Code-switching to L1 in Greek Primary CLIL School Settings

(1)

Student: Giorgos Kytidis Student Number: 11690690

MA Language and Education (Linguistics) Supervisor: Dr. Rose van der Zwaard

Master Thesis: Code-switching to L1 in Greek Primary CLIL School Settings Date: 2/7/2018

(2)

The potential role of L1 in foreign language settings has caused a lot of controversy among educators. The monolingual principle suggests that teachers should only use the target language during the lesson. Being a bilingual method where content is taught via a foreign language, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) promotes the idea of monolingual teaching (Hall & Cook, 2012). Following an emic approach, the present study aims to identify when and why do Greek teachers and learners use their L1 during a CLIL lesson. Eight (8) CLIL teachers and sixty nine (69) students of both Grade 5 and Grade 6 were asked about their own

perspectives towards L1 use during a primary CLIL class in Thessaloniki, Greece. Additionally, five (5) CLIL lessons were audio-recorded and transcribed. Findings show that both teachers and learners code-switch to L1 for a number of reasons (core and framework L1 functions). The study concludes by advocating that code-switching to L1 in foreign language classrooms should be de-stigmatized since it can be used as a tool to facilitate both foreign language and content learning.

Keywords: CLIL, foreign language learning, classroom code-switching, L1 use, monolingual teaching.

(5)

1. Introduction

1.1. Brief Overview

The potential role of L1 in foreign language settings has caused a lot of controversy over the years. Littlewood and Yu (2011) point out that foreign language teaching has been dominated by the ‘monolingual principle’ that teachers should only use the target language during the lesson (p. 64). Nevertheless, this trend has changed in the last two decades.

Hall and Cook (2012) suggest that Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) can be considered as a “notable manifestation of diehard monolingualism” (p. 297). CLIL refers to settings where subject matter is taught to learners via a foreign language. It is a common phenomenon for CLIL teachers to discourage students from speaking in their mother tongue inside the classroom. They promote the belief that both content and language learning is taught more effectively without use of the students’ mother tongue for explanation, translation, testing, classroom management or general communication between them and learners (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 271).

Dalton-Puffer and Nikula (2014) stress that CLIL empirical research started “appearing in noticeable quantities around the mid-2000s and growing steadily ever since” (p. 118). A large body of CLIL research show that the method enhances students’ target language competence, content knowledge, motivation and cognitive skills. However, there are also studies whose findings show the learners’ difficulties when exposed to CLIL monolingual settings.

1.2. The Present Study

There is an ongoing debate between practitioners and educators in regards to CLIL’s

effectiveness. Advocates of the ‘monolingual principle’ support the idea that L1 use should be completely avoided during the CLIL classes. Conversely, other educators believe that a more flexible attitude towards the participants’ own-language use is needed, since code-switching to L1 can work as a tool that facilitate the learning process.

(6)

There is a growing body of literature that explores the functions of L1 in traditional English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms. However, L1 use in CLIL settings has not been widely examined. Hence, the present study will contribute to the CLIL research focusing on the potential role of L1 in CLIL settings. In search of the ‘optimal’ own language use (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 292), the main goal of my study is to identify Greek L1 functions and analyze possible code-switches produced by all participants in a theoretically monolingual environment (English as L2) such as CLIL classrooms in a Greek primary school.

In this paper, eight (8) in service CLIL teachers and sixty nine (69) students of both Grade 5 and Grade 6 were asked about their own perspectives towards L1 use during a primary CLIL class in Thessaloniki, Greece. Additionally, five (5) CLIL lessons were audio-recorded. The courses being recorded and examined were Geography, Computer Engineering, Science and History. Both teachers and learners code-switched to L1 for a number of reasons. Based on the findings, certain L1 uses were identified and divided into core and framework functions. The study concludes by advocating that code-switching can be used as a teaching and learning tool by both CLIL teachers and learners respectively.

1.3. Synopsis of the Study

The following study consists of eight chapters. The current chapter, i.e. chapter 1, includes a brief overview of CLIL as a bilingual method and outlines the main features of the monolingual approach towards teaching a foreign language. It also presents the main goals and features of the study. Chapter 2 focusses on the main framework of the study, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) method. Certain historical elements, characteristics, objectives and theoretical perspectives of CLIL are outlined. A critical reflection of the CLIL research overview is also provided.

Chapter 3 analyzes the Social Turn in SLA research. Terms, such as ‘ecological’, ‘technological’, ‘emic’ and ‘etic’ orientations are explained and linked with the goals of the present study. Further, Chapter 4 describes the second main framework of this thesis:

monolingual and bilingual teaching. Certain studies in EFL and in CLIL settings are outlined in regards to teachers’ and learners’ L1 use in classrooms. Chapter 5 describes the main features of

(7)

my study. Essential information regarding CLIL in Greece, participants, research materials, procedure, and research questions are outlined. Chapter 6 consists of the data analysis and discussion of the findings. Finally, Chapter 7 includes some concluding remarks. The results of the present study are compared with other similar studies and a new perspective towards foreign language teaching is suggested.

(8)

2. Content and Integrated Language Learning (CLIL)

2.1. History, Main Characteristics and Objectives

The main framework of my dissertation is the bilingual method CLIL. In the 1990s, a dire need for an effective integration policy was expressed. The rapid growth of globalization and

population mobility in Europe led the European Union to promote multilingualism which was considered as a tool for enhancing intercultural awareness and facilitating integration. As such, education was perceived as the key instrument for achieving this goal.

Driven by specific social factors and needs CLIL was introduced mainly in pilot

programs and was officially established in different educational settings throughout Europe (see Eurydice, 2006). The term CLIL was coined in 1994, and officially launched in 1996 by

UNICOM, University of Jyväskylä and the European Platform for Dutch Education (Darn, 1996). It was defined as “a generic umbrella term which would encompass any activity in which a foreign language is used as a tool in the learning of a non-language subject in which both language and the subject have a joint curricular role” (Marsh, 2002, p. 58).

Nevertheless, CLIL should not be regarded as a unique and pioneer approach to language learning. Bilingual educational approaches, such as integration of foreign language and content learning, also occurred in the past. Bilingual schooling was spread throughout the ancient world and used in many educational contexts in Ancient Mesopotamia and Ancient Greece (Garcia, 2011).

A more recent form of bilingual education is the French immersion education in Canada and was developed in the 1960s. Similarly to CLIL, the causes of the immersion programs were socially driven. In particular, “the need by English speaking children to learn French, the official language in Quebec, prompted a group of parents to lobby their school board for improvements to the teaching of French” (Pérez-Vidal, 2007, p. 42). The responsible stakeholders of the school hence came in contact with scholars and created an official immersion program proposal that was presented to the education board of Canada. In order to maintain their English proficiency at an advanced level, promote multilingualism and make children competent or even proficient users

(9)

of French, it was proposed that during elementary and/or secondary school, half the curriculum of these programs be taught in French and half in English.

