|
Páginas: 165-182 Recibido: 2022-09-28 Revisado: 2022-10-26 Aceptado: 2023-01-11 Preprint: 2023-01-31 Publicación
Final: 2023-05-15 |
|
Towards the improvement of bilingual
education in Andalusia: The Language Assistant perspective
La mejora la educación bilingüe en Andalucía según los
Auxiliares de Conversación
|
Gabriel
H. Travé González |
||
|
Ian Paolo Vinluan |
||
|
Antonio
Soto Rosales |
Abstract
Bilingual education is present through a wide network of Andalusian
centers in which foreign Language Assistants (LAs) perform their duties. The
study investigates LAs´ representations of the teaching/learning processes that
take place in bilingual classrooms, documenting their suggestions for
improvement. A questionnaire with 81 items was designed and sent to all
bilingual centers, with a total of 279 responses. The analysis of the quantitative
data was undertaken through SPSS and the qualitative information was codified
using ATLAS.ti. Among the results, three emerging
categories stand out for the improvement of bilingual teaching, ideas linked to
a) Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach, b) classroom
methodology, and c) the role of languages. The CLIL approach is positively
evaluated, although LAs consider the need for an adjustment on the use of the
foreign language according to the difficulty of the subject content. Regarding
classroom methodology, teaching practices are described as teacher-centered,
together with a considerable dependence on the textbook. Pertaining to the use
of languages, the prominent role of the Spanish language is attested,
intensified in cases in which teachers’ and students´ foreign language
competence is lower. The conclusions point to the relevance of reinforcing the
methodological and linguistic dimensions, thus requiring renewed efforts in
terms of initial and ongoing teacher training.
Resumen
La
enseñanza bilingüe se extiende por una amplia red de centros andaluces en las
que desempeñan sus funciones auxiliares de conversación extranjeros. El estudio
se acerca a los procesos de enseñanza/ aprendizaje que acontecen en las aulas
bilingües y cómo se podrían mejorar según los auxiliares. Para la obtención de
información se elaboró un cuestionario con 81 ítems que se envió a la totalidad
de los centros bilingües andaluces, obteniendo 279 respuestas. El análisis de
los datos cuantitativos se realizó a través de SPSS y los cualitativos fueron
codificados con ATLAS.ti. Entre los resultados
destacan tres categorías emergentes para la mejora de la enseñanza bilingüe
vinculadas con el enfoque AICLE, la metodología y el uso de los idiomas en el
aula. Los auxiliares validan el enfoque AICLE aunque
reclaman una mejor adaptación del uso de la lengua extranjera para la enseñanza
del contenido, especialmente cuando aumenta su complejidad. Con respecto a la
metodología de aula se describen prácticas docentes expositivas, al primar la
actividad del docente frente a la del alumnado, así como el uso generalizado
del libro de texto. Con respecto al uso de los idiomas se atestigua el
prominente papel del español, intensificado en aquellos casos en los que la competencia
en L2 de docentes y alumnado es menor. Las conclusiones apuntan a la
pertinencia de reforzar las dimensiones metodológicas y lingüísticas, siendo
por tanto necesarios esfuerzos renovados en cuanto a la formación inicial y
permanente.
Palabras clave / Keywords
bilingual education, teaching methods, learning processes, language of
instruction, curriculum development, syllabus, second language instruction,
language policy.
educación bilingüe, proceso de
enseñanza, proceso de aprendizaje, idioma de enseñanza, investigación sobre el
currículo, contenido del curso, enseñanza de una segunda lengua, política
lingüística.
1. Background
Bilingual education in Spain has been a frequent source of public debate,
transcending the frequently ostracized realms of the academic sphere to
becoming the subject of heated discussions albeit lacking the necessary
scientific foundations (Pavón, 2018). The most
frequent argument against bilingual education has been the apparent devaluation
of content learning found by some studies (Brindusa
et al., 2016; Fernández-Sanjurjo et al., 2017).
However, contradicting results from other studies have not found bilingual
education detrimental to content learning (Hughes & Madrid, 2020; Montalbán, 2016). Perez-Cañado
(2018) in a study with 2024 students from 12 monolingual provinces in Spain
concluded that content learning is not weakened in favor of the foreign
language in both Primary and Secondary Education. In a more recent study Pires
& Gallejo (2022) focused on students´ outcomes in
bilingual subjects in the Madrid Bilingual Program, they identified only a
minor decrease in competencies in the subjects taught in the foreign language
in primary education, which eventually leveled up upon finishing compulsory
education. Furthermore, many studies have highlighted the benefits of bilingual
programs regarding students´ motivation, academic achievement, and
communication skills (Fernandez-Sanjurjo et al., 2017;
Martínez-Agudo, 2019).
Bilingual teaching has been contextualized at the classroom level through
the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach, which allows,
given the necessary conditions, to use the foreign language as a medium of instruction
in non-linguistic subjects, hence allowing learning both the language and the
content (Coyle et al., 2010). CLIL implementation might be wrongly perceived as
commonsensical from the outsiders´ perspective. Indeed, the complexity of
delivering content through a foreign language with multiple levels of students´
language and academic competence requires adapting CLIL to context-specific
realities (Pérez-Cañado, 2020).The research on CLIL
implementation in Spain has seen important growth, providing insights into how
the approach has been contextualized at the classroom level as well as
highlighting the need to train teachers in the theoretical underpinnings and
methodology of CLIL together with the advancement of their foreign language
competence (Pérez-Cañado, 2014, 2016). The
conclusions of the study on the quality of CLIL programs in Spain found that
teachers highly rated their foreign language skills for CLIL teaching and their
pedagogical expertise. However, they considered it necessary to enhance
partnerships with other universities and organizations as well as participation
in international projects (Rodriguez-Sabiote et al.,
2018).
