Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
1
Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs: A Case Study in a Tertiary Setting
Matthew Johnson
Universidad de Alcalá de Henares
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………...3
Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………………..4
CLIL …………………………………………………………………………………..4
What is CLIL? ………………………………………………………………...5
What is CLIL not? …………………………………………………………….9
Why CLIL? ……………………………………………………………….....12
Teachers’ Beliefs …………………………………………………………………….14
What are Teachers’ Beliefs’? ………………………………………………..15
Where do Teachers’ Beliefs Come from? …………………………………...16
Can Teachers’ Beliefs be Changed, and if so, how? ……………………….. 19
The Study …………………………………………………………………………………....22
The Institution ……………………………………………………………………….23
The Students …………………………………………………………………………23
The Participants ……………………………………………………………………...24
The Bilingual Project ………………………………………………………………. 26
Data Collection ………………………………………………………………………29
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 31
Findings ……………………………………………………………………………...31
First Questionnaire …………………………………………………………..31
Second Questionnaire ………………………………………………………..36
Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………...40
Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………………….49
References …………………………………………………………………………………...53
Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………….56
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
3
INTRODUCTION
Universities in Spain are starting to implement bilingual degree itineraries in which
English is used as a vehicular language for the teaching of some subjects. This is a response
to the challenges of an increasingly globalised world in which there is greater student
mobility and a greater need to be able to operate between cultures in more than one language.
As yet, however, there is no consensus amongst universities on how to implement a CLIL
approach and each university tends to develop a different model. Whilst research in the field
of CLIL at tertiary level does exist, there is a general lack of research on teachers’
perceptions or training at that level. It is in the context of CLIL at university that this study
takes place.
The success of any educational innovation is dependent on many factors and not least
of these is the educators themselves charged with applying the changes in practice. This study
focuses on five lecturers at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros teacher training
college in Acalá de Henares, Spain. In 2009 they volunteered to participate in a teacher
development programme of language and methodology training which would be designed to
prepare them for the challenges of teaching their subjects through English using a CLIL
approach. This would imply a significant undertaking on their part as they repositioned
themselves as content and language teachers rather than content teachers only. As subject
experts, it was assumed that their initial attitudes and beliefs regarding bilingual education
would be founded on the restricted knowledge of the uninitiated and received wisdom. This
study was conceived to examine if and how the participants’ beliefs would develop and
change over the course of a two and a half year teacher development programme focusing on
CLIL. The assumption was that their knowledge of CLIL would naturally increase, but would
that influence their beliefs and if so, how?
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
4
In addition to a shortage of research related to CLIL at tertiary level, research into
teachers’ beliefs in the field of bilingual education is similarly underrepresented. A study then
of teachers’ beliefs in the context of the implementation of a CLIL programme at a Spanish
university is both timely and relevant. Beliefs exert an important influence on teachers’
methods, actions and behaviour (see, for example, Pajares 1992). A fuller understanding of
these beliefs could provide insights into what is required to give university CLIL programmes
a greater chance of success.
LITERATURE REVIEW
CLIL
CLIL is a term first coined by David Marsh in 1994. In 2003 in its action plan for
promoting language learning and linguistic diversity the European Commission stated that
CLIL “has a major contribution to make to the Union’s language learning goals” (2003: 8). It
made a commitment to funding transnational projects aimed at developing and disseminating
methodologies for teaching subjects through vehicular languages and promised to increase
support for schools wishing to implement CLIL. In 2006, Eurydice published a report of
information gathered on the availability of CLIL in European education and training systems.
The report confirms that only in a minority of European states is there no CLIL provision. In
other states provision exists, but varies widely in terms of the subjects taught or the
proportion of school timetables in which a CLIL approach is used. Some states have pilot
projects, some have incorporated CLIL into mainstream education, others have a blend of
both. What is clear is that CLIL provision is increasingly widespread in some form or other
throughout the EU and will have an ever greater role to play in the future. Nevertheless,
despite its growing ubiquity, the meaning of CLIL and what it implies is not commonly
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
5
understood. In the following pages I will examine what CLIL is and what it is not. I will also
look at arguments for why the implementation of a CLIL approach is an appropriate response
to changes in educational needs in the 20th century.
What is CLIL?
The acronym CLIL stands for Content and Language Integrated Learning. Coyle,
Hood & Marsh succinctly define it as “a dual-focused educational approach in which an
additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language”
(2010: 1). The key word in the acronym is perhaps “integrated” and the goal of the CLIL
approach is that students simultaneously learn a foreign language without neglecting the
content in a content lesson. Do Coyle emphasises that “Integration is a powerful pedagogic
tool which aims to ‘safeguard’ the subject being taught whilst promoting language as a
medium for learning as well as an objective of the learning process itself” (2002: 27). In
essence, CLIL can be seen as a powerful approach given that, executed well, the learning of
content does not suffer and the acquisition of a foreign language in meaningful contexts is
successfully achieved.
The notion of using a vehicular language to study academic content is far from new,
however, and several authors point this out with examples from the Roman Empire and even
earlier (Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2010; Ball 2009a; Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008).
According to many of its advocates though, the aim of CLIL goes beyond the learning of a
language; the language is not only something gained in the process, but also a tool with
which cognition can be developed. This is a more recent development. Mehisto et al. (2008)
add the CLIL-related goal of developing learning skills to those of subject knowledge and
language proficiency, thus moving beyond the idea of a dual-focused to a trial-focused
approach. According to Meyer (2010), “A holistic methodology is needed that transcends the
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
6
traditional dualism between content and language teaching” (2010: 26). CLIL is about more
than simply learning language and content simultaneously then.
Several authors have devised neat conceptual frameworks that summarise the
essential characteristics of good CLIL practice. Perhaps the most well-known of these is
Coyle’s four Cs framework of key principles. This is useful as a checklist of important CLIL
elements for educators in such contexts and is easy to remember. The four Cs are content,
communication, cognition and culture (Coyle 2002). CLIL must be content-driven and
together with communication and cognition, the first three of the four Cs can be seen as being
mutually interdependent. Content and thinking processes (cognition) must be analysed for
linguistic demand and complexity in order to avoid placing too heavy a burden on learners in
terms of thinking and language at the same time. Here Coyle, Hood & Marsh (2010) use
‘language’ and ‘communication’ interchangeably thereby giving importance to authentic and
meaningful communication in the vehicular language. Coyle sees that, “Language, thinking
and culture are inextricably linked” (2002: 28). She argues that this makes a fourth C, culture
inherent in CLIL and that studying a subject through a foreign language facilitates an
understanding of the culture of that language. This opportunity should be exploited because a
focus on culture promotes intercultural awareness, which is becoming an increasing necessity
in an ever more globalised world.
In a variation of Coyle’s 4 Cs, Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols use a framework of four
guiding principle for successful outcomes in CLIL; cognition, community, content and
communication (2008). ‘Culture’ is exchanged for ‘community’ here, but shares several of
the same considerations such as giving importance to the interests of others and taking into
account one’s role in both a local and global context. ‘Community’ seems to emphasise the
same need to foster tolerance and understanding in a globalised world as Coyle’s ‘culture’
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
7
does, but approaches this from a slightly different conceptual premise. Mehisto et al. (2008)
also argue that cognition is the driving force behind CLIL, again in a slight deviation from
the more common idea related to CLIL of being content-driven, which seeks to differentiate
it from language-driven approaches. Their assertion is that cognition is the foundation of all
strong pedagogy and successful learning, CLIL being no exception.
As a more comprehensive framework, Mehisto et al. (2008) also suggest thirty core
features of CLIL methodology, which they categorise into six more general groups; multiple
focus, safe and enriching learning environment, authenticity, active learning, scaffolding and
co-operation. These core features stress, among other ideas, the need for cross-curricular
themes and projects, reflection on the learning process, building learner confidence to
experiment, making connections between learning and real life, using current multi-media
materials, peer and co-operative group work, negotiation of meaning, activating schemata,
responding to different learning styles, fostering creative and critical thinking, and involving
parents and the local community. All of these features would appear to be desirable and
indeed achievable in any educational programme or context and not only CLIL-specific. The
authors in fact recognise this, but what is clear is that given the inherent obstacles associated
with teaching content in a vehicular language such an attention to these details of good
practice becomes essential for CLIL to succeed. Indeed, CLIL “demands focus on how
subjects are taught whilst working with and through another language rather than in another
language” (Coyle 2002: 27).
A further attempt clearly to define and encapsulate CLIL follows a six-point
framework of conceptual sequencing, conceptual fronting, language as vehicle, specific task
design, a trinity of conceptual, procedural and language outcome objectives, and activities
which enhance peer communication, reading strategies, student production and cognitive
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
8
skills (Ball 2009b). The essence of conceptual sequencing and conceptual fronting is that
content is king. Contents are pushed to the fore and sequenced in such a way that is logical,
coherent and connected in content subject terms whereas language is subordinate to the needs
of the content subject. Language as a vehicle and therefore an integral part of the approach,
task design which incorporates scaffolding or textually embedded language, and activity
types which both encourage and indeed necessitate peer communication all fit nicely into
Coyle’s ‘communication’ as ‘language’ notion. The weight given to procedural outcomes,
reading strategies and cognitive skills all match the importance of cognition as well.
A familiar picture or pattern is emerging then of the trial-focused approach mentioned
earlier. Prominent advocates and practitioners of CLIL seem to concur that contents or
concepts, language and thinking skills are inextricably intertwined and co-exist in a state of
mutual interdependence. Coyle’s fourth C, culture, is re-imagined as ‘community’ in the case
of Mehisto et al. (2008) and is conspicuous by its absence in Ball’s (2009b) definition of
CLIL. Otherwise there is a striking consensus despite some semantic differences.
A continuing debate does exist, however, as to what CLIL really is; an approach, a
methodology or something else. This is not merely a semantic argument. Ball (Ibid.) defines
an approach as being “similar to a philosophy of teaching” whereas a method has “features
and parameters [which] are instantly identifiable”. Coyle et al. concede that CLIL shares
many features with other educational practices but assert that it is an innovative fusion of
both subject and language education (2010). They argue that CLIL takes elements from
influential theoretical perspectives and good educational practice and merge them into
something fundamentally innovative: a new approach. More controversial is the notion that
CLIL is an ‘umbrella term’ which covers as many as a dozen educational approaches such as
bilingual education, immersion, language showers and enriched language programmes
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
9
(Mehisto et al. 2008). The Eurydice report (2006: 8) calls CLIL a ‘generic term’ for all types
of teaching in which subjects are taught through a second language. These seem too disparate
that they might be covered by one all-embracing term however. It feels too flexible, too
inclusive, too vague. At the other extreme, Ball (2009a) contests that CLIL is indeed a
methodology due to the fact that, in his opinion, certain features and parameters must be
present if a class can really be called a CLIL class. This feels too rigid and prescriptive and
runs counter to what Coyle et al. (2010) argue is CLIL’s strength, that it is theoretically sound
and can be rigorously applied to practice whilst retaining the flexibility and adaptability that
allows it to be suited to many different educational contexts.
