CLIL and Project Works Contributions

7/31/2019 CLIL and Project Works Contributions

1/31

CLIL and project work:

contributions from the classroom

Juan Manuel Sierra

[email protected]

Vitoria-Gasteiz, 2009 May 8-9

REAL Symposium on CLIL


2/31

3

1. Introduction

2. Programme characteristics:

2.1. Concept of cooperative project

2.2. Structure, methodology and assessment

3. The context of the study

3.1. Teacher & students profile

3.2. Questionnaire & procedure

4. Results

5. Conclusions

6. Pedagogical implications

Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)


3/31

1. Introduction

Cooperative learning: long tradition in primary/secondary education,although its implementation as a whole educational articulating principle isscarce both in pre-university teaching and in tertiary education (BAC).

New Primary/Secondary curricula & CEFR & ESHE: pedagogicalassumptions emphasize a much more active students role and thedevelopment of the learners autonomy. Research to improveteaching standards is needed.

Cooperative learning & TBLT & Project work: some proposals includethe students participation in the negotiation of the programme and in theassessment/evaluation (Rib y Vidal, 1993; Estaire y Zann, 1994; Breen yLittlejohn, 2000; Sierra, 2008). CLIL can benefit from thiseducational approach

4



4/31

1. Introduction

Basque Autonomous Community: Lack of experience in cooperativelearning & project work (teachers & students).

What do students think of CLIL and cooperative project work? Can CLIL benefit from this approach? Research is necessary to gain knowledge on the motivation and

attitudes of our students.

5



5/31

2. Programme characteristics

2.1. Concept of cooperative project

6

Project understood as a guided and flexible structure that articulates the

syllabus (), allows its negotiated construction through the cooperation

of the students, and incorporates a cooperative evaluation scheme to

assess/evaluate the students learning and the process of teaching-learning. ()

It evolves by means ofenabling and communication tasks that integrate

the development of cognitive and linguistic skills, the reflection on the

linguistic codeand the effective learning of content.

A methodology based on cooperative learning which incorporates thecontributions ofconstructivist and humanistic psychology and the values

of a participatory pedagogy which develops the students autonomy and

theirlearning strategies contributing to theirpersonal growth.

(Sierra, 2008: 206)Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)


6/31

7

2.2. Structure, methodology and assessment

WorldMusicsProject

MusicalTheoryExam

Flutepractice &exam

1stTERM

Theinstrumentsof theorchestraProject

Theinstrumentsof theorchestraexam

Flute practice

2ndTERM

Our Songin English

Project

Flutepractice

3rdTERM

1st YEAR SECONDARY EDUCATION / ESO / DBH



7/31

8


A. Lpez de Luzuriaga & J.M. Sierra


8/31

9



9/31

The Young

Persons Guide

to the Orchestra

Benjamin Britten(2005)

Worksheets Listening

lessons

Work in group:

Each group will

work on an

instrument family

Each member of

the group will

work on an

instrument from

that family

Work in group:

Each group will

prepare the

POSTER and thePRESENTATION

of the

instrument

FAMILY

Individual work:

Each member

will prepare his/herPRESENTATION

of the

instrumentCheck Your KnowledgeQuestionnaire (CYKQ)

Oral Presentation Assessment Report

10Juan M. Sierra Plo UPV/EHU (2009)



10/31

THE INSTRUMENTS OF THE ORCHESTRA

PRESENTATIONS & EXAM CALENDAR

WEDNESDAY THURSDAY

FEB. 11 Prepare Presentation FEB. 12 Prepare Presentation

FEB. 18 Poster Presentation FEB. 19 NO CLASS: Go skiing

FEB. 25 Poster Presentation FEB. 26 Poster Presentation

MARCH 4 Exam MARCH 5 Assessment Tutorials

GROUPS PRESENTATIONS CALENDAR

Feb. 18 The conductor

STRING FAMILY Violin, Viola, Cello, Double bass.