The latest report on bilingual education in Andalucía (Lorenzo, 2019)
found that the enhancement of foreign language skills was a priority for
bilingual teachers. With regard to methodology, they
stated that CLIL had allowed them to teach their subjects with a higher focus
on communication as well as to embrace Project Based Learning (PBL), in a move
towards more active-based instruction. Studies in other Spanish regions such as
the one by Campillo et al. (2019) in Murcia revealed
that the most frequent methodological guidelines implemented in class were
those related to the enhancement of interculturality, activation of pupils’
prior knowledge, and the use of ICT. Teachers also demanded more resources,
CLIL training, and coordination with other teachers. Comparable results were
obtained by Porcedda & González-Martínez (2020)
in their systematic literature review analyzing previous research on CLIL.
Among the conclusions the most pressing needs were, in order of relevance: a)
Prior CLIL training, experience or knowledge, b) Pedagogical/educational
preparation, as in integration, c) Instructional/planning problems d) Foreign
language competence, and e) Support/cooperation from educational authorities or
among colleagues.
Teachers´ foreign language skills have been a major concern for the
development of CLIL programs. The current minimum level is B2 for teachers in
Andalucía. Pavón et al. (2019) found that teachers
with stronger language skills expressed more positive views than those with
lower levels about CLIL programs. Moreover, they considered that CLIL was worth
the extra work and that it exerted a positive influence on their students´
motivation to learn the foreign language. Senra-Silva
(2021) in a study with 86 Spanish secondary school teachers revealed that more
than half had no previous training in bilingual teaching and around 46,90% did
not feel comfortable teaching in a language that was not their first. Despite
having certified B2 and C1 levels in English, teachers reported a lack of
linguistic resources, fluency, and proper command of the language. Sanz-Trigueros & Guillén-Díaz
(2021) identified a low tendency toward excellence around professional
development in bilingual teachers.
Language Assistants´ (LAs) representations of bilingual teaching and
learning practices have also been considered as part of the research.
Sánchez-Torres (2014) in a study in Andalusia revealed several issues that
arose in CLIL implementation stemming from teachers’ and students´ low foreign
language skills as well as the difficulties in coordinating and negotiating
LAs’ participation in the sessions. The study recalled many accounts of
teachers and LAs having separate activities in the classroom, with little to no
interaction between each other. In a study with forty native English-speaking
language assistants in the Madrid region, Litzler
(2020) revealed that the assistants considered teachers to follow a traditional
methodology, questioning the effectiveness of CLIL as it was implemented.
Concerns were also raised about the lack of measures to attend to students with
special needs.
As noted above, the accounts of what happens within bilingual classrooms
have been researched at various levels, both looking at students´ academic
results as well as inquiring teachers about their teaching practices. However,
LAs’ representations have not received enough attention from empirical research
despite their insights being key to understanding what LAs identify as areas of
improvement regarding (1) CLIL, (2) classroom methodology, and (3) the use of
languages. The following research was designed to study LAs’ representations of
how bilingual teaching should be improved in accordance with the actuality of
classroom practice.
2.
Method
2.1 Participants
The data
offered by the Ministry of Education and Sports of the Andalusian community
indicates that during the 2020/21 academic year a total of 919 language
assistants were incorporated. The sample has been made up of a total of 279
assistants, which warrants a confidence level of 95% assuming a margin of error
of 0.5%. For its selection, we have used a probabilistic sampling of a simple
random type with a representation of the eight Andalusian provinces. The
population is relatively young (mean =27.74 years) and fundamentally female
(78.5% women). Most of the assistants come from the USA and the United Kingdom
(60.7%), although assistants from other countries have also been present, such
as the Philippines (8.7%), India (5.8%), France (5%), and Australia (2%). Some
have up to 4 years of experience in assisting (med. = 1.65 years) and 87% said
they would repeat the experience. Only 15% are currently pursuing university
studies, while the rest have completed them. Some have completed master’s or
graduate degrees (23.2%).
Most of the sample indicate that they have little experience in education
(average = 1.47 years), although 84.5% indicate that they "agree" or
"strongly agree" in feeling prepared to perform their duties.
Similarly, a majority (75.6%) consider it necessary to offer initial training
to improve their functions.
To gather
information, a Likert scale questionnaire was designed with five response
options (from 1 totally disagree, to 5 totally agree) and open-ended items (see
Annex). The questionnaire had a total of 81 elements distributed in the
following blocks of content: 1) Sociodemographic and formative characterization
of the assistants (15 items), 2) The Language Assistant program (19 items), 3)
The Language Assistant (19 items), 4) Teachers´ performance in the bilingual
session (22 items), and 5) Students´ performance in the bilingual session (6
items). After the development of the questionnaire, the instrument was
subjected to an initial validation by ten language assistants in order to verify the relevance and the adequate
understanding of all the elements. After the proposed modifications, a second
version was subjected to a similar process with a new set of assistants
selected based on the following criteria: a) assistants that have previously
participated in the program, b) assistants that have completed university
degrees, c.) assistants that have experience in teaching. In this second phase,
there was no proposal for substantive modification. To calculate the rate of
confidence, the Spearman-Brown coefficient was used resulting in a score of
.861. A second calculation using Guttman's scale, which also analyzes the
internal consistency by the procedure of two halves, obtained a score of .852.