What is CLIL not?
There seems to be a considerable degree of agreement in terms of the key features of
CLIL even if it defies easy and neat definition. The question ‘what is CLIL like?’ would
appear to be easier to respond to satisfactorily than ‘what is CLIL?’ Clegg observes that,
“When you talk to people about CLIL, you have to ask them what they mean by it, because
otherwise you’ll find you’re talking about different things” (2009: 11). In response to
common misconceptions regarding the approach it is also useful to look at what CLIL is not.
CLIL is not language at the expense of content. Maljiers et al. (as cited in Van de
Craen et al. 2007: 70) compile reflections on CLIL practices by authors from twenty
European countries. In response to the question “Describe the aims of CLIL” it is noteworthy
that most authors considered the primary aims of CLIL teaching and learning to be related to
the promotion of language learning, of language proficiency, internalisation of the language
and the encouragement of linguistic diversity. Van de Craen et al. (2007) suggest that this is
an unfortunate side effect of the success of CLIL in Europe and that CLIL is seen as being
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
10
about the promotion, in the great majority of cases, of English. Such a view, whilst being
perhaps a natural and common sense one, fails to recognise the wider ranging potential
benefits of a CLIL approach. If CLIL were only interested in increasing language
proficiency, it would be unjustifiable given that the focus would be taken away from learning
science in a CLIL science lesson, for example. In such a scenario surely language proficiency
would be achieved to the detriment of the learning of subject matter.
A further example of foreign language learning being the primary goal of many CLIL
programmes can be seen in the Colegios Bilingües de la Comunidad de Madrid Syllabus
document. It is clear from the introduction that the focus has been placed heavily on language
aims. It is stated that “the fundamental objective of this programme is that the pupil achieve a
progressive command of the English language” (1). Browsing through the document, it
becomes evident that its contents are almost exclusively lists of functional or situational
language, grammar and vocabulary. The objectives are all linguistic and focused on the
acquisition of these items. Moreover, the vocabulary mentioned seems far removed from the
type of vocabulary that would appear in a science, history or geography lesson and more akin
to the typical vocabulary found in lower level EFL textbooks. The Comunidad de Madrid
Syllabus seems to have decided on the language aims in advance and quite separately from
the linguistic needs of the subjects taught in English. This would be typical of a traditional
language course, but seems out of place in an integrated bilingual programme. Language
appears here to take precedence over content, which is contrary to the CLIL principle, and
integration of content and language, much less cognition and culture or community, is not
evident. CLIL should not be supplanting content with language by dedicating more timetable
space to the attainment of linguistic aims. This is the main characteristic which differentiates
CLIL from content-based learning (CBL), where language is the main focus.
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
11
A later document, the Boletín Oficial de la Comunidad de Madrid shows a slight shift
in focus in the annex pertaining to guidelines for the primary curriculum in bilingual schools.
Amongst the overall objectives are those of acquiring “new knowledge through the
instrumental use of English” and gaining “cultural awareness” (2011: 41), something
conspicuously lacking in the Comunidad de Madrid Syllabus. Nevertheless, the remainder of
the guidelines focuses on developing reading, writing, speaking and listening skills in the
way that a traditional language course would as opposed to dealing with content teaching
through a vehicular language. This seems more akin to CBL than CLIL.
CLIL is not just changing the language of instruction. It is much more than simply
increasing exposure to a target language by doing the same thing through a different vehicle.
The Eurydice report on Content and Language Integrated Learning at School in Europe
(2006) reveals a widespread lack of methodological training for teachers across Europe. In
most cases, a pre-requisite for teachers being recruited as CLIL teachers is that they have
subject knowledge and language proficiency. Some programmes require that teachers have
teaching qualifications in both a content subject and a foreign language, others that they have
a subject teaching qualification and a certain level of foreign language proficiency. This
seems to suggest an underlying assumption that knowing a subject and knowing a foreign
language is enough to deliver lessons in which both content and language will be successfully
learned. Eurydice (2006: 52) also reports the common complaint amongst CLIL teachers
throughout Europe that “there are virtually no initial and in-service training programmes
devoted to methods used specifically to teach a subject in other than the normal language of
instruction”. This exemplifies what pre-service CLIL teachers fear and in-service CLIL
teachers know from experience, that there is a considerable gap to be spanned between
knowing a subject and a foreign language and being prepared and able effectively to teach the
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
12
subject in that language. Education policy makers and administrators, however, appear not
always to recognise this.
CLIL is not an attempt at assimilation. It does not attempt to usurp the first language.
A mere translation of materials and activities carried out in the mother tongue would leave
learners floundering. Such an approach would not “force the teachers to change their whole
methodological approach, or force them to design their own materials, or force the subject
teachers to think more carefully about the crucial role of language in their specialist fields”
(Ball 2009c). If learners are treated as native speakers and left to sink or swim, that is not
CLIL. Likewise, if they are required to complete cognitively undemanding tasks such as
learning vocabulary lists or labelling diagrams in a content class, even if language and
content are present, that is not CLIL. A final point made by Mehisto et al. (2008: 20) is that
CLIL is not an approach only for the brightest, most academically gifted students. They cite
several countries where CLIL has been implemented across the ability range with success.
Why CLIL?
CLIL has met with some resistance and parents often have very real concerns about
the education that their children involved in CLIL programmes are receiving. In many cases
these reservations are based on prevailing misconceptions. One such idea is that devoting less
time to studying in L1 will be detrimental to the development of the mother tongue. The fear
is that, for example, native Spanish-speaking children learning Science through English will
develop the subject-specific language in English, but not in their native Spanish. Another
common sense idea is that learning in a foreign language is more difficult than in the mother
tongue and therefore contents must be reduced leading to children learning less. There are
also many new and practical difficulties for teachers to overcome, so in the face of all this the
question has to be, why CLIL?
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
13
A CLIL approach can be justified, if there is a clear added value to the learning
experience. Van de Craen et al. (2007) present six tenets based on a wide range of research
that they have considered. The overview of the evidence they present suggests that to varying
degrees a CLIL approach positively affects second language development, attitudes and
motivation towards language learning, cognitive development and the exploitation of brain
plasticity in young learners. They also conclude that there are no negative effects on mother
tongue development or subject matter knowledge.
One of the principal arguments for implementing CLIL is that it can represent an
efficient use of time. The European Commission action plan for promoting language learning
and linguistic diversity states that CLIL “provides exposure to the language without requiring
extra time in the curriculum” (2003: 8). Coyle also stresses that CLIL implies a “meaningful
and economic use of study time” (2002: 28). This optimisation of time would seem to be as
good a reason as any considering how curricula subjects compete with each other for space
on the timetable and any increase in dedication to one normally implies a reduction in
another. This is not so with CLIL, which can augment time dedicated to language learning
without diminishing time dedicated to other areas of the curriculum.
Another argument is that like any innovation or new approach, CLIL requires an
increased focus on pedagogical practice. The placing of obstacles in the path of learning
brings about the development of measures with which to overcome them. Neither teachers
nor learners are likely to have all of the linguistic means they have at their disposal in the L1.
A transmission model of teaching is therefore rendered impracticable because teachers have
to find ways for learners to understand content. According to Coyle (2002) such a shift brings
with it the need to redefine methodologies by taking into account both teacher and learner
language and that this inevitably leads to greater engagement and interaction in the
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
14
classroom. This opinion is seconded by Ball (2009b) who points out that teacher talk is
reduced and student-student focus is augmented through a greater dependence on skills,
group work and collaborative tasks. This is described by Mehisto et al. (2008: 21) as “the
hands on, participatory nature of the CLIL classroom”. The combination of so many elements
of good pedagogical practice which is learner-centred and caters for different learning styles
is a powerful reason to recommend CLIL. It makes teachers and learners work harder to co-
construct meaning and learning and, as Mehisto (2009: 1) puts it, “Our minds are more likely
to wander when we are learning through our first language, but CLIL requires heightened
attention which may well lead to improved learning.”
CLIL would also seem to respond to 21st century needs in that it encourages
interculturality. Learners are given the opportunity to raise their awareness of other cultures
and to operate in them through their studies due to the fact that it is neither desirable nor
possible to divorce language and culture. As Coyle puts it, “Studying a subject through the
language of a different culture paves the way for understanding and tolerating different
perspectives” (2002: 28). What could be more important in a modern world in which new
economies are rising to prominence, everyday work contexts are both plurilingual and
pluricultural, languages are increasingly used as a lingua franca and there is an inexorable
interconnectedness and interdependence of economies, businesses and workers in different
countries and on different continents?
TEACHERS’ BELIEFS
Research interest in teachers’ beliefs has been growing over the past few decades as
evidenced by a significant number of studies and publications since William Perry (1970)
first investigated them (cited in Brownlee & Purdie 2001). It has been argued that teachers’
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
15
beliefs can be a strong predictor of teachers’ behaviour (Pajares 1992). Nevertheless, research
into teachers’ beliefs has been hindered somewhat by problems of definition,
conceptualisation and differing understanding teachers’ beliefs (Ibid.). The following pages
examine the nature of teachers’ beliefs, their origins, how they can change and develop, and
the difficulties of accessing them.
What are teachers’ beliefs?
The concept of teachers’ beliefs defies easy definition. Pajares (1992) highlights the
semantic problem and lack of consensus regarding terminology used found in literature
related to the topic. He suggests, however, that the confusion lies fundamentally in the
distinction between beliefs and knowledge and that it is difficult to identify exactly where
knowledge ends and belief begins (309). An example of the beliefs-knowledge confusion is
Bustos Flores (2001: 254) citing various frameworks for effective practices in bilingual
teaching (Clark and Pérez 1995; Baker 1997; Dalton 1998) when discussing teachers’
epistemological beliefs. These include such things as language proficiency, linguistic
knowledge, cultural knowledge and teacher competencies in the case of Clark and Pérez; the
ability to communicate clear directions, pace lessons, provide immediate feedback, monitor
student progress, amongst others in the case of Baker; and joint productive activity, language
and literacy development, meaning making, complex thinking and instructional conversation
for Dalton. Whilst these are all doubtlessly elements of good teaching practice and not by any
means necessarily unique to bilingual teaching, they fall clearly into the realm of knowing
how to teach effectively given that they are skills or competences which can be acquired
through training, rather than underlying beliefs about teaching or learning.