The immersion program proved successful and the Canadian state and society supported it. It also provided the field with interesting research (Eurydice, 2006, p. 7). Although immersion programs and CLIL have several differences, “the findings of Canadian research are extremely revealing for the design and implementation of programmes in Europe” (Pérez-Vidal, 2007, p. 44).

CLIL and immersion programs are both being considered as bilingual educational approaches and they share a number of similarities. First, immersion and CLIL both aim for effective communication skills (communicative approach) and proficiency in both L1 and L2, without any detriment to the acquisition of academic knowledge (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009, p. 370). Second, both approaches adopt a monolingual approach towards foreign and/or second language learning. They support the idea that “the language the students are taught in must be new to them, so that its learning resembles the L1 acquisition process” (David Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009, p. 370). Moreover, all teachers should acquire a high level of English competency in order to be able to implement the program efficiently and to make sure that throughout the school day “all activities can be smoothly carried out in the L2” (David Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009, p. 370). Finally, the communicative approach is fundamental to both bilingual approaches. The main objective is to develop learners’ communication skills in a new language. Therefore, “it is essential to have a learning environment that motivates students through significant situations and interlocutors who are really interested in their development and linguistic progress” (David Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009, p. 370).

The features outlined above apply to both CLIL and immersion educational approaches. Yet, the former is a unique approach that differs from the latter. CLIL’s distinctiveness lies to its European identity. Perez-Canado (2012) claims that CLIL can be perceived as “the European label for bilingual education”; thus the mere fact that it is “strongly European-oriented” makes it a different approach (p. 318). As stated before, the term ‘CLIL’ was adopted by the European Commission. The basic area of implementation was and still is Europe. Therefore, it is deeply rooted in the linguistic needs of the European Union and driven by the continent’s sociocultural context. The Committee of Ministers of Council of Europe focused on a fundamental principle

(10)

regarding modern languages in order to prepare the Common European Framework (CEF) (Xanthou, 2011, p. 116). More particularly, the Committee suggested that “only through a better knowledge of European modern languages will it be possible to facilitate communication and interaction among Europeans…in order to promote European mobility, mutual understanding and cooperation” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 2). Hence, after a series of European educational councils and commissions (1993, 1995, 1996), the term CLIL was launched in 1996 and

characterized as a “European solution to a European need” (Marsh cited in Lorenzo, 2007, p. 27).

Despite its European identity, there is a variety of other aspects that distinguishes CLIL from other bilingual approaches. First and foremost, as the name suggests, CLIL’s uniqueness lies to the integration of both language and subject matter. This bilingual approach is driven by a twofold objective. CLIL’s aim is both foreign language and content driven. As far as the

teaching and learning process is concerned, “both language and content are conceptualized on a continuum without an implied preference for either” (Coyle, 2007, p. 545) and interwoven in a balanced way. In other words, “CLIL provides students with the opportunity to learn a subject through a foreign language and to learn a foreign language by studying a subject”

(Mattheoudakis, Alexiou, & Laskaridou, 2013).

Furthermore, CLIL aims for effective teaching and learning mainly of foreign languages. The medium of instruction is not a language that can be used locally (outside of the classroom) since it is learned in countries where it is not generally spoken by the community as a whole. The majority of CLIL learners share the same mother tongue and use or hear the L2 only in formal educational contexts (David Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009; Mattheoudakis et al., 2013). In addition, English plays a significant role in CLIL settings. CLIL practitioners acknowledge the fact that proficiency in English is perceived as a key literacy feature for any global citizen. Therefore, as Dalton-Puffer (2011) stresses, “CLIL languages tend to be recruited from a small group of prestigious languages, and outside the English-speaking countries, the prevalence of English as CLIL medium is overwhelming” (p. 183).

Moreover, although there are instances of collaborative teaching where language assistants co-teach with content teachers (see Dafouz & Hibler, 2013), the majority of CLIL tutors are not native speakers of the target language or specialized in foreign language teaching.

(11)

They are content experts, since CLIL is perceived as a content-driven approach. More precisely, CLIL classes are designed by the subject matter of each course. They are not similar to

traditional ESL classes where the literature and culture of the target language are the main aspects of the lessons organization. Thus, as Mattheoudakis et al. (2013) claim, “the subject matter is the driving force behind regular CLIL programs” (p. 217). Nevertheless, both content and language knowledge are given the same amount of emphasis. Dalton-Puffer (2011)

underlines that “all CLIL lessons are usually timetabled as content lessons (e.g., biology, music, geography, mechanical engineering), while the target language normally continues as a subject in its own right in the shape of foreign language lessons taught by language specialists” (p. 184).

In spite of CLIL’s double nature, i.e. development of foreign language and subject matter competence, the bilingual approach is also said to enhance learners’ cognitive skills as well as their cultural awareness and intercultural communication abilities. Coyle (2007) developed the 4Cs Conceptual Framework, which is a conceptualisation of the CLIL rationale. Every idea starting with the letter ‘C’ corresponds to the four main pillars that CLIL is built on. More precisely, the 4C Framework suggests that CLIL focuses on the interrelationship between content, communication, cognition and culture. For Coyle (2007), effective CLIL takes place only through progression in:

o Knowledge, skills and understanding of the content (content) o Engagement in associated cognitive processing (cognition)

o Interaction in the communicative context and development of appropriate language knowledge and skills (communication)

o Experiencing a deepening intercultural awareness (culture) (p. 550)

In short, according to Coyle (2007), content knowledge is firstly acquired through cognition. Cognitional processing requires language input and output. Therefore, the

development of the target language competence follows as a possibe result. Finally, efficiently interacting with others and acquiring subject matter using a foreign language develops

multicultural awareness. Hence, as Mattheoudakis et al. (2013) also state, “the integration of content and language with cognition and culture is at the core of CLIL pedagogy” (p. 217).

(12)

Having outlined the main characteristics of the bilingual method, CLIL’s objectives need to be identified. Firstly, the method has a fundamental twofold scope, i.e. enhancing both

language and content knowledge for the learners. In addition to this, there are aims, based on official policies and reccomendations outlined by scholars, theoreticians and practicioners throughout Europe, in reference to CLIL provision. More precisely, CLIL’s aims can be divided into four categories and might vary from country to country:

a) Socio-economic: CLIL implentation aims to prepare students to actively participate in a more internationalised society, increase their employability, and offer them better job opportunities on the European labour market.

b) Socio-cultural: CLIL provision attempts to develop pupils’ tolerance and respect towards other cultures, through use of the target language.

c) Linguistic: CLIL’s goal is to enhance students’ foreign language competence and motivation, by using L2 in the classroom settings.

d) Educational: helping learners to develop subject matter knowledge and study skills through a unique learning approach is a crucial aim of CLIL provision (Eurydice, 2006, p. 22).

