AND LEARNING PROGRAM
AT AN EDUCATISON CENTER IN HANOI

(Nghiên cứu thăm dò ý kiến giáo viên về chương trình dạy học
theo đường hướng tích hợp Tốn - Tiếng Anh
tại một trung tâm giáo dục ở Hà Nội)

M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 8140231.01

Hanoi – 2019


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐỖ THỊ NHÂM

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON TEACHERS’ OPINIONS
ABOUT MATH AND ENGLISH INTEGRATED

TEACHING AND LEARNING PROGRAM
AT AN EDUCATION CENTER IN HANOI

(Nghiên cứu thăm dò ý kiến giáo viên về chương trình dạy học
theo đường hướng tích hợp Tốn - Tiếng Anh
tại một trung tâm giáo dục ở Hà Nội)

M.A. MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology
Code: 8140231.01
Supervisor: Dr. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn

Hanoi – 2019


DECLARATION

I hearby certify that the MA thesis entitled ―An exploratory study on
teachers’ opinions about Math and English Integrated Teaching and Learning
Program at an education center in Hanoi” is a result of my research for Degree
of Master of Arts at University of Language and International studies, Vietnam
National University, Hanoi. The paper has not been submitted for any degree at any
other university or tertiary institution.

Hanoi, 2019

Đỗ Thị Nhâm

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have owed a number of people for a great deal of support during the time
conducting this thesis.
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
supervisor, Dr. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn for his whole hearted supervision, his generous
intellectual support without which the thesis would not be possible.
I also dedicate my in-depth appreciation to University of Languages and
International Studies, the lecturers, the staff members for their precious lectures and
their valuable support helping me to complete my paper.
I am also immensely grateful to all the teachers for their enthusiastic
participation in my questionnaires and interviews.
Last but not least, I owe my thesis complement to my family and my close
friends who always stand by me with encouragement and spiritual support
throughout conducting the thesis.

ii


ABSTRACT
The launching of the National Foreign Languages 2020 Project with the task
of constructing and implementing other teaching and learning programs in English
for Mathematics and other subjects could be seen as the starting point of applying
CLIL program in Vietnamese education. The practice of CLIL in general, Math
and English Integrated Learning (MEITL) in particular, since then, has attracted
attention from the whole society. However, it is worth noticing that research to date
in Vietnamese context has not spend enough concern on teachers‘ opinions – an
important in the process of implementing MEITL. This stud, therefore, aims at

exploring the teachers‘ opinions about MEITL program‘s benefits, challenges in an
education center in Hanoi, as well as their suggestions to improve MEITL‘s
effectiveness.
For this purpose, firstly, 32 – item questionnaires were used to get response
from all 21 teachers of the center. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted
with 6 teachers from different groups: the teachers with more than 5-year
experience, the teachers with 1-3 year experice, the teachers graduating from
faculty of English Language Teacher Education, the teachers graduating from
graduating from faculty of Mathematics Teacher Education. The results from two
instruments were compared to each other to validate the study.
The results of this research indicated the teachers‘ opinions about MEITL
programs‘ benefits in terms of Context, Content, Language, Learning, and Culture.
The research also pointed the challenges faced by teachers when teaching this
program in the following factors: Collecting and Adapting materials, Designing
tasks, Balancing between Math and English knowledge, Applying the program for
primary students and the students with low level of English competence, Teaching
and learning complex Math themes, Time allocating and Teaching Grammar and
Structures. Besides, significant recommendations were also given to help improve
MEITL program.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ....................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ viii
LISTS OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................1
1.1.

Research statement and rationale for the study ............................................1

1.2.

Aims and objectives of the study .................................................................2

1.3.

Research method ..........................................................................................3

1.4.

Scope of the study ........................................................................................3

1.5.

Significance of the study ..............................................................................3

1.6.

Structure of the thesis ...................................................................................4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................6
2.1.

CLIL .............................................................................................................6

2.1.1. Definition ..................................................................................................6
2.1.2. Driving forces behind CLIL .....................................................................8
2.1.3. Framework of CLIL ..................................................................................8
2.2.

MEITL ........................................................................................................16

2.3.

Opinions .....................................................................................................16

2.4.

Benefits .......................................................................................................18

2.5.

Challenges ..................................................................................................18

2.6.

Related studies ............................................................................................19

iv


2.6.1. Related studies worldwwide ...................................................................19
2.6.2. Related studies in Vietnam .....................................................................21
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .........................................................................24
3.1.

