FACULTY OF EDUCATION

FINAL DEGREE PROJECT:

COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE OF A CLIL

LESSON IN SPAIN VS. NORWAY

AUTHOR: MIGUEL TORRES SÁNCHEZ

TUTOR: ANA ANDÚGAR SOTO

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2020/2021

2

ABSTRACT

Since the acquisition of English as a lingua franca has become a relevant matter

this century, educators have tried to offer new strategies to increase the use of this

language in the curriculum. Approaches like CLIL (Content and Language Integrated

Learning) are one of the best choices regarding the teaching of content in a foreign

language. This study will examine two CLIL lessons in the 6th grade of primary

education. One from a Spanish school and the other from a Norwegian school. These two

classrooms will be compared to find out which country is following a proper teaching

procedure from the CLIL perspective as well as profoundly analyze how the lessons are

imparted. Moreover, in the document, general information about the origin and the

development behind CLIL approach will be stated since it was introduced in 1994 by D.

Marsch. To conclude, the dichotomy of hard vs. soft CLIL will be treated, to later contrast

the observations at the schools and offer some conclusions.

Keywords: CLIL approach, 6th grade, comparative perspective of a lesson, Spain,

Norway.

.

3

ACKNOLEDGEMENTS

Firstly, I wish to thank my friend Hanna who has been my eyes and ears during

my time in Norway. Secondly and foremost, I acknowledge my tutor Ana for enlightening

me during the dark periods of inspiration and encouraging me to keep developing this

document. Lastly, I would like to show my appreciation to my practice teachers in Spain

and Norway, and to my friends and mother. They have supported me in the idea of

accomplishing this personal project in the best possible way.

4

DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP

Mr. MIGUEL TORRES SÁNCHEZ, with DNI number 74018414K, student of the

Degree in Primary Education at University of Alicante completed within the period 2020/

2021.

DECLARES THAT:

This “Final Degree Project” has been developed following and respecting the

intellectual property rights of third parties according to all citations stated on the pertinent

pages and which sources are incorporated into the bibliography, like any other right, for

instance of image, that may be subject to copyright protection.

Considering that, I affirm that this document is original and part of my authorship,

therefore I assume my responsibility of the content, veracity, and range of this “Final

Degree Project” as well as the administrative and legal derivated consequences in case of

unfulfillment of this declaration.

Then, for the record, I sign the present declaration in Alicante on May 26th of 2021.

Yours sincerely,

5

INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION AND JUSTIFICATION ………………..…..………… p. 7

2. STATE OF THE ART ……………………………………...……………… p. 8

2.1 What is CLIL? Origins and background ………………………...………. p. 8

2.2 The 4C’s ……………………………………..……………………...….. p. 10

2.3 Hard vs. Soft CLIL …………………………………………….……….. p. 11

2.4 CLIL in Europe ………………………………………………………… p. 12

2.5 CLIL in Norway …...…………………………………………………… p. 14

2.6 CLIL in Spain ………………….……………………………………….. p. 16

3. OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS ………….…………………………. p. 16

4. METHODOLOGY …………………………….………………………….. p. 17

4.1 Explanation …………………………………………………………….. p. 17

4.2 Context and observations: Norway vs. Spain …………………………. p. 17

5. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS ………………….……………………… p. 20

5.1 Results in Norway ……………………..………………………………. p. 20

5.2 Results in Spain ….………...………….…………...….…………...…. p. 23

6. CONCLUSIONS ………………………………………………..……….... p. 26

7. LIMITATIONS, DIFFICULTIES AND/OR PROPOSSALS ………….. p. 27

8. REFERENCES …………………………………...……………………….. p. 28

9. ANNEXES ……………………………………………………...………….. p. 33

6

9.1 Annex I …………………………………………...……………………. p. 33

9.2 Annex II ………………………………………………..………………. p. 34

7

1. INTRODUCTION AND JUSTIFICATION

The relevance of language acquisition today reflects the growing concern among

the didactic community to develop or/and improve effective strategies to teach students

to learn a second language (L2).

On the one hand, since English has changed its status to lingua franca in recent

years, the global scene has focused on studies and brand-new procedures such as CLIL

(Content and Language Integrated Learning). The term CLIL introduced by David Marsh

and Anne Maljers in 1994 is an approach that aims to connect didactic content and a

language lesson in a classroom at the same time.

On the other hand, the fame and trendiness of Nordic didactic models have settled

an idea of how the education of the 21st century looks like. Consequently, as a part of a

researching process during my period being an Erasmus student in Norway and some

personal curiosity, this document is created to offer a comparative spotlight on how two

examples of CLIL lessons in the 6th grade are implemented in a Norwegian and a Spanish

primary school.

The following project will be divided into three main sections: first, a theoretical

part explaining what CLIL and its principles are. Then, a short commentary of the

controversy of hard CLIL vs. soft CLIL. In this part, also it will be found research about

the general outlook of today’s CLIL good practices in Europe as well as in Norway and

Spain.

The second part will consist of a proposal of two objectives and an explanation of

the methodology to accomplish these goals. Next to this, the main hypothesis will be

stated: Are Norwegian CLIL lessons more effective for learning than the Spanish

lessons? Continuing with the third part, here will be analyzed and discussed the previous

question adding the conclusions and answers of the whole work.

Finally, in the end, it could be found some reflections about the limitations,

difficulties, or proposals for further studies in the fieldwork. This document will conclude

with citations and references as well as the annexes with all extra information.

8

2. STATE OF THE ART

2.1 What is CLIL? Origins and background

The term CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) first arose in 1994

and was coined by Professor David Marsch and her colleague Anne Maljers at the

University of Jyväskylä (Finland). According to Marsch (2002), CLIL occurs in situations

where a subject or a content is taught through a second (L2) or foreign language (FL) to

acquire both the content and the language.