2.2. Theoretical Perspectives

As a form of foreign language teaching and learning method, CLIL is based on specific theoretical underpinings of Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis (1985), Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1985) and Long’s Interaction theory (1996) are some of the most fundamental SLA theories that support CLIL and its

implementation.

To begin with, Krashen contends that “only when learners have access to comprehensible input, can language acquisition happen” (Madinabeitia, 2007, p. 62). This idea is the main component of his Comprehensible Input Hypothesis (1985) which is a naturalistic theory

strongly related to first language acquisition. Based on this theory, each person is perceived as a potential language learner who possesses a self-contained language processor. In SLA terms, exposure to L2 comprehensible input is a “necessary and sufficient condition for foreign language learning” (Mattheoudakis et al., 2013). This idea is supported by Ellis (2005) who,

(13)

claims that “if learners do not receive exposure to the target language they cannot acquire it. In general, the more exposure they receive, the more and the faster they will learn” (p. 217).

CLIL’s language of instruction is always different than the students’ mother tongue. Thus the learners receive extensive L2 input. In addition, CLIL supports the communicative and naturalistic way of teaching/learning. In his attempt to outline the CLIL’s key case

characteristics, Marsh (2002) stresses the essence of naturalistic learning:

CLIL/EMILE1 is often delivered through a form of naturalistic situation that allows for largely implicit and incidental learning. Learning out of the corner of one’s eye, where the language itself is only one part of a form of dual-focused education which takes place through authentic, meaningful and significant communication with others, is widely cited as a success factor in forms of CLIL/EMILE (p. 72).

CLIL teachers provide learners with meaningful input and generally “language mistakes are neither penalized nor corrected in CLIL classrooms” (Dalton-puffer, Nikula, & Smit, 2010, p. 7). Additionally, in his attempt to relate CLIL to the Language Awareness (LA) movement, Marsh (2008) suggests that CLIL’s naturalistic learning environment and its position into the curriculum, set the language as “the centre of the whole educational enterprise” (p.244). Therefore, students are supposed to learn how language works in order to achieve not only linguistic but also pragmatic goals and functions. Applying naturalistic methods of language learning in forms of ‘language across the curriculum’ gives learners the opportunity to

experience a more holistic educational experience where language plays an important “role in thinking, learning and social life” (Marsh, 2008, p.237).

Nevertheless, as CLIL is a method that integrates both language and content, teachers often focus on language form as well. Due to the fact that the content defines the teaching process and language is taught through it, formal, lexico-grammatical aspects of language need to be taken into consideration in specific CLIL contexts.

There are also some scholars who have stressed the significance of output over input. In his 7th principle of effective language acquisition, Ellis (2005) suggests that “successful

1_{Enseignement d´une Matière par I´Intégration d’une Langue Etrangère (EMILE) is the French version of the term}

(14)

instructed language learning also requires opportunities for output” (p. 218) which is based on Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1985). In his theory Swain (1985) asserts that explicit attention to speaking and writing skills (productive skills) facilitates second language acquisition. More particularly, “output production can enhance fluency, by raising the learner’s awareness of language deficits, thus increasing their motivation for learning” (De Graaff, Koopman, Anikina, & Westhoff, 2007, p. 609).

CLIL settings provide learners with various opportunities for output production. As already stated, it is a bilingual method which integrates language form, meaning and subject matter. Therefore, teachers urge learners to produce oral or written content-driven tasks by organizing group works (cooperative learning). That way CLIL students are expected to put their knowledge into practice by using “appropriate and accurate language using their available linguistic resources in order to express subject-related concepts” (Mattheoudakis et al., 2013, p. 218).

Long’s Interaction Theory (1996) is a hypothesis that actually connects language input and output theories with SLA. Long (1996) suggests that “negotiation work that triggers interaction adjustments by the native speaker or more competent interlocutor, facilitates

acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways” (p. 452-452). In other words, Long highlights the essence of interaction between interlocutors as a procedure that makes input comprehensible for the learners and thus develop language acquisition.

Long’s theory indicates the sociocultural aspects of SLA. Based on a similar framework, Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivist theory is a hypothesis that can be regarded as CLIL related. It suggests that language is the tool which mediates mental functioning through

interaction. In this regard, Xanthou (2011) states that “learning is facilitated by teacher and peers who help the individual reach the zone of proximal development (ZPD), that is, the area between the person’s actual developmental level and the level of their potential development” (p. 117).

In CLIL settings, interaction is essential for the comprehension of the target language. All participants (teachers and learners) interact with each other and negotiate various language forms and subject matter. Scaffolding techniques, such as paraphrasing, ellaborating, simplifying and

(15)

explaining can be considered as necessary interactional strategies used by all stakeholders so as to make CLIL lessons meaningful, easily understandable and generally to get messages across.

Overall, it can be stated that language input, output and interaction are approaches that play a crucial role in language and content learning. As Coyle’s 4Cs framework suggests, CLIL is built on principles that reinforce these theories. In particular, CLIL’s theoretical underpinnings include the following statements:

o Language needs to be learned in context (i.e. learning through the language), which requires reconstructing the subject themes and their related cognitive processes through a foreign or second language e.g. language intake/output.

o Interaction in the learning context is fundamental to learning (need for more exploratory talk and writing by the students). (Coyle, 2008)

2.3. CLIL Research in Europe: an Overview of the Case Studies

After having outlined the background information in regards to the emergence of CLIL and its key features, a number of key case studies will be outlined below. There is a growing body of literature focusing on the CLIL’s effectiveness. A large number of studies have been carried out comparing and analyzing CLIL groups and non-CLIL groups mainly in terms of their results related to foreign language competence and/or content knowledge.

It is important to stress that CLIL implementation in Europe is variegated. The Eurydice Survey (2006), charts significant information in reference to CLIL implementation in 30

European countries. Based on the survey, there are various CLIL types and each of them exhibits unique differences and characteristics. More specifically, Coyle (2007) indicates that there are “216 types of CLIL programmes based on variables such as compulsory status, intensity, starting age, starting linguistic level and duration” (p. 545). Therefore, CLIL implementation is driven by sociocultural and learner-centered criteria. Since each European country displays different linguistic backgrounds, societal characteristics and educational policies, there is not a single CLIL blueprint that can be applied to each and every educational European context.

Nevertheless, the interrelation between teaching/learning foreign language and content

(16)

the basic method of CLIL research focuses on effectiveness on the foreign language and subject matter acquisition.

