1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:24,520 Yeah, I'm going to refer to the subject of science, although I must say before I start 2 00:00:24,520 --> 00:00:30,640 that in Catalonia there is no official CLIL program for the teaching of English in schools, 3 00:00:30,640 --> 00:00:36,920 so anything that happens in the area of English and science are independent initiatives from 4 00:00:36,920 --> 00:00:42,160 teachers in schools, but there is nothing official, although all these teachers receive 5 00:00:42,160 --> 00:00:44,800 the support of the administration. 6 00:00:44,800 --> 00:00:52,320 But as I've said, there is an increasing number of schools in Catalonia that are teaching 7 00:00:52,320 --> 00:00:58,000 subjects and I would say parts of subjects in English to improve the students' language 8 00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:00,440 competence. 9 00:01:00,440 --> 00:01:06,040 Our concern, Mia and myself, is that research is still embryonic, there isn't very much 10 00:01:06,040 --> 00:01:12,280 research in our context, and we really need studies comparing the outcomes of the traditional 11 00:01:12,280 --> 00:01:19,560 approach, the EFL approach, compared to the CLIL approach to see if the benefits of CLIL 12 00:01:19,560 --> 00:01:21,480 are real or not. 13 00:01:21,480 --> 00:01:25,360 I believe in CLIL, okay, don't worry. 14 00:01:25,360 --> 00:01:30,400 We need to evaluate the development of CLIL instruction, but also classroom dynamics and 15 00:01:30,400 --> 00:01:34,120 how both affect the outcomes of the approach. 16 00:01:34,120 --> 00:01:41,040 So back in 2006, we were asked to follow and evaluate the implementation of a CLIL instruction 17 00:01:41,040 --> 00:01:43,400 program in a school. 18 00:01:43,400 --> 00:01:48,800 The school had decided to teach one hour a week of the subject natural sciences in English. 19 00:01:48,800 --> 00:01:53,680 So we accepted and what we present, what I present today, I'm sorry if I say we because 20 00:01:53,680 --> 00:01:58,080 this was prepared by two people and I'll probably keep saying we, okay, what I present today 21 00:01:58,080 --> 00:02:01,600 or we present today are the results of the study. 22 00:02:01,600 --> 00:02:05,760 This is a case study, so I don't mean to generalise anything that I'm going to say because this 23 00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:10,920 is a study in a particular school in a particular context, but I think it's quite important. 24 00:02:10,920 --> 00:02:13,680 So all right, okay. 25 00:02:13,680 --> 00:02:15,920 These were our main research questions. 26 00:02:15,920 --> 00:02:20,440 We wanted to see if the students' language proficiency improved and when we say students' 27 00:02:20,440 --> 00:02:24,880 language proficiency, we mean listening, reading, speaking and writing skills at different time 28 00:02:24,880 --> 00:02:25,880 periods. 29 00:02:25,880 --> 00:02:28,200 That's why we collected data at different times. 30 00:02:28,200 --> 00:02:33,080 The effects as well on the students' motivation, we were interested to see up to what point 31 00:02:33,080 --> 00:02:37,360 the students were motivated and what their perceptions were on the implementation of 32 00:02:37,360 --> 00:02:42,560 the program and the problems and challenges for the teachers involved in this particular 33 00:02:42,560 --> 00:02:43,560 case. 34 00:02:43,560 --> 00:02:48,600 I'll tell you a little bit about the school context, what we had. 35 00:02:48,600 --> 00:02:53,680 It was a state assisted primary and secondary school, Concertada. 36 00:02:53,680 --> 00:02:56,320 The people population in this school was socially mixed. 37 00:02:56,320 --> 00:03:00,920 We had children from all social classes in this school. 38 00:03:00,920 --> 00:03:03,780 Most of them, 90% are Catalan speakers. 39 00:03:03,780 --> 00:03:07,680 They study Spanish at school as well as English, right? 40 00:03:07,680 --> 00:03:11,680 Remember that apart from being a bilingual community, Catalan and Spanish, they also 41 00:03:11,680 --> 00:03:12,680 do English. 42 00:03:13,160 --> 00:03:20,480 In this case, it was a parent-led initiative but it was supported by the school. 43 00:03:20,480 --> 00:03:26,240 The school agreed to implement a program to see what's happening and if the proficiency 44 00:03:26,240 --> 00:03:32,240 of the students improved in English, obviously. 45 00:03:32,240 --> 00:03:35,000 These were the groups that we compared. 46 00:03:35,000 --> 00:03:41,040 Obviously we needed a control group and we collected data, let me use this to show you. 47 00:03:41,040 --> 00:03:46,800 For the control group, we collected data in October 2006 and we chose the fifth and 48 00:03:46,800 --> 00:03:48,960 sixth grades of primary. 