Nowadays, CLIL is understood as a methodology with certain features from

language immersion and content-based instruction. Therefore, it is considered an

“umbrella” approach that encompasses several linguistic and didactic methods adapted to

a context (Coyle et al., 2010). But, despite that, there is no single blueprint for CLIL

(Coyle, 2005).

Apart from these two elements (Content and Language), a third element comes

into this triad group, which is the Learning skills. Thus, since CLIL is not a single process

procedure, it drinks from several psycholinguistic and educative sources (Hillyard, 2011);

(Alonso Losada, 2020) to integrate these three elements into the teaching process. Some

of these learning strategies come from theories such as:

- Bloom’s taxonomy of learning domains (1956).

- Vygotsky’s scaffolding and ZPD theory (1978).

- Model of CUP (Common Underlying Proficiency) by J. Cummins (1981).

- Theory of learning styles and multiple intelligences by H. Gardner (1983).

- Five hypothesis of Theory of Second Language acquisition by S. Krashen

(1987).

Moreover, this compendium of theories and strategies establishes a list of core

features that later in this paper will be used to identify which country (Norway or Spain)

is applying some or all of these teaching strategies and hence acquiring the best results in

their praxis. According to Mehisto et al. (2008), the list of CLIL core features includes:

➢ MULTIPLE FOCUS

Since CLIL aims to relate both content and language, subjects taught through

CLIL must be content-driven and language-driven, meaning the focus is not only in just

9

content or language but all of them. Language here becomes a tool to archive knowledge

of content. Therefore, multiple focus approach is a key feature in every session e.g.,

supporting language learning in content classes, creating cross-curricular projects,

integrating several subjects and so on.

➢ AUTHENTICITY OF LANGUAGE, MATERIALS AND PRACTICES

One of the reasons to choose CLIL is that it encourages the children to learn useful

and real language such as everyday expressions, tenses, vocabulary, and others, to later

apply it to real life situations. That is why the realia ought to reflect veracity in the

contents and classroom language. Thus, materials intended to be “meaningful,

challenging and authentic” (Meyer, 2010, p.13).

➢ ACTIVE LEARNING

Active learning is one of the main principles for today’s education it “consists of

short course-related individual or small-group activities that all students in a class are

called upon to do, alternating with instructor-led intervals in which student’s responses

are processed and new information is presented” (Felder & Brent, 2009, p. 2). Then, for

the session to work properly, it is needed a correct attitude from teachers and students.

Some of the events that may happen are more communication from the part of the students

instead of the teacher, students guess new words and test their own skills and outcomes,

teachers facilitate kid’s learning…

➢ SCAFFOLDING

Based on Vygotsky’s and Bruner’s theories of ZPD (1978) and Scaffolding

(1976), this methodology aims to help the learner to acquire the knowledge far from its

previous ideas with the help of a tutor acting as a “scaffold”. “Scaffolding therefore is not

only teacher support but assistance that is designed to help learners to work with

increasing independence” (Hammond, & Gibbons, 2005, p.10).

➢ COOPERATION

Cooperation is key in every project involving a group of individuals. Especially

in schools, partnership between teachers and work colleagues is essential. All of the

contents and ways of teaching must be pre-established. However, not only pedagogues or

students need to create bonds among themselves. Families also play a part in schools,

10

therefore involving parents or local communities in their projects make enriching more

members of the society and construct a lifelong learning.

➢ SAVE AND ENRICHING ENVIRONMENT

At the class, students must know that they can feel free to communicate and

express their ideas knowing that they are not going to be judged or questioned whatever

their opinion is. For that reason, the CLIL teacher has to encourage that all pupils hear

what their mates have to say and help them remember the vocabulary or the structure in

that lesson. It is worth remembering that the entire lesson should be spoken in the second

or foreign language so kids’ participation too. Then educators could create visual aids like

posters with all the linguistic data to make them speak easily.

2.2 The 4C’s

The way CLIL was meant to be implemented involves a subject or content of

focus, then a way to link this knowledge to previous data and rebuild it. After that,

communicate this knowledge in an L2 and make it part of everyone’s mind through a

social process. For that reason, some of the main researchers of CLIL (Coyle, Hood &

Marsch), generated a framework where this process was sequenced in 4 steps to

accomplish in the classroom. These steps are also known as the 4C’s:

1. Content

2. Cognition

3. Communication

4. Culture

CONTENT: According to Scott & Beadle (2014), the students must take the knowledge

and understand it through the learning skills (personalized learning).

COGNITION: Content that the students acquire is important but the stress is in what the

students do with that content and how they interpret it to further use (Scott & Beadle,

2014). This process is also known as cognition has its roots in the theories of

Constructivism by the end of 20th century.

COMMUNICATION: As Vygotsky (1978) said, learning is a social activity.

Communication in this activity is the element that ties us with other individuals to

11

reconstruct the knowledge and integrate it through the cognitive process. This language

has to be transparent and accessible considering in this context, it is a foreign language

(Scott & Beadle, 2014).

CULTURE: Especially in this medium of instruction, intercultural awareness of the FL

becomes one of the cores of CLIL (Scott & Beadle, 2014).

Fig. A: The 4C’s framework for CLIL (Coyle, 2005)

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-4-C-framework-for-CLIL-Coyle-

2005_fig1_320146443

2.3 Hard vs. Soft CLIL

Among all the studies, experiences and lines of work that CLIL provides, the

researchers seem to distinguish two types of CLIL. On the one side, Coyle, Hood and

Marsh (2010) define CLIL as an “umbrella term”, which means that this approach could

be used in any situation where the integration of content and language takes place. Then

it has a double focus, language and content.