BRASS FAMILY Trumpet, Trombone, French Horn, Tuba

Feb. 25 WOODWIND F. Flute & Piccolo; Clarinet & BassClarinet; Oboe & English Horn;

Bassoon & Contrabassoon

Feb. 26 PERCUSSION F. Snare & Bass Drum; Timpani; Auxiliary

percussion; Keyboard percussion



11/31

Oral Presentation Assessment Report




12/31

OUR SONG IN ENGLISH

PRESENTATIONS CALENDAR

GROUPMEMBERS

MUSIC GROUP RESOURCESNEEDED

PRESENTATIONDATE

Leire, Silvia,Sarai

Britney Spears CASSETTE MAY 14

Daniel, Depa,Koldo

AC/DC COMPUTER(MP3)

MAY 14

Ana, Sandra,Marian

Avril Lavigne CD/USB MAY 19

Amaia, Alba,Raquel

Katy Perry CD MAY 19

Markel, Jon,Kepa

SUM 41 INTERNET MAY 21

Ander, Josu,Roberto

Eminem CD/USB MAY 21

Daniel, Asier,Iigo

U2 DIVX MAY 26

Noelia, Sara,Maitane

Metallica CD MAY 26

13



13/31

14

61 1st-year Secondary Education students:1st year in CLIL project (3h English + 4h CLIL Music & Religion/Alternative)

Enrolled in bilingual models (B: 41 students; D: 20 students) B model: Spanish Language and Literature & Mathematics in Spanish D model: Spanish Language and Literature in Spanish Subject: Music (2 hours per week) State school, Vitoria-Gasteiz (6th year in plurilingual project).

3. The context of the study

3.1. Students profile (school year: 2008/2009)



14/31

3.1. Teachers profile

Basque Language and Literature teacher in Secondary Education. Music background: 5th level in Musical Theory & 4th level in

piano studies.

Certificate in Advanced English (CAE).

Master in Applied Linguistics (UPV/EHU). Methodology courses on language teaching and CLIL. 18 years professional experience. 2 years experience in CLIL:

2007/2008: ICT (1st year Secondary education). 2008/2009: Music (1st & 2nd years Secondary education).

15



15/31

3.2. Questionnaire & procedure

Individual questionnaire: 29 items (24 close & 5 open). Sections: Course impression & motivation Language skills, content improvement & culture Autonomous learning Topics Level of satisfaction within cooperative groups Format, guidelines & materials of the projects Assessment Oral presentation Teachers work Suggestions.

16

Procedure:Individual and anonimous filling out in class (30-40).Analysis of items



16/31

17

4. Results (59 questionnaires)

Item 1: In general, my impression of this course is:

VERY GOOD GOOD SATISFACTORY POOR

7 (11,8%) 44 (74,7%) 7 (11,8%) 1 (1,7%)

Item 2: The way we worked has motivated me:

A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE

14 (23,7%) 33 (55,9%) 11 (18,6%) 1 (1,7%)

Item 3: If you had to do this subject again, you would choose:

COOPERATIVE PROJECT WORK OTHER

50 (87,7%) 7 (12,3%) Games; Watchvideos; I dont know



17/31

18

Item 5: My impression is that while presenting my projects the

rest of the class worked:


10 (16,9%) 37 (62,7%) 11 (18,6%) 1 (1,8%)

Item 4: My impression is that in this subject I have worked:


19 (32,2%) 38 (64,4%) 2 (3,4%) 0



18/31

19

Item 6: Doing and presenting my group projects I learnt:


17 (29,3%) 37 (63,8%) 3 (5,1%) 1 (1,7%)

Item 7: Listening to my classmates presentations and doingtheir activities I learnt


8 (13,5%) 32 (54,3%) 16 (27,1%) 3 (5,1%)

Item 8: I consider that () I have improved my

comprehension of spoken English


4 (6,8%) 46 (78%) 7 (11,8%) 2 (3,4%)



19/31

20

Item 9: I consider that () I have improved my speaking


7 (11,9%) 46 (78%) 5 (8,4%) 1 (1,7%)

