The purpose of the survey conducted by schools participating in the project MultiKey was to analyze and compare approaches to CLIL in countries involved in the project. The findings are based on the reports on national approaches to CLIL created by each school involved in the project. The purpose of each report was to find out answers to several questions that would give a comprehensive overview of each national approach. A general questionnaire was also created which helped schools get answers to specific questions about subjects most commonly taught, additional funding, CEFR level of CLIL teachers etc.
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT CLIL IN NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS (IT, ES, LV, HR, PO)
According to the definition provided in EURIDYCE report of 2012, CLIL provision (Type A) involves teaching non language subjects in at least two different languages. The only exception to that rule concerns teaching provision where all non-language subjects are taught in a language regarded as a foreign language by the curriculum, usually one of the major European languages (i.e. English, German or French, etc). This type of provision is also regarded as CLIL provision, although non-language subjects are taught in only one language. For the purpose of this report we are going to focus on ISCED LEVELS 2 & 3 which cover secondary schools involved in this project. As the survey shows, all countries involved have some sort of provisions regarding CLIL.
Data from EURIDYCE (2012) report shows that in Spain there are 948 schools that have some provisions 1 state language + 1 foreign language, In Poland 110 schools at ISCED levels 2 and 3 provide CLIL in ENGLISH, in Italy all students must learn one non-language subject through a foreign language in the last year of upper secondary education . There is no data for Latvia and EURIDYCE report lists only 3 schools in Croatia on ISCED 2 & 3 with CLIL provision.
For the purpose of this report project coordinators reported not just on schools that fall under the definition of CLIL provision, but also schools that have CLIL type courses even if they are taught only in one foreign language. For example, in Croatia, at least 13 schools have CLIL courses in English, but as only one language is used they are not included in EURIDYCE statistics.
In all countries involved in this survey some schools give students the opportunity to learn non-language subjects in two different languages, even if, like in Croatia, there are only several of them that can be said to provide CLIL by definition. In most of the countries providing CLIL there are no official recommendations/regulations for schools to use specific admissions criteria in order to select students for CLIL except in Poland where aptitude of students is tested. Although there are several languages used as target CLIL languages, English is used by all countries involved.
In Croatia and Latvia there are no formal additional requirements for teaching in CLIL, it is commonly expected that prospective CLIL teachers should provide evidence of their proficiency in the target foreign language. In both countries CLIL activities rely very much on enthusiasts. In Italy, since 2010, all students in the last year of upper secondary education have been obliged to learn one non-language subject through a foreign language. Those on the 'language' pathway must do so from the age of 16. At the age of 17, students are taught a second non-language subject through the medium of a second foreign language from the three they are already learning.
In Italy, Poland and Spain additional qualifications required are:
ITALY: One-year university course in CLIL (60 credits).
SPAIN: Certificate and/or examination proving thorough knowledge of the target language. The minimum level required is usually B2 of CEFR, but there are some variations across the Autonomous Communities.
POLAND: Certificate showing proficiency at a minimum of level B2 of CEFR (applies only to teachers who do not hold an academic degree in the target language). Regulations include a list of language certificates that are considered to be equal to level B2 of CEFR.
CLIL teaching was introduced by law (D.D. n.6/2012) in the Italian education system in 2012 and clearly stated a great novelty as initiative in our secondary school curricula and teaching methods. In secondary language schools CLIL teaching already started in 2012 with the introduction of CLIL practice in the 3rd, then extended progressively in the 4th and 5th-year classes over a period of three years (2012/2015). The year 2015, therefore, should be for these schools their third year of experimentation.
According to the law, the introduction of CLIL teaching in the so-called “licée” is expected in 2015 and only for the 5th-year classes, the final ones. This year is therefore for us the year in which this great novelty is to be introduced, either totally covering the subject chosen or partially, with a series of modules on different topics. The survey conducted for the purpose of this report showed: - a very small part of teacher is involved in CLIL teaching - Clil experience is being accepted only partially; only a third of schools has appointed the members of Clil group and fewer have a training program for teachers, about Clil methodology and experience. - there is no additional funding - subjects involved: only humanities or Art history while scientific subjects are disregarded even in schools offering specialization in scientific subjects/matters.
Survey also showed that the difficult aspects of CLIL courses are teachers’ language skills as well as preparing, assessing and evaluating written texts for lectures while 63% of teachers find motivating pupils is relatively easy.
In Spain CLIL teaching began in 2000 with partial experiences. However, it was developed more seriously and with economic resources in 2007 (PELE) that afterwards was the origin of PILE (2012) and, nowadays of GED (2014).
Observing the surveys results and speaking in percentage, we find that 78% of the schools that were contacted are involved in a CLIL programme, in the primary or in the secondary schools. But, the teachers percentage engaged in activities is not so high. The maximum is 25% but, in the majority of cases it’s fewer than 10%. The survey showed that all 21 schools that participated thought a CLIL teaching program would improve teaching methodology in their school. The survey showed that majority of the teachers involved in CLIL activities are on a B2 level, but 75% of the teachers involved in the survey think that the desired levels are C1 and C2. 72 % of teachers think that students ability in foreign language presents a problem in implementing CLIL while other aspects of CLIL teaching are generally not perceived difficult.