Context of the study ...................................................................................24

3.2.

Research design ..........................................................................................26

3.2.1. Research method .....................................................................................26
3.2.2. Participants .............................................................................................27
3.2.3. Data collection ........................................................................................30
3.2.3.1. Instruments ......................................................................................30
3.2.3.2. Procedure .........................................................................................32
3.2.4. Data analysis ...........................................................................................33
3.2.4.1. Statistics analysis of the questionnaires ..........................................33
3.2.4.2. Content analysis of the interviews ..................................................34
CHAPTER 4: MAJOR FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS .................................36
4.1.

Overall rating ..............................................................................................36

4.2.

MEITL program‘s benefits, as perceived by the teachers ..........................36

4.2.1. Context ....................................................................................................37
4.2.2. Content (Math)........................................................................................40
4.2.3. Language (English) .................................................................................43
4.2.4. Learning ..................................................................................................46
4.2.5. Culture ....................................................................................................50
4.3.

MEITL program‘s challenges as perceived by the teachers ......................52

4.3.1. Collecting and adapting materials ..........................................................54
4.3.2. Designing tasks .......................................................................................55
4.3.3. Balancing between teaching Math and teaching English .......................56
4.3.4. Applying MEITL for primary students ..................................................57

v


4.3.5. Applying MEITL to teach the students with low level of English
competence ........................................................................................................57
4.3.6. Teaching and learning complex Math themes in English ......................58
4.3.7. Time allocating and English grammar and structure teaching ...............59
4.4.

The teachers‘ recommendations to improve MEITL program‘s

effectiveness ..........................................................................................................60
4.4.1. Raising public awareness of CLIL program in general, MEITL in
particular ............................................................................................................60
4.4.2. Modifying course books .........................................................................62
4.4.3. Re-organizing classes .............................................................................63
4.4.4. Using Information and Communication Technology .............................64
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...............................................................................66
5.1.

Summary ....................................................................................................66

5.1.2. The benefits of MEITL program, as perceived by the teachers ..............66
5.1.2. The challenges of MEITL program, as perceived by the teachers ..........67
5.1.3. The teachers‘ recommendations concerning improving the MEITL
program‘s effectiveness .....................................................................................67
5.2.

Implications ................................................................................................67

5.3.

Limitations and recommendations for further studies ...............................68

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................69
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... I
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE TEACHERS ............................... I
APPENDIX 2: GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEWS .................V
APPENDIX 3: RESULTS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRES ....................... VII
APPENDIX 4: THE INTERVIEWS’ TRANSCRIPTS ................................... XIV

vi


ABBREVIATIONS

CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning
ICT: Information and Communication Technology
FL: Foreign language
GCSE: General Certificate of Secondary Education
IGCSE: International Certificate of Secondary Education
MEITL: Math and English Integrated Teaching and Learning

SL: Second language
ITMC: International Talent Mathematics Contest
HKIMO: Hong Kong International Mathematical Olympiad
World Time: World Talent Invitational Mathematics Examinations
T1: Teacher 1
T2: Teacher 2
T3: Teacher 3
T4: Teacher 4
T5: Teacher 5
T6: Teacher 6

vii


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Teachers‘ opinions about MEITL‘s benefits for context
Table 2. Teachers‘ opinions about MEITL‘s benefits for content (Math)
Table 3. Teachers‘ opinions about MEITL‘s benefits for Language (English)
Table 4. Teachers‘ opinions about MEITL‘s benefits for Learning
Table 5. Teachers‘ opinions about MEITL‘s benefits for Culture
Table 6. Teachers‘ opinions about MEITL‘s challenges

viii


LISTS OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Language Triptych by Coyle, Hood, Marsh (2010)
Figure 2: The 4Cs framework by Coyle (2015)

ix


CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

This part aims at explaining the reasons for conducting this thesis, its
objectives and how it can benefit the stakeholders. Additionally, the method and the
structure of the thesis are introduced briefly to illustrate how the study is conducted
and how it is organized.
1.1.