On the other side, authors like Ball, Clegg and Kelly (2015), mention that CLIL

is a methodology where non-linguistic subjects emerge to a language that is not native

among the students. Therefore, the aim of CLIL is not dual-focused because languages

and subjects cannot be treated equally. Hence according to these two lines of thought, we

can find:

1. Hard CLIL (content-focused)

2. Soft CLIL (language-focused)

12

Hard CLIL is a type of CLIL where the focus in content takes precedence and

simply includes a foreign language to teach the content. Lectures are taught by a content

teacher who might but is not usually a native speaker of the target language. The goals

that pursuit this method are subject-driven, meaning that the subject curriculum dictates

the language objectives.

However, Soft CLIL is an opposite approach where language teachers offer some

content in a foreign language in the lectures to the students. For instance, an English or

French teacher in Spain. It is important to emphasize that this kind of approach also must

be subject-driven (Luis Banegas, 2018). E.g., an English teacher in Spain teaches

vocabulary about the landscape in English (which is part of the geography subject).

2.4 CLIL in Europe

The European Union defends CLIL as one of the best methodologies to learn

languages and content since some of its ambitious goals are making students proficient

in two EU languages (Busse, 2011 cited in Ruiz de Zarobe, 2011).

CLIL is well-known worldwide for its benefits. According to Eurydice (2006),

CLIL aims to prepare students for future life and jobs in a globalized market, providing

pupils values of respect and tolerance to other cultures and languages and enabling them

to develop language skills (effective communication) and use them in real practical

purposes. Meaning learn language to apply it now rather than later. Furthermore, it is

effective in acquiring subject-related knowledge in an innovative stimulant way

(Eurydice, 2006). The European Commission (2006), has created several acronyms to

distinguish CLIL approach across other languages such as French or Spanish:

1. EMILE (Enseignement d’une matière intégrée à une langue étrangère).

2. AICLE (Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lenguas Extranjeras)

Since its benefits have been highly reported, through the 21st century, the European

Union has been conducting various didactic CLIL experiences, courses and programs

across Europe. Some of these well-known programs are: Lifelong Learning Programme

and Erasmus + Programme. A range of these highlighted experiences are:

13

• C4C (2016)

CLIL for Children is an ambitious report made by the Erasmus + Programme about

the implementation of CLIL methodology in primary schools in Italy, Portugal, Romania

and Poland. In certain parts, Spanish teachers near Portugal were participants too. The

study is divided into four parts. The first one, deeply analyzes the FL context in those

countries, the national policies for bilingual education and the implementation of CLIL

in these territories. In the second part, the study describes the results obtained in a survey

carried out by participants (teachers of all subjects and high posts in schools and educative

institutions). In the third part, the study makes a review of the CLIL theoretical part such

as the 4C’s and some useful pieces of advice to teach through CLIL. Finally, we find the

summaries and the conclusions, which throw some important but scary results.

According to CLIL 4 Children (2016, p. 144), “the CLIL approach is scarcely used in

primary schools in partner countries and it is not compulsory”. “The CLIL teacher’s

profile is vaguely defined” (CLIL 4 Children, 2016, p. 145). Hence, we conclude that

these investigations are very important and they throw some light on how the European

educational scene is dealing with this and how it can be improved.

• Playing CLIL (2014)

Playing CLIL is a European project created by Zukunftsbau which is a center for

youth vocational assistance and trained company (Zukunftsbau, 2021). This organization

collaborates with four more entities in the countries of Germany, the UK, Spain and

Romania. The project last two years and its intention is to combine gamification with

CLIL theories to conform to a new CLIL approach (Playing CLIL, 2014). Some of the

aims that this project wants to reach are (Playing CLIL, 2014):

A) Strengthen linguistic and professional learning.

B) Develop social and communicative skills.

C) Adress more target groups than the participants of this study.

• CLIL4U (2016)

This is a report part of the Lifelong Learning Programme made by D. Marsch and M.J

Frijoles Martín an article publisher and associated professor at UV (Universidad de

Valencia). The study aims to evaluate and monitor the project CLIL Implementations

14

with Pools of resources for Teachers, Students and Pupils (CLIL4U). This program has

offered group understanding of the CLIL theories, it has provided feedback on several

processes of the CLIL method and also has given resources and information (translated

into 6 European languages) among others (Marsch & Frigols, 2016).

The results that this project of around 30-month duration has brought are the

following: “the drive and motivation within the partnership have been substantial (...)

successfully fulfilling the personal aspirations of the project partner experts which has

been very strong as evident throughout the final questionnaire results” (Marsch & Frigols,

2016, p. 35).

2.5 CLIL in Norway

Norway and Scandinavian countries, as well as the rest of northern Europe, had been

vastly employing CLIL programs (Perez-Cañado, 2012). Considering that the inventor of

CLIL, David Marsch, has been instructing in a Finish university and perhaps is the most

renowned figure (Perez-Cañado, 2012), not surprisingly northern Europe has been

investigating and implementing this approach that much.

The first CLIL initiative sponsored by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and

Research was in 1993 (Svendhard et al., 2007). The majority of CLIL classes today in

Norway are from upper secondary or tertiary level (Svenhard et al., 2007). Even though

some primary and lower secondary classes have chosen languages like French or German

instead of English (Svenhard et al. 2007).

Several studies have proven CLIL efficacy. A study conducted by Hellekjaer (2004)

reflects that when it comes to reading proficiency, there is and actual vocabulary

acquisition. Other studies are the ones made in 9th grade by Gjendemsjø (2013, p. 2) that

shown that “CLIL also has a potential with young Norwegian EFL learners”.

Another recent and remarkable study is the one made by Rose et al. (2021) which

analyzes the filmed results in a 9th grade classroom of science and mathematics.

According to Rose et al. (2021, p. 47). “The CLIL teaching was content-driven, with rich

explanations, and intellectually challenging”.

Despite that CLIL has been around for quite some time and it has created a big impact

in the community, CLIL in Norway has been the least represented among the European

15

contexts (Lialikhova, 2021) that is why perhaps it is needed a deep investigation in the

context of primary education.