There is no official CLIL program in Croatia however Article 8 of the Law on Education in Primary and Secondary Schools stipulates that the primary and secondary school part of the subjects and content of the established curriculum, except in the Croatian language, can be taught in one of the world's languages, with the approval of the Ministry and bilingual programs have been used since the early 1990s. However the number of schools actually using this option is very small.
It has to be noted that this is not a CLIL program in a true sense as there is no training for it and no clear methodology behind the project. There is no additional funding for such activities but in some schools the program is paid by parents on monthly basis and the fees vary from cca 15-30 euros.Also, in State schools one teaching hour in bilingual class counts as 1.5 regular teaching hour. In practice it means that grammar schools offer students the opportunity to attend part of the subject in one of the foreign languages - English, German or French. Classes are held always starting from the Croatian language with the help of Croatian textbooks and books in a foreign language, but curriculum is the same as in other schools that teach in Croatian. Thus, students who attend the said program are taught the same material as everyone else, except that the content is presented in of the three languages. This type of bilingual education could be considered CLIL education in broad sense, but as it is evident from the numbers- it is obvious that there is no real incentive for state schools to establish such a program as the Ministry does not financially support the schools involved the only option schools have is to transfer additional cost of the program to parents.
There are overall three vocational schools that have a bilingual program in Croatia, and all of them are from Varaždin county. The principal from one of those schools, Strojarska i prometna škola Varaždin, Milan Žunar, explains that the schools had a problem in implementing the project due to the lack of funding. So although the schools have invested a lot of time and effort to start the project, it is not moving forward. The survey conducted on 21 teachers involved in CLIL activities showed that 90% of them find teachers’ language skill on the better side of the spectrum, which can be explained by the fact that many of the teachers involved in CLIL activities in Croatia are in fact language and subject teachers or have been trained abroad and have a high language competence. However, survey has also shown that most teachers find preparing lessons and texts difficult, as well as evaluating written texts done by pupils. The results of the survey can’t really be held relevant because CLIL is used in a very small number of “elite” Croatian schools and is kept alive by enthusiasts working in those schools.
In Poland bilingual education has been conducted since 1991. Initially bilingual sections existed only in secondary schools, where grade "zero" was created and in which education was extended by one year. Currently there are schools with bilingual sections at all stages of education but primarily in lower secondary and secondary schools. In those institutions the second language of instruction is English, French, German, Spanish, Italian or Russian. The most popular is English, especially in lower secondary schools. In accordance with the The Act of the Education System, in a bilingual class teaching is conducted in two languages: Polish and a foreign modern as the second language of instruction. Additionally, there should be a least two subjects taught in English, with the exception of Polish language and the part of history and geography involving Poland. Moreover, one of the subjects should be selected from the following: biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, general geography or history.
Bilingual lessons are carried out by the teacher whose command of English is at B2 level or by the teacher of a foreign language who is additionally qualified to teach the non-language subject.
There is no official CLIL program in Latvia according to the Law of Education. The implementation of CLIL in Latvian schools depends on school needs and can be used as optional choice for students. In year 2010, agency introduced two new in-service teacher training programmes on Foreign Language and Content integrated learning methodology (programmes’ length 60 hours and 36 hours). The target audience were teachers who wanted to teach their subject partly or fully in a foreign language. From 2011 to 2014 agency supported the organization of British Council courses on “CLIL Essentials” (programme length 50 hours). Lower and upper secondary school teachers were target audience of the teacher in-service programmes developed by the agency. British Council programme didn’t set any limits regarding the profile of teachers. There are 201 teachers in Latvia, who took part in these teacher in-service programmes for teaching CLIL from 2010 – 2013 offered by agency and British Council, but not all of them finished the program. There is no official data about number of schools or teachers in Latvia involved in CLIL activities. However, the questionnaire sent to Latvian schools showed that there are 7 schools with CLIL programs but all 20 schools participating answered positively to the question whether CLIL teaching program would improve teaching methodology in their school. Schools that do have CLIL programs find that the most difficult aspects of the program are finding suitable materials (57% of the teachers find it difficult). and preparing texts (60% find it difficult) as well as preparing lectures, The easiest aspect is motivating students (63% of teachers find it easy). Delivering lectures and student and teacher language ability are not seen as a problem by teachers who were involved in the survey.
|Is there a clear guidance by the Ministry how to implement CLIL
|Is CLIL teaching supported by additional money from the ministry
|Which CEFR English level do teachers involved in CLIL activities typically have?
|What subjects are most common in CLIL activities
|most frequently chosen foreign language in CLIL activities
|History, Art History
|ICT, PE, Science, Maths
As the primary objective of the project MultiKey is to create teaching materials that could be used by any secondary school in the EU SWOT analysis was created based on the comparison of reports by coordinators from countries involved in the project
|● similar curricula in all countries ● genuine interest in CLIL method ● Highly-skilled teachers
● no money to fund activities
● Curriculum too stretched for additional activity
● work overload
|● there is some flexibility in each system to introduce CLIL activities
|● Pupil coercion to do things they do not wish to do