The confidence index oscillates between 0 and 1 and coefficients greater than
.85 are considered highly reliable.
2.3 Data analysis
The study uses qualitative data analyses (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to
examine the open-ended question introduced in the questionnaire: “In your opinion, what could improve the
bilingual program?” (Item 33). The wide scope of the question resulted in
LAs providing feedback on multiple dimensions for improvement.
After a general review of the answers, the authors conducted a
simultaneous and independent codification process of the data using ATLAS.ti 22.2, agreeing on a definitive total of 8 codes
and 155 quotations classified into three emerging categories. The first
category, “Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)” integrated the
following codes and references: “CLIL ineffectiveness to Foreign Language (FL)
learning” (28 references) and “Limitations of teaching subject content lessons”
(15 references). The second category: “Classroom Methodology”, integrated the
following codes: “Update methodology” (32 references), “Communicative approach”
(16 references) and “Focus on form (11 references). Finally, the third category: ”The role of languages in the bilingual sessions”
integrated the following codes: “Use of Spanish in class” (19 references),
“Teachers’ low Foreign Language level” (18 references) and “Students’ low
Foreign Language level” (16 references).
Furthermore, once the categories had emerged, 15 quantitative items from
the questionnaire were selected to illustrate the extent to which the views
expressed by the LAs were representative in the context of the sample (Tables
2, 3 & 4). Further quantitative data analysis was undertaken through SPSS
V25 to obtain the descriptive statistics. Subsequently, a cluster analysis was
carried out as a multivariate technique to classify individuals into
homogeneous groups, obtained with a hierarchical methodology using the SPAD
V3.5 statistical program (Lebart et al., 1984).
3.
Results
In this
article, the focus is fundamentally on the presentation of the qualitative data
obtained. However, it was considered relevant to
present, albeit briefly, the results of the multiple correspondence and cluster analyses (Travé
et al., 2023) that were carried out based on the
quantitative data.
In relation to
the multiple correspondence analysis, three main factors were selected, explaining 66.67% of
the variance. The first factor was made up of a negative pole that represented
a moderately favorable assessment of the bilingual program and the LAs’ contribution, as opposed
to a positive pole that reflected absolute indecision. The second component was
of an attitudinal type, highly negative
assessments were identified in one of the poles compared to highly positive in
the other. Finally, the third factor was related to the analysis of the
specific incidence of assistants in class, opposing moderately favorable
statements to their presence in the negative pole against extremely favorable statements in the positive pole.
In relation to
the cluster analysis, we opted for a partition of four.
The first group consisted
of 23.98% of the sample. The assistants in this group are attributed with
disaffection towards the program and the related processes taking place within
the classroom. The second cluster, comprising 46.34% of the sample, was
characterized by their favorable evaluations of the bilingual program. The
third group composed of 21.54% of the sample considered the program to be very
effective, praising its different dimensions and expressing extremely positive
evaluations. The last and smallest cohort, containing only 8.13% of the sample,
was characterized by permanent doubts and uncertainty regarding the program and
its characteristics.
3.1. Representations of Content
and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
The first
category analyzes LAs´ views on the Content and Language Integrated Learning
Approach used in the classrooms (Table 1).
|
Category 1. Content and Language Integrated Learning |
|||||
|
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS |
RESPONSE PERCENTAGE |
||||
|
-I20 Using the
foreign language as a medium of instruction in subjects is effective for
content learning. |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
4.5 |
24.4 |
0.4 |
50.8 |
19.9 |
|
|
-I21 I would rather
assist with language lessons than content ones. |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
3.7 |
30.5 |
1.2 |
39.4 |
25.2 |
|
|
-I22 I think the program is effective. |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
7.3 |
16.7 |
0 |
51.6 |
24.4 |
|
|
-I24 Rate the
effectiveness of your presence in the following subjects: |
Math: 34.6%;
Physical Education (P.E.): 33.8% History: 69.5%;
Social Sciences: 76.5%; Natural Sciences: 67.5%; Music and Art: 51.9% |
||||
Note: TD: totally disagree; D: disagree; NAND: neither agree nor
disagree; A: agree; TA: totally agree
Although seven out of ten LAs regard the foreign language as an
effective medium of instruction for content learning in non-linguistic subjects
(I20), six out of ten LAs would rather assist with language lessons than
content ones (I21). Quantitative data analysis resulted in identifying 28
comments alluding to CLIL ineffectiveness to FL learning and 15 mentioning
limitations related to teaching subject content lessons.
