s-team report: teaching science in multilingual/multinational contexts

8/8/2019 S-TEAM Report: Teaching science in Multilingual/Multinational Contexts

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/s-team-report-teaching-science-in-multilingualmultinational-contexts 1/34

1



2

TeachingScienceinMultilingual/multinationalContexts

NijoleCiuciulkiene

KaunasUniversityofTechnology

InternationalStudiesCentre



3

Contactdetails:

ProjectCoordinator:ProfessorPetervanMarion

[email protected]

Deputycoordinator:ProfessorDorisJorde

[email protected]

ProjectManager:DrPeterGray

[email protected]

ProjectAdministrator:HildeRoysland

[email protected]

S-TEAMwebsite:www.ntnu.no/s-team

Postaladdress:

S-TEAM

ProgramforTeacherEducation

NTNU

DragvollGård

N-7491Trondheim

Norway

PublishedbyNTNU(Norgesteknisk-naturvitenskapeligeuniversitet ),Trondheim,Norway

S-TEAM2010

TheS‐

TeamprojecthasreceivedfundingfromtheEuropeanCommunity'sSeventhFramework

Programme[FP7/2007 ‐2013]undergrantagreementn°234870Publishedunderanopen-accessagreementwiththeEuropeanCommission

Citation:

S-TEAM(Science-TeacherEducationAdvancedMethods)(2010)TeachingScienceinMultilingual/MultinationalContexts,Trondheim,S-TEAM/NTNU,availableat:http://www.ntnu.no



4

FromtheS-TEAMTechnicalAnnex:

WP5e(KTU)willproduceareportandteachingpackageregardingtheproblemsofimplementinginquiry-based

methodsusingadditionallanguages.Thisisa[common]situation,whicharisesinseveralEUcountrieswhere

minoritylanguagesareanissueorwhereEnglishisextensivelyusedasamediumofinstruction(product5.6).

Preface

Thisdocumentprovidesatheoreticalandempiricalbasisforateacherprofessionaldevelopment

programmeforInquiry-basedscienceteaching(IBST)inmulti-lingualcontexts,whichwillformpartof

deliverable5binMonth24(April2011).ItsimportanceinthecontextofS-TEAMliesinitsexpositionof

thelinksbetweenlanguage,argumentationandproblem-basedlearning,allofwhichplayapartin

effectiveIBST.Italsopointstothepossibilitiesofinter-disciplinarycollaborationinschools,where

scienceandlanguageshavetraditionallybeenseenasseparatedisciplines.ItconnectsS-TEAMtoalarge

communityofteachersandresearchersworkinginContent&LanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL).Finally,

itprovidesamuch-neededlinkbetweenschool-basedresearchinIBSTanddevelopmentsinhigher

education,whichiscrucialincreatingcoherentcareerpathsforscienceandotherSTEMstudents.

October2010



5

TableofContents

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................6Englishasacademiclinguafrancaofthe21stcentury. .........................................................................8

AnalysisofLithuaniangymnasiumandsecondaryschoolpupils‘andfirstyearengineeringstudents’

attitudestowardsEnglishasalinguafrancaduringtheirstudies..........................................................9 TheoreticalbackgroundofCLIL............................................................................................................15 TheEducationalpotentialofcombiningProblemBasedLearning(PBL)withContentandLanguage

IntegratedLearning(CLIL) ....................................................................................................................18 Theoreticalpremisesforthedevelopmentofthe“ContentandLanguageIntegratedProblemBased

Learning(CLIPBL)”model:providingknowledgeinscienceandproficientspokencommunicationin

Englishinmultilingualcontexts............................................................................................................19 PilotresearchintotheCLIPBLmodel ....................................................................................................... 23

Researchdescription,researchdataanalysisandinterpretation........................................................23 Referencesandlinks ................................................................................................................................31



6

Introduction

ContemporaryEuropefacesmanychallenges,butprimarilyithastoprovidefordynamicdevelopmentof

apluralisticsocietythataimstowardsamorecompetitiveanddynamicknowledge-basedeconomywith

moreandbetterjobsandsocialcohesion.TheWorldBank,whenassessingtheleadingcharacteristicsof

Europeancountries,identifiesfourpillarsrelatedtotheknowledgeeconomy-economicincentiveand

institutionalregime,educationandhumanresources,theinnovationsystemandinformationand

communicationtechnology(ICT) 1.Thuseducationsystemsdevelopmentisoneofthefundamentalpillars

ofmodernity.Integratedprojectsareaninstrumenttosupportresearch,studyandtrainingwherethe

primeobjectiveistodelivernewknowledge,relevantforEuropeancompetitivenessorsocietalneeds.

TheBolognaDeclarationmakesEuropeanresearchandtechnologicaldevelopmentpolicy,andeducation

policy,thekeystoincreasingtheinternationalcompetitivenessandopennessoftheEuropeansystemof

education.NationalresearchpoliciesandeducationsystemspromotetheEuropeandimensionin

educationwithregardstoinstitutionalco-operation,mobilityschemesandintegratedprogrammesof

study,trainingandresearch.

Lithuania,asamemberoftheEuropeanUnion,hasopenedthedoorforpupilsandstudentsfromallover

theworld.Moreandmoresecondaryschoolsanduniversities,facingthemainissuesofthe21 stcentury

suchas‘globalization’,‘qualityassurance’,‘competencebasedstudies’,‘newlearning/teachingmodels,’

havetosatisfytheeducationalneedsofpupilsandstudentsfromdifferentcultures.Inordertoprovide

effectiveinstructionduringlessonsandlectures,oneofthecentraleducationalchallengesis

communicationin‘alinguafranca’.

Accordingtodictionaries,a ‘linguafranca’meansalanguagethatiswidelyusedbyspeakersofdifferent

languagestocommunicatewithoneanother.Theetymologyofthephraseisnotcomplicatedand

preservestheprimarymessagethattheoriginallinguafrancawasItalianmixedwithSpanish,French,

Greek,Arabic,andTurkish,spokenontheeasternshoresoftheMediterraneanSeaintheMiddleAges.

ThenamereferstotheArabiccustomofcallingallWesternEuropeans"Franks".

Thereareseveralfactorsthatcanmakeanylanguageintoa“linguafranca”.Themostimportantare

politicalpower,culturalandreligiousinfluencesandfinallytheusabilityofthelanguage(itsstructure,

phonology,ect.).Historicalperspectivesuggestsseveralexamplesdemonstratingthegrowthandthe

declineofthemostinfluentialexamplesofa‘linguafranca’.OneofthemisLatin.

1WorldBankInstitute,http://www.worldbank.org



7

LatinbecameaninternationallanguagethroughouttheRomanEmpirenotbecausetheRomans

weremorenumerousthanthepeoplestheysubjugated.Theyweresimplymorepowerful.WhenRoman

militarypowerdeclined,Latinremainedforamillenniumastheinternationallanguageofeducation,

thankstoadifferentsortofpower-theecclesiasticalpowerofRomanCatholicism.AstheCatholic

religionisoneofthemostinfluentialsocialfactorsinLithuania,theLatinlanguagewasacompulsory

subjectinLithuanianschools.ItisalsopossibletotracetheinfluenceofFrench,Polish,Germanand

Russianlanguages.Thereisasubstantiallistofinstitutionsthattrytochallengethehistoricaldominance

offoreignlanguagesinLithuaniaandinpresent-daycurriculumsubjects,scienceamongstthem,these

languagesincludeEnglish,German,FrenchandRussian.Thepresentdayglobalrealityisclearly,however,

thatEnglishhasbecomeacommondenominatoramongnations,andLithuaniaisnoexception.

Accordingly,theresultsofschoolleavingexamsshowthatthemostpopularforeignlanguagesthatmaybequalifiedas‘linguafranca’inLithuaniaareEnglishandRussian.Thesametendenciesbecomevisible

whenchoosingstudiesatuniversity,withEnglishbeingthedominantlanguageofinstruction.