The previous example seems rather clear cut, but the task of distinguishing belief
from knowledge is often considerably more problematic. In a wide-ranging review of
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
16
publications related to beliefs, Pajares (1992) finds four common characteristics associated
with beliefs, all of which seem to point towards beliefs being inherently subjective and
unreliable. Firstly, the characteristic of existential presumption results in beliefs being formed
by chance experiences or successions of events, taken-for-granted and resistant to persuasion
or logical counter-argument. Secondly, the characteristic of alternativity is the result of
individuals being able to construct a situation based on beliefs that runs contrary to reality.
Thirdly, the characteristic of affective and evaluative loading means that beliefs operate
independently of the cognition associated with objective knowledge. Finally, the
characteristic episodic structure of beliefs means that they are constructed by and stored as a
series of snapshots of key episodes or events, whereas knowledge is semantically stored. To
completely separate beliefs from knowledge, however, seems impossible. They tread on each
other’s toes, overlap and intertwine. It seems unsatisfactory to conclude that knowledge is an
objective truth wholly independent of belief, which is a subjective, distorted subversion of
truth. Binary oppositions are too strong to define two related concepts which are so
inextricably linked, but it seems reasonable to suggest that knowledge tends towards being
objective and cognitive, beliefs towards being affective and evaluative. Pajares concedes that
“the educational community has been unable to adopt a specific working definition” (1992:
313) to distinguish knowledge from belief, even though it is a common distinction. Rokeach
(1968; cited in Pajares 1992) for example sees belief as a kind of knowledge which has both a
cognitive and an affective component.
Where do teachers’ beliefs come from?
A peculiarity of the teaching profession, in contrast with other careers, is that teachers
do not start out as complete novices by virtue of the fact that they have already experienced
education as learners, as Pena and Porto (2008) point out. Teachers bring with them ideas
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
17
about teaching and learning the first time that they set foot in a classroom in the role of
teacher that they started to formulate, however subconsciously, as children. As a
consequence, such ideas may be deep-seated, difficult to change and have a significant effect
on how they teach. The same would certainly not be true of surgeons, lawyers or pilots who
are unlikely to have ingrained beliefs about how to carry out their work.
In line with Vygotskian theories of the construction of knowledge, Bustos Flores
(2001: 252) asserts that “our quintessential ideas, beliefs, and conceptualisations are
formulated from experiences we have had within a sociocultural context. For example, our
beliefs about the world are given to us through our familial and educational experiences”.
The same can be said of an individual’s beliefs regarding education. A person’s beliefs as far
as education is concerned are related to how that person was taught; our perception of
education is the one handed down to us by the education we received and the attitudes
towards education of the society in question. As Bustos Flores puts it, “In essence, the social
structure becomes the mechanism for modelling expectations and standards of the norms of a
given community or society” (Ibid.).
Pajares (1992) explains that cultural transmission can be divided into three
components; education, schooling and enculturation. Education and schooling can be
characterised as deliberate and intentional. The former can be either formal or informal and
its intention is to condition behaviour according to the requirements of the given culture. The
latter takes place outside the home and is the process of teaching and learning. In contrast,
enculturation is incidental and is the result of the assimilation of a society’s cultural elements
through observation of and participation within that culture. As individuals we are all
susceptible to cultural transmission. Teachers and their beliefs are therefore heavily
influenced by the process of cultural transmission. Teachers are products of both the
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
18
educational system and the society in which they themselves were raised, with its attitudes
towards and expectations of education.
Greeno (1989) argued that teachers have implicit epistemological beliefs; that what a
teacher thinks about the nature and origin of knowledge and learning influence their view of
themselves and others as learners (cited in Bustos Flores 2001). Bustos Flores offers a
refinement of Schommer’s influential (1990) framework of five dimensions of
epistemological beliefs by adding a sixth (cited in Bustos Flores 2000: 2).
The certainty of knowledge acquisition is dependent on whether knowledge is seen as from either a duality or a relative perspective. The control of knowledge acquisition is defined as the beliefs of learning as either being perceived from an incremental or an entity perspective. The source of knowledge acquisition is the belief that knowledge is either acquired from experts or is socially constructed. The speed of knowledge acquisition is defined relative to the predetermined amount of time required for learning. Depending on how the structure of knowledge acquisition is perceived, learning is believed to be simple or complex. The interaction of knowledge acquisition can be defined as the individual’s beliefs regarding the interaction between language, culture and thought.
Clearly a teacher’s individual stance on each of these underlying epistemological beliefs will
have a profound effect on his or her teaching. It might be said that a teacher’s teaching style
is the product of a combination of beliefs and knowledge which are fused and put into
practice. Bustos Flores (2001: 254) speculates that “in all likelihood, beliefs about how
learning occurs modulate teachers’ approaches. Therefore, it is proposed that these
epistemological beliefs become translated into observable teaching behaviour or teaching
style.” To this we can add that we are interested in what teachers beliefs are in relation to not
only knowledge and learning, but also to teaching and learners themselves.
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
19
Can teachers’ beliefs be changed, and, if so, how?
A fundamental question then is can teachers’ beliefs, once crystallised, be subject to
change? They are rooted in personal experience, but may be modified over time with
exposure to training or to new experiences which serve to challenge them. Richardson (1998)
offers anecdotal evidence that a common perception about teachers is that they are highly
resistant to change and often get stuck in a rut and proceed as they have always done. She
dismisses this idea, however, and argues that certain catalysts and certain conditions can
facilitate and bring about both minor and major changes. Richardson argues that voluntary
change is more likely to be both effective and sustained than imposed change. Naturally,
teachers will feel more inclined to change if it is of their own accord, rather than being
dictated by an institution, education authority or ministry. According to Guskey (2002), such
voluntary change is likely to be due to teachers’ desire to become better educators, fight
boredom and alienation, increase professional satisfaction, improve pupils’ results and
improve the day-to-day operation of their classrooms. Richardson (1998: 2) concurs and
offers the encouraging insight that teachers are generally student-centred in their thinking and
“undertake change voluntarily, following their sense of what their students need and what is
working. They try out new ideas. These changes, while often minor adjustments, can be
dramatic”.
Two contrasting models of teacher development reveal very different results. The
first, the training model can be seen in Richardson’s (1998) terms as a ‘deficit model’. This is
likely to have been imposed from above starting from the premise that something is not
working, is missing or needs to be updated or improved. The assumption is that there are
desired behaviours or techniques and teachers can learn or be trained to replicate them in
their classrooms. This model has clear objectives and outcomes. Clearly, if this need is not
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
20
perceived by teachers beforehand, enthusiasm for such staff development may well be low.
Meyer (1988) in a study of reading development programmes provides evidence that such
staff development has a mere 15% success rate (cited in Richardson 1998). Richardson also
cites evidence that momentum is lost in longer term staff development programmes and the
implementation of desired behaviours decreases over time. This suggests that teachers tend to
revert to doing things the way they did before if it was not they who initiated change.
Bustos Flores (2001: 255) suggests that encouraging
teachers to examine their beliefs may assist […] reflective practices. When teachers engage in critical reflection, they gain insights that may assist their development as effective [teachers] … Gallimore and Tharpe (1990) asserted that teachers, like all learners, have their own zone of proximal professional development (ZPD).
The second model then is a reflective, collaborative model, which reports a greater
probability of achieving lasting change. This is not a deficit model and differs from the
training model in that there are no pre-conceived objectives, outcomes or desirable
behaviours. Teachers are encouraged to explore their own practices and come to personal
decisions on aspects and direction for change. By assessing personal goals, results and
beliefs, teachers are involved in an on-going process of development and change and it is
hoped that they will continue beyond the timeframe of the original programme. In one such
programme Richardson (1998: 6) reported that teachers continued to reflect on their practice
and experiment thoughtfully to the point where they “had become confident in their decision-
making abilities… and felt empowered to make deliberate and thoughtful changes in their
classrooms”.
A complementary view is offered by Guskey (2002) in that he sees teachers’
willingness to embrace change as being a prerequisite to change happening and being
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
21
sustained. The argument is that professional development leaders labour under the
misconception that a change in teachers’ beliefs precedes a change in their classroom
behaviours and practice. In typical teacher development scenarios, externally imposed
programmes, or at least programmes initiated from above by management, are designed to
‘sell’ to teachers a new belief that, when taken on board, will lead to a change in practice.
Guskey argues that in reality, the inverse is true and that the process moves from stages of
teacher cynicism to teacher scepticism and only if new practices are deemed by the teacher to
be valid based on their own experience will a change in belief be brought about. Guskey
shares Richardson’s positive view that teachers are motivated and convinced by an
improvement in their students’ learning when it comes to making changes. In this context the
notion of improvement is essentially unquantifiable and there is no set threshold which must
be met before new practice can be considered successful so that “learning outcomes include
whatever kinds of evidence teachers use to judge the effectiveness of their teaching” (Guskey
2002: 384). This could mean an upswing in class test results or external, standardized
examinations, more regular attendance, a perceived increase in motivation, participation in
class, or even better behaviour. Guskey is convinced that experienced teachers “seldom
become committed to a new instructional approach or innovation until they have seen it work
in their classroom with their students” (Ibid.).
A change in teacher beliefs is possible then, but certain favourable conditions need to
be in place if that change is likely first to happen and second to be lasting. Teachers need a
certain level of self-motivation for change, time for that motivation to be fostered and the
opportunity to experiment and see what they perceive as tangible and valuable results. They
need to be encouraged and enabled to continue an on-going process of reflection and
questioning of beliefs and practice. Of course, a balance of autonomy and community must
also be struck because they also need guidance and support due to the danger of teachers
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
22
arriving at new, unwarranted assumptions based on erroneous perceptions, as Richardson
(1998) warns.