2.6 CLIL in Spain

As well as in Norway and other European countries, Spain has also been

implementing this approach maybe because it is a country with a strong interest in this

kind of methodology due to its prevailing multilingualism. (Busse, 2011). In fact, in the

process of reading previous studies and developing this paper, it was difficult not to see

the name of Spain as a frequent contributor.

Spain is a state with an official language, Spanish or Castilian, and four co-official

languages: Galician, Basque or Euskera, Catalonian and Aranese, spoken in a small valley

in the Pyreneess (Cassany, 2005). On account of this or either the teaching of English as

a FL, CLIL is a key approach and highly suits Spain for two main reasons:

▪ “CLIL provides exposure to the language without requiring extra time in the

curriculum” (Action Plan for Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity

(2003, p. 8). Therefore, it saves valuable time for both students and teachers.

▪ In CLIL lessons, the learner is not expected to dominate the target language

completely (Graddol, 2006). Then it is easy to gradually develop a language

proficiency and acquire a better level.

To continue, we will revise some of the most important CLIL studies carried out in

some of the regions of the Spanish territory:

• Andalusia:

In a study by Francisco Lorenzo professor at Universidad Pablo Olavide (Sevilla),

gathered in (Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010), the author treats the EU language

policy of 2002 in this Spanish region, also the resulting swift transition from

monolingualism to bilingualism and finally the landslide effect from L2 to L1 education

policies that CLIL has brought.

• Basque County:

In this same book (CLIL in Spain), we find a study by Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster

(2010) about a research teaching experience in Basque County. This experience has used

16

three samples of various local schools where the first sample did not use a CLIL approach

(A), the second used a CLIL approach including Spanish and Euskera as target languages

(B), while the third employed CLIL with Spanish, Euskera and a minimal presence of

English in the teaching process (C). The results have shown that the third group (C) which

is the one with more target languages, showed astonishing results in variables such as

pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency or content as well as organization and

learning (Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010).

• Catalonia

In this exhaustive study carried by T. Navés and M. Victori (gathered in Ruiz de

Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010) in the region of Catalonia, first the authors review the

history and background of Catalonian immersion programs, after that, they treat the

implementation of CLIL programs using Catalonian as a target language in primary and

secondary school. Finally, they analyze various target groups from 5th to 12th grade. The

authors conclude that the actual programs applied in Catalonia may offer the necessary

conditions (Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010). However, they recommend making

CLIL a long-term program (Navés, 2009 cited in Ruiz de Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010).

To conclude, despite that CLIL in Spain has been widely implemented, perhaps it is

needed a national policy since “not all the Autonomous Regions have fully implemented

these programs as part of mainstream education, the great majority have done so through

pilot and/or experimental programs (Martin, 2008).

3. OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS

As stated, the main goal of this study is to compare any differences between CLIL

lessons in both Spain and Norway. Although, the annotations made there only correspond

to a lapse of time of one week, this study simply pretends to show a small sample and

inspect how the CLIL approach is being carried out in two concrete contexts. Hence these

results would not be comparable to the rest of educative institutions in Norway or Spain.

The specific objectives settled for this project are:

1. Identify which country is following a correct CLIL teaching procedure.

2. Analyze how the lessons are imparted to learners in each country.

17

The information extracted from these two goals, will lead us to conclude thus,

where the methodology is being more effective for learning.

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 Explanation

Once reviewed the main objectives above, the focus in this bullet point will be to

explain the methodology followed which will take its basis from a scientific method

called Direct Observation (DO). According to Jersild and Meigs, “several factors have

given impetus to its use, including the establishment of centers for research in child

development” (1939, p.472).

Considering my own observations made during the period as an Erasmus student

and following the DO method, the observations made in Charlottenlund Barneskole in

the city of Trondheim (Norway), within the first week of March 2020, these observations

will be compared to the ones made in CEIP Reyes Católicos in San Vicente del Raspeig

(Alicante, Spain).

These observations have been gathered in one chart (ANNEX II, Chart 0). This

chart contains three columns in which appears: first, the list of six CLIL core features

(Mehisto et al., 2008) plus two more items considered essentials in the CLIL approach

(student’s participation and continued use of L2), second, a list of items derived from

each core feature and lastly the observations taken in the class of those items ordered in

a scale 1-4 being 1: not observed at all and 4: always observed. The same charts will be

used to compare a CLIL lesson in Norway and Spain and commented further on in the

section.

4.2 Context and general outlook: Norway vs. Spain

To fully understand the following comparison between these two countries and

their education, it is required an introduction of what their educative systems look like

plus some observations and comments about it.

Norwegians take its education very seriously and complement it both with values

and a naturalist path in every task that they do (Norwegian Directorate for Education and

Training). In fact, “Norway has the highest proportion of locally funded educational

18

expenditure of all OECD countries” (OECD, 2016, p.1) and it is a country that invests

around 2% of its GDP and a significant amount of resources into early childhood (OECD,

2016).

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the government has only changed its

educational curriculum once. The last update occurred in August 2020, which substitutes

the previous document from 1994 (Eurydice, 2021).

Primary education comprehends grades 1-7, which corresponds to the ages of 6 to

13 years old (one more year than the Spanish education system), and the school calendar

starts by the end of August, finishing by the beginning of June. According to the

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2020), nowadays the average of

English subject hours per year is 138h from grades 1-4 and 228h from grades 5-7 (ANNEX

I, Figure 1).

Regarding CLIL use in Norwegian classrooms, the curriculum establishes that at

least 30% of the content subjects must be taught through an L2 (Brevick and Moe, 2012).

CLIL uses different methodologies and approaches to combine various subjects and

pieces of knowledge to create projects or bigger educative purposes alongside a useful

approach for life (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2003-2004).

