CLIL Potential for Primary ELT by Yuki Yamano

1,845 views

Published on

Symposium Presentation slides from Professor Yuki Yamano based on her article for the International CLIL Research Journal. http://www.icrj.eu/21/contents.html

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,845
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,261
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CLIL Potential for Primary ELT by Yuki Yamano

  1. 1. 1 1 CLIL Potential for Primary ELT Yuki Yamano (Utsunomiya University) yyamano@cc.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp Background of This Study The formal introduction of EFL classes at Japanese primary schools needs to determinate effective strategies for language education. CLIL is an effective tool in improving Primary ELT in Europe (Serra, 2007; Craen et al., 2008; Hüter and Rieder- Bünemann, 2010; Gonzalez, 2011) 2 The 4Cs of CLIL (Coyle, 2007: 550; Coyle et al., 2010: 41 Mehisto et al., 2008: 31; ) Content Cognition Community (Culture) Communication (Ikeda, 2011, p.5) The 4Cs –Communication- -Three types of languages in CLIL class- (Coyle et al., 2010:60) Language through Learning Language for learning Language of learning Overall Objectives of Primary EFL Education (MEXT, 2010) 5 Fostering positive attitude toward communication Developing an understanding of languages and cultures through various experiences Familiarizing pupils with the sounds and basic expressions of foreign languages To form the foundation of communication abilities through foreign languages Content (MEXT, 2010) Cognition (Yoshida, 2011) The purpose of this study 1. To identify the possible outcomes of CLIL in a Japanese EFL class by analysing the differences found between a CLIL and non CLIL (standard) EFL class 2. To investigate whether the outcomes of CLIL implementation could have implication for primary ELT in Japan 6
  2. 2. 2 Methodology • Participants • Pupils • n = 71 (5th grade at a Japanese public elementary school) (CLIL class/ n = 35, non-CLIL class / n = 36) (very beginners in English) • Teachers • Homeroom teachers (CLIL / non-CLIL class) • Native Teacher of English (NTE) • Japanese teacher of English (JTE) = the researcher 7 Methodology (cont’d) • Data Collection & Analysis 1. Classroom observation 2. Questionnaire of the pupils A. Five four-Likert-scale questions Q1 “Did you have fun in the lesson?” Q2 “Did you understand English?” Q3 “Did you understand the content?” Q4 “Was the lesson difficult for you?” (which was more difficult, E or C ?) Q5 “Was the lesson rewarding for you?” ( 4 = yes, 3 = yes, to some extent, 2 = no, to some extent, 1 = no) B. Two open-ended questions • Q1 “please write anything you remember about today’s class.” • Q2 “please write your impression of today’s class.” 8 Methodology (cont’d) • Research Class Design (1) • Three 45-minute lessons (2nd , 9th and 16th of June, 2011) • The theme of the lesson “Animals” • Target vocabulary 1st lesson = colors & animals 2nd lesson = animals & their habitats 3rd lesson = animals habitats & ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ • Non-CLIL class = English as a main focus of the lessons • which include fun activities (ex. playing games) and interviews. 9 Methodology (cont’d) Research Class Design (2) –CLIL class- 2011/12/8 10 Results & Discussion • Classroom Observation 1. The difference in procedures • Non-CLIL class=PPP (Presentation/Input, Practice, and Production) • CLIL class= New PPP (Presentation/Input, Processing, and Production) procedure (Ikeda, 2011: 22) 11 Results & Discussion • The difference in Communication • CLIL enhanced the use of LTL in class. 12 CLIL Non-CLIL CLIL Non-CLIL CLIL Non-CLIL Presentation (Input) Practice/ Processing Production (Output) teachers 35 28 35 7 53 20 students 2 0 23 0 74 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
  3. 3. 3 Results & Discussion • Students’ Responses (1) • The results of Likert-scale items 13 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd Item1: Did you enjoy the class? Item 2: Did you understand English? Item 3 Did you understand the content? Item 4: Was the lesson difficult for you? Item 5: Were you satisfied with the lesson? CLIL (Mean) 3.9 3.7 3.1 3.3 3 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.6 2.2 2 2.1 3.6 3.6 3.8 Non-CLIL(Mean) 3 3.3 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.8 3.2 3 3.1 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.4 2.9 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Results & Discussion Students’ responses (2) ・The results of two open-ended questions (Q1. write anything you remember Q2. write your impression) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CLIL Non-CLIL CLIL Non-CLIL CLIL Non-CLIL Positive Neutral Negative Lesson Language Content Positive category CLIL = 12 students motivated to study English by providing them with an authentic purpose for learning. Non CLIL = the enjoyment of the game activities 2011/12/8 14 Positive category CLIL = satisfaction, enjoyment, and a sense of accomplishment. 