A final caveat worth mentioning is that of difficulties in ascertaining what beliefs
teachers actually hold. There are three associated obstacles in relation to this. First of all, it
cannot be disregarded that teachers’ beliefs may in many cases by latent and at least to some
degree subconscious or unconscious. Furthermore, beliefs may well be more difficult to
verbalise than knowledge and it may be assumed that there is a gap between teachers’ beliefs
and how they may be expressed. These two factors potentially render teachers’ beliefs less
than completely accessible. In addition, Woods (1996: 27) makes the pertinent point that
“teachers may, in responding to questions about generalized beliefs, answer according to
what they would like to believe, or would like to show they believe”. Even if we were to have
a working definition of teachers’ beliefs, ideas about where they originate from, the notion
that they are observable through behaviour and an understanding of how they can be
modified through teacher development programmes, the challenge of how to gain access to
those beliefs with a high degree of confidence remains.
THE STUDY
The focus of this study is university lecturers responsible for teaching their students
through a foreign language, in this case English. An understanding of the circumstances in
which they work is key to making sense of the study and placing it in the wider context of
bilingual education. They are the main protagonists, but the educational institution itself and
the students who are studying for their degrees also form an important part of the overall
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
23
picture. What follows is an overview of the institution, the students, the lecturers and the
training they have received to prepare them to meet the challenge of teaching through English
in bilingual degree programmes.
The Institution
The Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros was founded in 1973 in the city of
Alcalá de Henares in the Autonomous Community of Madrid. It is a private tertiary college
affiliated with the public institution of the Universidad de Alcalá and offers teacher training
degrees with specialities in Infant Education, Primary Education and Social Education. Since
the academic year 2010-11, students have the possibility of studying for a degree in Infant or
Primary Education in a bilingual programme. The Escuela currently has some two thousand
students studying for their degrees either in the traditional mode or through distance learning,
and approximately seventy teaching staff. As a consequence, there exists a sense of a close-
knit and familiar learning community in which students find staff both approachable and
available to guide them in their studies.
The Students
Students at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros are typically in their late
teens and early twenties, although there are some more mature students who have decided,
after some years’ work in another field, to change career path and work towards a teacher
training degree. Distance learning students are often graduates in one speciality of education,
and perhaps even currently employed as teachers, who are working towards a second degree
in another speciality. Those who have opted to study their degree in the bilingual programme
first had to complete an initial level test aimed at ascertaining their level of English. A B1
level according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
was established as the desired minimum. Indeed, the majority of students entered with an
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
24
average B1 or B2 level, although there are a few exceptions at both extremes with some
students having a consolidated A2 level and others as high as a C2 level.
The Participants
Lecturers at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros tend either already to hold a
Ph.D. in their area of expertise or to be in the process of gaining their Ph.D. The college is
broadly divided into two departments, those of Education Science and Specific Didactics.
Lecturers belonging to the former department are typically pedagogues and psychologists,
whereas those in the latter department are subject area specialists in humanities, natural
sciences, music, art, physical education and so on. There are currently fifteen lecturers
involved in the bilingual project to some degree or in some capacity. They come from both
departments and have somewhere between two and thirty years of teaching experience. At the
time of writing (May 2012) five of the lecturers have started teaching their subjects in
English. Due to the way the degrees are organised and the timing of subjects, others will not
do so until the next academic year. Eight of the lecturers have been involved in the bilingual
project since its inception and have received all of the training provided. It is on five of those
lecturers that this study will focus, two of whom have started teaching in English, three who
are yet to do so. An overview of the training given to lecturers will be given later, but what
follows below is a brief profile of each of those on whom this study focuses. They have been
called lecturer one, lecturer two and so on in the interests of anonymity.
Lecturer one (L1)
Lecturer one is working towards his Ph.D. in Education. He has worked in education
at all levels for thirty years and as a lecturer in Special Educational Needs at the Escuela
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
25
Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros since 1993. He has yet to start teaching in English at the
college, but will do so during the academic year 2012-13. His level of English is currently
CEFR B2.
Lecturer two (L2)
Lecturer two has a Ph.D. in Fine Arts, and an M.A. in Aesthetics and the Theory of
Art. He has been working as a lecturer in art teacher training at the Escuela Universitaria
Cardenal Cisneros for twenty-three years. He has yet to start teaching in English at the
college, but will do so during the academic year 2012-13. He has, however, given several
seminars and workshops in English on MEC courses for primary teachers. He is also
involved in research projects related to bilingual education. His level of English is currently
CEFR C1.
Lecturer three (L3)
Lecturer three is working towards her Ph.D. in Psychology. She has worked as a
lecturer at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros as a lecturer in Psychology for five
years. She is now teaching classes in English for the second academic year. She has taught
the subject Pedagogical Diagnosis to first year students of the Infant Education speciality in
2010-11 and 2012, Attention to Diversity to second year students of the Infant and Primary
specialities in 2011-2012, and Early Intervention to second year students of Infant Education,
a total of five courses. Her level of English is CEFR C2.
Lecturer four (L4)
Lecturer four has a Ph.D. in Psychopedagogy. She has worked as a lecturer of
Education at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros for eight years. She is now teaching
classes in English for the second academic year and has taught the subject Didactics to first
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
26
year students of both the Infant and Primary Education specialities, a total of four courses.
She is also involved in research projects related to bilingual education. Her level of English is
currently CEFR C1.
Lecturer five (L5)
Lecturer five has a Ph.D. in Art History and has an M.A. in Cultural Management. He
has worked as a lecturer of History, Geography and Social Sciences at the Escuela
Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros since 1995. He has yet to start teaching in English at the
college, but in December 2010 he gave classes in English at Duksung Women’s University in
Seoul, South Korea. He has also given several seminars and workshops in English on MEC
courses for primary teachers. He is also involved in research projects related to bilingual
education. His level of English is currently CEFR C1.
The Bilingual Project
The Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros Bilingual Project was started in 2009.
The first bilingual Teacher Training degrees were offered and implemented in the academic
year 2010-11. In that programme a minimum of thirty per cent of the total number of credits,
72 of 240 European credit transfer system credits (ECTS), are taught in English. Teaching
through English in the bilingual programme follows a content and language integrated
learning (CLIL) approach. The Bilingual Project website
(http://proyectobilingue.cardenalcisneros.es/) states as an objective the improvement of
methodological knowledge and awareness with regards to bilingual education. A further
stated aim is the development of language proficiency in English of students during their
degrees. Success in reaching these goals would prepare future teachers for the demands of the
bilingual schools in many of Spain’s autonomous regions.
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
27
Beyond the teaching of subjects in English using a CLIL approach, however, several
other initiatives have been implemented to aid and support students’ progress. These include
on-site, extra-curricular language classes provided by the British Council and workshops
given by guest speakers related to bilingual education, known as Bilingual Open Workshops
(BOW). In addition, lecturers involved in the project organise and participate in an annual
Bilingual Campus, a week-long, practical course aimed at teachers currently teaching in
bilingual primary schools. Not all participants have this profile, however, as several places
are also awarded in the form of grants to students of the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal
Cisneros. Furthermore, several lecturers involved in the project are also conducting research
into various areas of bilingual education.
Lecturers involved in the project initially volunteered to take part. They have received
language training with a view to developing their language proficiency in the form of on-site
classes provided by the British Council. These classes take place twice per week and are two
hours in length. Lecturers have also received short intensive courses in the summer, again on-
site, and some have taken advantage of partial funding on the part of the college to do
intensive summer language courses at other institutions.
Methodological training has been extensive and ongoing. In total, lecturers have
participated in more than two hundred hours of CLIL training on seven courses over a period
of more than two years between October 2009 and January 2012. These have varied in length
and in focus and a brief outline of each in chronological order is given below.
• Introduction to Bilingual Education : A 40-hour online course dealing with
cognitive theories of bilingualism, models of bilingual education and the challenges of
teaching through a foreign language delivered by the Universidad de Alcalá.
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
28
• Content and Language Integrated Learning: A 52.5-hour course delivered by
Pilgrims, Canterbury, UK. Areas explored included CLIL resources and materials,
lesson plan design for CLIL, assessment of language and content, formative and
summative assessment and needs analysis.
• CLIL Syllabus Design: A 6-hour course provided on-site by lecturers from
Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Germany. Areas dealt with included task
design, scaffolding students input and output, promoting higher order thinking skills
and developing intercultural competence.
• Literacy in the Bilingual Classroom: A 9-hour course dealing with communication
and collaboration in the bilingual classroom, the use of authentic texts and writing for
a reason, provided by a teacher trainer from the British Council.
• Classroom English – improving communication in bilingual classes at university:
A 12-hour course focusing on functional language in the classroom and creating a
communicative classroom, provided by an expert from the British Council.
• CLIL : A 50-hour course delivered by the Norwich Institute for Language Education,
Norwich, UK. Areas explored included CLIL frameworks, task, activity, unit and
syllabus design, and discourse issues in CLIL.
• Look back and move on – teaching in the bilingual degrees: A one-hour teacher
development session in which experiences, concerns and difficulties were shared and
reflected upon.
• CLIL Teacher Training at Higher Education : A 42-hour course delivered by
visiting experts from the University of Aberdeen, Universidad de Alcalá, University
of Calabria and Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. The course dealt with
issues such as the analysis and creation of materials, assessment of and for learning,
working on high and low order thinking skills and making teaching brain-compatible.
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
29
Data Collection
This research can be characterised as an intrinsic case study because it does not
necessarily represent other cases, but is of interest due to its own value or speciality (Dörnyei
2007). Its aim was to identify how teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards bilingual education
might have changed in the light of an ongoing teacher development programme designed to
prepare them for the challenges of teaching content subjects through English in a tertiary
setting. In order to achieve this, the qualitative rather than quantitative research method used
was a logical choice because attitudes and beliefs cannot be quantified. The research was
longitudinal, with data being collected over a two and a half year period. A change in
attitudes and beliefs is unlikely to occur in the short term without a due process of
experimentation and reflection, so the more extended timeframe was deemed necessary in
order to produce observable changes of worth.
In order to collect data, two instruments were used, an initial questionnaire and a
follow-up questionnaire. Data was first gathered by means of a short, open questionnaire
administered to eight initial participants by e-mail in September 2009, before the teacher
development began. A second questionnaire containing five of the original six questions, plus
a modified sixth question was administered in March 2012 to the five participants who had
both completed the original questionnaires and remained in the programme at that point (see
Appendix). By using essentially the same questionnaire with a gap in time of a little over two
years, a neat and potentially very revealing comparison was possible.
Dörnyei suggests that when carrying out a case study, “almost any type of research
method can be used that can yield case-specific data” (2007: 152). The decision to use short
questionnaires with open questions was based on a desire to use time efficiently and to obtain
more extended qualitative data than multiple choice, Likert scale or semantic differential
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
30
scale questionnaires could provide. Open questions allow greater freedom of expression and
enable the collection of richer responses than quantitative questionnaires can yield.