49 00:03:48,960 --> 00:03:53,280 At that time, which I'm going to call time one, these students had done three hours of 50 00:03:53,280 --> 00:03:57,440 English a week, instrumental English, EFL, no CLIL approach yet. 51 00:03:57,440 --> 00:04:05,520 Then we get the CLIL groups, yet again, fifth and sixth of primary in October 2007, so just 52 00:04:05,520 --> 00:04:09,640 one year after the implementation of the CLIL approach. 53 00:04:09,640 --> 00:04:15,080 These children had done three hours a week of instrumental English plus 35 hours of science 54 00:04:15,080 --> 00:04:18,040 in English. 55 00:04:18,040 --> 00:04:25,200 Notice that we didn't collect data in 2007 and we waited until 2009, October 2009. 56 00:04:25,200 --> 00:04:29,920 We went back to fifth and sixth of primary, we collected data, the same data, and these 57 00:04:29,920 --> 00:04:35,200 students had been doing three hours a week instrumental English but this time, they had 58 00:04:35,200 --> 00:04:38,920 been doing 105 hours of science in English. 59 00:04:38,920 --> 00:04:42,480 This is important for the results that we obtained. 60 00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:47,720 I also want to talk about the teachers involved in this project. 61 00:04:47,720 --> 00:04:53,960 We have that the EFL teacher was the same for all the groups and then from time one 62 00:04:53,960 --> 00:04:59,080 to time two, we had a primary school teacher specialised in English and she was as well, 63 00:04:59,080 --> 00:05:04,000 apart from the English teacher, she was the science teacher, she was both. 64 00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:08,800 Unfortunately and unexpectedly, I don't know whether I should say unfortunately but unexpectedly, 65 00:05:08,800 --> 00:05:14,980 we had a change of teacher after time two, after these 35 hours and the next English 66 00:05:14,980 --> 00:05:21,720 teacher was, he's still an English philology graduate with a CLIL master's trained in CLIL, 67 00:05:21,720 --> 00:05:27,560 so with CLIL methodology. 68 00:05:27,560 --> 00:05:31,760 I want to talk briefly as well about the different instruments that we used to collect data so 69 00:05:31,760 --> 00:05:35,280 you can see where we got our results from. 70 00:05:35,280 --> 00:05:39,840 We used both, we used language proficiency tests and we used qualitative instruments 71 00:05:39,840 --> 00:05:45,000 because we felt that we did not only want to use statistics and give you results about 72 00:05:45,000 --> 00:05:51,080 just these numbers but we felt that we had to support our findings with qualitative data 73 00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:53,200 as well. 74 00:05:53,200 --> 00:05:58,080 We carried out a listening comprehension test, a dictation test in which the children, I'll 75 00:05:58,080 --> 00:06:03,640 go through the test quickly, let me finish, a closed test, a written composition and speaking 76 00:06:03,640 --> 00:06:09,720 tasks and then as for qualitative instruments, we used a student's background questionnaire, 77 00:06:09,720 --> 00:06:14,880 an interview with the CLIL teachers, CLIL class observations and CLIL student's opinion 78 00:06:14,880 --> 00:06:17,520 questionnaire. 79 00:06:17,520 --> 00:06:21,280 For this presentation, I'm not going to talk about the speaking results because this is 80 00:06:21,280 --> 00:06:25,000 not my work and some of the work is still in progress so I didn't want to use anybody 81 00:06:25,000 --> 00:06:28,520 else's data and results. 82 00:06:28,840 --> 00:06:35,360 Okay, very briefly, you can see the listening was 30 items in increasing order of difficulty. 83 00:06:35,360 --> 00:06:39,200 The utterances were read by an English speaker with a standard British accent. 84 00:06:39,200 --> 00:06:42,880 We chose a standard British accent because we thought that that was the closest accent 85 00:06:42,880 --> 00:06:46,720 that the students were used to in their classes and that's it. 86 00:06:46,720 --> 00:06:52,040 I meant to say that these tests had already been used in the Barcelona Age Factor Project 87 00:06:52,040 --> 00:06:56,680 years ago, okay, when we were trying to find out the relation between the level of English 88 00:06:56,680 --> 00:07:00,680 and the age or the age when the children would start learning English, so they were 89 00:07:00,680 --> 00:07:02,560 exactly the same tests. 90 00:07:02,560 --> 00:07:07,920 A dictation test, okay, in which children had to write 50 words. 