12 students motivated to learn English Non-CLIL = enjoyment of fun game activities Negative category CLIL = grief and sympathy towards endangered animals which revealed their deep understanding of the content Non-CLIL = incomprehension of the target language • Neutral category =The CLIL students remembered more words in total as well as a greater variety of English vocabulary than did the non-CLIL students. 2011/12/8 15 CLIL Non-CLIL 1st lesson (n=16) animal(n=3),turtle, penguin(n=4), colour (n=4), good, monkey, brown, zoo (n=7) green, purple, blue, color(n=2), monkey, panda 2nd lesson (n=8) animal, panda, dolphin, forest, sea, ocean, savanna, jungle, (n=8) animal(n=4), color, monkey, hippo, panda 3rd lesson (n=5) animal(n=2), India, leaves, ocean (n=4) animal, monkey, hippo, panda Total Total (n=29) Variety of vocabulary (n=16) animal, color, brown monkey, panda, penguin, turtle, dolphin, zoo, forest, sea, ocean, savanna, jungle, India, leaves Total (n=19) Variety of vocabulary (n= 8) animal, color, green, purple, blue, monkey, panda, hippo Students’ responses (3) The results of open-ended questions Results & Discussions & Discussion Neutral category =The CLIL students remembered more words in total as well as a greater variety of English vocabulary than did the non-CLIL students. Conclusion • The integration of content and language learning captured the student interest and led them engage in meaningful experiential learning, which may have accelerated vocabulary learning. • Communication, especially in the form of new expressions of ‘language through learning’, emerged in the CLIL class, which seemed to point towards active student and teacher participation. In other words, CLIL has the potential to instill a positive attitude in students toward the target language. • The understanding of international matters helped to raise the students’ awareness of a global issue, and engaged them in proposing ways of addressing the issue. Furthermore, it seemed to motivate them to communicate in English, which in itself may give them a strong reason to study the target language. 16 References • Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D.: 2010, CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press, • Cambridge. • Craen, P., Ceuleers, E., Mondt K and Allain, L.: 2008, ‘European multilingual language policies in Belgium and policy-driven research’, in K. Lauridsen and D. Toudic (eds.), Language at Work in Europe, Festschrift , (139-151). V&R Press, Göttingen. • González, A. V.: 2011, Implementing CLIL in the primary classroom: Results and future challenges, in C. E. Urmeneta, N. • Evnitskaya, E. Moore and A. Patino (eds.), AICLE-CLIL-EMILE Educacio Plurilingue: Experiencias, Research & Politiques, • (151-158). Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona. • Hüter, J. and Rieder-Bünemann, A.: 2010, A cross-sectional analysis of oral narratives by children with CLIL and non-CLIL • instruction, in C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula and U. Smit (eds.), Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms, • (61-80). John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam. • Ikeda, M.: 2011a, The basic principles of CLIL, in Watanabe, Y., Ikeda, M. and Izumi, S., CLIL [Content and Language • Integrated Learning]: New Challenges in Foreign Language Education at Sophia University Vol. 1, (1-13). Sophia • University Press, Tokyo. • Ikeda, M.: 2011a, The basic principles of CLIL, in Watanabe, Y., Ikeda, M. and Izumi, S., CLIL [Content and Language • Integrated Learning]: New Challenges in Foreign Language Education at Sophia University Vol. 1, (15-30). Sophia • University Press, Tokyo. • Japanese Government Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.: 2009, Elementary school course of • study explanation: compilation of foreign language activity. • (http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2010/10/20/1261037_12.pdf, • retrieved from the net: 25 November 2010) • Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. and Frigols, M.: 2008, Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and • Multilingual Education. Macmillan, Oxford. • Serra, C.: 2007, Assessing CLIL at primary school: A longitudinal study, International Journal of Bilingual Education and • Bilingualism 10, 582-602. 17

×