The first initiative to use this approach was encouraged by the government in

1993 (Svenhard et al., 2007). Although “implementing CLIL is the responsibility of the

individual county, school, or teacher”, (Rose et al., 2021, p. 7), many schools are

including this didactic approach in their institutions.

In contrast to this, the Spanish education curriculum has been changed four times

since the beginning of this century. The latest law is LOMCE (2013) which soon will be

replaced by LOMLOE approved on December 29th, 2020 and applied for the next course

2021/2022.

Spanish school calendar starts in September and finishes by mid-June. Although

both Norwegian and Spanish calendars have a similar time configuration, Spaniards have

more days of national and Christian holidays such as Christmas, Easter, saint celebrations,

regional festivities and so. Therefore, Spanish schedules lack more teaching hours as we

will discover soon.

19

According to DECRETO 108/2014 (2014), 4th of July which establishes the

curriculum of Primary Education in Comunidad Valenciana, all students from first to

sixth grade attend 3 sessions of 45 minutes per week (ANNEX I, Figure 2). By doing some

simple calculations we find that if school calendar has 9 months (10 months minus 1

month of holidays: Easter, Christmas…) and every month has 4 weeks with 3 English

sessions per week, this equals to 108 hours of English teaching. Which means that

Spanish students lose around 30 hours of language acquisition in the lower grades

compared to the Norwegian students.

As seen, the quantity of English taught in Norway is superior to Spain, although

several factors (holiday periods, the inclusion of other languages, school calendar...) can

vary the data numbers in both countries. In spite of that, this research only wants to offer

a general outlook of the features in both countries and since the purpose of this

investigation is not how or why Norway teaches more English than Spain, this matter will

be ended here.

In Spain, subjects are very strictly marked, meaning that some content rarely

engages with content of other subjects. Despite this, more and more schools are updating

their methods and including projects multi-dimension and new approaches in standard

education such as CLIL (Breeze et al., 2014). Nevertheless, the subject of PE, Science

and Arts and Crafts in the Spanish curriculum have been modified to be taught in English

through methods like CLIL.

Besides, the different communities, administrations and schools decide if they

teach English through these subjects or not so we cannot count on them for our research.

“In the last decade, CLIL has undergone a rapid development in the Spanish scenario.

This is the result of a commitment with European policies aimed at fostering

multilingualism and a growing awareness of the need to learn foreign languages” (de

Zarobe & Lasagabaster, 2010, p. 9).

To conclude, those observed discrepancies may determine the results of why CLIL

and English language teaching differ between these countries.

20

5. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS

To give an answer to our two principal goals, in this bullet point it will be analyzed

the results of the investigation based on the observations following the DO (Direct

Observation) method. Next, the investigation will be itemized gradually.

5.1 Results in Norway (ANNEX II, Chart 1)

CLIL CORE

FEATURE

ITEM

OBSERVATIONS IN THE LESSON

1: Not

observed

at all

2: Often

observed

3: Usually

observed

4:

Always

observed

MULTIPLE FOCUS

The lesson is

focused on both

content and

language

simultaneously.

✓

Multiple focus is definitely one of the main characteristics that make CLIL

approach as it is. Lessons in Norway were always both language-focused and content-

focused since the introduction of the lesson were explained some linguistic vocabulary

(useful for further interventions) and then the content was explained. For instance, the use

of the article (definite, indefinite and zero articles) in a history lesson.

AUTHENTICITY OF

LANGUAGE

MATERIALS AND

PRACTICE

Use of “everyday language” in

L2.

✓

Realia reflects veracity and can

be applied to real life

situations.

✓

The usual application of activities to a very real context was one of the impressive

things observed in Norway. As an example, the resolution of difficult riddles (written in

21

English) that could be perfectly applicable to real life in the context of logical

development and problem resolution in the subject of Math. Regarding the use of not

native language, expectations of using daily expressions in L2 were accomplished.

SCAFFOLDING Teacher offers support to

students

✓

The knowledge that the students received was “chopped” and sequenced so

students could learn by little and accomplish reaching to ZPD (Zone of Proximal

Development) with the help of the educator most of the time.

COOPERATION Students work in groups ✓

Students mostly did tasks in groups of 4 or 6. Cooperation values and teamwork

were a big part of the taught values.

SAVE AND

ENRICHING

ENVIRONMENT

SAVE AND

ENRICHING

ENVIRONMENT

There is an atmosphere of

comprehension and respect

towards all classmates.

✓

Students can express themselves

freely

✓

Safety and tolerance are two things well-appreciated in Norway. Schools,

therefore let kids create and learn most of the time doing whatever they want. Tutors help

and advise their students to embrace the creation of a warm space to develop their minds.

As a matter of fact, almost all class walls were covered with maps, data, new vocabulary

words and so.

ACTIVE LEARNING Students build their own

knowledge by doing

activities.

✓

22

The structures of the lessons always had at least 20-30 minutes of practice

combinig some time periods with explanations and activities. The classic principle of

learning by doing was accomplished.

CONSTANT USE OF L2 Teacher uses L2 to

communicate the content

and to the students.

✓

Even though students cannot always explain their thought in L2, the teacher must

enhance linguistic competence of pupils and try to speak all the time in the second

language (English in this case). In Norway, all teacher interventions were in L2 from

simple everyday language such as “close the door” to more complex content explanations.

STUDENT’S

PARTICIPATION

In the classroom there is a

general participation.

✓

In the lessons observed there was often acceptable participation. All kids tried to

speak L2.

With all of this being said, we can come to the conclusion that in the CLIL lesson

in Norway 9 of the 10 items were always observed (4) while only one item was seen

frequently (3) which corresponds to the CLIL core feature: Authenticity of language

materials and practice, more specifically “Realia reflects veracity and can be applied to

real life situations”.