The underlying points expressed by the LAs about CLIL implementation
refer to the need for teachers to deepen the development of the approach,
pointing out that it should go beyond the mere use of the second language to
teach content: “Content integrated language learning is not simply teaching the
class content in the second language. Language learning objectives and
vocabulary learning need to be integrated into the lesson not taught in an
ad-hoc manner as a by-product of content learning”. 4:271 (367:367). According
to LAs, teachers should also reconsider what is known as the “reinforcement
approach”, which is based on presenting the content first in Spanish to later
address it again in the foreign language: “The teaching ends up being mostly
vocabulary because they do not understand enough English for me to actually explain anything. This means that no student is
learning any new content since English input is already being grafted onto what
they already know in Spanish” 4:164 (224:224). In fact, the use of Spanish in
bilingual classrooms is also aimed at facilitating comprehension: “The main
issue is that the students mostly have a very low level of English, so teaching
other content in English seems like a waste of time because they need it all
repeated in Spanish” 4:189 (255:255).
LAs express their concerns regarding the complexity and difficulty of
content material: “I think sometimes the vocabulary for the Social Science
class can be too hard if their English levels are lower” 1:40 (50:50)
“Sometimes it was difficult to help when the vocabulary was very
subject-specific” 1:45 (58:58).
LAs stress the need for the linguistic area to support the learning of
certain linguistic contents that will be used in a contextualized way in the
areas of knowledge: “All content classes should be required to use the grammar
learned in the English Language curriculum at the time that it's being taught.
For example, if the simple past tense is being taught, then the exercises and
problems in Math or PE should mirror that grammar during that unit”. 4:97
(134:134).
Considering the quantitative data obtained in the questionnaire,
bilingual subjects were ranked on how well they encompassed LA’s participation
and contribution: Social Sciences (76.5%), History (69.5%), Natural Sciences
(67.5%), Art and Music (51.9%), Mathematics (34.6%) and Physical Education
(33.8%). The analysis of the ranking illustrates the negative representations
regarding the two content areas considered less effective for LA participation.
Regarding Mathematics, it was pointed out that the complexity of the subject is
the main limiting factor, both for the students and for the assistants
themselves: “Almost half of my classes are in Mathematics, and it is hard for
the students because their English level is low, and I am not adept at
explaining the formulas or Math processes either. So, in the end, they will
probably fall behind”. 4:10 (16:16).
Physical Education is also a subject where LAs find themselves unable to
effectively fulfill their role due to the scarce linguistic treatment: “The
only subject that I found myself not being able to take much part in was PE.
And I strongly think that language assistant should not be given one full hour
on this subject because of the minuscule amount of time for classroom (spoken)
instruction. Most of the time, students are out to perform their exercises, and
this is where it becomes tricky. Some teachers have the tendency to just get on
with the Spanish instruction and let their language assistant sit on the side
and watch the students the entire time”. 4:216 (288:288).
Furthermore, some LAs highlight low motivation and participation of
students in classroom sessions, questioning the effectiveness of the approach:
“Students don't want to learn content subjects through English. They don't pay
attention, don't listen, and don't participate” 4:293 (391:391), “The children
do not learn English effectively in any other course but English. All other
course content is not relevant and often leaves the children upset and
uncooperative, especially if they are having difficulty learning the subject
content in Spanish” 4:125 (172:172). These insights reveal CLIL’s high
complexity as an endeavor, demanding high-level pedagogical skills in order to encompass LAs´ participation and students´
engagement under the scope of teaching and learning content through a foreign
language.
3.2. LAs´ representations on
classroom methodology
The second
category delves into LAs´ representations on classroom methodology (see Table 2).
|
Table 2 Category 2. Methodology |
|||||
|
QUESTIONNAIRE
ITEMS |
RESPONSE
PERCENTAGE |
||||
|
-I60 Teaching through oral explanations is the preferred method that
teachers use. |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
1.2 |
11.8 |
5.3 |
62.6 |
19.1 |
|
|
-I61 Teamwork is used as a teaching strategy in lessons. |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
11.4 |
26.8/ |
4.9 |
43.5 |
13.4 |
|
|
-I62
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is regularly introduced in
activities. |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
12.2 |
28.5 |
4.5 |
39.8 |
15 |
|
|
-I63
Textbooks are used as main sources of information |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
2.8 |
17.9 |
4.1 |
41.9 |
33.3 |
|
|
-I64 Teachers
complement lessons with photocopies of different curricular materials |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
7.7 |
20.3 |
4.5 |
47.6 |
19.9 |
|
|
-I65 Teachers use assessment tools in the bilingual sessions. |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
6.1 |
34.1 |
4.1 |
45.5 |
10.2 |
|
|
-I66
Bilingual lessons incorporate hands-on activities ie.
Experiments, projects, workshops... |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
16.7 |
29.7 |
5.3 |
37.8 |
10.6 |
|
|
-I67 Special
needs students are provided adapted materials for bilingual sessions. |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
16.7 |
31.7 |
10.2 |
32.1 |
9.3 |
|
Teaching methodology in bilingual classrooms was characterized as
leaning more towards traditional techniques and teacher-centeredness. According
to 81.7% of LAs teaching through oral explanations is the preferred method that
teachers use (I60), while 75.2% claim that textbooks are used as the main
sources of information (I63). Only 46.4% of LAs state that hands-on activities
such as experiments, projects, and workshops are developed in the classrooms
(I66). The analyses of the qualitative data show three main domains in which
LAs focus their feedback: the need to update the methodology used in class (32
comments), rendering lessons more communicative (16 comments), and reinforcing
focus on form (11 comments) (Table 1). Among the suggestions for the
improvement of classroom methodology, LAs argue for active and student-centered
approaches as alternatives: “Students need more authentic content and
project-based learning where the foreign language becomes more relevant to the
students” 4:64 (70:70), as well as the imperative to reduce the use of
textbooks: “More flexibility in the curriculum and the ability to deviate from
the textbook to do special projects” 4:40 (44:44). Additionally, LAs advocate
for more practical dynamics in the classroom: “More hands-on activities that do
not rely on traditional methods” 4:122 (168:168), “experiments in science
classes and project-based learning in humanities” 4:192 (261:261).