91 00:07:07,920 --> 00:07:13,320 We told the children to write anything that they could understand, right? 92 00:07:13,320 --> 00:07:18,440 The closed test was based on a popular fairy tale, Little Red Riding Hood and the children 93 00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:19,440 had to fill gaps. 94 00:07:19,440 --> 00:07:24,040 It was a gap fill exercise and then written composition. 95 00:07:24,040 --> 00:07:28,280 We told the children to write for a steady time, 15 minutes, which was, I can tell you, 96 00:07:28,280 --> 00:07:32,600 quite difficult to keep them writing for 15 minutes without giving them any answers to 97 00:07:32,600 --> 00:07:39,880 what they were saying to you about my life, my present, my past, and my future. 98 00:07:39,880 --> 00:07:45,480 The compositions were evaluated under three categories, accuracy, fluency, and lexical 99 00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:50,000 complexity and I'm going to show you now the measures that we used, okay, because saying 100 00:07:50,000 --> 00:07:54,600 accuracy, fluency, and lexical complexity is very wide, but we wanted to see what aspects 101 00:07:54,600 --> 00:07:59,640 of accuracy, what aspects of fluency, what aspects of lexical complexity, what happens 102 00:07:59,640 --> 00:08:01,640 in their development. 103 00:08:01,640 --> 00:08:07,120 And we, as for fluency, we calculated the total number of words in English. 104 00:08:07,120 --> 00:08:10,880 Don't forget that we are dealing with primary school children, fifth and sixth grades, okay, 105 00:08:10,880 --> 00:08:15,680 and sometimes when they write they still use words, in this case, in Catalan in their writing, 106 00:08:15,680 --> 00:08:19,400 so they can write a whole clause and they use the keyword that they don't know, they 107 00:08:19,400 --> 00:08:24,120 just write it in Catalan and they carry on, so things like this. 108 00:08:24,120 --> 00:08:27,840 So as for fluency, we calculated the total number of words in English that they used 109 00:08:27,840 --> 00:08:32,640 and the total number of clauses, how many sentences they could use. 110 00:08:32,640 --> 00:08:36,200 Correct clauses, okay, how many of the clauses they wrote were completely correct. 111 00:08:36,200 --> 00:08:42,080 As for accuracy, the number of error-free clauses, how many of those clauses were completely 112 00:08:42,080 --> 00:08:46,640 error-free according to standard British, standard English. 113 00:08:46,640 --> 00:08:51,400 And then the ratio between the number of error-free clauses in relation to the total 114 00:08:51,400 --> 00:08:54,080 number of clauses that they had used. 115 00:08:54,080 --> 00:09:01,080 We calculated the lexical density and the ratio of nouns, adjectives, adverbs, lexical 116 00:09:01,080 --> 00:09:08,040 verbs and auxiliaries, okay, we didn't study anything in terms of coordination or subordination, 117 00:09:08,040 --> 00:09:13,000 I can tell you that most of the sentences they wrote, they had no subordination at all, 118 00:09:13,000 --> 00:09:18,040 they were all just one sentence after the other, there was no coordination even, okay, 119 00:09:18,040 --> 00:09:22,480 sentence, sentence, sentence, sentence, and sometimes they did not even write punctuation, 120 00:09:22,480 --> 00:09:25,680 it was obvious that was the end of one and the beginning of the other one, but they did 121 00:09:25,680 --> 00:09:28,400 not really use punctuation. 122 00:09:28,400 --> 00:09:35,400 Okay, we needed information about their background because we decided not to use all the children 123 00:09:35,400 --> 00:09:40,120 because we knew that some children were receiving extracurricular classes and that would not 124 00:09:40,120 --> 00:09:41,760 be fair in our results. 125 00:09:41,760 --> 00:09:47,240 So we decided not to take the children that had taken extracurricular classes, that reduced 126 00:09:47,240 --> 00:09:52,000 our sample, obviously, but we wanted to see what happened in just the school context with 127 00:09:52,000 --> 00:09:56,760 children with no extra exposure to English, just the exposure that they had at school 128 00:09:56,760 --> 00:10:03,480 because we had children with years of extra exposure to English. 