Sucheducationalcontextshighlightthecomplexityofpresentdaysecondaryschooland

highereducationrelationships.Onethingisclear:secondaryschoolhastoprovidenotonlythebasisfor

corecompetences,butitshouldalsoenablestudentstotransferandcombinetheircompetencies

accordingtotherealitiesoflife.

Theleadingcharacteristicofcontemporarylifeisinternationalcompetitiveness,whichisa

realchallengefortheyoungpeopleofminornations.Internationalcompetitivenessimpliesalevelof

professionalknowledgethatismanifestedincorecompetencies,communicativecompetencebeingthe

leadingone.Theattainmentofthislevelofprofessionalknowledgerequirescomplexteachingand

learningmethodsthatprovideconcurrentdevelopmentofcorecompetenceswhilsthighlightingthe

progressofscienceandcommunicativecompetencies.

WearguethatitispossibletopresentamodelofIntegratedLanguageandContentProblem-based

Learningthathelpstoteachsciencewhiledevelopingcommunicativecompetenceinaforeignlanguage.

Themodelhasthefollowingtheoreticalaspects:

• DefinitionofEnglishasalinguafranca;

• ReasoningonContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL);

• EducationalpossibilityofcombiningProblemBasedLearning(PBL)withContentandLanguage

IntegratedLearning(CLIL).



8

Englishasacademiclinguafrancaofthe21stcentury.

Asstatedabove,‘alinguafranca’meansalanguagethatiswidelyusedbyspeakersofdifferentlanguages

tocommunicatewithoneanother.Thistraditionalconceptunderlinesthecommunicativeimportanceof

a‘linguafranca’.Atthesametimeitarousespopularconcern,implyingthatifaforeignlanguageisused

moreoftenthanthelocallanguage,thelocallanguagemightbethreatened.Hereweshoulddrawa

distinctionbetweenalanguageforidentificationandlanguageforcommunication.Alanguagefor

identificationusuallysupportsculturalandnationalidentity,whichissoimportantforpeoplefromminor

nations.Theglobalcontext,however,urgesustocollaborateinnumeroussocialspheres,includingthe

academicworldofeducation.Forthisreason,itisvitalthatanylanguagewhichenablesthesharingof

knowledgeisunderstandabletoamajorityofthemembersoftheeducationalworldandisaneffective

meansofcommunication.

AsLithuaniahasmadeadecisiontoparticipateintheBolognaprocess,itseducationalsystemhashadto

facethesamechallengesastherestoftheEuropeanUnion.ActiveparticipationintheBolognaprocess

hasledtoincreasedacademicmobilityandanumberofexchangeprogrammesforpupils,studentsand

teachers.Withvisitingteachersandscholars,exchangepupilsandstudents,Lithuaniansecondaryschools,

gymnasiumsanduniversitiesaregraduallybecomingmorediverselinguistically.Therearedefinite

advantagesofusingEnglishforinstructioninsecondaryschoolsandhighereducation:mobility,

employabilityandcompetitiveness/attractiveness,whichareamongtheobjectivesoftheBologna

Declaration.English,however,beingboththelanguageofpublicationandthelanguageofinstruction,

hasgainedamuchmorepowerfulposition.Björkman(2008)identifiestwocentralconcernsinthis

situation:oneconcern,stillpopularamongstmembersofhighereducationadministrations,isthatif

studentsstudyinEnglishratherthanintheirnativelanguage,theymaynotbeabletolearnaseffectively

astheywouldintheirnativelanguage.Thisshortstudydoesnotaimtopresentargumentsdefendingthe

communicativepossibilitiesoftheEnglishlanguage,becausethesecondconcern,regardingthepriority

ofonelanguageoverothers,isfarmoreimportant.Thisprioritydependsondifferentfactorsassociatedwithparticularlanguages.Theintentionofthisstudyistoprovideresearchevidenceaboutthemain

indicatorsofpupilandstudentattitudestowardstheirlanguages.Pupilandstudentopinionsabouttheir

languagesofinstructionmayalsoprovideteacherswithnewinsightsastohowspecificlanguages

influencetheirambitiontolearn.



9

AnalysisofLithuaniangymnasiumandsecondaryschoolpupils‘andfirstyearengineering

students’attitudestowardsEnglishasalinguafrancaduringtheirstudies

ThestudybeginsbyanalysingfirstyearengineeringstudentattitudestowardsEnglishasalinguafranca

duringtheirstudies.ThesecondpartdealswiththeanalysisofLithuaniangymnasiumandsecondary

schoolpupilattitudestowardsthepossibilityofstudyinginEnglish.

AsBjörkman(2008)states,EnglishisthemostprevalentlanguageofinstructioninEuropeanschoolsand

universities.ItisalsoworthmentioningthepopularityofEnglishaslinguafrancaamongEuropean

engineeringprogrammes.AsWächterandMaiwornpointout,thesubjectareainwhichEnglish-taught

programmesaremostfrequentlyofferedacrossEuropeisengineeringat27%(WächterandMaiworn,

2008,p.12).Lithuaniaisnoexception.Forthisreason,groupswithEnglishasaninstructionallanguage

werechosenforthisresearchintofirstyearengineeringstudentattitudestowardsEnglishasalingua

franca.

Theresearchdataareinterpretedusingphenomenography.Ourmotivationforchoosingthe

phenomenographicapproachisitsabilitytorevealcategoriesofexperience.Inthisparticularcase,itcan

highlightthecategoriesofexperienceconnectedwithstudieswherethelanguageforinstructionis

English.AsBaranauskiene(2009)explains,phenomenographydoesnotseektoidentifyindividual

experienceanditsdeliveryascorrectorincorrect.Itseekstorevealthecontentofexperience.Forthis

reason,aphenomenographicalresearchmethodissuitablefortheinvestigationandinterpretationof

differentstudentexperiences.

TheresearchwasperformedfollowingtheresearchdesignpresentedinBaranauskiene(2009).Tenfirst

yearengineeringstudentsfromLithuanianuniversitieswerechosenastheresearchinformants.The

informantswereaskedtocommentupontheirexperienceofhavingbeentaughtthewholeprogramme

ofstudies,includingsciencesubjects,inEnglish.Tobemoreprecise,theywereaskedtocommenton

theirstudyexperiencewhiletryingtoreflectonthequestion “Whatdoyouthinkarethemainreasons

forstudyinginEnglish?” Theircommentswerenotrestrictedintimeorlengthbecausetheinterviews

wereorganizedasroundtablediscussions.Thereflectionsweretape-recordedandlatertranscribedfor

thepurposesofanalysis.Subsequently,theempiricalinvestigationwasbasedonthesemanticanalysisof

theself-reflectionsandonthephenomenographicanalysis,whichisdialecticalinthesensethat

meaningsandcategoriesaredevelopedintheprocessofbringingquotestogether,comparingthemand

arrangingthemintocategories.Thecategorieswerenotdefinedbeforehand;theybecameclearonlyin

theprocessofsemanticanalysisofthetranscribedtextinEnglish,wheresemanticallyrelatedwordsmark

theessenceofthequotationandallowthemtobegroupedincategories.



10

ThequotesofthetenLithuanianuniversityinformantsfromdifferentuniversitiesmaybegroupedinto

twomajorcategories,whichcanbedefinedas“SuccessoftheEnglishlanguage”and“Motivationtostudy

inEnglish”.Table1(overleaf)presentsthemanifestcontentanalysisofthequalitativecategory“Success

oftheEnglishlanguage”;Table2(below)presentsthemanifestcontentanalysisofthequalitative

category“MotivationtostudyinEnglish.”Totalnumberofquotespresentedis271.

Table1:Manifestationofthequalitativecategory“SuccessoftheEnglishlanguage”

Nameofthecategory Nameofthesubcategory Evidence No.of

quotes

“SuccessoftheEnglishlanguage”

1.“ComparativelyeasyacquisitionoftheEnglishlanguage“

“Englishlanguageiscomparativelyeasy.ThinkaboutLithuanian”

13

2.DailyusageofEnglish “OnecanmeetEnglishinone’sdailylife”,

“YoucanhearpeopletalkingEnglishinthestreets”

16

3.EnglishasthemeansofActiveCommunication

“Moreandmoree-mailsarewritteninEnglish”

“WeusemoreEnglishonthephone”.