23

5.2 Results in Spain (ANNEX II, Chart 2)

CLIL CORE

FEATURE

ITEM

OBSERVATIONS IN THE LESSON

1: Not

observed

at all

2: Often

observed

3:

Usually

observed

4:

Always

observed

MULTIPLE

FOCUS

The lesson is

focused on both

content and

language

simultaneously.

✓

Although the focus in this subject was the language, the content from vocabulary

could correspond to some other subjects if we consider a soft CLIL approach. During a

huge part of the time at that school, students were practicing description of objects, used

subsequently to present a poster about an invent and their creator. This knowledge could

correspond to the subject of History since most of the kids talk about electrical devices

and their historical evolution.

AUTHENTICITY OF

LANGUAGE MATERIALS

AND PRACTICE

Use of “everyday

language” in L2.

✓

Realia reflects veracity

and can be applied to real

life situations.

✓

Students at class knew that all the inquiries or sentences that they could

formulate in English must be spoken in that language e.g. “Can I go to the toilet?”,

“What page is it?”. This everyday practice allows them to start creating a valuable

treasure of real language to later apply it in real contexts (trips, internships, helping

foreigners in the street…). Regarding the authenticity of practices, perhaps this should

be more authentic and applicable to real contexts because all exercises commonly were

classic drilling grammar activities.

24

SCAFFOLDING Teacher offers support to

students

✓

Scaffolding of course was one of the measures done at every session. Being two

teachers in class, this support towards all students could be bigger. Students struggle

with language mainly because those who are learning a foreign language need enormous

support. Norwegian and English come from 2 Germanic roots, against that, Spanish and

English have very different structures since one comes from Latin and the other from

Germanic languages as said.

COOPERATION Students work in groups ✓

Cooperation in normal conditions should be effective among the educative

community. Unfortunately, this year due to the spread of the pandemic COVID-19, the

educative authorities have decided to set the structure of the classrooms individually, so

teamwork had been certainly cut off. Despite that, telecommunication or other types of

classroom activities through electronic devices had been a quick fix to that.

SAVE AND ENRICHING

ENVIRONMENT

SAVE AND ENRICHING

ENVIRONMENT

There is an atmosphere of

comprehension and respect

towards all classmates.

✓

Students can express

themselves freely

✓

6th grade class was a safe place to speak freely and tolerate other’s opinions,

even though not certainly as free as was in Norway. Frequently the same students were

the ones engaging with the lesson because those were the ones who felt completely

comfortable speaking the L2. An increasing number of work and free speaking activities

with students, ought to be applied to solve this situation of discomfort at school class.

25

ACTIVE LEARNING Students build their own

knowledge by doing

activities.

✓

As well as in Norway, all sessions had at least half of the sessions to practice,

combing periods of explanations and then individual or group activities.

CONSTANT USE OF L2 Teacher uses L2 to

communicate the content

and to the students.

✓

Despite the fact that the teacher made great efforts to explain everything in

English, the lessons were not taught in this language at all. Often some specifications

were in L1. Get students used to speak only in L2 will take some more time.

STUDENT’S

PARTICIPATION

In the classroom there is a

general participation.

✓

As it is commented above, there was participation among students but not from

all the members of the group. Others always took part in the discussions speaking the

L1, which certainly does not help much their Communicative Competence in L2.

With all this being said, it could be concluded that the lesson in Spain (from a

CLIL perspective) was not as richest as it was in Norway. We observe that only 4 out of

10 items were answerered with 4: Always observed corresponding to the items: Use of

“everyday language” in L2, the support offered from the teachers to students, a good

atmosphere of respect, comprehension towards all classmates and active learning.

Furthermore, we find two items observed frequently (3) corresponding to the

items of multiple focus and general student participation. To continue, we find three

items observed sometimes (2) corresponding to the veracity of materials and practices

and the freedom of expression on the part of the students. Finally, we find only one item

ticked as never observed (1) which is teamwork cooperation.

26

6 CONCLUSIONS

In today’s educative scene, a term such as CLIL (Content and Language Integrated

Learning) is growing significantly. Since its introduction by the beginning of the 21st

century, this approach has demonstrated enormous effectivity in teaching simultaneously

content and a target language such as English.

Summarizing this study, we can comment that the majority of CLIL core features

(Mehisto et al., 2008) in the 6th grade Norwegian classroom were widely observed, while

in the Spanish 6th grade, the lack of items such as meaningful realia and the ability of

freedom speaking by the students, were not optimally accomplished. In addition, the

dichotomy of Hard vs. Soft CLIL was also observed.

For the Norwegian part, long-term experiences and English as a target language

in several subjects such as history, math, or science were highly evident. Thus, Norwegian

educators were applying Hard CLIL approach. In contrast, the Spanish educators were

more focused on the target language but not forgetting to center the lessons in a content-

driven way (Luis Benegas, 2018). Hence, they were applying a Soft CLIL approach.

Regarding the two main objectives: first, identify which country is following a

correct CLIL teaching procedure and second, analyze how the lessons are imparted, it

might be said that both Spanish and Norwegian lessons were well performed. All of the

objectives were accomplished in a significant or more minor way. The Norwegian

classroom had better accomplishment of the CLIL objectives. Although if the students

learned more than the Spanish six-graders cannot be proved. Therefore, this study is not

conclusive enough.

With all that being said, CLIL in Spain and Norway have followed a great path

thanks to researchers and teachers interested in implementing this marvelous approach.

However, it may be suggested for future generations of teachers and educators to develop

a clear training method to cover all kinds of approaches and perspectives that CLIL offers.

27

7. LIMITATIONS, DIFFICULTIES AND/OR PROPOSSALS

Although this study has been developed with the best purposes, some

complications may occur. First of all, the global pandemic that we are testifying difficult

the possibilities of putting research studies into practice. Also, the imposed periods of

lockdown and quarantine make a real challenge to writing this document because being

all day at home severely affects motivation.