Item 10: With the format of the 3 projects my autonomouslearning has improved


7 (11,9%) 39 (66,1%) 11 (18,6%) 2 (3,4%)

Item 11: The materials provided by the teacher have helped to

do and present our projects


22 (37,3%) 33 (55,9%) 3 (5,1%) 1 (1,7%)



20/31

21

Item 12: The guidelines provided by the teacher to do and

present our projects have helped


11 (18,6%) 35 (59,4%) 12 (20,3%) 1 (1,7%)

Item 13: The topics covered by the projects interested me


10 (16,9%) 31 (52,2%) 14 (23,7%) 4 (6,8%)

Item 14: Doing the projects and listening to the presentations

I learnt about the cultures of other countries


16 (28,8%) 28 (47,5%) 12 (20,3%) 2 (3,4%)



21/31

22

Item 15: Had you worked before in cooperative groups as the

main system of workduring the course?

Item 16: I like my experience working in groups


25 (43,1%) 28 (48,3%) 4 (6,9%) 1 (1,7%)

Item 17: Your level of satisfaction within your group has been

HIGH MEDIUM LOW VERY LOW

16 (28,8%) 28 (47,5%) 12 (20,3%) 2 (3,4%)

YES NO

16 (28%) In Primary Education 41 (72%)

WORLD MUSICS



22/31

23

THE INSTRUMENTS OF THE ORCHESTRA


14 (23,7%) 29 (49,2%) 11 (18,6%) 5 (8,4%)

OUR SONG IN ENGLISH


39 (66,1%) 16 (27,1%) 1 (1,7%) 3 (5,1%)

Item 19: In my opinion the format of Our Song in English project

() is

VERY GOOD GOOD SATISFACTORY POOR

26 (44,1%) 28 (47,5%) 4 (6,7%) 1 (1,7%)



23/31

24

YES NO

9 (15,8%) The poster; last project = last examin June; 2nd project topic; music videos

48 (84,2%)

Item 22: I like assessing my own group oral presentations


12 (20,3%) 28 (47,5%) 15 (25,4%) 4 (6,8%)

Item 20: Would you change anything?

Item 21:The assessment instrument we used to assess our projects is:

VERY GOOD GOOD SATISFACTORY POOR5 (8,5%) 41 (69,5%) 11 (18,6%) 2 (3,4%)



24/31

25

Item 25: I found assessing other groups oral presentations

VERY EASY EASY DIFFICULT VERY DIFFICULT

8 (13,8%) 34 (58,6%) 12 (20,7%) 4 (6,9%)

Item 23: I like assessing other groups oral presentations

Item 24: I found assessing my own group oral presentation

VERY EASY EASY DIFFICULT VERY DIFFICULT6 (10,3%) 30 (51,7%) 18 (31,1%) 4 (6,9%)

A LOT QUITE LITTLE VERY LITTLE13 (22,4%) 33 (56,9%) 10 (17,2%) 2 (3,5%)



25/31

5. CONCLUSIONS

Despite their very limited experience in cooperative projectwork, the participants:

Like the course: motivation, preference for project work and highlevel of satisfaction in their groups.

Acknowledge having worked hard (96,6%) and learnt quite/a lot. Consider theyve improved to a great extent receptive and

productive skills in English, and the quality of their autonomouslearning.

Think that he format of the projects, the guidelines, materials andPOE instruments provided by the teacher were of great help.

Most of them liked assessing their own OPs (67,8%) and theirclassmates (79,3%) and found it easy (their own OPs, 62%; theirclassmates 72,4%).

26



26/31

5. CONCLUSIONS

These results are in line with research in the BAC: 22 years and over1600 students: action-research cycles in secondary and tertiaryeducation both for teaching languages and subject matter (Sierra,2008; Sierra, forthcoming).

Difficulties of any innovation process: double process, CooperativeProject Work and CLIL

Teachers & students face the challenges of a more complex andparticipative pedagogical interaction: drastic change in theirtraditional roles.