Research statement and rationale for the study
The issue of the National Foreign Languages 2020 Project by Vietnam‘s
Ministry

of Education and Training (Decision No. 1400/QĐ-Ttg ―Teaching and Learning
Foreign Languages in the National education system, period 2008 – 2020) has
greatly contributed to enhance teaching and learning foreign languages in Vietnam.
Among all the objectives suggested by the Project, the implementation of Content
and Language Integrated Learning has attracted attention from the whole society.
The very first step of implementing the CLIL program is to integrate Math and
English in the schools and education institutes. It is obviously seen that in current
context of Vietnam, Math and English integrated teaching and learning program
(MEITL) has recieved much public attention and feedback from students, teachers,
policy makers and the researchers as well. Implicating CLIL in general and MEITL
in particular has become the center problem of a number of studies in Vietnam
recently. The paper by Võ Đoàn Thọ (2015) studied the students at University of
Economics Ho Chi Minh city and figured out the benefits of CLIL in students‘
perpectives and proposed the suggestions to have the effective lessons applying
CLIL approach. Nguyễn Thị Thuỳ Linh (2016), in her work, discusssed four

critiques by the policy actors regarding the significance of CLIL in the Vietnamese
context, teachers‘ readiness, students‘ readiness and CLIL materials. That paper,
also provided a general picture of teachers‘ perceptions of CLIL, how they
implemented CLIL and the difficulties they encountered in practice. By examining

1


the current 6th grade Math curriculum and English curriculum in Vietnam, Vũ Đình
Phương and Lê Tuấn Anh (2018) found out three solutions to teach Math and
English integrated and the 2-step process of preparation for teaching a Math lesson
in English by using CLIL approach. It can be seen that the findings of the above
studies are mostly based on the CLIL‘s theories and the researchers‘ view and
observations. Those projects‘ outcomes, thererfore, though have pointed out many
factors related to the implementation of CLIL, are still quite subjective and and do
not provide enough strong ―authentic‖ evidence gathered from the teachers who
actually implement CLIL in their teaching. The teachers‘ opinions about MEILT
program‘s benefits, challenges and their suggestions for the good MEILT lessons
are not spent enough concern although they play an important role in the process of
applying MEILT in the large scale . ―What are the teachers’ opinions about
MEITL program’s benefits, challenges as well as their suggestions to improve the
MEITL program’s effectiveness, therefore, becomes the guiding question for this
research.
1.2.

Aims and objectives of the study
The study first and foremost aims at exploring opinions of the teachers at an

education center in Hanoi about MEITL‘s benefits, challenges and their
recommendations to improve MEITL‘s effectiveness. To be more specific, the

inquiry of the teachers‘ opinions is undertaken by answering three following
research questions:
Question 1: What are the benefits of MEITL program, as perceived by the
teachers?
Question 2: What are the challenges of MEITL program, as perceived by the
teachers?
Question 3: What are the teachers’ recommendations for improving the
MEITL program’s effectiveness?

2


1.3.

Research method
Mixed method with two main instruments – questionnaires and interviews -

was applied to figure out the answers for the three research questions. To get the
responses from the all participants in the short time, the questionnaires with 32
―Likert-type‖ with 2 main aspects – MEITL program‘s benefits and challenges were delivered first. The teachers were asked to choose 1 from 5 alternatives
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree for each item. Those responses,
were then analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics method. After the
responses were grouped into MEITL program‘s benefits (with 5 categories) and
challenges (with 7 categories), semi-structured interviews with 6 teachers were
conducted to get explanations and the answer for the third question.
1.4.

Scope of the study
Among various aspects which are essential to investigate around MEITL

program, this study more specifically aims at examining the teachers’ opinions
about Math and English Integrated Teaching and Learning Program at an
education center in Hanoi. The study is small-scale, the findings, hence are
applied for the context studied but not generalized into broad environment. The
other aspects are still not researched and need further studies.
1.5.

Significance of the study
This study benefits the following stakeholders:
Teachers: Based on the research findings, the MEITL teachers at center

studied and other MEITL teachers will have chances to review of benefits,
challenges and give suggestions for overcoming challenges. Those are fundamental
for them to better their practice in class by maximizing the benefits, overcoming the
challenges using the recommendations suggested. Obviously, this study may
contribute to the success of teachers‘ teaching.

3


Students: The findings of this study will help the students understand more
clearly benefits and challenges of MEITL program and they, consequently, will
have positive attitude in cooperating with teachers in class.
Administrators and education policy makers: Thanks to this paper, school
administrators and education policy makers would know well about advantages,
disadvantages of implementing MEITL program, then, they can consider the
teachers‘ recommendation to give methods to improve the MEITL program‘s
quality. This research, consequently, might contribute the sound basis to help
enhance effectiveness of adopting MEITL program.
Other scholars: This study can be used as reference for other educators in

their work in the future.
1.6.