“WecancommunicatewithourfriendsofstudiesfromdifferentcountriesinEnglishwithoutproblems.Otherwisewewouldnotunderstandeachother.ItwouldtakeagesforthemtolearnLithuanian“

20

4.PopularityofEnglishaslanguageforpublicationamongstudents

“AllliteraturethatisnecessaryformystudiesisinEnglish”

“ThenewestliteratureisinEnglish”

35

5.PopularityofEnglishaslanguageforinstructionamongstudents

“TeacherswhoteachinEnglishusuallyareverygoodintheirsubjectandinlanguage“

“ForeignprofessorsusuallyspeakEnglish”

43

Total 127



11

ThemostnumeroussubcategoriesrevealthebasicmotivationforLithuanianstudentsofengineering

programmestofacethechallengeofstudyinginEnglish.Thoughsuchcoresubjectslikemathematics,

physicsandITarequitedifficultintheirownright,studentsappreciatethepossibilityofactive

communication,theabilitytousefreshscientificfindingsandtoconsultvisitingprofessors.

Table2:Manifestationofthequalitativecategory“MotivationtostudyinEnglish”

Nameofthecategory Nameofthe

subcategory

Evidence No.of

quotes

MotivationtostudyinEnglish 1.Perspectiveforfuturecareer

“IdecidedtostudyinEnglish,becauseallemployerswantspecialistswhocanspeakEnglish“

“IcannotimaginemycareerwithoutknowingEnglish”

23

2.Betterpossibilityformobilityduringstudies

“Iplantoparticipatein[the]Erasmusprogramme.SoitissimplyvitaltoknowEnglish”

“ItiseasiertofindaEuropeanprogrammeinEnglish”

26

3.Competencedevelopment

“ThankGodIcouldspeakEnglish.Iwaschosenforforeignpractice.NowIhaveaEuroPass;“

“YouhavetoknowEnglishasapremiseforbeingacompetentspecialist”

41

4.Betterqualityoflife “IcannotimaginemylifewithoutknowingEnglish”

“Myhobbyistraveling.WhatwouldIdowithoutEnglish?”

54

Total 144

Thesamequestion“WhatdoyouthinkarethemainreasonsforstudyinginEnglish?”waspresentedto

10pupilsfromLithuaniangymnasiumsandsecondaryschoolswhohadthepossibilitytostudyscience

andsomeothersubjectsinEnglish.Theresearchwascarriedoutfollowingthesameprocedure.The

quotesofpupilsfromLithuaniangymnasiumsandsecondaryschoolsdonotmanifestclearcategories

thatdemonstratethepopularityofEnglish.Still,theaspectofmotivationtostudyEnglishisclearly



12

expressedandevident.Thiscategoryiscalled“MotivationtostudyinEnglish2”.Themanifestationofthe

qualitativecategory“MotivationtostudyinEnglish2”ispresentedinTable3(below).

Table3.Themanifestationofthequalitativecategory“ MotivationtostudyinEnglish2”

Nameofthecategory Nameofthe

subcategory

Evidence No.of

quotes

MotivationtostudyinEnglish2

1.Englishasacompulsorysubject

“IfyoudonotstudyEnglish,youwillnotbeabletogetacertificate”

“English is compulsory, so why

notuseitforphysics...?”

17

2.GeographicalsituationofLithuania

“MyparentsthinkthatitisusefultoknowtheleadinglanguageofEurope”

“Youmaynotspeak,butyoushouldknowthelanguageoftheneighbours…”

19

3Culturalandhistoricaltraditions

“WehaverelativesandfriendsinEngland.Theycanspeakboth

languages:LithuanianandEnglish.Wearenotworse.”

23

4.Perspectiveforfuturecarrier

“Europeisbig.MostpeoplespeakEnglish.IfYouwanttostudyabroadortogetabetter

job,youshouldspeakEnglish.”

27

5.Competencedevelopment

“IfYouknowEnglish,youareauserofagloballanguage.”

35

Total 150

Whilesummingupthepilotstudy,itisworthmentioningthatbothgroupsofinformantshighlightthe

mostimportanttendency:Englishisevaluatedasthemosteffectivelinguafrancabypupilsandstudents

ofamulticulturalsociety,evenwhereotherlanguages(forexample,RussianinLithuania)arealsotreated

aspopularlinguafranca.Itisevidentthat,becauseofcompetencedevelopmentaspects,Lithuanian

pupilsandstudentsevaluatedEnglishasasuccessfulforeignlanguage,whichprovidesabasisfor

successfulfuturestudies.Thispremiseallowsustoimplementcontentandlanguageintegratedlearning

(CLIL)insciencestudies.



13

ReasoningonContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL)

ThetheoreticalbasisoftheCLILinvestigationincombinationwithPBLreliesontheresearchperformed

bydr.VilmanteLiubiniene,theassociateprofessoroftheFacultyofHumanitariansciences,Kaunas

UniversityofTechnology(seee.g.Lenkauskiene&Liubiniene,2004)

ContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL)hasbecomeanumbrellaterm,describingbothlearning

another(content)subjectsuchasphysicsorgeographythroughthemediumofaforeignlanguage,and

learningaforeignlanguagebystudyingacontent-basedsubject.ThetermCLILwaslaunchedin1994by

someoftheConsortiumexpertsasaneducationalsolutionformeetingcertainchallengesassociated

withlanguagelearninginEurope.Sincethenithasspreadexponentiallyacrossthecontinent.Since2000,

therehasalsobeenuptakeofCLILmethodologiesinAsia,AfricaandSouthAmericatoeitherboostlevels

oflanguagelearning,orsolveproblemsassociatedwiththeuseof‘foreign’languagesasthemediumof

instruction.Globally,educationalsystemsalwaysstrivetoachieveculturallyandcontext-specificresults.

GlobaluptakeofCLILhas,therefore,resultedinarangeofdifferentmodelsbeingdesignedand

implemented.

GisellaLangepointsto1997asthestartingpointofCLILinEurope,theessenceofwhichwastheshift

from“teachingaforeignlanguagetoaforeignlanguageasamediumofinstruction”.Thereasonsbehind

thisshiftweretoofferanewmethodologicalapproach;toimprovequalityinlanguageteaching;to

increaseexposuretolanguagelearning;toguaranteeaEuropeanperspective.

CLILisatrulyEuropeanphenomenon,spanningthecontinentgeographicallyfromtheNorth(Sweden)to

theSouth(Spain).WhatistrueofmosteducationalissuesalsoappliestoCLIL,inthatitcomesinawide

rangeofshapesandsizes.Therearedifferencesasregardsthepopulationsegments,rangingfromelite

tomainstream,aswellasagegroups,startingataroundyear4andexpandingincreasinglytowards

tertiarylevel.Thelearnergroupsthemselvesvaryfromrelativelymonolingual/monoculturalinthe

dominantnationallanguagetohighlymultilingual/multicultural.Additionally,theprogrammescomein

diversespecificationsregardingthetypesofteachersinvolved,therelevanceofcontentvs.language

learning,learnerassessmentand,veryimportantly,thetypeandamountoftargetlanguageusage.

Finally,whileEnglishisthebyfarmostpopulartargetlanguage,CLILisalsoundertakeninother

languages.

InrecentyearsandallacrossEurope,Englishhasbecomerapidlyimplementedasthemediumof

instructionatsecondaryandtertiarylevel.InSpain,theimpactoftheCLILapproachhasbeenenormous,

especiallyinprimaryandsecondaryeducation.Intertiaryeducationtherestillseemstobescant



14

institutionalprovisionforCLILandfewstudiesontheuseofEnglishasthelanguageofinstructioninthe

Spanishuniversitycontexthavebeencarriedout 2.