Responses may include useful quotes, examples and illustrations in addition to providing
perspectives on issues which the researcher had not anticipated (Dörnyei & Taguchi 2010).
Thus qualitative data was obtained, but one of the common problems associated with
qualitative research, that of an overabundance of data, was avoided due to the small number
of participants – eight initially and five in the final phase. Measures were also taken to
combat another problem associated with open questions, that of a need for greater
respondent-availability time. By sending the questionnaires to the participants via e-mail,
they could complete them as and when they were able to do so. The questionnaires were also
written in Spanish, the mother tongue of the participants, with a view to enabling them to
express themselves with as much confidence and clarity as possible.
The six questions in the first questionnaire were designed to gain information about
the participants’ previous knowledge of bilingual education, their concerns and
preconceptions regarding bilingual education and their perceived needs and expectations
prior to embarking upon a period of training. In question one, respondents were asked to give
a definition of bilingual education and in question two to explain what they thought the
objective of bilingual education is. These would, it was hoped, provide some insight into
what the participants already knew about the topic. Questions three, four and five focused
more on the implications for the participants in their work as future teachers in a bilingual
programme. Question three deals specifically with a common concern, that of the difficulties
of learning contents through a foreign language forcing educators to reduce subject contents.
Question four sought to discover the participants’ ideas regarding methodology in bilingual
education and question five gave them scope to articulate any other worries they might have.
The sixth question aimed to ascertain what participants felt was necessary in terms of training
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
31
them to better cope with the challenges ahead of teaching in a bilingual programme. The
second questionnaire contained the same first five questions, but the sixth question was
modified so that participants could express whether or not they felt the extensive training they
had received was sufficient or whether there was still a need for further training. By using
essentially the same questionnaire it would be possible to see how the participants’
knowledge, attitudes, concerns and beliefs regarding bilingual education had evolved in the
light of their training and, in two cases, teaching in the bilingual programme.
Data Analysis
The initial questionnaires were analysed on a question by question basis for both
similarities and differences amongst participants’ responses. Key words and key ideas were
cross-referenced in order that generalisations could be made where possible and disparity
amongst responses highlighted where relevant. The follow-up questionnaires were analysed
in a similar way. In addition, however, responses were also cross-referenced with the general
observations made from the initial questionnaires in order to look for emerging patterns of
change. An additional factor to be taken into account was that two of the five lecturers had
begun teaching in English by the time the second questionnaire was administered whereas the
other three had not. I also tried to focus analysis the on instances in which the two practising
bilingual lecturers’ responses coincided with each other but differed from the other lecturers’
responses as this could potentially be significant.
Findings
First Questionnaire – September 2009
Based on the responses to question one of the initial questionnaire it is possible to
make several generalisations. Firstly, and as might have been anticipated, three of the five
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
32
respondents conceived bilingual education as being that in which two languages are used
indistinctly in order to teach subjects. Respondent two characterised it as the teaching of
subjects other than English language in English. Respondent one, in addition to mentioning
the presence of two languages, also defines a bilingual model as educating with two different
cultural contexts. All five respondents coincide then in highlighting the presence of two
languages, with one making the assumption that English is the vehicular language and only
one considering the cultural element. Secondly, four of the five responses include the word
“contents”, which suggests that the participants are in agreement as to the importance of
content objectives as well as language objectives. Thirdly, the participants’ choice of words
hints at a view of the lecturer as someone who transmits a body of knowledge to students.
The expressions “se imparte”, “enseñar” and “la transmission de contenidos” are used (Ls 2,
3 and 5), which suggest a teacher-centered view, whereas only one of the five lecturers (L1)
used “enseñar y aprender”, which suggests at least a joint effort between teacher and student.
Answers to question two are even more uniform and reveal an almost unanimous
view that the objectives of bilingual education are to improve the command of a non-native
language. Respondents say that “se trata de aprender otro idioma distinto al materno” (L1),
that the objective is to “aumentar el conocimiento en la lengua inglesa de los alumnos” (L2),
to “adquirir un dominio instrumental de las dos lenguas” (L4), or to “favorecer la adquisición
de una segunda lengua” (L5). Three of the five do however stress that it is subject contents
which are being taught through the vehicular language, giving importance to contents while
expressing the learning of another language as the principle motivating factor behind a
bilingual model.
Responses to the first two questions display some consistent ideas amongst this group
of lecturers. They see that two languages are present in bilingual education and students’
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
33
increased command of the second language is its raison d’être. There also seems to be an
underlying assumption that knowledge and contents are transmitted from teacher to learner
and that in a bilingual model this will happen in a language other than the students’ mother
tongue. As a gauge of the participants’ prior knowledge of bilingual education, this is
interesting in that it broadly follows Van de Craen’s (2007) overview of how the aims of
CLIL programmes are often seen throughout Europe. Indeed, this promotion of language
proficiency through an economical use of time which combines subject and language
teaching is a key objective of the European Commission in its action plan (2003). By
comparing the respondents’ answers to Do Coyle´s 4 Cs framework for CLIL, it is clear that
the notions of content and communication (or language) are given importance, but culture is
absent in all but one lecturer’s answers (L1) and cognition is wholly absent. This suggests
that to the uninitiated the latter two elements are less obvious components of bilingual
education.
The third question was intended to canvass the participants’ thoughts towards a
commonplace concern among many of those with vested interests in bilingual education: the
ability to learn the same contents in a foreign language as in the mother tongue. None of the
participants were entirely convinced that this is possible. Reservations were varied, but all
constituted a lack of certainty. One participant (L5) drew on his experience as a father of
children attending a bilingual school. He viewed his children’s linguistic competence very
positively as a result of the education they were receiving, but was less certain of their subject
knowledge. Three of the lecturers (Ls 2, 3 and 4) felt that learning the same contents was
achievable, but only if the level of the students in the foreign language was sufficiently high
not to be of any impediment. The final lecturer (L1) raised doubts about how students with
special educational needs would cope with the additional obstacle that learning through a
foreign language would create.
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
34
Question four, regarding the need for a change in methodology when teaching in
another language, yielded some interesting responses. Four of the five were in no doubt that
such a change would be necessary. The fifth felt that no change would be necessary as long
as both teacher and student had a high level command of the vehicular language, but would
be necessary if that were not the case. The participants were less clear, however, on what the
necessary changes would consist of. One lecturer (L4) believed that the traditional methods
associated with the transmission model of teaching would need to be abandoned in favour of
a more interactive and participative methodology. Another expressed in general terms the
need for “algunas técnicas concretas que faciliten al alumno la comprensión de los conceptos
y al mismo tiempo el afianzamiento y perfeccionamiento de la lengua en cuestión” (L3),
alluding to the integration of content and language. A further idea expressed by one
participant was of a wholesale overhaul of procedures, objectives, materials and teaching
style, but they were not specific on the details of this (L1). Another said that they had heard
of CLIL, but was unsure of what it consisted. These responses seem to be to some degree at
odds with those given to question one in which a teacher-centred transmission model of
teaching was reflected. They hint at a feeling that that model will not be entirely adequate
although they were understandably vague on the details at that early stage.
The fifth question gave respondents free rein to express any other concerns they might
have about bilingual education. Here there were three main concerns. The first, expressed by
two of the lecturers, was their own level of English and ability to carry out lessons in English.
Two other lecturers alluded to this less explicitly in terms of the extra time and effort they
would need to invest in order to teach, in this case, in English. Their comments also lead on
to the second worry that dedicating more time to linguistic aspects may detract from the
subject contents. They repeated ideas from question three about the possible reduction or
limiting of contents as a side-effect of teaching through a foreign language, which
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
35
demonstrates the importance they place upon this concern. One lecturer (L3) was worried by
the third issue that “impartir la material en ingles reste fluidez a las clases, que relantice
excesivamente el ritmo”. Of course, if contents take longer to teach, then the logical
extension of this idea is that they would need to be reduced to fit the timeframe, which is
related to concern number two.
Questions three to five then provided some general insights into the participants’
concerns regarding bilingual education and the implications of these in their future daily
work as lecturers in a bilingual programme. They saw difficulties in being able to cover in
English contents that they would otherwise cover in their native Spanish and the effect this
might have on their students’ learning. They seemed loathe to have to reduce contents, but
were uncertain as to whether or not this was avoidable. In some cases they were worried
about their own level of English and ability to teach in English, and were also apprehensive
about how much effort would be required to prepare and deliver classes in the second
language. They seemed aware of the need for a change in methodology, but generally not of
the specific changes required. Interestingly, the choice of words used by the respondents
echoed that of earlier questions with “dar”, “enseñar” and “impartir” again suggesting a
rather teacher-centred model.
In question six most of the respondents made reference to the dual aim of the training
they were about to receive. Three of them referred to discovering new “métodos” or
“metodología” and one referred to this as a new “enfoque”, which of course is a subtle
difference, but a pertinent one given the debate on whether CLIL constitutes an approach, as
most would have it, or a methodology as some would argue. The second element of the dual
aim is the improvement of the lecturers’ language level in English. Both elements are very
much in line with the concerns and needs expressed in earlier questions. One participant saw
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
36
the training not as something to be received, but as an opportunity to “compartir ideas,
pensamientos, razones, metodologías y emociones” (L1), perhaps anticipating a further need
in the future for the lecturers to collaborate more closely in the bilingual project than would
otherwise be the case.
Second Questionnaire – March 2012
In question one, slight variations on one broad idea are represented. One of the
participants continues to define bilingual education as that in which various languages are
used at the same time. The other four, however, largely coincide that bilingual education
consists of some teaching and learning happening in a language other than the mother tongue.
The two teachers who have already embarked upon teaching in English further qualify this
with assertions that the foreign language should not be an obstacle to learning or limit
learning in any way (L3, L4). One of them also specifies that key features are active,
participative lessons in which communication is prized. Two of the other lecturers mention
improving the level of the second language in students and one characterises this as
facilitating the students’ comprehension of contents.
Answers to question two generally place at least as much emphasis on the subject
aims as the linguistic ones, in contrast to the September 2009 questionnaire. The most
unequivocal example of this is from one of the practising bilingual lecturers (L4) who said
that “el objetivo ultimo debe ser adquirir los mismos conocimientos que en una asignatura en
castellano pero mejorando el conocimiento del idioma”. Here it is clear that in the opinion of
the respondent the language aim is an added value which is subservient to the content aim.