129 00:10:03,480 --> 00:10:10,080 We also wanted information of the teachers, so we actually interviewed the teachers, we 130 00:10:10,080 --> 00:10:13,760 asked them about their perceptions, how they felt about the implementations, what problems 131 00:10:13,760 --> 00:10:19,240 they had, so we used that as qualitative data, okay. 132 00:10:19,240 --> 00:10:23,760 We did observation, we went into the classes, in fact this is one observation session per 133 00:10:23,760 --> 00:10:27,840 group but it was more than one, we went several times to do the observation in the classes 134 00:10:27,840 --> 00:10:34,120 to see what happened, we followed the protocol of observation and note-taking, and we focused 135 00:10:34,280 --> 00:10:41,280 basically on the teacher's strategies, the input, the student's output, the class activities, 136 00:10:41,280 --> 00:10:47,160 and the use of L1, L2, what happened in there between basically the students when they used 137 00:10:47,160 --> 00:10:50,680 the L1 and when they used the L2. 138 00:10:50,680 --> 00:10:54,920 Then we wanted to know as well the opinion of the children involved in the process because 139 00:10:54,920 --> 00:11:00,600 we thought that was very important, so basically we asked them how they felt about the implementation 140 00:11:00,600 --> 00:11:05,320 process, their perceptions in whether they were motivated or not, we used different types 141 00:11:05,320 --> 00:11:09,240 of questions, we used structured questions, we did not only ask them, did you like it, 142 00:11:09,240 --> 00:11:14,120 do you like it, if they said yes, we said write it down, write down the reasons, so 143 00:11:14,120 --> 00:11:17,120 we carried out this questionnaire in Catalan so they could all understand what we were 144 00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:21,040 asking them because we wanted the reasons why they liked it or they didn't like it, 145 00:11:21,040 --> 00:11:24,480 they found it difficult or they found it easy, okay. 146 00:11:24,480 --> 00:11:29,520 So these are the different comparisons that we carried out, first of all we compared the 147 00:11:29,520 --> 00:11:33,320 children at times one and two, so in other words the children who had had no exposure 148 00:11:33,320 --> 00:11:41,120 to CLIL with the children who had had 35 hours of CLIL, both in 2006, 2007, fifth graders 149 00:11:41,120 --> 00:11:42,960 and sixth graders. 150 00:11:42,960 --> 00:11:50,040 Then we compared the children who had already had both CLIL, 35 hours of CLIL versus 105 151 00:11:50,040 --> 00:11:56,320 hours of CLIL, so in this group all children had been exposed to CLIL, different from the 152 00:11:56,320 --> 00:11:57,320 first group. 153 00:11:57,320 --> 00:12:03,320 And then the third comparison was the children who had had no exposure to CLIL with the children 154 00:12:03,320 --> 00:12:08,880 who had had 105 hours of CLIL and we wanted to see what happened with the test that we 155 00:12:08,880 --> 00:12:11,640 carried out that we gave them. 156 00:12:11,640 --> 00:12:18,160 As you can see the numbers are really lower, the number of students, because that's when 157 00:12:18,160 --> 00:12:23,760 we decided not to use the children who had had extra exposure, okay. 158 00:12:23,760 --> 00:12:27,320 First of all obviously we had to make sure that the groups were comparable because when 159 00:12:27,320 --> 00:12:31,280 you are comparing groups you can compare very different groups and we were not, this is 160 00:12:31,280 --> 00:12:36,280 not a longitudinal study, we were not following a group, we were just taking children when 161 00:12:36,280 --> 00:12:39,600 they got to fifth and sixth grade at different times. 162 00:12:39,600 --> 00:12:43,440 So we had to make sure that the groups were similar and comparable and we decided to do 163 00:12:43,440 --> 00:12:50,000 that by getting the marks in Catalan and Spanish and we calculated a global mark, we applied 164 00:12:50,000 --> 00:12:55,800 test of normality to see if that was comparable and two tests for the global academic marks, 165 00:12:55,800 --> 00:12:58,080 the different tests, okay. 166 00:12:58,080 --> 00:13:05,000 And then some of the tests did not show the required normality and the number of students 167 00:13:05,000 --> 00:13:09,720 that we had was quite low, we decided to use non-parametric tests. 