InLithuania,CLILwasintroducedin2002bytheMinistryofEducationandScience.Thesubjectstaughtin

foreignlanguages-English,FrenchandGerman-includeinformationtechnology,history,ethicsand

geography.Thesearethemostfrequentlymentionedsubjects.Othersubjectsincludeart,businessand

culturalstudies,music,biology,physics,economics,healthylifestyle[healthpromotion]andmathematics.

ThemostwidelyusedmodelofteachingCLILcoursesinvolvessubjectandlanguageteachersworkingin

teams.CLILisviewedinapositivelight.Theteachersperceiveintegratedteachingasapossibilityfor

professionalgrowth.Teachersarealsomotivatedbythepossibilityoflearningnewmethodsand

approaches.Byfarthelargestadvantage,asperceivedbyteachers,istheexpansionofknowledge,both

languageandsubject.Itisinterestingtopointoutthatintegratedteachingisprimarilyseenasameansof

developinglanguageskills.‘Studiesabroad’arementionedasthesecondbiggestadvantage.Among

otheradvantagesmentionedbytheteacherswecansee:developmentofITskills;co-operation

possibilities;careeropportunities;highermotivation;increasedcompetitiveness.Someteachersalso

mentionedtheuseofauthenticmaterialsandauthentictasksasoneofthebiggestadvantagesofthe

approach.

Learningadisciplinealwaysimplieslearningthelanguageofthatdiscipline,andthisisevenmore

necessarywhenlearninginaforeignlanguage.Thisfocusonthespecificlinguisticfeaturesofthe

disciplineispreciselywhatisinvolvedinCLIL,sincehere,both‘learningcontent’and‘learningaforeign

language’areseenasgoals.Studentsshouldemploytheacquiredskillsofforeignlanguagesin

combinationwiththevastrangeofmaterials(content)inordertoreachthegoalsposedinthe

curriculum.Thus,foreignlanguageandcontentskillsbecomeintegrated.CLILisamethodologywhich

couldbeveryusefulforachievingeducationalgoalsinthefieldsofbothforeignlanguagesandthe

subjectsofstudy.

Synthesisingisoneofmanyimportantandcomplexskillsrequiredinacquiringtheskillsofacademicwriting.Synthesisinginvolvescombiningideasfromarangeofsourcesinordertogroupandpresent

commonideasorarguments.Itisanecessaryskillusedinliteraturereviews,researchpapersandother

formsofacademicwriting.Synthesisingallowsthecombinationofinformationandideasfrommultiple

sources,thedevelopmentandstrengtheningofargument(s),thedemonstrationofknowledgeaboutthe

topic,andtheuseandcitationofmultiplesources.Inordertosynthesize,oneshoulddevelopthewhole

setofacademicthinkingskills:analyzing;comparing;categorizingandclassifying;identifyingcauseand

2Seee.g.http://www.ccn-clil.eu/



15

effect;problemsolving;persuading;empathizing;interpreting;evaluating;communicating;applying.CLIL

methodologyisalsoaveryusefultoolinacquiringlanguageandcontentskillswhicharenecessaryto

reachthefinalgoalsofintegratinglanguageandsubjectskills,bringingthetopictohigherlevelsof

discussionandattainingadeeperunderstandingoftheproblemunderanalysis.

TheoreticalbackgroundofCLIL

Aresearchreport,(Marshetal,2001)emphasizesfivedimensionsorreasonsforintroducingCLILin

schoolsanduniversitiesinordertostrengthenteachingandlearningattheseinstitutions.Thefive

dimensionsofCLILarebasedonissuesrelatedtoculture,environment,languages,contentandlearning.

Eachoftheseincludesanumberoffocuspointsrealizeddifferentlyaccordingtothreemajorfactors:age-

rangeoflearners,socio-linguisticenvironmentanddegreeofexposuretoCLIL.

1. Thefirst,theCultureDimension–CULTIX,emphasisestheimportanceof:

a. Buildinginterculturalknowledgeandunderstanding;

b. Developinginterculturalcommunicationskills;

c. Learningaboutspecificneighbouringcountries/regionsand/orminoritygroups;

d. Introducingthewiderculturalcontext.

2. Thefocusofthesecond,theEnvironmentDimension–ENTIX,isto:

a. Prepareforinternationalisation,specificallyEU-integration;

b. AccessInternationalCertification;

c. Enhancetheschoolprofile.

3. Thethird,theLanguageDimension–LANTIX,seeksto

a. Improveoveralltargetlanguagecompetence;

b. Developoralcommunicationskills;

c. Developmultilingualinterestsandattitudes;

d. Introduceatargetlanguage.

4. Thefourth,theContentDimension–CONTIX,aimsatprovidingopportunitiestostudycontente.g.

a. Sciencethroughdifferentperspectives;

b. Subject-specifictargetlanguageterminology;

c. Preparationforfuturestudiesand/orworkinglife.

5. Andthefifth,nolessimportant,theLearningDimension–LEARNTIX,hasthegoalsof:

a. Complementingindividuallearningstrategies;

b. Diversifyingmethodsandformsofclassroompractice;

c. Increasinglearnermotivation.



16

ACLILteacheris,firstly,expectedtoselectandtailorinputmaterialinordertomakeitchallengingbut

comprehensibleforlearners.Secondly,anothergoalforteachersistofacilitatemeaning-focused

processing.Ateachercanbeexpectedtostimulatecontent-processingoforalorwritteninputbygiving

specialtasksthatinvolvelearnersingrapplingwithmeaning(tryingtomakesenseofwhatevertheyhear

orread).Theteachershouldcheckwhetherthemeaningoftheinputhasbeencomprehended

sufficiently.Ifmeaningisprocessedinsufficientlyorerroneously,theteachermightgivesomekindof

support.Supplementaryexercisingoftherelatedcontentfeaturesofinputcanbeperformedinthis

categoryaswell.

Thirdly,theteachershouldfacilitateform-focusedprocessing.ACLILteachercanemployactivitiesaimed

atraisingawarenessoflanguageform,thusmakinglearnersconsciousofspecificlanguagefeatures.The

teachermightindicateanddirectlearners’attentiontocorrectandincorrectusesofform,andgive

examplesofsuchuses,thusfacilitatingimplicitorexplicitrecognitionoflanguageform.Ingiving

correctivefeedbacktheteachermightemployimplicittechniques(e.g.clarificationrequests,recasts)or

explicittechniques(e.g.explicitcorrection,metalinguisticcomment,query,advice)forfocusingonform,

aswellasnonverbalreactions.

Fourthly,ateacherfacilitatesopportunitiesforoutputproduction.Inpromotingoutputproductioninthe

targetlanguage,aCLILteachercanencouragelearnerstoreact,andaskquestionsaimedatfunctional

outputaswellasstimulatinginteractionbetweenlearnersinthetargetlanguage.Differentinteractive

formats(e.g.group,pairwork)mightbeimplementedtofacilitatemeaningfulcommunicationinEnglish.

Correctivefeedbackbyteachersorpeer-studentsmightstimulatetheuseofcorrectform/meaning

connectionsbylearners.

Finally,theteacherfacilitatestheuseofstrategies.ACLILteachershouldbeabletoassistlearnersto

overcometheirlanguageandcontentcomprehensionandcommunicationproblems,bydevelopinga

repertoireofreceptiveandproductivecompensatoryandcommunicationstrategies.Inshort,theCLIL

teachershouldconcentrateonbothlanguageawarenessandcontent,includingmaterialswritingoradaptation.

Manycompetencesandresourcesareneeded,suchasfirstlanguagecommunication,agoodknowledge

oftheoryandmethodology,goodmaterials,asuitablelearningenvironmentandinterdisciplinary

approaches,aswellasthecreationofagoodassessmentsystem.LookingatassessmentinCLIL,it

becomesevidentthattherearebasicallytwoissuestobetakenintoaccount:enhancingthestudents’

languageproficiencyasdefinedbytheCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages(CEFR),

andtheacquisitionofgoodsubjectknowledgebythestudents.