Consequently, it is important to examine and reflect on the relevant research that has already been conveyed at a European level. The following overview includes an analysis of CLIL case studies covering all educational levels (primary, secondary, tertiary). The main objective of this overview is to outline the current trends in CLIL research in Europe, critically assess the methodology of the studies, display their outcomes and investigate the CLIL’s effectiveness.

2.3.1. Positive Results

There is a large body of studies that have found CLIL to be an effective approach. The results show that CLIL implementation enhances students’ foreign language competence and develops their subject matter knowledge as well.

To begin with, Spain can be identified as one of the European leaders in CLIL

implementation and research. Lasagabaster (2008) carried out a research project undertaken in the Basque country. Basque country is an autonomous community in which both Basque and Spanish are official languages and taught in schools. English, then, is the third language (L3) taught through CLIL and is included in the curriculum.

In his study Lasagabaster (2008) used 198 participants from secondary education. He examined the learners’ grammar and listening skills using the standardized Oxford Placement English Tests. Additionally, the learners were asked to write a letter in order to exhibit their writing skills. Finally, their speaking abilities were examined through oral descriptions of the ‘frog stories’. This task was particularly designed to elicit oral narratives of the picture book ‘Frog, where are you?’ written by Mercer Mayer in 1969 and has been used in a variety of research studies (Berman and Slobin, 1994; Stromqvist and Verhoever 2004; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008). In his study, Lasagabaster found that CLIL students outperformed their non-CLIL peers in every single test. Therefore, even in bilingual contexts where English has little social

presence, “CLIL exerts a positive influence on all the language aspects measured” (Lasagabaster, 2008, p.38). Furthermore, Lasagabaster (2008) considered the social class of the participants’

(17)

parents as a significant variable for his study. In particular, he interpreted students’ social class based on their parents’ level of education and suggested that CLIL eliminates the possible impact of sociocultural status on learners’ foreign language competence. (p. 37).

In addition, Ruiz de Zarobe's (2008) aim was to outline the possible contradictory outcomes between CLIL and traditional English as a Foreign Language (EFL) instruction. Ruiz de Zarobe asked the participants to carry out a speech production test based on the “frog stories” (see also Lasagabaster, 2008). The speech tests were also recorded. The recordings were

analyzed for pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency and content skills. It was found that CLIL students received significantly higher scores than the EFL group in every element of the speech production test (Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008, p. 70). As such, Ruiz de Zarobe (2008) claims that “CLIL can be more effective than traditional foreign language teaching in promoting proficiency in the foreign language” (p. 70).

In Finland, researchers such as Merisuo-Storm (2007) or Jappinen (2005), have

investigated all the “major questions recurrent in CLIL debates: L1 and L2 development, subject learning, and participants’ attitudes” (Pérez-Cañado, 2012, p. 320). At first, Merisuo-Storm (2007) examined the L1 literacy skills of CLIL and non-CLIL learners of Primary Education. The language tests analyzed the learners’ memory, listening skills, reading comprehension, mathematical thinking and writing abilities. They were distributed at the beginning of the first grade and at the end of the second grade (longitudinal study). Variables such as school readiness and gender were also taken into account.

The results show that “no significant differences were detected between both cohorts in terms of mother tongue literacy skills or when considering school readiness” (Pérez-Cañado, 2012). Further findings underlined the fact that in CLIL settings the pupils’ outlooks and motivation towards foreign language learning were more positive than their non-CLIL peers. Additionally, gender was also considered as an important variable. More precisely, based on the CLIL learners’ replies, “boys’ attitudes towards reading, writing and foreign-language learning were more positive than the attitudes of boys in the other classes” (Merisuo-Storm, 2007, p. 234).

(18)

Jäppinen (2005) identified the effects of CLIL on learners’ cognitional and learning development based on courses such as mathematics and science. The study ran for two years (2001 to 2003) and included 669 participants. The experimental group consisted of 335 students who were taught in English, French and Swedish. The control group consisted of 334 students who were taught in their L1, Finnish. The participants’ content knowledge was measured via four mathematics and four science tests which were given in Finnish (L1 for both groups). The findings show that CLIL settings enhance students’ cognitional skills. More precisely, the cognitional development of the experimental group appeared to be even faster than the control cohort (Jäppinen, 2005, p. 162). Therefore, this study supports the idea that thinking and learning processes in the CLIL environments follow the same pattern as the cognitional processes in courses taught in L1. It is safe to say hence that “CLIL seems to have positive repercussions on subject matter acquisition” (Pérez-Cañado, 2012, p. 321).

Mattheoudakis et al. (2013) conveyed a study in Greece as a pilot CLIL project at elementary level. The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of CLIL on both learners’ foreign language development and their content (Geography) competence. The participants were 51 students of the 6th grade elementary school (11-12 years old). They were divided into a control group of 25 CLIL students and an experimental group of 26 non-CLIL learners. Three Geography tests were used in order to elicit the level of content knowledge of both groups. The CLIL group was tested in English, and the non-CLIL cohort in Greek. In addition, the

participants’ English level of competence was assessed via standardized language tests in

English. The outcomes of the case study “have indicated both language and content gains for the CLIL learners involved and thus seem to support the continuation and extension of the project to other Greek primary schools’ (Mattheoudakis et al., 2013, p. 228).

The Netherlands is a country that stands out as an example of continuous CLIL research. As stated before, it is one of the countries that played an important role in establishing CLIL and a large number of Dutch studies can be considered as empirically solid (Pérez-Cañado, 2012). In 2006, Admiraal, et al. conducted a longitudinal study with Secondary Education learners. There were 1,305 participants divided into control and experimental cohorts. The students’ oral proficiency was assessed via the ‘Cito Oral Proficiency Test for English’, their receptive word knowledge via the EFL Vocabulary Test and their reading comprehension by means of the

(19)

national final examinations for English (MAVO) (Admiraal et al., 2006, p. 80). In addition, variables such as gender, entry ability level, home language, language contact outside school, and motivation were taken into consideration. The CLIL group achieved higher scores in the oral and reading components than the non-CLIL group. Yet, no differences emerged in relation to receptive word knowledge skills between the two cohorts. In addition, no negative effects were witnessed on either subject matter knowledge or the L1 development.

Denman et al. (2013) investigated the attitudes and the amount of motivation junior vocational CLIL students have. Denman et al. (2013) conducted specific online surveys and interviews eliciting the stakeholders’ outlooks towards bilingual methods in vocational contexts. The study concluded that 70% of the learners perceive vocational CLIL as “fun and motivating” which helps them enhance their English skills. Thus, teachers are optimistic about its

development and believe that “content and language integrated cross-curricular projects may have a substantial impact on the success of teaching and learning” (Denman et al., 2013, p. 298).