168 00:13:09,720 --> 00:13:15,760 As I mentioned before very quickly we only accepted, when I said error free clauses we 169 00:13:15,760 --> 00:13:18,960 accepted clauses that were completely correct, okay. 170 00:13:18,960 --> 00:13:24,400 We did not accept anything that we did not consider correct when we analysed the writings, 171 00:13:24,400 --> 00:13:25,400 okay. 172 00:13:25,400 --> 00:13:31,880 We used the tagger of the University of Lancaster to tag the words grammatically, then we checked 173 00:13:31,880 --> 00:13:37,400 and double checked, manual recount and revision, we calculated mean scores and we applied non-parametric 174 00:13:37,400 --> 00:13:39,120 tests, okay. 175 00:13:39,120 --> 00:13:44,600 We transcribed all the data, all the qualitative data and we used it only on sort of content 176 00:13:44,600 --> 00:13:50,680 based analysis and what we calculated were the percentages, you'll see later, obtained 177 00:13:50,680 --> 00:13:54,360 in the structured questions in the opinion questionnaire, obviously not, we couldn't 178 00:13:54,360 --> 00:13:57,800 do that in the open questions, that's when they gave us the reasons why they liked it 179 00:13:57,800 --> 00:14:01,720 or they didn't like it, but we calculated the percentages, okay. 180 00:14:01,720 --> 00:14:07,240 So to make it easier for everybody in the audience what we did, okay, we highlighted 181 00:14:07,240 --> 00:14:14,760 in yellow the results that are significantly positive in favour of the CLIL students. 182 00:14:14,760 --> 00:14:22,960 So as you can see in the first group in the proficiency test, close listening and dictation, 183 00:14:22,960 --> 00:14:26,480 not significant results after 35 hours, okay. 184 00:14:26,480 --> 00:14:32,600 So I am in 35 hours comparing the students that had done no CLIL and these only had done 185 00:14:32,640 --> 00:14:37,680 35 hours of science in English, there was no significant difference here. 186 00:14:37,680 --> 00:14:43,920 So we can say that they had not really improved dramatically, so that we can say. 187 00:14:43,920 --> 00:14:48,320 Except for lexical complexity, in fact this is the lexical density, so in other words 188 00:14:48,320 --> 00:14:53,440 they used more content words, the CLIL children used more content words than in their writings 189 00:14:53,440 --> 00:14:59,360 than any others and we start seeing that in terms of the total number of words in English 190 00:14:59,480 --> 00:15:01,720 it's favourable to the CLIL students. 191 00:15:01,720 --> 00:15:06,000 They use more words in English than the children who have not been exposed to CLIL. 192 00:15:06,000 --> 00:15:13,280 When we compare the 35 hours versus 105 hours, so I'm comparing 35 hours of CLIL, 105 hours 193 00:15:13,280 --> 00:15:16,600 of CLIL, I do find positive results. 194 00:15:16,600 --> 00:15:23,360 So these ones, the ones who had done 105 hours are much better in listening and dictation, 195 00:15:23,360 --> 00:15:27,880 which involves listening as well and writing at the same time. 196 00:15:27,880 --> 00:15:32,440 And literacy as well, so they write a total number of words in English and they write 197 00:15:32,440 --> 00:15:37,360 more clauses and the clauses that they write are more correct. 198 00:15:37,360 --> 00:15:41,960 But when we look at the lexical part, the lexical complexity, we find that they use 199 00:15:41,960 --> 00:15:47,280 more adjectives, they use the verb to have much more and they use many more lexical verbs 200 00:15:47,280 --> 00:15:52,440 than the ones who had only done 35 hours and we have already said that there were no really 201 00:15:52,440 --> 00:15:54,680 significant results. 202 00:15:54,680 --> 00:15:59,760 And when we compared the control groups, so the initial data that we had, the children 203 00:15:59,760 --> 00:16:06,640 who had done no CLIL at all, with the children who had done 105 hours of CLIL, we find that 204 00:16:06,640 --> 00:16:11,240 this time it's even the CLOS test, which was reading comprehension and grammar, basically 205 00:16:11,240 --> 00:16:15,880 what they had to write there, they improved in this proficiency test, CLOS listening and 206 00:16:15,880 --> 00:16:21,160 dictation and they still show better results in the total number of words in English. 207 00:16:21,160 --> 00:16:23,760 This is for the fifth graders, okay? 208 00:16:23,840 --> 00:16:28,280 I'm going to show you, it's very similar what happened with sixth graders, we have to consider 209 00:16:28,280 --> 00:16:32,840 that they are a year older, they have been more mature than the fifth graders, right? 210 00:16:32,840 --> 00:16:38,880 So basically what I have is that, yet again, 35 hours of CLIL, no important results, not 211 00:16:38,880 --> 00:16:42,760 even in fluency this time, I didn't get any positive results in fluency, they did not 212 00:16:42,760 --> 00:16:46,480 write any more words in English than the other groups. 213 00:16:46,480 --> 00:16:51,640 Yet again, lexical complexity, yeah, it improves, but surprisingly this time it was not the 214 00:16:51,640 --> 00:16:56,280 number of adjectives of the word half as I had found with the fifth graders, this time 215 00:16:56,280 --> 00:17:01,560 was the number of adverbs and the number of proper nouns, when I mean proper nouns I mean 216 00:17:01,560 --> 00:17:05,240 names of countries in English, for example, this sort of thing. 