Structure of the thesis
There are 5 chapters in the paper:

Introduction, Literature Review,

Methodology, Major findings and Discussion, Conclusion.
Chapter 1: Introduction - restates the topic concerned, aims and
significance of the study. From the current situation of implementing MEITL
program in the world and in Vietnam, the necessity of taking MEITL program‘s
benefits and challenges in to careful investigation is pointed out. The purpose and
the range of subjects the study deals with are also clearly stated so that the readers
have the general ideas about the whole research. One most important component
contained in this part is the practical meaning of the research, which benefits
teachers, students, school administrators, education policy makers and scholars.
Chapter 2: Literature review - serves as the basic foundation for the study,
provides critical literature review on definition of CLIL, benefit, challenge,
theoretical implication of CLIL, CLIL‘s dimensions and framework, reviewing of
the studies concerning CLIL, as well as the description of MEITL as a CLIL
program at a center in Hanoi. By critical analyzing the related research, this chapter
builds the study‘ theoretical framework which plays a crucial role not only in

4


guiding the understanding of research-topic but also in designing the questionnaire
and interviews to solve the research‘s problems.
Chapter 3: Methodology - brings the detailed description about data

collection and data analysis methods and procedure, helping readers to understand
the process and specific stages carried out to fulfil the research. It also explains
logically how the findings in chapter 3 gained from the raw information collected.
Chapter 4: Findings and Discussions - presents result from data analysis,
research results and discussions in comparison with other studies in the same area.
Teachers‘ suggestions to overcome the challenges are also given in this part.
Chapter 5: Conclusion – summarize the whole study (including all above
parts) in concise words. Recommendations are offered to suggest several solutions
for other aspects to conduct further study in this area.

5


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Math and English Integrated Learning is one model of CLIL program in
which the content focused is Math and the additional language is English.
Therefore, it is necessary to have critical review of CLIL to understand about
MEITL program. This part is defining the key concepts - CLIL, opinions, benefits,
challenges, discussing its hidden forces, its framework and reviewing critically the
studies around the field of CLIL as well as MEITL.
2.1.

CLIL

2.1.1. Definition
CLIL was first adopted in 1994 (Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala, 2001) as the
good practice achieved in different types of school environment where teaching and
learning take place in an additional language. Accordingly, the key characteristics
of CLIL is to teach and to learn in another language.

―An additional language is often learner‘ foreign language, but it may also be

a second language or some forms of heritage or community language‖
(Coye, Hood, and Marsh, 2010: 1).
According to De Graaff, Jan Koopman, Anikina & Westhoff (2007), CLIL
could be considered as an umbrella term adopted widely in educational settings
where instruction takes place in FL/SL. The CLIL‘s aim was considered to promote
the learning of both a FL/SL and other curricular content at the same time (Navés &
Muñoz, 2000: 2), or to safeguard the subject being taught whilst promoting
language as a medium for learning as well as an objective of the learning process
itself‖ (Coyle in Marsh 2002: 37).
Along this line, Eurydice (2006), defined CLIL as ―a special approach to
teaching in that the non-language subject, but with and through a FL‖. This
definition emphasizes the main focus of the CLIL classroom is not on encouraging

6


the learners‘ progress in language but on developing the environment in which the
learners can ―make use of language and develop their language competence with the
non-linguistic content‖ (Coonan, 2007; Pavón Vázquez & Rubio Alcalá , 2010).
Language learning, using and overall language competence were put more emphasis
here.
Coyle (2008) provided more detailed definition of CLIL in which it was
considered a lifelong concept embracing all sectors of education from primary to
adults, from a few hours per week to intensive modules lasting several months. It
may involve project work, examination courses, drama, puppets, chemistry practical
and mathematical investigations. In short, CLIL is flexible and dynamic, where
topics and subjects – foreign languages and non-language subjects - are integrated
in some kind of mutually beneficial way so as to provide value-added educational

outcomes for the widest possible range of learners. It can be seen that Coyle‘s
definition (2008) not only confirms CLIL program‘s characteristics – flexible and
dynamic but recommends the useful techniques employed in teaching process –
project work, drama, puppets, chemistry practical and mathematical investigation.
This view was also supported by Coonan‘s (2003: 27) statement: ―CLIL is
flexible. CLIL models are by no means uniform. They are elaborated at a local level
to respond to local conditions and desires. Indeed, the characteristics of CLIL
development in Europe show a great variety of solutions […] It is the combination
of the choices with respect to the variables that produces a particular CLIL project‖
The Coyle‘s (2005) and Coonan‘s (2003) definitions stated the focus of
CLIL program (topics and subjects integrated – foreign languages and non-language
subjects integrated) characteristics of CLIL program (flexible and dynamic), CLIL
range (all sectors of education from primary to adults), and duration for a CLIL
program (from a few hours per week to intensive modules lasting several months).
Those explanations cover almost all aspects of CLIL program.

