CLIL and non-CLIL students’ beliefs about language

Main Article Content

Liss Kerstin Sylvén

Abstract

This article presents the findings of an innovative qualitative study involving one CLIL (content and language integrated learning) student and one student in a parallel, non-CLIL strand at high school level in Sweden. The aim of the study was to investigate differences in students’ beliefs about language. The success of second (L2) and foreign language (FL) learning depends to a large degree on individual differences (Dörnyei, 2005; Skehan, 1991). Differences are normally elicited through questionnaires, interviews, and/or observations. In the present study, the aim was to get direct access to the informants’ own perspectives, without the content being too directed through predetermined questions. In this study, students were asked to take photos illustrating how they view (a) their L1 (Swedish), and (b) the FL/L2 English. Then the photos were thematically organized by the researcher. Subsequently, the thematic organization and the photos themselves were discussed with each of the informants during an inter iew. The informants were asked to elaborate on each theme and/or picture as to why and how it illustrates the respective language for them. The findings reveal substantial differences between the two informants in their views on their L1 and FL/L2, with the CLIL student highlighting communication rather than seeing the two languages as separate systems, and the non-CLIL student seeing language rather the other way around.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Sylvén, L. K. (2015). CLIL and non-CLIL students’ beliefs about language. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 251-272. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.2.4
Section
Articles
Author Biography

Liss Kerstin Sylvén, Department of Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg P O Box 300, SE-405 30 Göteborg

lisskerstin.sylven@ped.gu.se
Liss Kerstin Sylvén is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Gothenburg. Her research interests focus around foreign and second language (FL/L2) learning, in particular in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) settings, and the effects of extramural exposure to the FL/L2. She is also interested in the complexity of individual differences (IDs), and how they influence the FL/L2 learning process.