217 00:17:05,240 --> 00:17:10,200 And the final comparison, when we compared the ones with no exposure to CLIL to 105 hours 218 00:17:10,200 --> 00:17:15,160 of CLIL, right, you can see that there is a great improvement in the sixth graders in 219 00:17:15,160 --> 00:17:17,600 favour of these children who had done CLIL. 220 00:17:17,600 --> 00:17:22,200 So the language proficiency tests, they all show an improvement, CLOS test, the listening 221 00:17:22,200 --> 00:17:27,320 test, the dictation test, in terms of fluency, this time the total number of words in English 222 00:17:27,320 --> 00:17:32,360 in this particular one was representative, total number of clauses and the number of 223 00:17:32,360 --> 00:17:35,280 error-free clauses in sixth grade, okay? 224 00:17:35,280 --> 00:17:39,520 So they had been doing 105 hours of CLIL. 225 00:17:39,520 --> 00:17:44,280 So this is the summary, after 35 hours no major differences between CLIL and non-CLIL 226 00:17:44,320 --> 00:17:49,640 students, after 70 additional hours, similar improvement in fifth and sixth grade groups 227 00:17:49,640 --> 00:17:54,480 in terms of the language proficiency test, fluency and lexical complexity, the differences 228 00:17:54,480 --> 00:18:00,600 after 105 hours, there were differences in the proficiency tests and in the fluency, 229 00:18:00,600 --> 00:18:05,560 but accuracy follows a progressive pattern with sixth graders, now with fifth graders 230 00:18:05,560 --> 00:18:10,560 and lexical complexity shows a very, very irregular pattern, okay? 231 00:18:10,560 --> 00:18:14,960 So our problem obviously was to interpret that, why do we think this happened in this 232 00:18:14,960 --> 00:18:15,960 particular school? 233 00:18:15,960 --> 00:18:21,920 I said I don't want to generalise, this is just a case study, all right, and okay. 234 00:18:21,920 --> 00:18:26,960 But we can say that some of the results observed are in line with previous research findings 235 00:18:26,960 --> 00:18:32,680 on CLIL, improvement of receptive skills, such as listening, breathing and dictation 236 00:18:32,680 --> 00:18:39,600 and the writing areas, these areas that we calculated, fluency, accuracy and the complexity, 237 00:18:39,640 --> 00:18:44,640 do not necessarily develop simultaneously as students become better writers. 238 00:18:44,640 --> 00:18:50,760 So maybe at the point it's fluency what they develop, at some point it's the accuracy what 239 00:18:50,760 --> 00:18:56,720 they develop, but they do not develop it in a steady progress all the way through. 240 00:18:56,720 --> 00:18:58,960 Right, what happened? 241 00:18:58,960 --> 00:19:00,800 What do we think happened? 242 00:19:00,800 --> 00:19:05,420 So at time two, these children had been exposed to 35 hours of English, they had the same 243 00:19:05,420 --> 00:19:11,100 English and CLIL teacher, but we think that that was a very limited number of hours of 244 00:19:11,100 --> 00:19:15,380 exposure so we are not surprised that we didn't find anything positive. 245 00:19:15,380 --> 00:19:20,900 We also must be honest and say that the teacher had very English limited, it was very, the 246 00:19:20,900 --> 00:19:23,340 proficiency of the teacher was very limited. 247 00:19:23,340 --> 00:19:29,460 We think it was not a good model because the quality of the input was not right. 248 00:19:29,460 --> 00:19:35,620 That stopped her completely from establishing genuine communication, interaction with the 249 00:19:35,620 --> 00:19:38,420 students in the class. 250 00:19:38,420 --> 00:19:42,740 The use of L1, she did not really make an effort to try to make students, encourage 251 00:19:42,740 --> 00:19:45,220 students to use English. 252 00:19:45,220 --> 00:19:51,020 Sometimes when she was overwhelmed with students, she just used Catalan and gave up and told 253 00:19:51,020 --> 00:19:56,460 them in Catalan, which somebody said is very difficult not to do. 254 00:19:56,460 --> 00:19:59,220 She was a very experienced science teacher. 255 00:19:59,220 --> 00:20:07,620 She had been teaching science for 25 years, right, but she felt that, she did say that, 256 00:20:07,620 --> 00:20:12,020 she felt that she didn't have enough training in CLIL methodology. 257 00:20:12,020 --> 00:20:16,380 The other important thing that she mentioned, and that's one I am using now our qualitative 258 00:20:16,380 --> 00:20:21,340 data, is that she said in the interview that she didn't have time to prepare lessons because 259 00:20:21,340 --> 00:20:24,020 the school did not consider this as an extra duty. 260 00:20:24,020 --> 00:20:30,580 She said, okay, you do your science classes in English, but no extra time to prepare anything. 