bilingualism & clil: the case of chile · 2015-04-24 · chile does not have as great a variety...
TRANSCRIPT
Bilingualism & CLIL: The Case of Chile
Ludmila Pueblas Miranda
María Luisa Pérez
30– 11 – 2012
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction………………………………………………............................. p.3-6
2. Theoretical Background……………………………………………………. p. 6
2.1. Bilingualism vs CLIL……………………………………………...... p. 6-9
2.2. Positive & Negative Perspectives on CLIL……………………. p. 10-12
2.3. Bilingualism & CLIL Research in different countries……….. p. 12-15
2.4. Plurilingualism, Bilingualism & CLIL in Latin America……… p 15-18
2.5. Bilingualism & CLIL in Chile……………………………………... p. 18-21
2.6. Chilean Education Policy towards English and the EODP… p. 21-23
3. Objectives …………………………………………………………………… p. 23-24
4. Methodology………………………………………………………………… p. 24
4.1. Sample: The National Volunteer Centre & The Schools……..p. 24-29
4.2. Research Design…………………………………………………... p.30
4.3. Instruments………………………............................................. p. 30-33
4.4. Procedure…………………………………………………………… p. 33-34
5. Results & Discussion……………………………………………………… p. 35
5.1. Qualitative Data Collection: About the teachers & the class p.35
5.1.1. About the class………………………………………………... p. 35-40
5.1.2. About the teachers……………………………………………. p. 40-45
5.2. Quantitative Data Collection……………………………………… p. 46
5.2.1. About the Students…………………………………………… p.46-50
6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………… p. 50-51
7. Limitation of the study and lines for future research………………… p. 51-52
8. References…………………………………………………………………... p. 53-58
9. Appendix……………………………………………………………………... p. 59-72
3
1. INTRODUCTION
We live in a globalised world; nowadays people can travel easily from one continent to
another for study, work or tourism. As Professor Joseph Jung, cited in Manzo & Zerh
(2006: 2), claims, students are finding jobs in different countries as national companies
become very competitive internationally: “We live in this global society and English is
the communication method in a global village”.
Despite what Graddol (2006) suggests about the end of English as the dominant
language due to globalisation and the increasing popularity of other languages such as
Mandarin, Spanish and Arabic, English is still the world’s lingua franca. In fact,
according to Otálora (2009: 1) “the use of a lingua franca, or widely spoken language,
[…] has gained worldwide acceptance […] English is considered to be an integral
medium for the process”. In other words, English still remains the default foreign
language for most academic disciplines and most certainly for international commerce.
Therefore, in order to succeed in the global market place, we need to be able to
communicate in English. As Graddol (2005) points out in The Guardian, the mantra
chanted by governments, employers, parents and learners alike across Europe and the
world is that “from English comes wealth”.
Different countries are implementing innovative language teaching programs and
adjusting their policies to become bilingual, some of them even plurilingual. As Tucker
(1999 cited in Madrid Fernández 2006: 3) states: “there are more bilingual or
multilingual individuals in the world than there are monolingual, and in addition, there
are more children who are being educated through a second language than exclusively
via the first language”.
In order to become bilingual, many countries over the last decades have adopted
immersion programs based on Content Language Integrated Learning (CLIL); in other
words, to teach various academic disciplines in English. Hence, the language is not the
object of study but the vehicle to learning other content.1
Most people believe that CLIL is a pedagogic approach which can solve the need for
plurilingualism in the world. According to Jäppinen (study published within Vaasan
2006: 22), CLIL “has the potential to facilitate intercultural communication,
1 In the next section, “Theoretical Background”, the concept of CLIL is explained in detail by examining the
definition of CLIL by different authors.
4
internationalism and the mobility of labour, and help people to adapt to various social
environments”.
Negative views are based on the difficulty of implementing CLIL, because countries
have different levels of development and infrastructure. Generally, the major problem is
the quantity of trained teachers. Some people believe that native-speaker teachers will
not comprehend the country’s culture and students. Others think that subject
knowledge is compromised by the use of a second language.
