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

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
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
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