261 00:20:30,580 --> 00:20:34,340 We're talking about 2006, so there are lots of materials now. 262 00:20:34,340 --> 00:20:37,900 We can see outside, all the publishers are publishing lots of materials and providing 263 00:20:37,900 --> 00:20:38,900 lots of material. 264 00:20:38,900 --> 00:20:45,260 But back in 2006, trying to find adequate materials for just one hour of science that 265 00:20:45,260 --> 00:20:49,300 were suitable for what you wanted to tell them at that particular time or that particular 266 00:20:49,300 --> 00:20:53,060 topic was quite difficult for her, right? 267 00:20:53,660 --> 00:20:56,940 All right, what happens between time two and time three? 268 00:20:56,940 --> 00:21:01,540 Remember I said we have a change of teacher, a more qualified teacher with a competence 269 00:21:01,540 --> 00:21:05,020 in English, CLIL training. 270 00:21:05,020 --> 00:21:06,740 We have increased the number of hours. 271 00:21:06,740 --> 00:21:11,300 We have evaluated our accessory after 105 hours. 272 00:21:11,300 --> 00:21:15,860 The teacher was qualified linguistically and methodologically, and that provided a much 273 00:21:15,860 --> 00:21:21,340 richer input, a good model, elaborate explanations, mostly in L2. 274 00:21:21,340 --> 00:21:24,100 You'll see that the children said that to us, okay? 275 00:21:24,100 --> 00:21:27,700 They mentioned it in one of the interviews, which was very interesting. 276 00:21:27,700 --> 00:21:31,700 Obviously, the activities were more challenging because the language was not such a problem 277 00:21:31,700 --> 00:21:32,700 for her. 278 00:21:32,700 --> 00:21:36,300 There was much more interaction, and there were many more, at the moment, there are many 279 00:21:36,300 --> 00:21:37,300 more resources available. 280 00:21:37,300 --> 00:21:42,180 So, in fact, she now is using a book. 281 00:21:42,180 --> 00:21:47,620 Then we selected some of the, for this presentation, the opinion questionnaire of the students, 282 00:21:47,620 --> 00:21:48,620 okay? 283 00:21:48,620 --> 00:21:50,820 We asked them whether they liked it or not. 284 00:21:50,820 --> 00:21:52,540 In general, very positive, okay? 285 00:21:52,540 --> 00:21:55,460 They all said, oh, we liked it very much, it was very good. 286 00:21:55,460 --> 00:22:00,100 You can see 95% fifth graders, 100% sixth graders, we liked it very much. 287 00:22:00,100 --> 00:22:05,460 But when we look at 2009 groups, okay, the percentages are a bit lower, you see? 288 00:22:05,460 --> 00:22:06,460 They're a bit lower. 289 00:22:06,460 --> 00:22:08,500 We say, okay, why did you like it? 290 00:22:08,500 --> 00:22:13,580 And they say, okay, because the teacher, especially the 2009 students said the teacher gave very 291 00:22:13,580 --> 00:22:16,900 good explanations in English, and the activities are fun. 292 00:22:16,900 --> 00:22:21,140 We do games, we do oral tasks, we do group work, so they like the structure and the strategies 293 00:22:21,140 --> 00:22:22,140 used in the class. 294 00:22:22,140 --> 00:22:25,260 So, well, they say they are very interested in English. 295 00:22:25,260 --> 00:22:28,020 This is one of the first things, because we asked them, do you like English? 296 00:22:28,020 --> 00:22:32,260 And they say, yes, we do like English, more or less than before CLIL, and they all say, 297 00:22:32,260 --> 00:22:37,140 I promise you, they said more, we like English much more, and science is one of our favorite 298 00:22:37,140 --> 00:22:39,380 subjects when we ask them. 299 00:22:39,380 --> 00:22:43,780 But we also asked them about how easy or difficult they found it. 300 00:22:43,780 --> 00:22:51,260 2007 groups said that 71% of fifth graders, 79% in the sixth grade, they said it was easy, 301 00:22:51,260 --> 00:22:52,260 okay? 302 00:22:52,260 --> 00:22:58,340 But 2009 groups, look at the percentages, okay, yet again, they go down. 303 00:22:58,340 --> 00:23:03,820 They say they found it easy, because the percentage is quite high if you think about it. 304 00:23:03,820 --> 00:23:05,460 We asked them, okay, why was it easy? 305 00:23:05,460 --> 00:23:08,780 And they say, okay, because these are topics that are familiar, done in year one, not the 306 00:23:08,780 --> 00:23:13,620 specific topic that they were doing, but as primary contents are cyclical, they had heard 307 00:23:13,620 --> 00:23:18,060 about them before, so it was not really the first time that they heard what they were 308 00:23:18,060 --> 00:23:19,060 doing. 