This is echoed by one participant (L2) who said that the objective is “que el alumnado
desarolle competencias lingüísticas y comunicativas en la segunda Lengua al mismo tiempo
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
37
que adquiere los conocimientos de las materias en cuestión” and another who defined the
objective as “aprender determinados contenidos del currículum mediante el uso de una lengua
diferente a la lengua materna” (L5). In addition, two respondents mentioned cultural or
intercultural objectives. Language acquisition was no longer pushed to the fore as the main or
only objective of bilingual education in the opinion of the participants. Their new definitions
were more multi-dimensional and emphasised content over language, which is sometimes
now referred to as communication, and included a cultural element. Three of the four Cs are
given some prominence then, with the fourth, cognition, still somewhat conspicuous by its
absence.
In the September 2009 questionnaire, without exception the lecturers had doubts in
question three as to whether it would be possible to learn the same contents through an L2 as
in L1. In the follow-up questionnaire the shift is dramatic and they were unanimous in saying
yes, it is possible. One participant said, “Sí. Debe hacerse. Porque no se trata de aprender otro
idioma sino de aprender lo mismo mediante el uso de otro idioma.” This was the same
participant (L5) who, in questionnaire one, was less than convinced by his experience as the
parent of children in a bilingual school. He does not elaborate and explain why he is now so
sure, however. One participant suggested it was difficult yet achievable and that careful
planning was a key consideration “para no olvidar ningún contenido importante, pero
seleccionando, priorizando puesto que a veces los contenidos son excesivos y algunos de
ellos innecesarios” (L3). This seems to suggest a more competence-based view of education
as opposed to a content-based view. This is an idea expressed more explicitly by one
respondent that learning is “el desarollo de una serie de competencias que van ligadas a unos
contenidos” and that these “se pueden transferir de una lengua a otra” (L4). Two others
affirm that an appropriate and efficient methodology can successfully combat the deficits,
limitations and barriers inherent in teaching and learning through a second language.
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
38
Two and a half years ago the group of lecturers were sure that a change in
methodology was required in order to teach in a second language. They were, however, very
vague on the details of this and what such a change would entail. In their responses to
question four in the March 2012 questionnaire they were very much more specific in their
answers and tended to coincide on the major features of the required methodology. The most
consistently expressed opinion is that a traditional transition model of lecture-style classes is
inadequate and that a move away from this is essential. Two respondents express this
explicitly, but most allude to it in their choice of words. The most commonly repeated
adjectives used to describe the methodology throughout the five questionnaires are “active”
and “participative”, used in four of the five. One said that learning would need to be “no tan
centrado en el professor y mucho más centrado en el alumno” (L2). Three of the five also
mention scaffolding, with one adding that this is necessary for both input and students’
output. Indeed, in the words of another participant, opportunities for student output are
considered important in this methodology in order to “potenciar las habilidades
comunicativas” (L5).
Two of the lecturers answered at length and described the methodology as they saw it
in some detail. In addition to an active and participative methodology in which scaffolding is
vital, one of them (L4) mentioned that learning must also be individualised, that the role of
the teacher was as facilitator or guide, and that cooperative learning should be a modus
operandi. She defined a methodology for bilingual education as containing strong elements
of all good teaching practice which ought to be present in teaching in the mother tongue as
well. The other lecturer (L2) highlighted the need for teachers to rely less on verbal language
and more on visual support and multi-modal input. He also emphasised the importance of
taking into account and catering for different learner styles and multiple intelligences, and
establishing “formas de evaluación que pueden recoger lo que el alumno ha aprendido sin que
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
39
el idioma sea una barrera para expresarlo, etc”. Both of the lecturers have had close contact
with CLIL in action. L4 is one of the two practising lecturers, while L2 is involved in a
research project designing and helping to deliver CLIL activities for art education in a
primary school. This close experience with implementing CLIL may contribute to the
confidence and specificity with which they respond to the question on methodology.
A dramatic shift can also be seen between answers supplied in question five of the
September 2009 and March 2012 questionnaires. In the first one, the lecturers focused very
much on their own situation and worries about themselves. They were concerned about their
own level of English, about the extra work teaching in English would entail and the reduction
of contents. In the March 2012 questionnaire, however, they seem to have interpreted the
same question very differently. Three of the five appear to believe in the potential of a CLIL
approach, but are concerned, not for themselves, but for how it will be put into practice in
schools. For one, without a change in approach in schools “sin modificaciones los proyectos
bilingües se convertirán en hacer lo mismo pero en otro idioma” (L1). Likewise, another
commented that “me preocupa que su implementación en los colegios, si no se hace de la
manera adecuada, puede generar una serie de perjuicios a los alumnos menos aventajados”
(L2). A third said that “me preocuparía que no se hiciera bien y que por tanto los alumnos
perdieran contenidos” (L3).
The other two lecturers continue to focus on their own circumstances. One has yet to
start teaching in English and remains concerned about what will happen if the change in
methodology is not sufficient for students to understand what they need to. The other has
been teaching in English and says that she is not worried at the moment. She said that she has
introduced many changes in her lessons, that the great majority of students had responded
well to the extra demands and that “los alumnos aprenden y desarollan las mismas
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
40
competencias que en castellano” (L4). She makes reference to having overcome her fears and
insecurities and seems content with the development of her classes in the bilingual
programme.
After an extended period of training spanning more than two years, it is to be
expected that what the lecturers perceive as their continuing training needs are very different
from their initial needs. In question six of the March 2012 questionnaire these needs fell into
four main categories. The first of these was the need for specific training, teaching resources,
activities or strategies for individual subject areas that lecturers teach, as mentioned by two
lecturers. They felt that, in the words of one, they have an idea of what CLIL involves and
general ideas and models, but need a subject-specific range of activities. Two other lecturers
would like to continue developing their English language skills, although one refers to this as
“estrategias comunicativas” rather than simply language level. A further aspect which was
valued as a very positive part of the experience was that of sharing experiences with
colleagues. Two participants saw the opportunity to do this as being more important than
further methodological training. The last suggestion by one respondent was rather than
receive further training to undertake action research both with his own students and in
bilingual schools.
Discussion
It is possible to make several inferences regarding the general beliefs of the five
lecturers from their responses contained in the September 2009 questionnaire. One of the first
things I noticed was that, both explicitly and implicitly through the language they used to talk
about bilingual education, or in fact education in general, a reliance on a transmission model
of education was strongly suggested. This is an important indicator of epistemological
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
41
beliefs. If a teacher sees their role as transmitting contents or knowledge to students, then this
must be based on the notion of the source of knowledge acquisition coming from experts as
opposed to being socially constructed, in Bustos Flores’ terms (2000). Likewise, in terms of
the control of knowledge acquisition, this is indicative of an epistemological view of
knowledge as an entity, something which can be transferred from one to another. An
important question to consider is from where do these beliefs originate?
The five lecturers teach in a teacher training college. Not only are they aware of the
theories of education of Bruner, Piaget and Vygotsky, constructivism, cooperative and
collaborative learning and so on, but they also teach them in their lessons. This would seem
then to be very much at odds with the beliefs that I have inferred from their responses in the
initial questionnaire. The answer to this conundrum can perhaps be found in Bustos Flores’
ideas (2001) and Pajares’ ideas (1992). Beliefs are strongly influenced by personal
experience. As products of a university system in which the transmission model of lectures
was the dominant or perhaps only teaching mode, it makes sense that the participants in this
case study would draw upon this experience. The way they were taught is a powerful
influence on the way they teach even though it may contradict what they know in theory to be
optimal teaching practice. In some of their answers they imply that university is unlike school
because of the complexity of abstract ideas and concepts. Seemingly bilingual education
would be fine for children and adolescents, but when they get to university the content is so
complex that it needs an expert to explain it and both lecturer and student need a sufficient
command of the language in order guarantee understanding. This is evidenced in comments
at the beginning of the process in the September 2009 questionnaire such as, “habrá
conceptos que no se podrán trabajar igual” (L2), or that a change in language “puede
dificultar o limitar la adquisición de los mismos contenidos” (L4). They articulated at that
stage the worry that the teacher “no podría dar todo el tipo de contenidos que considere
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
42
necesarios al mismo nivel o en la misma complejidad debido al inglés” (L2), and that “el
profesor tiene que esforzarse para que los alumnos pueden comprenderle” (L5).
Given their background in education theory, it is doubtful that the lecturers would
have advocated a transmission model of teaching for primary schools, so why would they
believe it appropriate for tertiary settings? It is perhaps surprising that at the beginning of this
process they did appear to have considered it apt for university, at least in a non-bilingual
setting. Two further reasons for this can be suggested, both related to what Pajares (1992) had
to say about cultural transmission through education, schooling and enculturation. Firstly,
related to the notion of schooling, it is a curious reality the world over that whilst school
teachers are usually required to undergo an extensive period of training, university lecturers
are usually exempt from such a requirement. In the majority of cases, university lecturers
have not been taught how to teach and this case is no exception. The application form for
someone wishing to obtain an academic post at the University of Alcalá, for example,
(https://portal.uah.es/portal/page/portal/empleo/pdi/curriculum/doctor.pdf) has sections
related to research, publications, conference papers, academic qualifications and teaching
experience. It also has sections for other qualifications, courses or training, but there is no
explicit mention of any specific teaching qualification. The same is true for evaluation
procedure of ACAP for the Universities in the Autonomous Community of Madrid
(http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?c=CM_Actuaciones_FA&cid=1142435320657&idConse
jeria=1109266187254&idListConsj=1109265444710&idOrganismo=1109266227448&langu
age=es&pagename=ComunidadMadrid%2FEstructura&pid=1109265444699&sm=11092661
00977).
What lecturers tend to know and believe about teaching at university seems not to be
the result of structured, intentional training. It is largely the result of their own experience and
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
43
enculturation. The transmission model of lecture-style lessons, the “métodos tradicionales
caracterizados por ser muy unidireccionales, profesor-alumno”, in the words of one of the
participants, is what both lecturers and students expect to see at university. The situation is
changing with the Bologna process which stipulates that group sizes are varied with some
lessons being delivered in large groups, others in smaller seminar groups. Even so, the
division of contact time is still heavily weighted towards whole group “theoretical” sessions.
A typical subject with 6 ECTS credits has thirty hours of whole group theory lessons, fifteen
hours of half group practical lessons and three hours of small group seminars. Spaces are
being adapted for this new type of degree, but the predominant learning space in public
universities is still the lecture theatre, set up to fit in as many as 200 students often with a
stage at the front so that the lecturer can deliver the lesson. It is no wonder that this mode of
teaching persists.