17

Thesefiveassumptionscanbeconsideredasthebasicingredientsforeffectivecontentandlanguage

learningandteachingactivitiesandapremiseforsuccesfulblendingwithproblembasedlearning.



18

TheEducationalpotentialofcombiningProblemBasedLearning(PBL)withContentand

LanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL)

ThecurrentresearchdatainLithuaniashow,thatthoughquiteanumberofpupilsandstudents

demonstratesatisfactoryknowledgeofscienceandmathsandsuccessfulspokencommunicationina

foreignlanguage,themajorityofthemexperiencebarrierstocommunicationanddecision-makingfor

varioussocial,psychologicalandlinguisticreasons(Bankauskieneetal,2002;Augustiniene&Ciuciulkiene,

2005).Oneofthemisthedeeplyrootedandindoctrinatededucationaltradition,wherestudents,

speakingwithoutmistakes,weresupposedtopresenttheexactanswer.Furthermore,asLithuanian

pupilsandstudentsbothstate,theystillfeeltheinfluenceofthesovieteducationalinheritancewhere

democracyandfreediscussionwereeliminatedforideologicalreasons.Inordertoovercomethese

difficulties,educatorshavetodevelopintegratedlearningstrategiesbasedonfreeEnglishspeaking

activities.Withthehelpofthese,knowledgeofscienceandmathsmightberevealedinmultilingual

clasrooms.

Dewey(1931),Dunne(1994),Cohen(1986)andSharan(1994)pointoutthatlearningismadeespecially

attractivewhenstudentsfaceaproblemcontextandtakeresponsibilityforsolvingthegivenproblem

successfully.PBL,anditsrelatedcurriculum,expandsthesepossibilities(e.g.Barrows,1985;Boud&

Felletti,1991).Woods(1985)emphasizesthestructuralaspectofPBL,whichstimulatespupils’

argumentativereasoninganddecision-makingactivity.Savin–Baden(2000)characterizesPBLmodelsas

contentloaded,emancipating,reflectiveandrevealedthroughpurposeful,flexiblecommunication.Itis,

therefore,possibletostatethatPBLisdistinguishedbyitscommunicativepossibilities,enablingsubject

knowledgeformationandthedevelopmentofawiderangeofpersonalskills(criticalthinking,

communicative,professionalandemployabilityskills).Suchcontextsuggeststhetheoreticalpossibilityof

combiningProblemBasedLearning(PBL)withContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL).



19

Theoreticalpremisesforthedevelopmentofthe“ContentandLanguageIntegratedProblem

BasedLearning(CLIPBL)”model:providingknowledgeinscienceandproficientspoken

communicationinEnglishinmultilingualcontexts.

Theconceptof‘Emancipation’hasbeenanalysedbynumeroustheorists(e.g.Freire,1973;Hart,1990;

Durie,1996;Humphries,1997;Barrow,1999;Jarvis,2001)whosemaininterpretationsvaryfromRoman

understandingofpersonallegalliberationto‘FrankfurtSchool’definitionsoftheemancipationconcept,

supportedbyJurgenHabermas’theoryofcommunicativeaction(Habermas,1989)asthemeansof

personalliberation,whichshouldbeamoral,argumentativeprocesswiththeimpliedpriorityoflearning

anddiscussion.Learninganddiscussion,inturn,shouldfulfiltheprinciplesofcommitmenttotruth,

opennessandrationality.Thismakesemancipationadifficult,frustratingprocessthatcanbemanaged

onlywiththehelpofformaleducation(Ciuciulkiene,2004)andemancipatorymethods,includingPBL

(Barrows,1985;Woods,1985;Boud&Felletti,1991;Savin–Baden2000).Thesemethodsaregenerally

wellstructuredandhelppupilsandstudentswithmoreeffectivecommunication,carryingoutand

analysinginterviewsandsurveys;adviceonlearningschemes,etc.Withthehelpofspoken

communication,studentslearntodevelopmentalprocessesinvolvedinthetransmissionofknowledge

andreflectiononpracticalexperience.

Spokencommunicationisoneofthemostwidelydiscussedscientificissues.Theauthorsofthisstudylay

aspecialstressonChristensenandHensen’s(1996)study,whichrevealsthequalityofspoken

communicationbypointingoutthatithasthreelevels.Thethirdleveldefinescommunicationasa

flexible,responsibleactivityinproblematic,truetolifesituations.Thisdefinitionmaybecomparedwith

thedefinitionprovidedbythe CommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages:Self

assessmentgrid ,TheProficientUser level,3whichimpliesfreeuseofspeech,whichmaybefiguratively

qualifiedas‘emancipated’spokencommunication.AstheEuropeandimensionstressestheimportance

ofspokencommunicationinaforeigntongue,educatorsshouldseekmoreeffectivemeansandmethods

todeveloptheproficientuseofforeignlanguages(inthiscaseEnglish).FollowingVygotsky’s(1978)

theoryofinteractiveproblemsolvingincollaborationwithpeers,itisveryimportanttostressthe

functionofPBL,which,beingorganizedandpresentedinacommunicativeway,couldinvolvetheuseof

English-mediumlearningmethodsandenvironments,wherestudentscancooperateandinteractinpairs

orlargergroupsthathavenotbeenshapedbyteacher-centred,non-collaborativeclassrooms.PBLalso

stressestheideathatlearnersneedtobecomeawareof,andacceptresponsibilityfor,notonlytheirown

learningprocesses,butalsothoseoftheirpeers,makingtheirsubjectlearninginEnglishauthentic,

3See:http://www.linguanet-europa.org/pdfs/self-assessment-grid-en.pdf



20

meaningfulandcollaborative.Thus,PBLmaybedefinedasaprocesswhichisstudent-centredand

orientatedtowardsthelearner’sintellectandexperience,duringwhichthestudent,consideringthe

informationpresented,andwiththehelpofspokencommunication,definesandformulatesproblems,

andlooksforwaystoenhancehis/herharmoniousdevelopmentandhigherqualityoflife.

ThestructuralschemeofPBL(seeWoods,1994;Savin-Baden,2000)andthefivedimensionsofCLILserve

asthemainmethodologicalpremisesformodellingCLIPBL(SeeFig,1).

Themodelstartswiththeorientationtowardslearning revealedduring interactionbetweentheeducator,

thepupil/studentandpeers.Itdisclosesthemainlearningobjectives,thelearningcontext,mainitemsof

sciencebasedcontentanddefinitionofcurrenttermsandconceptsinthechosenforeignlanguage.It

alsostrivestoclarifypersonalidentities,qualitiesandcharactertraitsthataffectpupils’andstudents’

collaborativelearningprocesses.SuchactivitiesareorganizedwhilerelyingontheCLILdimensions,

primarilyCULTIX(seep.15,above),withthe emphasisonbuildinginterculturalknowledgeand

understanding,developinginterculturalcommunicationskills,learningaboutlinguisticgroupsand

introducingthewidercontext.

TheProblemsituationcontinuestoformtheorientationtolearningandclarifiestheactivecontent;it

furtherdevelopsthelearningcontext,andillustratestherequirementsofthecurriculumandcognitive

languagelearningstrategies.Suchnewandcomplexactivitiesprovidestudentswiththesignificant

experiencescharacterizedbythe‘frustrationbarrier’(Savin-Baden,2000).Thisfrustrationbarrieroccurs

forseveralreasons:thefirstreasonisthenewlearningexperience,whichlaysmoreresponsibilityonto

thestudents;thesecondreasonistheirlackofsocialskills,andfinallythemostimportantreasonistheir

lackofspeakingskills,whichblocksknowledgesharingandinformationacquisition.

Smallgroupdiscussionsclarifytheperspectiveoflearningactivity,highlightthemainlearningmethods

andenabletheactivationofthecognitive,communicativelearningstrategies.Thesmallnumberofgroup

membersprovidesthepossibilityforeverygroupmembertospeak,tothinkcriticallyandtodevelop

theircommunicativeskills.Thestudentsareespeciallymotivatedtospeakbecauseofthefurtherlearning

perspectivesprovidedbysubjectcontents.Thelargertheamountofthesubjectcontentsdiscussedand

clarifiedinthegroup,themoreeffectivearetheindividualstudies.