On the other hand, the idea of developing this paper came months after my trip to

Norway, then the information of these experiences treated in bullet point 5: analysis of

the results might not be as accurate as if the information were gathered at the moment of

my stay there.Regarding some proposals for further studies, a deep investigation and

comparative between CLIL implementations in these two countries (Norway and Spain)

may be interesting and conclusive to solve this subject.

Finally, some matters could not be treated through this paper, such as why Norway

uses more, in this case, a Hard CLIL approach and Spain on the contrary, employs a Soft

CLIL approach? Does this have to be with the reduced English schedule that the Spanish

curriculum in the Comunidad Valenciana has compared to the Norwegian curriculum?

To sum up, these comparatives perspectives between European countries may

keep going on so we can learn from failure and success and continue implementing this

approach.

28

8. REFERENCES

Action Plan for Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity. (2003).

http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0449:FIN:EN:PDF

Alonso Losada, A. (2020). Theory of Multiple Intelligences and CLIL.

http://tauja.ujaen.es/handle/10953.1/13095

Ball, P., Kelly, K., and Clegg J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University

Press. 320pp. ISBN 978 0 19 442105 8.

Breeze, R., Llamas Saíz, C., Martínez Pasamar, C. y Tabernero Sala, C. (Eds.) 2014.

Integration of Theory and Practice in CLIL. Ámsterdam: Rodopi. B.V., pp. 197. Peter

Lang AG.

Bloom, B. S. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The

classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners.

Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York City, NY: Longman.

Brevick, L. & Moe, E. (2012). Effects of CLIL Teaching on Language Outcomes. pp.

(213-227)

British Council. BBC. (s.f). Teaching English: Communicative competence.

https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/communicative-competence

Busse, Vera. (2011). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. System. 39. 123-

125. 10.1016/j.system.2011.01.001.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251576256_CLIL_Content_and_Language_In

tegrated_Learning

Cassany, D. (2005). Plain language in Spain. Clarity: Journal of the international

association promoting plain legal language. 2005;(53): 41–4.

Consellería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte (July 4th, 2014). DECRETO 108/2014, de 4

de julio, del Consell, por el que establece el currículo y desarrolla la ordenación general

de la educación primaria en la Comunitat Valenciana. [2014/6347].

https://dogv.gva.es/datos/2014/07/07/pdf/2014_6347.pdf

29

Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a Theory of Practice. APAC Monograph

6. APAC: Barcelona

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning.

Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first-and second-language proficiency in

bilingual children. Language processing in bilingual children, 70-89.

CLIL 4 Children. (2016). State of the art report about the use of CLIL methodology in

Primary Schools. http://www.clil4children.eu/wp-

content/uploads/2016/07/C4C_State_of-the-Art_Report_v01.pdf

Eurydice. European Commission (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning

(CLIL) at school in Europe. European Commision for Education and Culture. ISBN 92-

79-00580-4.

Eurydice. European Commission. National Reforms in School Education (April

14th,2021).https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/nationalpolicies/eurydice/content/national-

reforms-school-education-48_en

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ higher

education brief, 2(4), 1-5.

Gardner, H. (2001). La inteligencia reformulada: las inteligencias múltiples en el siglo

XXI (No. 159.955 G171i Ej. 1 020338). Paidos.

Gjendemsjø, M. O. (2013). A case study of a Content and Language Integrated Learning

(CLIL) project in a 9th grade EFL class in Norway (Master's thesis, University of

Stavanger, Norway). https://uis.brage.unit.no/uis-xmlui/handle/11250/185458

Graddol, D. (2006) English Next. British Council Publications.

Hammond, J., & Gibbons, P. (2005). What is scaffolding. Teachers’ voices, 8, 8-16.

Hellekjaer, G. (2004). Unprepared for English-medium instruction: A critical look at

beginner students. In Integrating content and language. Meeting the challenge of a

multilingual higher education, Edited by: Wilkinson, R. 147–71. Maastricht: Maastricht

University.

30

Hillyard, S. (2011). First steps in CLIL: Training the teachers. Latin American Journal of

Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 1-12.

Jersild, A. T., & Meigs, M. F. (1939). Chapter V: Direct observation as a research

method. Review of Educational Research, 9(5), 472-482.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.

University of Southern California.

Lantolf, J. P., & Beckett, T. G. (2009). Sociocultural theory and second language

acquisition. Language teaching, 42(4), 459.

Lialikhova, D. (2021) The impact of a short-term CLIL intervention project on

Norwegian different ability ninth graders’ oral development. International Journal of

Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24:5, 671-692, DOI:

10.1080/13670050.2018.1509055

Luis Banegas, D. (2018). Putting CLIL into practice. International Journal of Bilingual

Education and Bilingualism, 21:2, 265-268, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2016.1146425.

Marsh, D. (2002): CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and

Foresight Potential. Bruxelles: The European Union.

Marsch, D., Frigols, M. J. (2016). CLIL Implementation with Pools of Resources for

Teachers, Students, and Pupils (CLIL4U).

https://languages.dk/archive/clil4u/evaluation/Frigols-Marsh_FINAL_REPORT.pdf

Martín, M. J. F. (2008). CLIL implementation in Spain: An approach to different models.

In Coonan, CM (ed.), CLIL e l'apprendimento delle lingue. Le sfide del nuovo ambiente

di apprendimento, Venezia, settembre 2008. Venezia: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina,

2008, pp. 221-232. Venezia, Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.

Mehisto, P. Marsh, D. and Frigols, M. 2008. Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language

Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan

Education.

Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality CLIL: successful planning and teaching

strategies. PULSO. Revista de Educación, (33), 11-29.

31

Ministerio de Educación (December 30th, 2020). Una educación para el siglo XXI.

https://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/destacados/lomloe.html

Navés, T. (2009). Effective content and language integrated learning (CLIL)

programmes. Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in

Europe, 22-40.