2.3.2. Criticism

Not all case studies examining CLIL’s effectiveness have found positive findings. Indeed, there are a number of scholars who have expressed their concerns towards CLIL provision in general. Yet, “issues that have been articulated against the implementation of CLIL have been mainly sociopolitical rather than educational” (Marsh & Frigols Martín, 2012, p. 6). Undeniably, the national language issue is at the heart of the CLIL debate. Various stakeholders are concerned that if certain areas of knowledge are explored and analyzed in a foreign language the national language will suffer (Eurydice, 2006, p. 53). This concern is strongly connected with the idea that the dominance of English language as a CLIL medium can lead to the decrease of linguistic diversity in Europe (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 297). There are also those who believe that CLIL serves as a political tool in order to “spread the English language to the detriment of other linguistic or cultural interests” (Marsh & Frigols Martín, 2012, p. 6). Hence, they aim to protect their own national languages fact that constitutes an obstacle in the further development of the method. Finally, several countries such as Sweden or Norway, voiced their concerns over the

(20)

impact of CLIL provision on the level of knowledge pupils acquire in a subject taught in a foreign language.

2.3.2.1. Negative Results

This concern is confirmed in the following studies. In particular, Airey and Linder (2006) (Sweden) and Hellekjaer (2010) (Norway), presented specific cases of CLIL provision at a tertiary level. “The investigations in both countries concur in finding problems with lecture comprehension in English- medium instruction” (Pérez-Vidal, 2007, p. 322).

Airey and Linder (2006) analyzed the effects of the instruction language on the content acquisition of 22 Swedish university students. The learners were taught Physics in both Swedish and English, as part of their undergraduate program. The relevant lectures were video recorded and shown to the learners after the end of each lesson. Then, the participants were asked to reflect on the selected video excerpts and generally their learning experience (‘Stimulated Recall’ (see Airey et al., 2006, p. 2)). Based on their answers, “when taught in English the students asked and answered fewer questions and reported being less able to follow the lecture and take notes at the same time” (Airey et al., 2006, p. 6).

Similarly, Hellekjaer (2010) gathered 391 learners (both domestic and exchange students) from three Norwegian Higher Education institutions in order to examine whether they

comprehend the lectures taught in English. Self-assessment questionnaires were used so as to elicit learners’ point of view regarding the integrated approach. The outcome was that 42% of the respondents experienced English lectures as more challenging than those in their L1. More precisely, the participants dealt with difficulties in comprehension, such as unclear

pronunciation, unfamiliar vocabulary, problems following lectures’ lines of thought, and note-taking (Hellekjaer, 2010, p. 246).

2.3.3. Critical Evaluation

Based on the different case studies outlined above, it has been found that the language outcomes of CLIL are positive since they stress the beneficial effects of the approach on learners’ foreign

(21)

language learning (Admiraal et al., 2006; Denman et al., 2013; D. Lasagabaster, 2008;

Mattheoudakis et al., 2013; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008). The majority of the research findings support this argument, since they show that CLIL provision “results in improved metalinguistic skills, greater mental flexibility, better fluency and interactive skills, increased use of strategies and a broader range of vocabulary” (Mattheoudakis et al., 2013, p. 220).

As far as the content outcomes of CLIL are concerned, research has shown contradictory findings. Certain studies show that there is no significant difference between traditional

approaches and CLIL in terms of students’ acquisition of the subject matter (Admiraal et al., 2006; Jäppinen, 2005). Other research studies express concern that since the language of

instruction is foreign, the content knowledge of the students might be reduced (Airey et al., 2006; Hellekjaer, 2010).

Taking a critical stance toward the CLIL studies, my concern about certain

methodological weaknesses needs to be highlighted. Whilst analyzing the studies the following questions should be taken into consideration: What defines CLIL effectiveness and how is it measured?

More precisely, there were studies that did not take important variables into account and were consisted of a small number of participants (Airey & Linder, 2006; Hellekjaer, 2010; Mattheoudakis et al., 2013). There were also research papers that took certain social variables into account, but showed specific methodological flaws. Lasagabaster (2008), for instance, in order to examine the impact of CLIL on learners’ sociocultural status, defined the cultural status of his study groups based on their parents’ educational background. This approach is

problematic, since each and every student is an individual who possesses unique characteristics independent of his/hers parents’ level of education.

Additionally, there were cases that depicted no differences between the experimental and control groups (Admiraal et al., 2006; Jäppinen, 2005) in terms of content knowledge

acquisition. Regarding this fact, Perez-Canado (2012) states that the non-existence of statistically significant differences between cohorts makes it difficult to “to determine whether the gains observed are truly ascribable to CLIL practice” (p. 330).

(22)

Furthermore, these studies follow an etic approach (see chapter 3) aiming for outlining the differences between an experimental and a control group. There are researchers that carried out robust studies that show CLIL’s positive impact on pupils’ learning development (Admiraal et al., 2006; Jäppinen, 2005; Merisuo-Storm, 2007; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008). However, the fact that the effectiveness of CLIL was based on scores of specific language or content tests needs to be questioned.

Due to the fact that CLIL was not found to be effective in Sweden, Sylvén (2013) argues that CLIL’s effectiveness may differ from country to country. Hence, factors such as policy framework, teacher education, age of implementation, and extramural exposure to English need to be taken into consideration because they play an essential role in the development of CLIL provision. Overall, Sylven (2010) claims that “introducing CLIL as a method of language teaching should not be based on guesswork, fashionable political ideas, or potential gains for a particular school. It should all be for the benefit of the student” (p. 316).

(23)

3. Reconceptualization of SLA Research and Technological – Ecological Approaches Towards Language Learning

The multidimensional nature of CLIL is depicted in its definition. It combines foreign language and content knowledge learning. Additionally, as stated before, it is a highly variegated approach with over 216 types of programs across different European countries. Therefore, both learners and teachers possess different sociocultural and personal characteristics that affect in a unique way CLIL’s effectiveness both on language and subject matter acquisition.

For that reason, examining the impact of the method only through quantitative language or content tests applies to an individualistic and cognitivist orientation towards research that it might lead to unreliable results. Firth and Wagner (1997) criticized those kind of perspectives. They calledfor reconceptualization of SLA research in order to enlarge the ontological and empirical parameters of the field. More particularly, they criticized the already widespread SLA views which identify acquisition as an individual phenomenon whose “locus” is the individual learner’s mind or brain (Firth & Wagner, 1997, p. 287). There is a general preference to experimental settings rather than naturalistic ones reducing the learners’ social identities into “subjects” (Firth & Wagner, 1997, p. 288). In addition, Firth and Wagner (1997) stressed that etic elements (analyst-relevant) are being prioritized instead of emic ones (participant-relevant). That way the social and contextual dimensions of language learning are not perceived as

important SLA factors and are being marginalized.