ReturningtotheCLILdimensions,thesePBLstagesdeveloptheLanguageDimension–LANTIX,while

seekingtoimproveoveralltargetlanguagecompetence,developingoralcommunicationskillsand

developingmultilingualinterestsandattitudes.Individualstudiesfacilitatetheformationofdeep

learningcontextswhilestudyingdifferentsourcesofinformation.Individualstudiesalsohelptoform

informallearningenvironments,whichpresentthestudentswiththepossibilityofdebatingsignificant

issuesandtogetfeedbackinafriendly,informal,atmosphere,uncontrolledbyauthority.



21

Figure1.ContentandLanguageIntegratedProblemBasedLearning(CLIPBL)”modelproviding

knowledgeinscienceandproficientspokencommunicationinEnglishinmultilingualcontexts.

Thefinaldecision-makingprocessinfig.1(above)empowerstheexperienceofindividualstudy,because

thestudentsrepeattheirlearningexperiencewithitsnew,communicativequalitywhileformulatingtheiractualcareerorprojectdecisionscharacterizedbydecisivenessandcertaintythroughouttheprocess.It

alsostressestheimportanceofthefourth(Content)DimensionofCLIL(CONTIX)whichaimstoprovide

opportunitiestostudycontent(forexample,science)throughdifferentperspectives,accessingsubject-

specifictargetlanguageterminologyandpreparingforfuturestudiesand/orworkinglife.Italsodeals

withthefifth,andnolessimportant,LearningDimension–LEARNTIX,whichhasthegoalof

complementingindividuallearningstrategies,diversifyingmethodsandformsofclassroompracticeand

increasinglearnermotivation.

Thedecision-makingprocessitselfisongoing,oftennonlinearandmaycompriseoneormoreofthe

followingactions:takingstock;developingcriteria;makingon-boardadjustments;connectingto



22

opportunities;narrowingoptions;makingdecisions.TheCLIPBLmodel,whichprovidesdevelopmentof

scienceknowledgeandproficientspokenEnglishcommunicationinmultilingualcontexts,hasthreebasic

characteristics:curriculumcharacteristics,activitycharacteristicsandthecharacteristicsoffinalresults

withtheirowncriteria(Boud&Felletti,1997;Savin-Baden,2000)whichserveasthemain

methodologicalbasisforthepilotmodelresearch.



23

PilotresearchintotheCLIPBLmodel

AsthetheoreticalbasisoftheCLIPBLmodelisthestructureofPBL,themainpilotresearchisdesigned

accordingtoestablishedresearchpracticesinPBL.Forthisreason,theCLIPBLmodelwillberesearched

withthehelpofqualitativeresearchmethods,includingcasestudies.Theresearchisbasedonthe

followingmethodologicalconsiderations:

• Anderson’s(1994),Yin’s(2002)andStake(1995)ideasontheprioritiesofcase-basedstudiesinthe

observationofPBLinitsnaturalenvironment;

• Walliman’s(2005)recommendationsconcerningcodingsystems;

• Svensson‘s(1997)theoreticalfoundationsofphenomenography.

Thepilotcase-basedstudywasperformedatKaunasUniversityofTechnology,InternationalStudies

Centre,Lithuania(ISC).Thisinstitutionwaschosenaccordingtothreemaincriteria:

• ThemajorityoffirstyearstudentsareacquaintedwithCLIL;

• Thefirstyearcurriculumincludesmainsciencemoduleswhicharetaughtinaforeignlanguage,

mainlyEnglish,duetothepresenceofInternationalstudents;

• TheinstitutionappliesPBLinteachingcertainmodules.

Thecase-basedstudyconsistsofthreephases:observation,openquestionstostudentsandthecontent

analysisoftheiropinions.Case-basedstudyphasesmaybedividedintotenstages(seeFigure2,above).

Researchdescription,researchdataanalysisandinterpretation

Duringtheobservationandinformalinterviewsthemajorityofstudentsexpressedtheirwillingnessto

sharetheirexperiencesgainedfromtheCLIPBLprocess.Forthisreasontheywereaskedtowrite

anonymousreflectionsontheirscienceandlanguagelearning.

Tobeginwith,thewrittenreflectionswerecodedwithanidentifyingindexdemonstratingtheir

connectiontoKTU.Laterthereflectionsweregroupedintomeaningfulblocksandagaincodedaccording

tocurriculumcharacteristics,activitycharacteristicsandthecharacteristicsoffinalresults.Finally,

followingthecriteriaofthecharacteristics(seetable4)thedatawerecategorized,followingthe

guidelinesofMarton’s(1986)andSvenson’s(1997)phenomenographicanalysis.

Afterdetailedcategorizationofthereflections,thereappearedtobefivequalitativecategories,which

expressstudents’attitudetowardstheirintegratedEnglishandsciencelearningexperience:

1. Frustration;



24

2. Therealizationoflearningdimensions;

3. Developmentofskillsandabilities;

4. Learninghowtolearn:themasteringoflearningmethods;

5. Theresultsreceived.

Accordingtheguidelinesofqualitativecontentanalysisthecategoriesweresplitintosubcategories(see

table4)

Thecurriculumcharacteristicscomprisespecificareasofthecurriculumorganizedintoreallifeproblem

situationsconnectedwiththeparticularsciencesubject,whichmainlyinfluencetheintroductoryandthe

analyticalpartsofthePBLprocess.Astheproblemsituationdoesnotpresentdirectanswersandcontain

obscureterminologicallanguage,itisusuallyconnectedwithprimarynegativeemotions.

Figure2.Thestagesofthecase-basedstudy

Decision-making in turn is also connected with stress. Negative emotions and stress form the

frustrativebarriers.Thus,themaincriterionofcurriculumcharacteristicsistheprimaryemotionalstate



26

3.7.GettingConnectedtoOpportunities

4.1.Traditionallearningmethods

4.Learning

howtolearn:

masteringof

learning

methods

4.2.Activelearningmethods

5.1.Experienceofthetransdisciplinarityoflearning

5.2.Experienceofthegroupwork

5.3.Experienceofinformationmanagement

5.4.Experienceoftheparticipationinthediscussion

5.5.Acquisitionofpublicspeakingskills

3. Characteristics

offinalresults

Emancipated

language

usage

revealingthe

decision-

making

5.Obtained

results

5.6.NarrowingOptionsandMakingaDecision

Thespeakingactivitycharacteristicdealswithsmallgroupdiscussion,individualstudiesandproblem

solvingpartsoftheCLIPBLprocess.Asitischaracterizedbynewlearningactivity,expressedasactivespeaking,themaincriterionforitisthenewrequirementsforthequalityofspokenEnglishinspiredby

thenewlearningexperienceandthemaintarget-decision-makinginscience.InthePBLprocessitis

expressedbyqualitativecategoriessuchasnamingofnewlearningfeatures,thedevelopmentof

speakingandthinkingskillsandensuringmasteryofactivelearningmethods,allofwhichareconnected

withsciencebasedactiveinteraction.

Thequalitativecategories“Thedevelopmentofnecessaryspeakingskills”and“Masteryofactivelearning

methods”containsubcategoriesrevealingdecision-makingprocesses:theyareTakingStock,EmergingCriteriaforDecision-making,MakingOn-BoardAdjustments,andGettingConnectedtoOpportunities:

Takingstock–studentstakestockbyreflectingonpreviousexperiencesandidentifyingsalientthemes

andpatterns;bytheroleofpriorities,bothconsciousandunconscious;bylookingintothepastorat

possiblefutures;aloneorengagedwithothers.

EmergingCriteriaforDecision-Making canbecharacterizedbytheirfeasibility,suchasfindingparticular

solutionopportunities.