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (May 30th, 2020). Subject and hour

distribution and offer structure for the Knowledge Promotion Udir-1-2020.

https://www.udir.no/regelverkstolkninger/opplaring/Innhold-i-opplaringen/udir-1-

2020/vedlegg-1/2.-grunnskolen/#2.1bestemmelser-alle-i-grunnskolen

Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (s.f). Values and principles for basic

education. https://www.udir.no/lk20/overordnet-del/opplaringens-verdigrunnlag/1.5-

respekt-for-naturen-og-miljobevissthet/

OECD (2016), "Norway", in Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators, OECD

Publishing, Paris. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-

2016/norway_eag-2016-73-en#page1

Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012) CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future,

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15:3, 315-341, DOI:

10.1080/13670050.2011.630064

Playing CLIL (2014). http://www.playingclil.eu/

Rose Mahan, K., Brevik L. M., Ødegaard M. (2021). Characterizing CLIL teaching: new

insights from a lower secondary classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education

and Bilingualism, 24:3, 401-418, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2018.1472206

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Lasagabaster, D. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation,

results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J. M., Gallardo del Puerto, F. (2011). Content and Foreign

Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts.

(Eds.). Peter Lang, Bern (2011). 343 pp.

Scott, D. & Beadle, S. (2014). Improving the effectiveness of language learning: CLIL

and computer assisted language learning. European Comission. J60173.

32

https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/working-group-

report-clil-language-learning_en.pdf

Shanker, S. G., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). The house that Bruner built. Jerome Bruner:

Language, culture, self, 50-70.

Svenhard, B., Wenche. K. S., Glenn, O. H. And Henrick B. (2007). “Norway” in

Windows on CLIL.139-146. The Hague: European Platform for Dutch Education.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological

Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S., Kozulin, A., & Abadía, P. T. (1995). Pensamiento y lenguaje (pp. 97-

115). Barcelona: Paidós.

Zukunftsbau GmbH. (May 28th, 2021). Über uns - Der Träger. Zukunftsbau.de

Zukunftsbau . https://www.zukunftsbau.de/ueber-uns/der-traeger

33

9. ANNEX I

Figure 1

Source: Norwegian Directorate of Education and Training.

Figure 2

Source: Consellería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.

34

ANNEX II, Chart 0: MODEL FOR OBSERVATIONS

CLIL CORE FEATURE

ITEM

OBSERVATIONS IN THE LESSON

1: Not

observed

at all

2: Often

observed

3:

Usually

observed

4:

Always

observed

MULTIPLE FOCUS The lesson is focused on both content and

language simultaneously.

AUTHENTICITY OF LANGUAGE

MATERIALS AND PRACTICE

Use of “everyday language” in L2.

Realia reflects veracity and can be applied to

real life situations.

SCAFFOLDING Teacher offers support to students

COOPERATION Students work in groups

SAVE AND ENRICHING

ENVIRONMENT

There is an atmosphere of comprehension

and respect towards all classmates.

Students can express themselves freely

35

CLIL CORE FEATURE

ITEM

OBSERVED IN THE LESSON

1: Not

observed

at all

2: Often

observed

3:

Usually

observed

4:

Always

observed

ACTIVE LEARNING Students build their own knowledge by doing

activities.

CONSTANT USE OF L2 Teacher uses L2 to communicate the content

and to the students.

STUDENT’S PARTICIPATION In the classroom there is a general

participation.

36

ANNEX II, Chart 1: OBSERVATIONS IN NORWAY

CLIL CORE FEATURE

ITEM

OBSERVATIONS IN THE LESSON

1: Not

observed

at all

2: Often

observed

3:

Usually

observed

4:

Always

observed

MULTIPLE FOCUS The lesson is focused on both content and

language simultaneously.

✓

AUTHENTICITY OF LANGUAGE

MATERIALS AND PRACTICE

Use of “everyday language” in L2. ✓

Realia reflects veracity and can be applied to

real life situations.

✓

SCAFFOLDING Teacher offers support to students ✓

COOPERATION Students work in groups ✓

SAVE AND ENRICHING

ENVIRONMENT

There is an atmosphere of comprehension

and respect towards all classmates.

✓

Students can express themselves freely ✓

37

CLIL CORE FEATURE

ITEM

OBSERVED IN THE LESSON

1: Not

observed

at all

2: Often

observed

3:

Usually

observed

4:

Always

observed

ACTIVE LEARNING Students build their own knowledge by doing

activities.

✓

CONSTANT USE OF L2 Teacher uses L2 to communicate the content

and to the students.

✓

STUDENT’S PARTICIPATION In the classroom there is a general

participation.

✓

38

ANNEX II, Chart 2: OBSERVATIONS IN SPAIN

CLIL CORE FEATURE

ITEM

OBSERVATIONS IN THE LESSON

1: Not

observed

at all

2: Often

observed

3:

Usually

observed

4:

Always

observed

MULTIPLE FOCUS The lesson is focused on both content and

language simultaneously.

✓

AUTHENTICITY OF LANGUAGE

MATERIALS AND PRACTICE

Use of “everyday language” in L2. ✓

Realia reflects veracity and can be applied to

real life situations.

✓

SCAFFOLDING Teacher offers support to students ✓

COOPERATION Students work in groups ✓

SAVE AND ENRICHING

ENVIRONMENT

There is an atmosphere of comprehension

and respect towards all classmates.

✓

Students can express themselves freely ✓

39

CLIL CORE FEATURE

ITEM

OBSERVED IN THE LESSON

1: Not

observed

at all

2: Often

observed

3:

Usually

observed

4:

Always

observed

ACTIVE LEARNING Students build their own knowledge by doing

activities.

✓

CONSTANT USE OF L2 Teacher uses L2 to communicate the content

and to the students.

✓

STUDENT’S PARTICIPATION In the classroom there is a general

participation.

✓