7


In sum, CLIL was firstly defined simply as a ―dual focused‖ educational
approach which is applied to teach both content and language at the same time. As a
flexible and transferable approach, it can be adopted in in different types of schools
and with different learners, promoting experimentation on the part of the teachers
on the basis of the demands of their own settings.
2.1.2. Driving forces behind CLIL
This part is giving more details of practical implementation for CLIL in real
society. Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010) critically analyzed two main reasons for the
emergence and the development of CLIL program: reactive reason and proactive
reason.
Reactive reason: CLIL program emerges to solve the problems in certain

countries or certain areas. This situation happens in the country in which there are
many first languages are used and there is a vigorous debate around choosing one of
them as the instruction language, then CLIL becomes the solution for those
countries (a foreign language is the instruction language to give equal access for all
learners).
Proactive reason: CLIL program is to enhance language learning or other
need of education, society, or personal development: the parents want children to be
competent at a foreign language, the government want to build the bilingual,
plurilingual or multilingual countries, improve language education for socioeconomic development, the commission of some areas want to lay foundation for
greater inclusion, linguists wish to develop language education through integrating
with other subjects.
2.1.3. Framework of CLIL
This study adapts the 4Cs framework suggested by Coyle (2005) and the
CLIL‘s dimensions by Marsh, Maliers and Hartialas (2001) as the guiding theories
since they demonstrate fully the factors contribuiting to effective CLIL practice and
present the dimensions which can be benefited from CLIL approach.

8


4Cs framework by Coyle (2005) is the most highly accepted theory about
CLIL analyze 4 components of CLIL - Content, Communication, Cognition, and
Culture. Those four factors and their close interrelationship prove that CLIL is the
emergent synergy program implying the close interrelation between the Content
learning and the Language learning. It means that learners of CLIL classes can
achieve more than the sum of content and language. The four factors are explained
clearly as follows:
Content: At the heart of the learning process lie successful content or
thematic learning and the acquisition of knowledge, skills and understanding.
Content is the subject or the project theme. CLIL‘s content is considered much

more flexible than selecting a discipline from a curriculum. It can be the topics of
cross-curricular, therefore, it brings chances for promoting learning, skill
acquisition and development.
What of content teaching is often pointed out clearly in the CLIL‘s
syllabuses while how to deliver it, is not addressed in detail. CLIL, as stated before,
is to enhance learning in potential ―synergos‖. Therefore, how CLIL program gets
the effective learning in different context becomes the issue for debates of the
educators around the world. Different teaching and learning approaches are raised
to discuss across the areas where CLIL is concerned. The one agreed by most
teachers in Western society is a ―banking model‖ (Freire, 1972). This model
considers teachers as the controllers (teachers deliver knowledge and information to
the novice). The other approach which proves the educational effectiveness is
―social constructivist approach”. This approach emphasizes learners‘ active role in
language learning. Accordingly, the key element in learning is ―interactive,
mediated and student-led learning‖. And the learners‘ centrality in learning is only
gained when the learners are provided with enough ―scaffolding‖ by someone
―more expert‖. One more important thing to enhance learning effectiveness is to
bring ―cognitive challenge‖ because when the students deal with new knowledge,
they will have desire to interact with others. The teachers‘ mission here is to decide

9


the ―zone of proximal development” (the term introduced by Vygotsky, 1978 to
describe which kind of knowledge is challenging enough to motive learner‘s
interaction) in order to balance between offering cognitive challenge and providing
scaffolding for learners.
The debate around the appropriate method applied in CLIL drives to the
implication that in CLIL program, learners must be cognitively engaged. And the
role of teachers is to involve learners to think, to articulate their learning through

metacognitive skills. The activities in class will support students to develop life
skills. CLIL program not only helps students to enrich the learners‘ knowledge,
skills but consider how creative thinking, problem solving and cognitive
challenging in their whole life. To make learners actively engaged in cognitive
process, however, is not an easy task. Content learning should be integrated with
cognitive process which includes two dimensions (lower order thinking and higher
order thinking). The learners, therefore, not only have to develop thinking but to
develop language needed to understand the knowledge construction.
Communication: Language is a conduit for communication and for learning.
The formula learning to use language and using language to learn is applicable here.
Communication goes beyond the grammar system. It involves learners in language
using in a way which is different from language learning lesson.
In their book, Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) reveals the method employed
in CLIL is communicative language learning‘s principals which can be summarized
as follows:
-

Language is a tool for communication.