References

  1. Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 75-93.
  2. Alanen, R., Kalaja, P., & Dufva, H. (2013). Visuaaliset narratiivit ja valmistuvien aineenopettajien käsitykset vieraiden kielten opettamisesta. In T. Keisanen, E. Kärkkäinen, M. Rauniomaa, P. Siitonen, & M. Siromaa (Eds.), AFinLA- e 5 - Soveltavan kielitieteen julkaisuja (pp. 24-40). Retrieved from http://ojs.tsv.fi/index.php/afinla/article/view/8738/6423.
  3. Barcelos, A. M. F., & Kalaja, P. (2011). Beliefs about SLA revisited. System (special issue), 39(3), 281-416.
  4. Benson, P., & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning.
  5. System, 27(4), 459-472.
  6. Besser, S., & Chik, A. (2014). Narratives of second language identity amongst young English learners in Hong Kong. ELT Journal, 68(3), 299-309.
  7. Bruton, A. (2011). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010). Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 236-241.
  8. Chambers, J. K. (1995). Sociolinguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
  9. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.
  10. Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2), 195-205.
  11. Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe about them? System, 27, 493-513.
  12. Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  13. Dufva, H., Kalaja, P., & Alanen, R. (2011, May). ’Iloinen ja innostava’?: Miten kieltenopiskelijat kuvaavat omaa opettajuuttaan. Paper presented at the Vi- KiPeda conference Global Trends Meet Local Needs, Vaasa, Finland.
  14. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
  15. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  16. Ellis, R. (2008). Learner beliefs and language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 7-25.
  17. Fehling, S. (2008). Language awareness und bilingualer Unterricht: Eine komparative Studie. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  18. Ferreira Barcelos, A. M., & Kalaja, P. (2013). Beliefs in SLA: Teacher. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
  19. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  20. Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
  21. Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119-129). London: Prentice Hall.
  22. Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners' beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27(4), 557-576.
  23. Hyltenstam, K. (2004). Engelskan, skolans språkundervisning och svensk språkpolitik. In B. Lindgren & O. Josephson (Eds.), Engelskan i Sverige (pp. 36-107). Stockholm: Svenska Språknämnden.
  24. Jimenéz Catalán, R. M., Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Cenoz, J. (2006). Vocabulary profiles of English Foreign Language learners in English as a subject and as a vehicular language. Vienna English Working Papers, 15(3), 23-27.
  25. Kalaja, P. (in press). "Dreaming is believing": the teaching of foreign languages envisioned by student teachers. In P. Kalaja (Ed.), Beliefs, identity and agency in foreign language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  26. Kalaja, P., Alanen, R., & Dufva, H. (2008). Self-portraits of EFL learners: Finnish students draw and tell. In P. Kalaja, V. Menezes, & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Narratives of learning and teaching EFL (pp. 186-198). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  27. Kalaja, P., Menezes, V., & Barcelos, A. M. F. (Eds.). (2008). Narratives of learning and teaching EFL. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  28. Klippel, F. (2003). New prospects or imminent danger? - The impact of English medium instruction on education in Germany. Prospect, 18(1), 68-81.
  29. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 3-17.
  30. Lin, A. M. Y., & Man, E. Y. F. (2010). Bilingual education: Southeast Asian perspectives. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
  31. Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259- 278). New York, NY: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
  32. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content. A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  33. Marsh, D. (Ed.). (2002). CLIL/EMILE the European dimension. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
  34. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols Martín, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan.
  35. Menezes, E., & Juan-Garau, M. (2014). English learners’ willingness to communicate and achievement in CLIL and formal instruction contexts. In M. Juan- Garau & J. Salazar-Noguera (Eds.), Content-based language learning in multilingual educational environments (pp. 221-236). New York: Springer.
  36. Navés, T. (2011). How promising are the results of integrating content and language for EFL writing and overall EFL proficiency? In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J.M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning (pp. 155-186). Bern: Peter Lang.
  37. Navés, T., & Victori, M. (2010). CLIL in Catalonia: An overview of research studies. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain. Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 30-54). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  38. Nikula, T., & Pitkänen-Huhta, A. (2008). Using photographs to access stories of learning English. In P. Kalaja, V. Menezes, & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Narratives of learning and teaching EFL (pp. 171-185). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  39. Oscarson, M., & Apelgren, B. M. (2005). Nationella utvärderingen av grundskolan 2003 (NU-03). Engelska. Ämnesrapport till rapport 251. Stockholm: Skolverket.
  40. Pihko, M. K. (2007). Foreign language anxiety in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and in traditional foreign language classes. In S. Tella (Ed.), From brawn to brain: Strong signals in foreign language education (pp. 129-142). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
  41. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J. M., & Gallardo del Puerto, F. (Eds.). (2011). Content and foreign language integrated learning. Bern: Peter Lang.
  42. Rumlich, D. (2013). Students' general English proficiency prior to CLIL. In S. Breidbach & B. Viebrock (Eds.), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Europe. Research perspectives on policy and practice (pp. 181-202). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  43. Ryan, S., & Mercer, S. (2012). Implicit theories: Language learning mindsets. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning. Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 74-89). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  44. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(2), 275-298. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100009979
  45. Skolverket. (2014). Kursplan - engelska. Retrieved December 28, 2014, from http://www.skolverket.se/laroplaner-amnen-och-kurser/grundskoleutbildning/grundskola/engelska
  46. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded Theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  47. Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L. K. (2012). World of VocCraft: Computer games and Swedish learners' L2 vocabulary. In H. Reinders (Ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 189-208). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  48. Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L. K. (2014). Language-related computer use: Focus on young L2 English learners in Sweden. ReCALL, 26(1), 3-20. doi: 10.1017/S0958344013000232
  49. Sylvén, L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden – Why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301-320.
  50. Sylvén, L. K., & Ohlander, S. (2014). The CLISS project: Receptive vocabulary proficiency in CLIL and non-CLIL groups. Moderna Språk, 108(2), 81-119.
  51. Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24(3), 302-321.
  52. Sylvén, L. K., & Thompson, A. S. (2015). Language learning motivation and CLIL: Is there a connection? Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3(1), 28-50.
  53. Tedick, D. J., & Cammarata, L. (2012). Content and language integration in K-12 contexts: Student outcomes, teacher practices, and stakeholder perspectives. Foreign Language Annals, 45(S1), S28-S53.
  54. Thompson, A. S., & Sylvén, L. K. (in press). Does English make you nervous? Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies.
  55. Viberg, Å. (2000). Tvåspråkighet och inlärning av språk i och utanför skolan Språk 2000:18. Kursplaner, betygskriterier och kommentarer [Languages. Curricula, criteria and comments] (pp. 27-41). Stockholm: Skolverket.
  56. Zydatiss, W. (2007). Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL). Eine Evaluation des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts in Gymnasien: Kontext, Kompetenzen, Konsequenzen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.