MakingOn-BoardAdjustments-thesearchitselfoftenhelpedclarifythetypesofexperiencesthat

studentsfoundmorecompelling-obtainingmorehelpfulinformation,rethinkinginitialideas.



27

GettingConnectedtoOpportunities-throughouttheprocessstudentssoughtopportunitiesthatseemed

worthpursuing.Somestudentsactivelylookedforwaystoincreasetheiroptions;somewereconnected

toopportunitiesverypassivelyandletopportunitiescometothem.

‘Characteristicsofobtainedresults’comprisethelastpartoftheCLIPBL.Tthemaincriterionofthelatter

characteristicsistheproficient(emancipated)usageofspokencommunication,whichintheprocessof

CLIPBLisdefinedbythecategoryoffinalresults,wherespecialattentionispaidtothequalityofthe

commandofspokenEnglish,expressedbytheEuropeanlanguagecompetenceportfoliolevels.

Knowledgeinsciencecanbemanifestedbythequalityofsolutionstopresentedproblems.Students

mightcometoaparticulardecisionthroughself-assessment,reflectingonoptions,synthesizingmultiple

perspectives,andconsiderationofconsequences(Brown,2004).

Further,inordertorevealthemaintendencies,thequantitativeanalysisofqualitativecategoriesis

presentedstartingwiththegeneraldistributionofthesamplesandcontinuingwiththeeachcategory

separately.

Table5.Generalresultsfromthepresentedopinionsamples

No.ofcategory Nameofcategory

ISCofKTU

total

1. Frustration 65

2. Therealizationofthelearningdimensions 46

3. Developmentofinteractiveskillsandabilitiesrevealingthedecision-

makingprocess

88

4. Learninghowtolearn:masteringoflearningmethods 52

5. Obtainedresults 81

Ascanbeseenfromtheanalysissamples,themajorcategoriesare:developmentofnecessaryskills,

resultsobtainedandfrustration.Theyrepresentthemaintendenciesofthestudents’opinionsandpoint

tothemostimportantthemes.

“Frustration” is the third largest category, which demonstrates how the non-traditional CLIPBL

curriculuminfluencesstudents’learningexperience(table6).



28

Table6.Manifestationofthequalitativecategory“Frustration”

Subcategory ExamplesofquotationsfromCISatKTU Thetotal

1.1. Differences between traditional and

interpretativepedagogy

Fromtheverybeginningitwasnonsense 15

1.2.Theambiguousproblemsituation Itwasimpossibletounderstandwhattodo 14

1.3.Lackofself–confidence IalwaysdoubtifIamspeakingtherightthing 12

1.4.Complicatedrelationsamonggroupmembers PeoplesaythatIamverytimid 10

1.5.Lackofdiscussingskills ItriedtosaywhatIthink,butsoonIbecametheobjectof

constantcriticism

8

1.6.Lackofabilitiesforpublicspeaking MyEnglishisnotsobrilliant,thatIcouldgoondebating 6

Total 65

Thecriterionoftheprimaryemotionalstatewhilestrivingtobreakthe‘frustrationbarrier’isrevealed

throughthesubcategories,pointingoutthemainreasonsforfrustration.

Itisclearfromthedatathatthemainreasonforthe‘frustrationbarrier’anddissatisfactionisthetotal

changefromalecturebasedstudyprocess.Studentsarenotusedtobeingresponsibleforthequalityof

theirstudies,fortheplanningofclassroomactivitiesandpublicdeliveryoftheresultsoftheirindividual

learning.Theydefinesuchlearningas‘nonsense’.

Theattitudeshiftisalreadynoticeableinthebiggestcategory,representingthedevelopmentof

necessaryskills.



29

Table7.Manifestationofthecategory“Developmentofskillsandabilities”

Subcategory ExamplesofquotationsCISofKTU Thetotal

EmergingCriteriaforDecision-Making ThistimeIknewmydecisioncriteria 27

MakingOn-BoardAdjustments Itwasinterestingtorethinktheinitialideas 29

GettingConnectedtoOpportunities Ienjoyedwaitingforsomethingclevertobesaid 31

Total 87

Studentsofbothinstitutionsmentiontheirmajorprogressinthedevelopmentofskillsnecessaryfor

successfuldiscussion.Anothermeaningfulposition(3.4)demonstratesthatstudentsengagewiththe

opinionformingprocess,whichisvitallyimportantforcoachingcareerdecisionskills.

Thefinalcategory“resultsreceived”(seetable8,below)displaysthefinalresultsofthePBLprocess.In

ordertoevaluatetheirvalidityinthedevelopmentoftheproficientusageofspokencommunicationin

English,itisworthtocomparetheinitialstageoffrustrationandthefinalresults.

Table8.Manifestationofthecategory“resultsreceived”

Subcategory ExamplesofquotationsCISatKTU total

Experienceofthetransdisciplinaryoflearning Wecanintegrateourknowledge 14

Experienceofgroupwork Ourgroupbecamecooperate… 15

Experienceofinformationmanagement Iknowhowtoformarguments… 9

Experienceofparticipationinthediscussion Weusuallytrytoevaluateourimpactondecision. 23

Theacquisitionofpublicspeakingskills. We think about interesting interpretation of the

topic17

NarrowingOptionsandMakingaDecision We know how to make a decision through self

assessment.

6

Total 81



30

Whilecomparingthetwocategoriesrevealingthelearningexperienceoftheinitialandfinalstages,itis

possibletodrawthefollowingparallel.Themainreasonsforfrustration–thenewexperienceof

interpretativepedagogyandtheambiguousproblemsituation–maybejuxtaposedwiththeacquired

experienceofinterdisciplinaryandtransdisciplinarylearning.Themostvaluableelementofthis

experienceistheabilitytointegrateknowledgeofdifferentsubjects.Thiselementsupportsthe

developmentofcriticalthinking,leadingthestudentpersonalitytowardsargumentativerationality.The

secondsubcategoryof“frustration”,revealingcomplicatedrelationsbetweengroupmembers,is

opposedbythesubcategoryofthenewqualityofgroupwork,whichasstudentspointedout,became

collaborativeandcooperative.Thisnewqualityofgroupwork,supplementedbythepreviously

mentioneddevelopmentofcriticalthinking,leadsthegrouptowardsthecommitmenttoshare,be

receptivetoargumentsandreachcommonunderstandings.Thebarriercreatedbylackofself-confidence

isovercomebyhavingagoodcommandofhowtoworkwithinformation.Finally,lackofabilitytospeak

inpublicisreplacedbytheexperienceofparticipationindiscussionandtheacquisitionofpublicspeaking

skills.Inordertoparticipatefluentlyindiscussionandtopresentsolutions,thestudenthasto

demonstratewellorganizedfilingskills,makecommentaries,answerquestions,andrespondtothe

pointsraised.Suchcommunicativeactivitydemonstratesstudents’newcompetencesandmore

proficientusageoftheEnglishlanguage.

Insummingupthepilotresearchresults,wecansaythatoneofthesignificantresults,asstatedbythe

students,istheiracquiredproficiencyintheEnglishlanguageanddevelopmentofdecision-makingskills

insciencebasedmodules.ThestudentsstatethatdevelopingtheabilitytolearnthroughCLIPBLisan

attractive,effectiveandemancipatingprocess.CLIPBLisastudent-centred,interactiveeducational

process,basedonstudents’intellectandexperience,duringwhichshe/heconsidersreceivedinformation,

revealsitwiththehelpofproficientspokencommunication,definesandsolvesproblemsandconsiders

decisionsinfluencingnotonlythequalityofhis/hercompetence,butalsothefutureofhis/herpersonaldevelopment.

ThepilotempiricalresearchofthePBLmodel,especiallythecomparisonofthecategories“Frustration”

and“Receivedresults”allowsustoconcludethattheCLIPBLmodel,consistingofeducator/student

interaction,analysisofproblemsituations,smallgroupdiscussion,individualstudies,problemsolving

processesandsciencebaseddecision-making,providestherightconditionsforthedevelopmentof

proficientEnglishlanguageusageanddecision-making.