The LAs also suggest ideas for enhancing classroom dynamics, and the use
of ICT resources in the classroom. Among them are the (1) organization of
conversational focus groups: “conversation practice on relevant topics with the
students have been beneficial and are a fun way to get them to practice
speaking and listening” 4:47 (53:53), (2) immersive sessions to support the
development of various projects: “An English `profundización´ (sic) class that can be
used for more projects, speaking, presentations, practice, cultural exchange, etc” 4:48 (44:44), (3) more personalized attention: “I
would like to work with smaller groups of kids from time to time” 4:136
(193:193), (4) increase the number of resources in the classroom: “I believe
there should be more resources to use to aid LA's. I think there should be more
interactive materials to use too”. 4:156 (216:216), “Greater access to
technology (like smartboards in the classroom)” 4:39 (44:44), “For the students
to have more access to electronics (Laptops or computers)” 4:179 (238:238).
LAs are also in favor of reinforcing the focus on form, rather than
learning niche vocabulary, evidencing lexical dimensions being given hegemonic
priority: “Focus more on the language learning - my kids can’t form full
sentences in English, but they know how to say extraneous things like exoskeleton, omnivorous, and other
science words that are not relevant to their English level” 4:7 (7:7), “Ensure
understanding before moving to the next unit, especially key sounds and sight
words of the English language” 4:123 (168:168), “Sentence structure is a MUST,
especially when they are learning new vocabulary. And having daily
pronunciation lessons if possible or having homework involving pronunciation is
needed” 4:201 (271:272).
The respondents raise several points on improving attention to
diversity, as only 41.4% of LAs manifest that special needs students are
provided adapted materials for bilingual sessions (I67). LAs identify the need
in supporting those students with lower language levels: “The kids that were
behind in English often misbehaved and drowned out both me and the Spanish
teacher, so no one could get much substance out from those courses” 1:134
(136:136), “There should be more support for kids who struggle” 4:297 (24:24).
Overall, LAs stress the need for more functional and communicative use
of the foreign language in the classroom: “Focus on communication in English
rather than deliver School subjects in English - the students need a base level
for this to be productive”. 4:161 (218:218). Views on the current methodology
evidence the need for teachers to accentuate communication skills in bilingual
classrooms, as focus on content might take over form to the detriment of
students’ foreign language learning.
3.3. LA's views on the role of
languages in bilingual classrooms
The third
category studies LA's views on how languages are used in bilingual classrooms
(see Table 3).
|
Table 3 Category 3. Role of languages |
|||||
|
QUESTIONNAIRE
ITEMS |
RESPONSE PERCENTAGE
|
||||
|
I59 Teachers use Spanish more than the foreign language in the
bilingual sessions. |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
4.9 |
37.8 |
2 |
31.7 |
23.6 |
|
|
I58 Teachers'
language skills in the foreign language are good enough to conduct the lessons. |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
8.5 |
26.4 |
2.4 |
43.9 |
17.7 |
|
|
I79 Since
starting, I have observed improvements in students’ overall performance in
the foreign language. |
TD |
D |
NAND |
A |
TA |
|
5.7 |
20.3 |
3.7 |
49.6 |
20.7 |
|
According to 55% of LAs, Spanish is the most frequently used language in
class (I59), with 19 comments questioning the practice (Tables 1 & 3). For
some LAs this fact limits students’ engagement in trying to learn the foreign
language: “Bilingual Spanish teachers spend way too much time teaching in
Spanish even with the auxiliar present, students know they don't need to listen
to the auxiliar in English because the Spanish teacher will translate all of
the information into Spanish immediately” 4:103 (143:143). The ubiquitous use
of Spanish also limits LA’s use of their native language: “Most of the time, I
have to make use of Spanish for us to communicate (even in 4°ESO)” 1:7 (10:10).
Interestingly, the perceived low level of teachers’ foreign language skills is
a compelling factor for some LAs to consider the knowledge of Spanish to be a
requirement of the LA selection process: “They really should require a level of
Spanish for the LAs. My level is quite low but since there were no
requirements, I thought maybe the teachers were going to have very high levels
of English, which is not true. Many of them spoke almost no English and it made
communication very difficult” 1:91 (118:118).
LAs identify the need to increase the use of the foreign language in the
classrooms: “One of the ways to combat these limitations is to raise the amount
of English input that students receive daily to better match natural language
learning input quantities” 4:195 (265:265). LA's presence in the classroom is
thought to be a factor that compels teachers to use the foreign language: “I
also feel like many teachers had to teach in English because of our presence”
1:19 (16:16).