309 00:23:19,060 --> 00:23:23,020 The activities, they say, they're very easy, and interestingly, they say, because we have 310 00:23:23,020 --> 00:23:27,260 an ability for languages, so their self-esteem is quite high, they think they are good at 311 00:23:27,260 --> 00:23:28,260 English, most of them. 312 00:23:28,260 --> 00:23:30,780 If you ask them, they say, yeah, okay. 313 00:23:30,780 --> 00:23:35,900 We also wanted to know why they thought it was difficult, and they say, okay, what was 314 00:23:35,900 --> 00:23:39,780 difficult was understanding some contents and some key vocabularies. 315 00:23:39,780 --> 00:23:43,600 It's true, sometimes the teacher, sometimes when we did the observations, we felt that 316 00:23:44,580 --> 00:23:47,520 it was not the language where it was difficult, it was that they could not really understand 317 00:23:47,520 --> 00:23:48,520 the concept. 318 00:23:48,520 --> 00:23:51,980 They did not really get to the concept. 319 00:23:51,980 --> 00:23:55,960 It was not the language, and the teacher was trying very hard, doing lots of rephrasing 320 00:23:55,960 --> 00:24:01,400 and changing strategy and looking for the right words, even looking for words of Latin 321 00:24:01,400 --> 00:24:06,800 origin that, at some point, were easier for the students to understand. 322 00:24:06,800 --> 00:24:13,840 The 2007 students, they said, understanding the recordings, okay, that was very difficult. 323 00:24:13,840 --> 00:24:18,240 I must tell you an anecdote here when we're doing the interviews with the students. 324 00:24:18,240 --> 00:24:24,640 We asked them, and one of the children said, this is because the 2007 teacher was not similar 325 00:24:24,640 --> 00:24:31,240 to the DVD, the sound of the DVD, but we understand that the 2009 teacher, she says things in 326 00:24:31,240 --> 00:24:36,680 English, and it's very similar to the DVD, they said to us, okay? 327 00:24:37,560 --> 00:24:40,280 One of the things that they find very difficult, and they recognize it, is answering questions 328 00:24:40,280 --> 00:24:43,320 in English, especially the students in 2007. 329 00:24:43,320 --> 00:24:45,240 Somebody has pointed it out as well. 330 00:24:45,240 --> 00:24:50,840 The 2009 understanding the teacher's explanations, they think it's very difficult, and obviously, 331 00:24:50,840 --> 00:24:57,240 the predominant use of 2009 was the teacher now does never, never change language. 332 00:24:57,240 --> 00:24:58,240 Do I still have time? 333 00:24:58,240 --> 00:24:59,240 You have like two minutes. 334 00:24:59,240 --> 00:25:00,240 Two minutes, okay. 335 00:25:00,240 --> 00:25:01,240 I'll speed up, okay? 336 00:25:01,240 --> 00:25:02,240 Right. 337 00:25:02,320 --> 00:25:04,320 There are several reasons why this. 338 00:25:04,320 --> 00:25:09,440 2007 was all an innovative approach, it was all new, the teachers, the children thought 339 00:25:09,440 --> 00:25:15,920 it was good fun, but we think that, okay, at time three, I have received three courses, 340 00:25:15,920 --> 00:25:21,520 the teacher creates more challenging activities, the explanations are always in English, and 341 00:25:21,520 --> 00:25:26,200 the students, we think, and they've told us, they've started to associate CLIL classes 342 00:25:26,200 --> 00:25:30,600 with a content class, so CLIL is not anymore an ELT class. 343 00:25:30,600 --> 00:25:35,320 It's a content class, and they've slowly realized that what they are doing, a contents, 344 00:25:35,320 --> 00:25:42,200 is not the English, the fun class that they have when they do the English class, okay? 345 00:25:42,200 --> 00:25:48,760 So I'm going to write, as I have said, this is a three-year, we call it case study, because 346 00:25:48,760 --> 00:25:56,080 we have not followed the children, we followed a project, okay, it's not the same children. 347 00:25:56,080 --> 00:26:00,120 It had advantages, you can see, we could see the whole process, limitation, because this 348 00:26:00,120 --> 00:26:04,440 is only a case study, the sample is very small, and we need that, we think that we 349 00:26:04,440 --> 00:26:10,080 need larger samples to allow generalizations of results, we need lots of longitudinal studies 350 00:26:10,080 --> 00:26:15,000 to see what happens in every particular context, what can we, what are the results in every 351 00:26:15,000 --> 00:26:20,200 particular context, because not all the contexts are the same, okay, but we do think that we 352 00:26:20,200 --> 00:26:24,680 need quantitative and qualitative data in all the studies, it's not just quantitative 353 00:26:24,680 --> 00:26:27,640 data, okay, and that's it, thank you very much for your...