With regards to the lecturers’ specific beliefs about bilingual education at the
beginning of the process, three main observations can be made based on the September 2009
questionnaire. The first of these is that the teaching and learning process will be
automatically more difficult in a second language. The second, which is clearly closely
related, is that it may be necessary, although undesirable, to reduce either the quantity or
complexity of contents when teaching through another language. The third is that a change in
methodology will be necessary, although there is less certainty about what that change would
entail. The origin of these beliefs is less clear. In part, they seem to conform to a common
sense view that both learners and teachers having fewer linguistic resources at their disposal
when using a foreign language will hinder learning. Consequently learning requires more
effort and takes longer so, in the absence of extra time to devote to learning, contents must be
reduced. These conditions, by logical extension, create a need for modification of the
methodology employed.
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
44
These common sense ideas, however, are likely to be reinforced by enculturation. On
both a professional and personal level, some of the lecturers have contact with stakeholders in
the various bilingual projects in schools in the Autonomous Community of Madrid. They are
to some degree exposed to the opinions of parents, teachers and even their own children
involved in those projects. Attitudes towards the bilingual projects are undoubtedly mixed.
The implementation rate has been has very fast (see Llinares & Dafouz 2010), causing
challenges and teething problems which affect attitudes towards the projects from all
quarters. There is evidence to suggest that a significant number of teachers involved in the
programmes in schools are yet to really understand bilingual education after several years
working within them and also cite a lack of resources and training (see for example
Fernández & Halbach 2011). Dobson, Pérez & Johnstone (2010) in a British Council report
also conclude that some teachers perceive the bilingual project to be inappropriate for those
pupils judged to be academically weak or those having special educational needs. In the same
report 24% of parents who responded felt that their child’s overall progress was negatively
affected by having to study through the medium of English. Although, of course, it cannot be
assumed that the lecturers in this case study were aware of this research, they are likely to be
exposed through society and the media to some of the ideas and reservations contained
within. One lecturer mentions the example of his own children and another asserts that “la
apuesta por el bilingüismo es una apuesta política”. It is a current topic and everybody is
exposed to the common concerns of the stakeholders: politicians, teachers, parents and
pupils.
Analysis of the responses to the March 2012 questionnaire reveals marked differences
when compared with the September 2009 questionnaires. The principal aim of the lecturers’
extensive training period was to equip them with the knowledge, resources and techniques so
that they would be better prepared to implement a CLIL approach to their teaching on a
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
45
bilingual degree programme. New knowledge, however, seems to have caused a change in
beliefs. The beliefs-knowledge distinction is a difficult one, as Pajares (1992) asserts.
Nevertheless, what the lecturers learned about CLIL seems to have caused a shift in
epistemological beliefs among the participants, at least as far as teaching at university is
concerned. They saw the need for a move away from a lecturing style towards a learner-
centred, active, participative methodology. In terms of a view of the source of knowledge
acquisition and the control of knowledge acquisition, this is very significant and is indicative
of a belief that knowledge is socially constructed and incremental rather than an entity
acquired from experts. One case in particular gives a strong sense of what others also make
implicit, that a change has occurred beyond only the domain of an approach to bilingual
teaching. One of the practising lecturers (L4) states that “he introducido muchos cambios en
mi día a día, tanto en las clases en inglés como en las que imparto en castellano”. This
represents a new perspective on teaching and learning in a university context, not merely a
new approach exclusive to teaching in another language.
A further trend worthy of mention is how the participants interpreted and responded
to question five about aspects of bilingual education that worried them. The general move
from being concerned about their own situation in the September 2009 questionnaire to later
being concerned about how successfully bilingual education is being implemented in schools
is significant. It suggests that they are no longer worried for themselves. As a result of the
training they have received, they believe and accept that with a CLIL approach bilingual
education can be successful. They are perhaps aware, however, that it has taken them two
years of training to come to that conclusion and feel sufficiently well equipped to be able to
carry it out successfully themselves. They are also aware that many teachers involved in the
bilingual schools have not had the same luxury and worry about the potentially negative
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
46
effects of CLIL done poorly. Their responses show that they believe in CLIL, but believe less
so in it being implemented effectively in schools.
This new stance is a very different one from their original one that can be seen in the
September 2009 questionnaire. It is also reflected in how they now define bilingual education
and perceive the objective of bilingual education. They no longer see the learning of English
as the primary goal, but rather as an added value to be gained from the teaching of subject
contents through English. They are almost unanimous in now believing that, contrary to their
initial fear, content learning can be achieved without reduction. They see that the inherent
obstacles in teaching through another language can be overcome with the application of a
strong CLIL approach. Only one lecturer maintains the idea to a degree that contents might
be reduced, but justifies this by saying that it is a question of prioritising and trimming what
is superfluous. This in itself represents a change in the belief that contents must be somehow
delivered to students and that the role of a subject is not only to learn contents, but also to
develop the competences specific to it and applicable to the wider curriculum. Reducing
contents here does not suggest a problem but an opportunity to streamline and optimise the
use of time.
Whilst beliefs are difficult to divine and must be inferred from the participants’
responses to questions, the questionnaires give a clearer idea of how their knowledge of
bilingual education has evolved. A simple comparison of the number of words used to
respond to the questions in the initial and final questionnaires suggests that they know a great
deal more about bilingual education now, which is to be expected. All but one of the lecturers
answered at greater length in the follow-up questionnaire, with the average words used
increasing from 323 in the first and 459 in the second, an increase of over 40%. Noticeably
their definitions of bilingual education and articulation of its aims are closer to the standard
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
47
definitions of CLIL in the March 2012 questionnaire than in the initial one. The most striking
difference, however, is in their responses to the fifth question regarding the need for
methodological change and of what that change would consist. Here they not only affirm that
a change is necessary, but also enumerate key characteristics, displaying significantly greater
knowledge. The sixth question is also very revealing in that three out of the five no longer
feel the need for external training. They feel it would be more beneficial for them at this stage
to have the opportunity to continue sharing their own ideas and experiences with their
colleagues or to undertake their own research. The other two also express the feeling that they
have a sufficient grounding in CLIL only to need specific ideas for their own particular
subject areas.
The evidence provided by the two questionnaires suggests that over the course of the
two years’ of training in CLIL there has been a change in not only knowledge, but also
beliefs amongst the participants. Given that both beliefs and teachers are seen as being highly
resistant to change, how has this change been brought about? Several favourable conditions
need to be in place in order for this to happen. Richardson (1998) argued that self-motivation
is a prerequisite for change. In this case the lecturers all volunteered to participate in the
bilingual programme and it was not something which was imposed upon them. Their
motivation for this is not clear from their responses to the questionnaire, but it would be
logical to suppose that it was for one or a combination of the reasons Guskey (2002) lists
such as a desire to continue developing as educators, take on a new challenge, or increase
professional satisfaction. As a starting point this was extremely positive. It must also be
accepted that time is essential for lasting change to happen, and this would appear to be one
of the strengths of this particular case. The first lecturer to start teaching in the bilingual
programme began methodological training a year before she started to teach in English. The
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
48
second had a year and a half and the other three will have been afforded between three and
three and a half years before they start.
The period of teacher development undertaken by the participants conforms more to
Richardson’s (1998) reflective, collaborative model than the contrasting deficit model. There
was no initial assumption that something was wrong that needed to be fixed. The bilingual
project was an opportunity for a new challenge, an innovation. The lecturers were required
only to concede that they would need new tools with which to face a new educational
context, not admit that what they were doing in their present context was in any way faulty.
Psychologically this is quite different and is more likely to facilitate change. The participants
have been provided with opportunities to collaborate, reflect upon their practices and share
their ideas and experiences. It is noteworthy that in question six of the second questionnaire
they express a desire to continue in this vein, reflecting, collaborating, as Richardson (1998)
suggests, in an on-going process of development which extends beyond the original scope of
the training.
As yet, only two of the participants have started teaching through English and as such
are the only ones who have had the opportunity to experiment in their own lessons and reflect
upon the results. This is an important element for change according to Guskey (2002), who
asserts that teachers seldom become committed to a new approach until they have seen it
work. This does not seem to be the case here, however. Certainly it is one of the lecturers
already teaching through English with a CLIL methodology who appears to be most
convinced when she states that her students in the bilingual programme are developing the
competences as well as her students in the Spanish programme. Otherwise, it is difficult to
distinguish between the participants and they all express commitment to the bilingual
programme and a CLIL approach. Perhaps they believe in it precisely because they have not
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
49
yet had the opportunity to experiment and finally confirm or refute their beliefs. Whether or
not that will change remains to be seen and the implementation of CLIL will be the defining
moment for them.
In spite of the evident strengths of the training programme, there is one area in which
there seems to be no perceptible change in teachers’ beliefs. This is the element of cognition
in CLIL. Cognition is not mentioned by any of the lecturers in the September 2009
questionnaires, making it the only one of the four Cs not alluded to. Content, communication
and culture are all mentioned in the March 2012 questionnaire too, but cognition still remains
notably absent. Taking into account the extent of the training received, it is perhaps surprising
that there has been such little impact on teachers’ beliefs regarding cognition when other
aspects do seem to have been affected. It may well suggest that beliefs related to thinking and
how learners think are more resistant to change than beliefs about the nature of knowledge
and how it is created. This is not to say necessarily that change in beliefs about cognition
have not taken place here, but I have detected no evidence of it in the data collected and
analysed, which possibly suggests that there is little change, if any. The lecturers considered
knowledge and skills to be important, yet cognition did not even merit a mention.
CONCLUSIONS
The original purpose of this study was not to assess the efficacy of the
extended period of training in CLIL for the group of lecturers. Nevertheless, amongst other
things, the data does provide insights into the success of the training programme. The
participants have evolved in terms of their understanding of bilingual education, what it
consists of and what its objectives are. In terms of increasing the lecturers’ knowledge of the
CLIL approach and providing them with the tools with which to teach through English on the
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
50
bilingual degree programme, the training period can be deemed an overall success. The
increase in knowledge, however, has also been a catalyst for further, perhaps even more
significant change. There is evidence in this study of a change in beliefs about how
knowledge is acquired as a result of an increase in knowledge and change in attitudes. Whilst
this may seem a bold assertion, I would argue that it is not surprising given the circumstances
of this specific case. Very favourable conditions for teacher change were created. Lecturers
volunteered for the programme, time has been on their side with a long and comprehensive
training period, they were given opportunities to reflect and collaborate, and, in two of the
five cases, experiment and put into practice what they had learned.