Therefore, this imbalance between cognitive and social orientations to language led Firth and Wagner (1997) to suggest three major changes in SLA field: a) awareness of the contextual and interactional dimensions of language use, b) emic (i.e. participant-relevant) sensitivity towards concepts, and c) broadening of the traditional SLA data base (Firth & Wagner, 1997, p. 286).

Firth and Wagner’s call for a reconceptualization in SLA research is strongly intertwined with an overall change in language learning orientations. SLA theories and frameworks that consider social interaction as the core element of language learning has been recently emerged. In his article, Tudor (2003) suggests a distinction between the technological and ecological

(24)

approaches. From the 1960s onwards there has been an extreme development of creativity in language teaching. SLA research phenomenal growth led to the “expansionof professional journals, language teaching associations, and courses in applied linguistics or language teaching methodology” (Tudor, 2003, p. 3).

Technological approaches perceive learners as “simply” learners, teachers as “simply” teachers and every classroom as identical to another (Tudor, 2003, p. 3). On the other hand, ecological approaches suggest that every learner and teacher is unique as language teaching is a complex process. Several researchers (Holliday and Cooke, 1982; Van Lier, 1997) described this perspective using the word “ecological”. Thus, “an ecological perspective involves exploring language teaching and learning within the totality of the lives of the various participants involved, and not as one sub-part of their lives which can be examined in isolation” (Tudor, 2003, p. 4). Ecological approaches tend to examine sociocultural factors in language learning as well as how the learners’ identity and attitude towards the target language or culture affects their language learning process (Tudor, 2003, p.4-5). They also focus on teachers’ attitudes and sociocultural identity, concluding that every teacher’s reality is an ecological one since it is daily shaped by a considerable amount of stakeholders such as students, parents, school

administrators, teaching material writers and of course their own individual voice (Tudor, 2003, p. 6). Overall, ecological approaches support the idea of complexity of language teaching and the difference between intended and actual pedagogy. Every participant in classroom possesses unique characteristics that can lead a thoroughly organized task-as-workplan (lesson plan made prior to classroom implementation) into a “messy” task-in-process (what actually happens in the classroom) (Seedhouse, 2010, p. 15-16).

Taking these theoretical orientations into practice, two main research approaches stand out: etic and emic. According to Tudor (2003) the etic approach is perceived as a “scientific” method correlated with technological frameworks and positivist thinking. It also expresses the outsider’s point of view in reference to general principles and objectively verifiable phenomena (Tudor, 2003, p. 7). Conversely, an emic approach, or naturalistic inquiry, regards the research focusing on the outlooks of the insiders, i.e. participants. Every participant perceives differently each and every situation as well as their place within it. It also aims to examine local coherence, “or how a system operates in terms of its own inner logic and rules (Tudor, 2003, p. 7).

(25)

Having outlined the two main strands of research regarding learning, it can be suggested that the case studies depicting the positive effects of CLIL correspond to etic research

approaches. Although a number of these studies took certain sociocultural variables into account, the effectiveness of CLIL was defined through quantitative tests of content or foreign language competence. What these tests actually examine is the struggle of “deficient FL learners to overcome an underdeveloped L2 competence” and achieve a high score “striving to reach the target competence of an idealized native speaker” (Firth and Wagner, 1997, p. 295-296). Thus, as Firth and Wagner (1997) suggest, there is a dire need for a holistic and emic approach that acknowledges the fact that language is not only a cognitive phenomenon, but also a social phenomenon hence in order to fully understand its use one should investigate the fact that “it is being acquired through interaction” (Firth and Wagner, 1997, p. 296).

(26)

4. Monolingual and Bilingual Teaching

Advocating for an ecological approach towards foreign language learning and considering teacher-student interaction as a basic element of SLA, Hall and Cook (2012) investigate the essence of learners’ own language use in the foreign language classroom.

As stated before, monolingual teaching theory suggests that a “language is best taught without any reference to another language” (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 273-274). On the contrary, supporters of bilingual teaching argue that the students’ already known language should be used during class in order to facilitate learning (Hall & Cook, 2012). Over the past decades the role of L1 in second language teaching and learning has generated an ongoing controversy among educators and researchers.

Since the late 19th century, monolingual teaching was dominating the foreign language settings. A considerable amount of pedagogic and political theories, promoted the idea that all activities, exercises, tasks, and even social interaction inside classroom must be communicated through the target language only. This assumption excluded L1 use (or other acquired language use) and generally code-switching was discouraged or even banned (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 271-272).

Berlitz method can be considered as the first instance of monolingual foreign language teaching. Maximilian Berlitz was a German Jewish immigrant who developed this approach striving for the complete immersion of learners into the target language and culture. Berlitz method “excludes any use of the student’s native language in either the classroom or in the student’s review materials” (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 275) and it soon became a role model for a number of institutions of that era.

There is a considerable amount of reasons behind the widespread acceptance and popularity of the Berlitz method hence monolingual teaching. First of all, the fact that foreign language teachers were employed without knowing their students’ mother tongue led to

situations where bilingual teaching became practically impossible. Secondly, the main objectives of language teaching altered. Translation was perceived as an old-fashioned orientation towards foreign language learning, thus the new goal of teaching was “to prepare students to

(27)

communicate in monolingual environments and to emulate as far as possible the use of the new language by its native speakers” (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 276). Thirdly, as Littlewood & Yu (2011) suggest, “for most students, the classroom is the only opportunity they have for exposure to the language” hence, based on SLA established underpinnings (e.g. Krashen’s

‘Comprehensible Input Theory’), it is essential to maintain high levels of TL input in foreign language contexts (p. 65).

Hall and Cook (2012), however, highlight that the new goal is not “desirable” or “attainable” for many learners (p. 276). The nature of this assumption lies to the recent

emergence of emic approaches towards SLA phenomena and specifically the social turn in SLA research acknowledging notions such as ‘complexity, ‘diversity’, ‘difference’ and ‘uncertainty’ within language and language learning (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 278). Complexity Theory (see Larsen- Freeman, 1997; Tudor, 2003; Seedhouse, 2010), Ecological Approaches (see van Lier 2000, 2004; Tudor, 2003) and Sociocultural Theory (see Lantolf, 2000, 2011) constitute frameworks that support the idea that language and social interaction are tightly interwoven. Each learner has its own identity, motivations, ambitions and attitudes towards the target language. These elements create the context of every learning setting and, as Moore (2002) suggests, “the acquisition process is deeply embedded in the interactional context it stems from” (p.281).