31

Referencesandlinks

Andriulienė,L;Kelly,K.;Krištaponis,A.;Vilkancienė,L.(eds.)(2006) Integruotasdalykoiružsieniokalbos

mokymas,Vilnius,ŠMM,Švietimoaprūpinimocentras.

BaranauskienėR.(2003),Emancipaciniųkokybiniųtyrimųrealizavimasedukacinėsparadigmosvirsmo

kontekste,Šiauliai.

Baranauskiene,R(2009),ThePhenomenographicalanalysisofaconsecutivelyinterpretedtext.Filologija2009/14,ISSN1392-561X.

Barrow,Mark.“Highereducation:Subjectionoremancipation”.(July1999).PaperpresentedattheHerdsaAnnualInternationalConference,Melbourne.AvailableOnlinehttp://www.herdsa.org.au/branches/vic/Cornerstones/pdf/Barrow.PDF

Barrows,HowardS.(1985),HowtoDesignaProblem-basedCurriculumforPre-clinicalYears.NewYork:SpringerPublishingCo.

Björkman,B.(2008),'Sowhereweare':SpokenlinguafrancaEnglishataSwedishtechnicaluniversity.EnglishToday ,24/2,pp.11-17.

Boud,DavidandFeletti,Grahame.(Eds.).(1997)TheChallengeofProblemBasedLearning,Seconded.London,KoganPage.

Boud,DavidandKeogh,Rosemary,&Walker,David.(Eds.).Reflection:TurningExperienceintoLearning.London:

KoganPage,1985.

Barnes,LouisB,Christensen,CarlRoland&HensenAbbyJ.(1994)TeachingandtheCaseMethod:3 rdEd.Boston,HarvardBusinessSchoolPublishing.

Christensen,CarlRoland&HensenAbbyJ.(1996)Note:thisreferenceistobeconfirmed:pleasecontact:

[email protected],Nijole(2004),Probleminismokymasis–verbalinękomunikacijąanglųkalbaemancipuojantis

procesas(Problem-basedlearningasaneducationalprocessemancipatingverbalcommunication

inEnglish)Ph.D.diss.,KaunasUniversityofTechnology.

CLILConsortium,http://www.clilconsortium.jyu.fi/

Darn,S.(2006),ContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning,availableat:http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/methodology/clil.shtml

DeGraaff,R.;Koopman,G.J.;Westhoff,G.etal.,(2007)AnObservationToolforEffectiveL2PedagogyinContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL), InternationalJournalofBilingualEducationand

Bilingualism 10/5,pp.603-624.

Durie,Jane,(1996):“EmancipatoryEducationandclassroomPractice:AFeministPost–StructuralistPerspective”,StudiesinContinuingEducation18,pp.35–146.

EC(EuropeanCommission)(2006) Mainindicatorsofeconomicandsocialdevelopment:Modernisationof

theEducationandTrainingSystemstowardsthe2010commongoalsoftheEU;Progresstowards

theLisbonobjectivesineducationandtraining:Reportbasedonindicatorsandbenchmarks,http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/progressreport06.pdf

Educationconditionsurvey2003(inLithuanian), http://www.smm.lt

EUROSTAT,http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/

Freire,Paulo,(1973),Education:ThePracticeofFreedom.London,WritersandReaders.GlobalCompetitivenessReport,2006-2007.http://www.weforum.org(2006).

Habermas,Jurgen(1989)TheTheoryofCommunicativeAction,Vol.2 .Cambridge:PolityPress.



32

Hart,Mechthild(1990).“CriticalTheoryandBeyond:FurtherPerspectivesonEmancipatoryEducation”. AdultEducationQuarterly 3/40,pp.125–138.

Humphries,Beth(1997).“FromCriticalThoughtToEmancipatoryAction:ContradictoryResearchGoals?”SociologicalResearchOnline2/1availableat:

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/1/3.html.

Jarvis,Peter(2001),LearninginLaterLife ,London:KoganPage,

Krashen,S.andTerrell,T.D.(1988),TheNaturalApproach.Oxford:Pergamon.

Lenkauskiene,Rota&Liubiniene,Vilmante(2004)CulturalAwarenessinLanguageStudies. Culture,

LanguageandRepresentation,1,pp.127-136

Llinares,A.;Whittaker,R.(2006)Linguisticanalysisofsecondaryschoolstudents'oralandwrittenproductioninCLILcontexts:studyingsocialscienceinEnglish,inDalton-PufferC.&Nikula,T.(eds.),Views,ViennaEnglishWorkingPapers,CurrentResearchonCLIL ,15/3.

Marsh,D.,Maljers,A.andHartiala,A-K.(2001)ProfilingEuropeanCLILClassrooms,LanguagesOpen

Doors,at;www.clilcompencium.com

Marsh,D.;Wolff,D.(eds.)(2007),DiverseContexts–ConvergingGoals ,CLILinEurope,Frankfurt,PeterLang

Marton,Ference(1986),Phenomenography:Aresearchapproachtoinvestigatingdifferentunderstandingsofreality, JournalofThought,21/3,pp.28-49.

Mauranen,Anna.(2003),“TheCorpusofEnglishasLinguaFrancainAcademicSettings”, TESOLQuarterly 37/3,pp.513-527.

MolleW.,(2006),TheEconomicsofEuropeanintegration.Farnham,Surrey,Ashgate.

Perucha,B.N.&Milne,E.D.(2007),LecturingThroughtheForeignLanguageinaCLILUniversityContext:LinguisticandPragmaticImplicationsinSmit,U.&Dalton-Puffer,C.(eds) Views,ViennaEnglish

WorkingPapers,CurrentResearchonCLIL2, 16/3.

ProvisionsofStateEducationStrategiesfor2003-2012(inLithuanian),http://www.lrs.lt

RodriguesM.J.,(2003),EuropeanPoliciesForaKnowledgeEconomy ,Cheltenham,EdwardElgarPublishing.

Sapir,A.etal.,(2003), AnAgendaforagrowingEurope,Brussels,Europeancommission.Availableat:http://www.euractiv.com/ndbtext/innovation/sapirreport.pdf

Savin-Baden,Maggi(2000),Problem-BasedLearninginHigherEducation:UntoldStories.Buckingham,TheSocietyforResearchintoHigherEducation&OpenUniversityPress.

ScienceandstudiesinLithuania.Informationvolume,Krastotvarka,Vilnius,14-19(2002).

Smit,U.;Dalton-Puffer,C.(eds),(2007)Views,ViennaEnglishWorkingPapers ,CurrentResearchonCLIL2 ,16/3.

Snieska,V.(2008).Researchintointernationalcompetitivenessin2000–2008. Inzinerineekonomika –[Engineeringeconomics],4/59,pp.29-41.

Stake,Robert(1995),TheartofCaseStudyResearch ,NewburyPark,CA,SagePublications.

Svensson,Lennart(1997),TheoreticalFoundationsofPhenomenography, HigherEducationResearch&

Development,16/2,pp.159-171.

Vygotsky,LevM.(1978),MindandSociety:TheDevelopmentofHigherPsychologicalProcesses,Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.



33

Wächter,Bernd&Maiworm,Friedhelm(2008), English-taughtProgrammesinEuropeanHigher

Education,Bonn,Lemmens.

Walliman,Nicholas(2005),YourResearchProject .SagePublications,2005.

Willis,J.AFrameworkforTask-BasedLearning.Harlow:Longman(1996).Woods,DonaldR.(1994),Problem-BasedLearning:HowtoGainthemostfromPBL .Ontario:Waterdown.

Wood,D.(1985).Problem-basedlearningandproblemsolving,inBoud,D.(Ed.) Problem-basedlearning

ineducationfortheprofessions,HERDSA:Sydney.

Yin,RobertK.(2002),CaseStudyResearch,DesignandMethods.3rded .,ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Endofdocument



F

s-team report: teaching science in multilingual/multinational contexts

Documents