Although 62.6% of LAs consider that teachers´ language skills are good
enough to conduct the lessons (I58), 18 LAs specifically highlight the low
level of foreign language competence among teachers: “I was the only one in my
bilingual school to speak English, even the two English teachers had poor
language skills, and I felt that I couldn’t really help the students at all”
1:9 (14:14). Moreover, the low level of students' competence in the foreign
language is thought to limit the extent that lessons can be successfully
conducted using the target language: “There is a bilingual section in my high
school, but it is impossible for the kids to communicate with me in French,
even for the most basic things (Can you read? Can you repeat? etc.)” 1:7
(10:10).
16 LAs argue that the low level of the students’ foreign language
competence represents an obstacle for them to take advantage of the lessons:
“The basic English level is so low that any teaching of subject content in
English is nearly pointless” 4:19 (26:26). Additionally, they reflect on the
variability in student competence levels in the foreign language: “Some students
have very high levels, and some cannot understand me at all. This makes it hard
for lessons that are not English classes to take full advantage of my presence”
4:32 (38:38).
The need to guarantee that students have reached a certain level of
linguistic competence in the foreign language before addressing the content in
non-linguistic areas is also mentioned: “We should focus on teaching grammar
and vocabulary first and getting the children to a good level before
introducing them to content learning with a foreign language. They are
currently struggling with the content AND (sic) the language, so that's a
double barrier to their education” 4:106 (149:149). In this sense, LAs propose
the gradual introduction of the CLIL approach to students: “It is impossible
for kids in 1°ESO who just started French this year to study 50% of the content
in French” 4:9 (13:13).
LAs’ views on the use of languages in bilingual classrooms point to
multiple hurdles in the learning process, as well as the complexity of creating
favorable conditions for content learning in the foreign language amid
minimizing interference from the mother tongue.
The focus of the study was to determine areas for improvement in
bilingual education according to insights provided by Language Assistants in
the areas of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), classroom
methodology, and the role of languages.
The analyses of LAs representations reveal that bilingual classroom
dynamics are positively evaluated; however communicative, interactive, and
meaningful teaching and learning processes are not as generalized as previous
studies have already documented (Durán-Martínez & Beltrán-Llavador,
2020; Lasagabaster & Doiz,
2016; Llaneza-Villanueva, 2016; San-Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2020).
Whereas LAs consider the use of the foreign language in subjects as
effective for content learning, a more in-depth analysis of the qualitative
data shows that the implementation of CLIL at the classroom level is far from
the recommended interactive, social-constructivist, and student-led approach in
which teachers withdraw from being donors of knowledge and become facilitators
of learning (Pérez Cañado, 2016). Instead, LAs
characterize the bilingual sessions as teacher-centered and administered
excessively through oral explanations using traditional resources such as
textbooks, deviating from the regional programme
guidelines which state that classroom methodology should be based on the design
of communicative tasks to enhance students´ language competence (Consejería de educación de
Andalucía, 2011).
Another concern raised in the study was the role of the foreign language
in the context of CLIL sessions. LAs perceived language teaching as limited and
lacking in proper planning, reminiscent of other studies on CLIL implementation
in other regions (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2016). LAs mention the need to dismantle the
recurrent trend of first teaching content in Spanish before being taught in the
foreign language as a strategy to structure the sessions. This language
division corresponds to practices of developing bilingualism through parallel monolingualisms rather than synchronous exposure (Laupenmühlen, 2012). Instead of this reinforcement
approach, L1 usage in the classroom could be directed at making the content
comprehensible as this allows it to build from the known concepts, translate
difficult grammar and lexicon, and utilize cross-linguistic comparisons (Swain
et al., 2011). LAs understanding of the language dynamics in the classroom is
aligned with the current consensus on the need to systematically plan the use
of L1 and L2 to fulfill the different pedagogical functions inherent to the
changing stages and phases of a lesson (Lin, 2015).
Furthermore, an overuse of Spanish has been identified in bilingual classrooms,
a pattern already recognized in previous studies (Litzler,
2020). This finding contrasts with LAs overall positive opinions of teachers’
foreign language levels. According
to LAs, instances in which teachers’ levels are lower than average present an
added difficulty, since it affects not only the delivery of the lessons in the
foreign language, but also limits effective collaboration between LAs and
teachers, a conclusion already highlighted by other studies of the bilingual
program (Szczesniak & Muñoz-Luna, 2022).
LAs also alluded to the difficulties that students with lower levels
encounter in following lessons and learning specific subject content. Even in
cases in which students might know the vocabulary, they lack strategies to make
use of the learned language in functional ways or follow the further
explanations conducted in the second language. This scenario demands concrete
actions from teachers in order to adapt to the varying
levels of students´ linguistic competence, diverse learning styles and levels
of attainment, catering to diversity instead of using a ‘one-size fits all’
teaching approach (Madrid & Pérez Cañado, 2018).
The remaining findings highlight several areas in which bilingual
sessions could be holistically improved. Among those mentioned were a lack of
or disregard for focus on form, as foreign language learning is assumed to be
an incidental by-product of CLIL methodology rather than an intentional
objective. Studies advocating for the focus on form in language learning show
that by integrating a set of techniques deployed in a communicative context to
draw attention to linguistic forms, either explicitly or implicitly, have a
substantial impact in language learning. These strategies can come in the form
of pre-planned tasks or task repetitions in which the LA can actively
participate in (Ellis, 2016).