The impact of globalization and migration can be considered as another key element that identified the significance of bilingual teaching. More precisely, globalization led to the

establishment of English as a lingua franca worldwide. Therefore, population mobility was a phenomenon that increased the non-native speakers of English who have actually outnumbered the native speakers globally (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 278). A growing number of non-native speakers expressed the desire to maintain their individual cultural and linguistic identity whilst learning and speaking English. Immersion and native-likeness were no longer the main aims of language learning. Foreign language learners formed a multilingual community hence own language use had been de-stigmatized and perceived as “normal behavior” by all participants inside the classroom (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 278-279).

(28)

4.1. L1 Use in EFL Settings (Research)

There is a growing body of literature that examines participants’ use of L1 in foreign language settings. The main research focus lies on analyzing teachers’ and/or learners’ instances of code-switching, i.e. “the alternating use of more than one linguistic code in the classroom” (Lin, 2013, p.195). Analysis of their functions and their utility is also emphasized.

Interactional sociolinguistics (IS) and ethnography of communication (EC) can be defined as the most reliable analytic tools in order to examine and comprehend code-switching functions in society. As Simon (2001) argues “the foreign language classroom may be

considered a microcosm of the community outside of the classroom in terms of communication” (p. 314). Consequently, IS and EC provide research with concepts which can also be applied in classroom code-switching studies. The most commonly used ones are code-switching as contextualization cues (Gumperz, 1984). According to this framework, code-switches signal a shift in the frame or footing (Goffman, 1974) of the current interaction. “Frame or footing is the definition of what is happening and it is constantly being negotiated, proposed (signaled) and re-defined by the speakers engaged in interaction” (Lin, 2013, p. 200). During a classroom

interaction various frames or footings are being applied and communicated by the speakers. Therefore, changing languages hence can be considered as part of the overall negotiation of different role-relationships and the associated sets of expectations (see Jones, 2012).

In her effort to make teachers and theoreticians reconsider the role of own language use in a foreign language context, Simon (2001), drawing on IS and EC research methods, examined instances of code-switching in French-as-a-foreign-language classrooms in Thailand. Teacher code-switched for a number of reasons. For example, they used their L1 in order to negotiate different frames (e.g., formal, institutional learning frame vs. informal friendly frame), role-relationships and identities (e.g., teacher vs. friend). Therefore, as Simon (2001) indicates code-switching is seen as having a ‘momentary boundary-levelling effect’ during the lesson, since every time a frame shift occurs, an equal shift in the relationship between learner and teacher is witnessed (Simon, 2001, p. 326).

Littlewood and Yu (2011) underlined the potential role of Cantonese or Putonghua (L1) in EFL settings both in Hong Kong and Mainland China. Based on reviews and classroom

(29)

studies Littlewood and Yu firstly outlined the percentage of L1 and TL teachers used inside classrooms. Moreover, they argued that teachers’ own language use was based on three main principles, such as i) establishing constructive social relationships, ii) ensuring understanding of complex or abstract meanings and/or save time, and iii) maintaining control over the classroom environment (Littlewood & Yu, 2011, p. 68).

They also proposed a principled framework for balancing L1 and target language use in EFL settings. What they did was to divide the teachers’ instances of code-switching into two broad categories: ‘core goals’ (i.e. teaching the target language) and ‘framework goals’ (i.e. managing the classroom situation) (Littlewood & Yu, 2011, p. 70). As far as the former is concerned, Littlewood and Yu (2011) suggest that teachers could use their “L1 to clarify meanings of words, structures or utterances so that students can progress more quickly to the more important stage of active use and internalization” (p.71). The latter one is related to interpersonal role-relationships (i.e. reassuring role of the L1 since its exclusion can cause alienation to some learners) and classroom management (i.e. opening and closing lessons, giving instructions for activities, maintaining disciplined behavior) (Littlewood & Yu, 2011, p. 72, 73).

In addition, Copland and Neokleous (2011) focused on English language classrooms in Cyprus. As part of their methodology, they recorded classroom interactions and interviewed teachers aiming to elicit their thoughts about their own use of L1. The data depicted eleven functions of teachers’ use of L1: logistics (organizing), explaining/revising language skills and systems, instructions, question and answer, reprimands, jokes, praise, translating, markers, providing hints and giving opinions (Copland & Neokleous, 2011, p. 271-272). The results show that all teachers unanimously agreed on the belief that L1 has a place in foreign language

environments. However, they stressed the fact that its use should be limited and strategic.

Finally, a revealing outcome of the study was also the fact that a considerable amount of English teachers felt guilt whilst using their mother tongue during the lesson (Copland & Neokleous, 2011, p. 277-278).

Finally, Rolin-Ianziti and Varshney (2008) conveyed a study which focused on beginner learners of French in an Australian university. 52 learners expressed their opinions towards the role of L1 via completing questionnaires which included both open-ended and closed-ended

(30)

questions. Based on the findings, various L1 functions were investigated, such as classroom management, impact on anxiety and motivation, affective/social and lesson oriented factors.

4.2. CLIL and Bilingual Teaching

As already stated, CLIL refers to educational settings where content is taught through a language other than their mother tongue, thus Hall and Cook (2012) stated that it is a method that can be identified as a typical example of monolingual teaching (p. 297). However, the conceptualization and objectives of CLIL theory show that CLIL has a multicultural nature.

In the CLIL Compedium, Marsh, Maljers, and Hartiala (2001) in their attempt to

conceptualize CLIL, underline its plurilingual/multilingual nature. More specifically, they argue that CLIL aims to i) improve overall target language competence, ii) develop oral

communication skills, iii) deepen awareness of both mother tongue and target language, iv) develop plurilingual interests and attitudes, and v) introduce a target language. It is clear hence that this method strives for having both L1 and L2 language development and content

knowledge.

Therefore, as Lin (2015) also suggests, despite the ‘monolingual principle’ (i.e.

monolingual teaching) that a large number of CLIL types adopt, CLIL is a method whose “goals and principles are compatible with giving a role to L1 in CLIL curricula” (p. 81). Gierlinger (2015) also stresses the fact that the vast majority of theoreticians and CLIL practitioners agree that there is a place for L1 use in CLIL contexts, yet, due to the variety of CLIL forms and types, “there seems to be far less agreement about the actual methodological mediation and ownership of this space” (p. 351).

Moreover, Lin (2015) claims that the difference between immersion and CLIL can effectively be considered as the key element for the establishment of bilingual teaching in CLIL settings. More precisely, immersion programs appear to be stricter regarding the use of L1 inside the classrooms than CLIL contexts, since they often adopt a separation approach identifying the negative impact of translation techniques in bilingual classrooms (Cammarata and Tedick, 2012). Therefore, Lin (2015) argues that this central difference between the two approaches can lead

(31)

CLIL to a more balanced and open stance towards the potential role of L1 hence distinguishing it from monolingual immersion practices (p.83).