Beliefs are characterised by being difficult to access and any expression or
interpretation of them cannot be trusted entirely. Herein lie both the strengths and weaknesses
of this study. The questionnaires did not pose specific questions about beliefs; they did not
explicitly solicit responses about the beliefs of the participants. As a consequence, it could be
argued that they were not entirely efficient as instruments of data collection and did not yield
as much data as might have been possible. Questions could have been more specific and
explicit and other data collection methods such as interviews and direct observation of the
two practising bilingual teachers could have been used in the interests of triangulation. The
benefit of using the questionnaires, however, was in how they allowed a very neat
comparison. By not explicitly asking for expressions of underlying epistemological beliefs,
the respondents were not ‘on their guard’ and the factor of responding with what they thought
they ought to respond was reduced. Any conclusions regarding beliefs in this study are based
then on what can be inferred from their responses often based on what was unconsciously
revealing semantically.
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
51
Further limitations of the study are those often inherent in qualitative research. It is
clear that the sample size is small and the generalizability of the findings low. This is
certainly a very idiosyncratic case study based on the responses of only five participants, but
it may provide insights into similar cases. With an increase in Spanish universities offering a
bilingual itinerary in their degree courses, this case will likely become one of many which
share similar features. Additionally, in such small-scale qualitative research the role of the
researcher is sometimes questioned for their personal biases and idiosyncrasies, (Dörnyei
2007). Certainly I have been very close to the bilingual project and the participants, which
may have led to some unintentional subjectivity in analysing and reporting the results of the
data. Analysis has been quite in-depth, however, and it is hoped that another researcher not so
closely connected to the project would also arrive at similar conclusions by applying the same
methods of analysis.
One of the strengths of such research is that it can be a good starting point from which
to generate further lines of research or plans of action. In terms of further research, there are
several logical extensions of this study which could provide meaningful results. The five
participants in this study form only one part of the bilingual project at the university and even
they are not entirely homogeneous given that two have started teaching in English and three
have not. There are several other teachers who became involved at a later stage who have
already started teaching in English because of the demands of the degree curriculum. They
have less training in CLIL, but currently more hands-on experience. A comparative study of
these lecturers taking much more into account their individual profiles could potentially be
very revealing. A more in-depth study using personal diaries and observation of the three
lecturers from the point when they begin teaching in English would also highlight how they
develop from the defining moment of putting theory into practice. Other universities are
employing different models when implementing bilingual itineraries, which would make
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
52
comparative studies rather pertinent. Some offer more limited methodological training to the
participating lecturers, others language training, others no training at all. In some universities
lecturers volunteer to participate, in others the come under some pressure to do so,
particularly if it is known that their level of English is high. This study could well form part
of a much wider body of research in the future.
An important area which certainly merits further research in the light of this study is
that of teachers’ beliefs with respect to cognition. The benefit to the development of thinking
skills is the added value of CLIL and a powerful argument in favour of its adoption as an
approach. CLIL will be a greater success at tertiary level if the benefits to cognition are
recognised and potentiated. This study reveals that teachers’ beliefs about cognition appear
more resistant to change than other beliefs, which suggests that this is a theme worthy of
attention. The questions of why beliefs about cognition are less susceptible to change and
how to bring about change in those beliefs are significant.
Conclusions to this research would not be complete without a mention of how the
participants themselves might benefit from having taken part in it. Future training might
focus on developing the aspect of cognition as this seems to lag behind other aspects. The
lecturers between them also called for provision of specific ideas related to their own
particular subject fields, the opportunity to continue collaborating and sharing ideas and
experiences with their colleagues, and the chance to conduct action research. Given the
successes of the bilingual project thus far, the lecturers’ appreciation of their future training
and development needs should be trusted. It would be wise to facilitate these steps so that
they may build upon the solid foundation which has been created through this reflective,
collaborative model.
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
53
REFERENCES
Baker, C. (1997). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters
Ball, P. (2009a). What is CLIL? Available from http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/articles/article-what-is-clil/500453.article
Ball, P. (2009b). Defining CLIL parameters? Available from http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/articles/article-defining-clil-parameters/550513.article
Ball, P. (2009c). How do you know if you’re practising CLIL? Available from http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/articles/article-how-do-you-know-if-youre-practising-clil/500614.article
Boletín Oficial de la Comunidad de Madrid (2011). Número 17. Available from http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urlordenpdf&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=CM_Orden_BOCM&blobwhere=1142628228755&ssbinary=true
Brownlee, J. & Purdie, N. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher education students. Teaching in Higher Education 6 (2): 247-268.
Bustos Flores, B. (2000). Using an Epistemological Framework to Explore a Bilingual Teacher’s Beliefs and Practices. Diversity Studies. Available from http://www.2cyberwhelm.org/archive/diversity/unders/pdf/teacher.pdf
Bustos Flores, B. (2001). Bilingual Education Teachers’ Beliefs and their Relation to Self-reported Practices. Bilingual Research Journal, 25 (3); 275-299. Available from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8965917/Bilingual-Education-TeachersBeliefs-and-Their-Relation-to-Self
Clark, E.R. & Pérez, B. (1995). Preparing teachers for south Texas programs, practices and processes. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Clegg, J. (2009). Education through a Second Language: Conditions for success. Hill, D.A. & Pulverness, A. (eds). The Best of Both Worlds? International Perspectives on CLIL. Norwich: NILE: 10-31
Colegios Bilingües de la Comunidad de Madrid Syllabus. Available from http://www.educa.madrid.org/web/cp.victorjara.fuenlabrada/files/syllabusbinguemadrid.pdf
Coyle, D. (2002) ‘Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission’s Language Learning Objectives’. Marsh, D. (ed) (2001). CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension. Jyväskylä: UniCOM: 27-29
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalton, S.S. (1998) Pedagogy Matters: Standards for Effective Teaching Practice. Retrieved October 17, 2001 from http://www.cal.org/crede/pubs/research/RR4.pdf
Dobson, A., Pérez, M.D. & Johnstone, R. (2010). Bilingual Education Project in Spain: Evaluation Report. Madrid: British Council.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
54
Dörnyei, Z. & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in Second Language Research. New York: Routledge.
European Commission, (2003) Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An action plan 2004-2006. Brussels
EURYDICE Content and Language Integrated Learning at School in Europe. (2006) Available from http://ec.europa.eu/languages/documents/studies/clil-at-school-in-europe_en.pdf
Fernández, R. & Halbach, A. (2011). Analysing the Situation of Teachers in the Madrid Autonomous Community Bilingual Project. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J.M. & Gallardo del Puerto, F. (eds.) Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang: 241-270.
Greeno, J.G. (1989). A Perspective on Thinking. American Psychologists, 44 (2): 131-141
Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional Development and Teacher Change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8 (3/4): 381-391.
Llinares, A. & Dafouz, E. (2010) Content and Language Integrated Programmes in the Madrid Region: Overview and research findings. Lasagabaster, D & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (eds.) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 95-114.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. & Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Oxford: Macmillan
Mehisto, P. (2009) Exploring CLIL. Available from http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/articles/article-exploring-clil/500470.article
Maljiers, A., Marsh, D. & Wolff, D. (eds.) (2007). Windows on CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in the European Spotlight. Alkmaar: European Platform for Dutch Education.
Meyer, L. (1988). Research on implementation: What seems to work. In S. J. Samuels & P. D. Pearson (eds.), Changing School Reading Programs (pp. 41-57). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Meyer, O. (2010). Towards Quality CLIL: Successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso, 33: 11-29.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of educational research, 62 (3): 307-332.
Pena Díaz, C. & Porto Requejo, M.D. (2008). Teacher Beliefs in a CLIL Education Project. Porta Linguarum 10: 151-161.
Perry, W.G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Richardson, V. (1998). How Teachers Change. Focus on Basics: Connecting research and practice, 2 (C). Available from http://www.ncsall.net/?id=395
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
55
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (3), 498-504.
Van de Craen, P., Mondt, K., Allain, L. & Gao, Y. (2007). How and why CLIL works. An outline for a CLIL theory. Vienna English working papers, 16 (3): 70-78 Available from http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/Views_0703.pdf
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
56
APPENDIX
Questionnaire One
Cuestionario previo al comienzo de la formación – septiembre 2009 Datos básicos Área en la que impartes tu docencia: ¿Cuántos años llevas ejerciendo la enseñanza? ¿Has tenido contacto con algún proyecto de enseñanza bilingüe con
anterioridad? � Sí � No En caso afirmativo, ¿puedes explicar en qué consistió el contacto?: __________________
Cuestión 1: ¿Cómo definirías la enseñanza bilingüe? ¿En qué consiste?
Cuestión 2: Según tu opinión, ¿cuál es el objetivo de este tipo de enseñanza?
Cuestión 3: ¿Crees que es posible aprender los mismos contenidos en lengua extranjera que mediante la lengua materna? ¿Por qué?
Cuestión 4: ¿Crees que enseñar a través de otra lengua implica un cambio metodológico? En caso afirmativo, ¿en qué consiste este cambio y por qué es necesario?
Cuestión 5: ¿Hay algún aspecto de la enseñanza bilingüe que te preocupa?
Cuestión 6: ¿Qué esperas de la formación que vas a recibir en relación con la enseñanza bilingüe? ¿Qué preguntas y/o necesidades te gustaría que resolviera?
Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs
57
Questionnaire Two
Cuestionario de la formación marzo 2012 Datos básicos Área en la que impartes tu docencia: ¿Cuántos años llevas ejerciendo la enseñanza? ¿Ya has dado clase en el proyecto bilingüe?
� Sí � No
Cuestión 1: ¿Cómo definirías la enseñanza bilingüe? ¿En qué consiste?
Cuestión 2: Según tu opinión, ¿cuál es el objetivo de este tipo de enseñanza?
Cuestión 3: ¿Crees que es posible aprender los mismos contenidos en lengua extranjera que mediante la lengua materna? ¿Por qué?
Cuestión 4: ¿Crees que enseñar a través de otra lengua implica un cambio metodológico? En caso afirmativo, ¿en qué consiste este cambio y por qué es necesario?
Cuestión 5: ¿Hay algún aspecto de la enseñanza bilingüe que te preocupa?
Cuestión 6: ¿Crees que todavía necesitas más formación? Qué formación te gustaría recibir en el futuro en relación con la enseñanza bilingüe? ¿Qué preguntas y/o necesidades te gustaría que resolviera?