LAs’ effective contribution in the classroom has also been regarded with
varying degrees of success, according to the subject content. Mathematics and
Physical Education received the lowest ratings in terms of effectiveness, the
former for its complexity and the latter for its limited linguistic dimension.
CLIL teachers in these particular subject areas should
be encouraged to undergo further training in lesson planning in order to render
their subjects more compatible with LA participation.
While LAs play an essential role as facilitators of language development
in the CLIL classroom, their knowledge and understanding of bilingual teaching
and learning processes pose limitations as they are not required formal
training either in general or bilingual education to gain access to the
position. Notwithstanding this factor, Language assistants’ representations are
still valid sources of information, as they are participating observers of CLIL
implementation. The shift to the LAs’ perspective was due to the need to
advance further research in understanding the bilingual classroom and CLIL
methodology, considering their representations as key insights. Further
research, such as the one that is currently in design by the authors, should
also include teachers, students, and families’ representations about the areas
for improvement regarding bilingual education, thus reinforcing and
strengthening the triangulation of information.
The study highlights certain areas of the bilingual project through the
lens of native language assistants. CLIL as an approach demands a set of skills
that must be enacted to effectively lead to content and language learning.
However, LAs representations show the fragility of this equilibrium, already
taking into account the preexisting imbalance between Spanish and the foreign
language not only in terms of use and contextual prominence but also in teachers’ and
students´ proficiency. Therefore, teachers and LAs share the challenge of
creating meaningful opportunities for students to use and advance their
knowledge of the FL in class.
Spanish is reported to be the main language in the bilingual classrooms,
limiting students’ exposure to the foreign language. Overuse of the native
language in presenting content has been shown to affect student engagement and
disincentivize efforts at using the target language. Additionally, the study
has shown CLIL’s high complexity as an endeavor, demanding high-level pedagogical
skills and effective classroom management techniques in order
to encompass LAs´ participation and students´ engagement under the scope
of teaching and learning content through a foreign language in different
subjects.
Finally, a few recommendations stem from the study, such as the need for
specialized training for teachers on how to collaborate with LAs, as also
proposed by Sánchez-Torres (2020). Teaching practices in bilingual classrooms
must advance towards more innovative, interactive, and inclusive approaches. In order to achieve this, teachers’ professional development
in CLIL continues to be relevant and necessary, together with the further
improvement of teachers’ foreign language skills, since previous studies have
also concluded that teachers with stronger foreign language skills have been
found to be more aligned with the different dimensions of CLIL (Pavon et al. 2019).
Teachers in the bilingual sections need added support, not only from an
extended LA presence in the lessons but also through easing their
much-saturated workload (Travé y Soto, 2014).
Similarly, it is worth considering the possibility of enacting on-the-job
training situations in which teachers and LAs might be observed and modeled by
experts. Partnerships between Teacher Training Centers in Andalusia, regional
Educational Administrations, and Universities might be catalysts for research
projects based on Lesson Study and Action Research to effectively study
bilingual education from the perspective of the practitioners,LAs, students, and families to improve
the teaching and learning processes implemented in the bilingual classrooms.
Referencias
Brindusa, A., Cabrales, A., & Carro, J. M. (2016). Evaluating a bilingual education
program in Spain: the impact beyond foreign language learning. Economic Inquiry, 54(2), 1202-1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12305
Campillo, J. M., Sánchez,
R., & Miralles, P. (2019). Primary Teachers' Perceptions of
CLIL Implementation in Spain. English Language
Teaching, 12(4),
149-156. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n4p149
Consejería de Educación de Andalucía (2011).
ORDEN de 28 de junio de 2011, por la que se regula la enseñanza bilingüe en los
centros docentes de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3GceN6a
Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL: A Pedagogical Approach from
the European Perspective. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl
& N. Hornberger (Eds.). Encyclopedia
of Language and Education (97–111). Springer.
Durán-Martínez, R., & Beltrán-Llavador,
F. (2020). Key issues in teachers’ assessment of primary education bilingual
programs in Spain. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(2), 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1345851
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language teaching research, 20(3), 405-428.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627
Fernández-Sanjurjo, J.,
Fernández-Costales, A., & Arias-Blanco, J. M. (2017). Analysing students’ content-learning in
science in CLIL vs. non-CLIL programmes: empirical
evidence from Spain, International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, http://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1294142
Hughes, S. P., & Madrid, D. (2020). The effects of
CLIL on content knowledge in monolingual contexts. The Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 48-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1671483
Lancaster, N. (2016). Stakeholder perspectives on CLIL
in a monolingual context. English
Language Teaching, 9(2), 148–177. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n2p148
Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz,
A. (2016). CLIL students’ perceptions of their language learning process:
delving into self-perceived improvement and instructional preferences. Language Awareness, 25(1–2), 110-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1122019
Laupenmühlen, J. (2012). Making the most of L1 in CL (1+2) IL. In
D. Marsh & O. Meyer (Eds.), Quality
interfaces: Examining evidence & exploring solutions in CLIL (pp.
237-251). Eichstaett: Eichstaett
Academic Press.