4.3. L1 Use in CLIL Settings (Research)

The monolingual principle was dominating the foreign language settings for many decades, but this trend has changed in the last two decades (Social Turn in SLA). Although there is a vast amount of research considering L1 use in foreign language contexts, “studies are almost non-existent in CLIL programs” (Lasagabaster, 2013, p. 4).

Nevertheless, there are some research studies that focus on both teachers’ and learners’ code-switches and analyzing their main functions. To begin with, Laupenmühlen (2012) carried out a study stressing the coexistence of L1 and L2 in biology CLIL lessons in Germany. What he did was to design an innovative approach named “Bilingual Reconstruction of Biology

Concepts” (BiRBiC) to enhance the “cognitive processing of science concepts through engaging students in explicit comparative analysis of L1 and L2 terms of biology concepts” (Lin, 2015, p. 83). This study makes someone reconsider the conceptualization of CLIL and highlights the fact that it is extremely useful to “draw on multiple resources in the communicative repertoire of the students to provide language and semiotic support to them when they are learning content using a second or foreign language” (Lin, 2015, p. 84).

Further, Lasagabaster (2013) conducted a qualitative study in relation to CLIL teachers’ attitudes towards own language in their classes in Colombia. 35 teachers were interviewed and their answers can be grouped into 5 main categories: i) facilitating students understanding; ii) comparing L1 and L2; iii) feeling comfortable in the CLIL class; iv) boosting debate; v) and dealing with disciplinary issues (Lasagabaster, 2013, p. 8). Overall, the vast majority of them exposed a positive outlook towards L1 use since they unanimously argued that it can be used as a useful tool in developing both content and language learning.

In addition, Gierlinger's study (2015) includes classroom observations, teachers’ interviews and stimulated recall reflections. The data revealed a considerable amount of code-switching strategies by the teachers, thus Gierlinger divided them into two broad categories: Regulative and Instructive code-switching.

(32)

The former refers to teachers’ classroom and task management (CTM) code-switches, such as giving instructions, making announcements, opening and closing lessons, regulating floor taking, homework reminders, passing out handouts, etc. Behavioral management (BM) code-switching is also attributed to this category. This type consists of L1 functions such as checking on pupils’ behavior, telling jokes, anecdotes or any other (language) anxiety reducing measure, encouraging remarks, etc. (Gierlinger, 2015, p. 353). The latter was divided into three sub-types:

o Content-focused (CF) code switching: facilitating the conceptual understanding and enhancement of subject matter knowledge.

o Word-focused (WF) code switching: translating all possible lexical problems. o Deficit-focused (DF) code-switching: dealing with learners’ linguistic shortcomings

(Gierlinger, 2015, p.353-354).

Having examined and organized the code-switching functions, Gierlinger (2015) concludes that teachers’ L1 use in CLIL settings is (a) motivated by explicit guiding principles, (b) contextually constrained, (c) domain sensitive, (d) guided by an affective dimension (p. 363-364).

(33)

5. My Study

In this section, my study will be outlined. As already stated, CLIL and L1 use in foreign language classrooms are the main frameworks that this research study is based on. There were three main factors that played an important role in the final decision of the topic. First,

Lasagabaster’s (2013) comment on the “almost non-existent” CLIL studies focusing on the potential role of L1 use in CLIL settings identified the lack of studies regarding this area of research. Second, Hall and Cook’s (2013) critical reflection towards the ‘monolingual principle’ and Lin’s (2015) argument that the conceptualization of CLIL actually ‘make room’ for own language use, forces CLIL instructors to rethink their teaching strategies. Third, CLIL in my country, Greece, is not as widespread as in other European countries. Therefore, it would be interesting to examine the stakeholders’ attitudes towards a method which is still being perceived as ‘experimental’ and ‘pioneering’ in Greek educational contexts.

5.1. CLIL in Greece

“Greece is still one of the very few European countries which have not adopted CLIL as a mainstream form of teaching and learning” (Mattheoudakis et al., 2013, p. 215). As Eurydice (2012) reports:

In nearly all European countries, certain schools offer a form of education provision, according to which, non-language subjects are taught either through two different languages, or through a single language which is ‘foreign’ according to the curriculum. This is known as content and language integrated learning. Only Denmark, Greece, Iceland and Turkey do not make this kind of provision. (p. 39).

Nevertheless, the last few years have seen an emergence of CLIL implementations in private, international and/or experimental schools, mainly as pilot provisions or projects (Chionis et al, 2017). This fact is also depicted in the development of CLIL research in Greece. ‘CLIL

(34)

two-volume issue of the Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning (RPLTL) journal2_, aiming to offer a comprehensive view of CLIL, as an innovative method in Greek contexts.

Taking a closer look at CLIL studies at primary level in Greece, Griva and Hostelidou’s (2017) attempt to examine the effects of CLIL on foreign language learning. The study focuses on CLIL’s impact on learners’ multicultural awareness. More particularly, Griva et al. (2017) organized and implemented a project called ‘Our Culture, Your Culture, Their Culture’ that was piloted for 14 weeks at a primary school in northern Greece. 47 students (11-12 years old), 22 of whom were immigrants and 25 Greek natives participated. After the completion of this pilot project, the students were interviewed. The data showed that CLIL, although implemented for 14 weeks only, had positively affected the learners’ cognitive skills whilst their active participation in “numerous inquiry-based activities”. Additionally, the participants developed their

communication skills via their participation in role plays, presentations, dramatizations and debates where they were expected to express their opinions through the target language. Finally, due to the fact that students engaged with content-based activities regarding multicultural

citizenship, social diversity, respect towards minorities and dispelling of stereotypes (Griva et al., 2017, p. 21), they efficiently developed their levels of cultural sensitivity and citizenship

awareness.

Korosidou and Griva (2014) designed and implemented a CLIL project with a focus on Byzantine history and culture for primary education students in Kastoria, Greece. They created a multimodal learning environment (e.g. students produce posters, brochures, videos) so as to promote and develop both language and content competence. After having actively participated in problem-solving and inquiry-based activities, students were evaluated through journals3 and their own interviews. The data showed that the CLIL project managed to “foster students’

positive attitudes towards second/foreign language learning, since they seem to motivate them in order to learn the target language in real-life settings” (Korosidou & Griva, 2014, p. 252).

2_{RPLTL is a Greek electronic journal (}_{http://rpltl.eap.gr/}_{), operated by the Hellenic Open University. It publishes}

full-length articles focusing on language learning, teaching and assessment research areas.

3_{Journal entries were kept by the researchers on completion of every teaching session and focused the objectives of}

the session, the material used, the teaching aids, the ways of communication, the students’ attitude at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of each activity, etc.

Code-switching to L1 in Greek Primary CLIL School Settings

Table of Contents