More demanding for both teachers and students: amount ofwork, preparation of materials, format of the projects, POEinstruments.

Effective implementation of cooperative assessment:formative &summative dimensions.

27



27/31

Individual and cooperative effort / quality project work required Climate of constructive collaboration: indispensable for cooperative assessment

POE instruments: guide work during the different phases of implementation Enabling tasks (language, learning, assessment): from simple to complex. Flexible project structure: allows students initiative and creativity.

programmme construction/assessment + Appropriate = ResponsibilityMethodology Motivation

6. Pedagogical implications (Sierra, 2008; adapted)

28



28/31

Integration of learning strategies Autonomy: gradual development Scaffolding: structure/interaction

Collaboration vs Competition

Structuring Autonomy/Experience Students projects proposals

Integrateddevelopment of the 4 skills Development of communicative and intercultural competence

6. Pedagogical implications (Sierra, 2008; adapted)

New didactic dimension: students as teachersCoyles 4 Cs framework: Content Communication Cognition Culture

29



29/31

Cooperative project work can integrate the best educationaltraditions of subject teaching and the essential contributions of

language pedagogy, and play a leading role in promotingmeaningful student engagement with language and content

learning.

As the proverb goes,

It takes two to tango,and we think that

cooperative project work and CLIL

do tango and tango well.

30



30/31

I would like to express my gratitude to the teacher Ane Lpez deLuzuriaga and her students, without whom this study would not havebeen possible.

This study was supported by the grant HUM2006-09775-C02-01/FILO awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science,and the grant IT-202-072 awarded by the Department of Education,University and Research of the Basque Governmet.

31

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



31/31

REFERENCES

BREEN, M.P. and LITTLEJOHN, A. (2000) (eds.) Classroom Decision-Making. Negotiation and process syllabuses inpractice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

COTS, J.M., IBARRARAN, A., IRN, M., LASAGABASTER, D., LLURD, E. and SIERRA, J.M. (forthcoming)Reflexiones y propuestas didcticas para contextos escolares multilinges: el desarrollo de la competencia plurilinge e

intercultural. Barcelona:Horsori.

COYLE. D. (2008). CLILA pedagogical approach from the European perspective in N. Van Deusen-Sholl and N. H.Hornberger (eds.)Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Second and Foreign Language Education (second edition,Volume 4). New York: Springer Science+Business Media LLC.

ESTAIRE, S. y ZANN, J. (1994)Planning Classwork. A Task Based Approach. Oxford: Heinemann. JOHNSON, D.W., JOHNSON, R.T. y HOLUBEC, E.J. (1999)El aprendizaje cooperativo en el aula. Buenos Aires: Paids. JOHNSON, D.W. and JOHNSON, R.T. (1994) An overview of cooperative learning. Available from

http://co-operation.org/pages/overviewpaper.html

LASAGABASTER, D. and SIERRA, J.M. (2009) Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFL classes. InternationalCLIL Research Journal (1) 2, 4-17.

RIB, R. y VIDAL, N. (1993)Project Work. Step by Step. Oxford: Heinemann. SIERRA, J.M. (2001) Project Work and Language Awareness: Insights from the Classroom. En D. Lasagabaster y J.M.

Sierra (eds.)Language Awareness in the Foreign Language Classroom (pp. 181-202). Zarautz: Universidad del Pas Vasco-Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.

SIERRA, J.M. (2008) Una programacin por proyectos en un aula universitaria: aportaciones a los diseos curriculares delengua inglesa basados en tareas. Bilbao: Universidad del Pas Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.

SIERRA, J.M. (forthcoming) El alumnado universitario como agente evaluador: opiniones sobre su experiencia. SIERRA, J.M. and LASAGABASTER, D. (2008) Los programas AICLE en aulas diversas: Una alternativa para todos?

Lenguaje y Textos 28, 131-142.

32


Documents

CLIL and Project Works Contributions