Lebart, L., Morineau,
A. & Warwick, K. M. (1984). Multivariate
Descriptive Statistical Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Litzler, M. F. (2020). Native English speakers in
Madrid’s classrooms: Difficulties reported by assistants. Tejuelo, 31, 47-76. http://doi.org/10.17398/1988-8430.31.47
Lin, A. M.Y. (2015). Conceptualising the
potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language,
Culture and Curriculum, 28(1),
74–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000926
Llaneza-Villanueva, J. A. (2016).
El ayudante lingüístico en los primeros años de la implantación de un programa
AICLE y su proyección en el aula de primaria. [Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid]. Retrieved from https://eprints.ucm.es/id/eprint/40526
Lorenzo, F. (2019). Educación
Bilingüe en Andalucía. Informe de gestión, competencias y organización. Agencia
Andaluza de Evaluación Educativa (AGAEVE). Sevilla: Consejería de Educación.
Madrid, D., & Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2018).
Innovations and Challenges
in Attending to Diversity through CLIL, Theory Into
Practice, 57:3, 241-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1492237
Martínez-Agudo, J. D.
(2019). Which instructional programme (EFL or CLIL)
results in better oral communicative competence? Updated empirical evidence
from a monolingual context. Linguistics
and Education, 51, 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2019.04.008
Méndez-García, M. D. C., &
Pavón-Vázquez, V. (2012). Investigating the coexistence of the mother tongue and
the foreign language through teacher collaboration in CLIL contexts:
perceptions and practice of the teachers involved in the plurilingual programme in Andalusia. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(5), 573-592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2012.670195
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Montalbán, J. (2016). Improving students’ reading
habits and solving their early performance cost exposure: evidence from a
bilingual high school program in the Region of Madrid. Paris School of
Economics. https://bit.ly/3bguLj4
Pavón, V. (2018). La controversia de la educación bilingüe en España. Revista Tribuna Norteamericana, (26), 20-27. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3A0bETW
Pavón, V.., Lancaster, N., & Bretones, C. (2019). Keys issues in developing teachers’
competences for CLIL in Andalusia: training, mobility
and coordination. The Language Learning
Journal, 48(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1642940
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2014).
Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher perceptions.
International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.980778
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2016).
Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39:2,
202-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1138104
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2018).
The effects of CLIL on L1 and content learning: Updated empirical evidence from
monolingual contexts. Learning and
Instruction, 57, 18-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.002
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2020).
“CLIL and Elitism: Myth or Reality?” Language
Learning Journal, 48(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1695622
Porcedda, M. E., & González-Martínez, J.
(2020). CLIL teacher training: lacks and suggestions from a systematic
literature review. Enseñanza & Teaching, 38, 49-68. https://doi.org/10.14201/et20203814968
Rodríguez-Sabiote,
C., Madrid, D., Ortega-Martín, J. L., & Hughes, S. P. (2018). Resultados y
conclusiones sobre la calidad de los programas AICLE en España. In J. L.
Ortega-Martín, S. P., Hughes. & D. Madrid (Eds.) Influencia de la política educativa de centro en la enseñanza
bilingüe en España (pp. 141–160). Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y
Deporte: Fundación British Council.
San-Isidro, X., &
Lasagabaster, D. (2020). Students’ and families’ attitudes and motivations to
language learning and CLIL: A longitudinal study. The Language Learning Journal, 50(1), 119-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1724185
Sanz-Trigueros, F. J., &
Guillén-Díaz, C. (2021). Adaptación y desarrollo profesional docente de los especialistas
de la enseñanza bilingüe. Revista
Fuentes, 23(1), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.12795/revistafuentes.2021.v23.i1.11572
Sánchez-Torres, J. (2014). Los
papeles que desempeñan el “auxiliar de conversación” y el
“profesor-coordinador” en centros bilingües español/inglés de Sevilla. Un
estudio empírico de casos. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). University of Sevilla. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3oRpKR5
Sánchez-Torres, J. (2020). Needs of the ‘Bilingual Schools'
Program in Andalusia Regarding EFL Classrooms and Language Assistants. In Handbook of Research on Bilingual and
Intercultural Education (pp. 44-70). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3690-5.ch069
Senra-Silva, I. (2021). A study on CLIL
secondary school teachers in Spain: Views, concerns, and needs. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 29, 49-68. https://dx.doi.org/10.5209/cjes.76068
Swain, M., Kirkpatrick, A., & Cummins, J. (2011). How to have a guilt-free life using
Cantonese in the English class. A handbook for the English language teacher in
Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Research Centre into Language Acquisition and
Education in Multilingual Societies. Institute of Education. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3FYrdgz
Szczesniak, A., & Muñoz-Luna, R. (2022). Percepciones de los profesores sobre el Aprendizaje Integrado de
Contenidos y Lenguas en los centros de primaria de Andalucía. Porta Linguarum, 37, 237-257. https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi37.18414
Travé, G. (H.) y Soto,
A. (2014). La enseñanza bilingüe según el
profesorado de primaria. Características, facilitadores y dificultades. Investigación
en la escuela, 84, 73-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/IE.2014.i84.06
Travé, G. H., Soto, A. y Vinluan, I. P.
(2023). El programa de enseñanza bilingüe en Andalucía según los auxiliares de
conversación. Revista de Investigación
Educativa, 41(1), 69-85. https://doi.org/10.6018/rie.495781
Annex
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|