-

Diversity is recognized and accepted as a part of language development.

-

Learner competence is relative in terms of genre, style, and correctness.

-

Multiple varieties of language are recognized.

-

Culture is instrumental.

10


-

There is no single methodology for language learning and teaching.

-

The goal of language is using.

Although the theories of language learning and teaching are quite clear, there
is still a gap between theories and practices. Language practice follows the grammar
items rather than making meaning. This situation requires form-focus in CLIL in
order to ensure the students‘ ability to use language to learn content in authentic
interactive environment. At this point, another question is raised: how can learners
use foreign language if they do not know how to use it? The arguments above
finally suggest that in CLIL context the fundamental is to balance both form - focus
and meaning - focus.
CLIL, as stated before, is not the sum of content and language but it concerns
the integrating content and language in every lesson. To be successful in CLIL, the
educators need to make clear about content‘s objectives, language objectives as well
as the connection between them. ―Content obligatory language‖ and ―Content
Compatible language‖ were proposed by Snow, Met and Genesee (1989) as useful
terms to help teachers and learners easily analyze language needed and identify the

close interrelationship between content and language in CLIL. This point was also
supported by the Language Triptych by Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010):

11


Figure 1: The Language Triptych by Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010)
Language of learning: an analysis of language needed for learners to access
basic concepts and skills relating to topic.
Language for learning: the language needed to work in a foreign language
setting.
Language through learning: capturing language is needed by individual
learner during the process.
The theories synthesized above clarify that the CLIL is not only the matter of
language and content learning but intercultural learning and interrelation between
content and language learning.
Cognition: For CLIL to be effective, it must challenge learners to think and
review and engage in higher order thinking skills. CLIL is not about the transfer of
knowledge from an expert to a novice. CLIL is about allowing individuals to
construct their own understanding and be challenged – whatever their age or ability.
A useful taxonomy to use as a guide for thinking skills is that of Bloom. He has
created two categories of thinking skills: lower order and higher order. Take
Bloom‘s taxonomy for a well-defined range of thinking skills. It serves as an
excellent checklist.
Culture: For our pluricultural and plurilingual world to be celebrated and its
potential realized, this demands tolerance and understanding. Studying through a
foreign language is fundamental to fostering international understanding.
‗Otherness‘ is a vital concept and holds the key for discovering self. Culture can
have wide interpretation – eg through pluricultural citizenship.
Coyle (2005)

The 4Cs framework above can be demonstrated concisely as in the below
figure:

12


Figure 2: The 4Cs frame work by Coyle (2005)
In its development process, CLIL becomes more completed as it accounts for
the integration of content learning (content and cognition), language learning
(communication and cultures), and the interrelationship between content (subject),
communication (language), cognition (thinking) and culture (Abramo, Costa &
D‘Angelo, 2011: 6).
Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala‘s (2001) agured for similar ideas by proposing 5
dimensions that should be covered in CLIL‘s lessons - Context, Content, Language,
Learning, and Culture:
Context:

CLIL

approach

prepares

for

internationalization,

access

international certification, enhance school profile.

Content: CLIL approach provides opportunities to study content through
different perspectives, access subject-specific target language terminology, prepare
for future studies or working life.
Language and language competence: CLIL approach improves overall
target language competence, develop oral communication skills, deepen awareness
of both mother tongue and the target language, develop plurilingual interests and
attitudes, introduce a target language, allow learners more contact with the target
language.

13


The notion of Language Competence has been developed over the years with
the contribution of a great number of linguists, sociolinguists and
ethnographers, which are brought together by Bachman (1990: 87) who
suggests that language competence has several distinctive characteristics as
follows:

(Bachman, 1990: 87)
Learning: CLIL approach complements individual learning strategies,
diversifies methods and forms of classroom practice, increases learner motivation
and confidence in both the language and the subject being taught.
Learning strategies can be defined as specific actions taken by the learners to
make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more
effective, and more transferable to new situation (Oxford, 1990). He also
divides learning strategies into 2 mains categories: Direct learning strategies
and Indirect learning strategies.
Direct strategies include Memory strategies (creating mental linkages,
applying images and sounds), Cognitive strategies (practicing, receiving and

14