The practice of immersion programs is not new. They first became popular in Canada
in the 1960s. Afterwards, they spread and, in Europe, a new term was adopted-
‘Content Language Integrated Learning’ (CLIL) - in the 1990s, to refer to dual-focused
education where attention is given to both language and topic (cf. “Theoretical
Background” for the origins of CLIL)
Due to immigration, mix of cultures, as well as the strategic position of different borders
in some countries, such as Luxemburg, bilingualism has been successful and
implemented over time. As the Chilean Minister of Education (at that time), Sergio Bitar
(2004), declared in his plan to make Chile a bilingual nation: “It took the Swedes 40
years to get to that point”.
Some countries are already multilingual, such as Spain, which has the Catalan and
Basque languages separate from Spanish, among others. Due to its concerns of
integrating Spanish with the official language of the corresponding province, the
implementation of English bilingual programs is very recent, compared to other
countries such as Germany, which has 30 years of tradition (Fernández Fernández,
Pena Díaz, García Gómez & Halbach, 2004).
The same happens in Latin American countries, where indigenous populations speak
their own language. For example, in Peru, according to the 1983 Census,
approximately one third of all Peruvians speak an indigenous language, being
Quechua the most common, followed by Aymara (Cummings & Tamayo, 1999).
According to López & Küper’ study (1999), Quechua has millions of speakers in six
different states: Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador and Peru2.
The issue of bilingualism and integrating Spanish and/or Portuguese with other
indigenous languages through government policies will be examined in the section
2 For more details on the number of languages spoken in Latin America see Table 1 (Horberger, 1992 in
Cummings and Tamayo, 1999) in Appendix 1.
5
“Theoretical Background”. This study is centred on the implementation of bilingualism
in Chile. Chile does not have as great a variety of indigenous languages as other Latin
American countries. However, there are many indigenous people who speak Mapuche.
Another bilingual influence in Chile comes from the massive German migration in the
nineteenth century. Even today we can see the German influence on the Chilean
vernacular.
Some bilingual English/ Spanish schools were founded at the beginning of the 20th
century. It was in the 1970s that these schools created the British School Association of
Chile (ABSCH). Despite the immersion programs practiced in these schools, the
majority of the population did not have access to them due to their cost and exclusivity.
As a result, in 200, the Ministry of Education implemented nationally the “English Open
Doors Program” (EODP)
Although the EODP does not “open doors” for all, Matear (2008) emphasizes that
In Chile the education system is highly stratified by social class, and this becomes
even more pronounced with regard to foreign language learning. English has long
been used as the language of the instruction across the curriculum in the highly
prestigious British model schools and more recently in American schools, which
educate children of the highest socio-economic groups. (2008: 11)
In order to compensate for the socio-economic differences, the Chilean Ministry of
Education and the UN Development Program as part of EODP created the ‘National
Volunteer Centre’ (NVC). This is a very interesting initiative, because it is unique in
Latin America. It is true that there are many bilingual schools in different countries on
the continent. However, NVC presents a different perspective, as it promotes an
initiative for foreigners to come to Chile as volunteers to teach in public and semi-
private schools. As a result, Chile becomes more visible internationally. This also
becomes a way to subsidize education for people with fewer economic resources. It
becomes a way to facilitate learning English as well as exposure to other cultures,
since volunteers are native or near-native speakers from all over the world. In addition,
the volunteers are given the opportunity to learn Spanish and discover the country and
its culture.
This study intends to delve deeper into the NVC initiative and its bilingual teaching
skills and methodology. At the same time, the results will be compared with two
bilingual private schools and a traditional school (meaning a school which does not
6
practice bilingualism because it only teaches English as a subject on its own for a few
hours per week; in other words, English as a Foreign Language, EFL).
The intention is to learn more about CLIL and bilingualism comparing the different
approaches and methods and the results in terms of learners’ communicative
effectiveness depending on the way of teaching. The aim is to understand more about
CLIL and Bilingualism in the Chilean context, how they are implemented and how they
work.
First, the study will focus on the essence of CLIL and bilingualism by examining their
theoretical backgrounds. It will then expound on their differences, advantages and
disadvantages. In addition, it will discuss the research which has been carried out
throughout the world, and more specifically, in Latin America and in Chile. Also it will
describe the Chilean educational policy towards English and the EODP.
Subsequently, four Chilean institutions will be analyzed from a quantitative and
qualitative perspective. The results will be interpreted so as to evaluate the
effectiveness of the CLIL initiative as it relates to institutions, teachers and students.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. Bilingualism vs. CLIL
First, it is important that we define bilingualism and understand the differences with
CLIL, so as to account for the origin of this term. People think that bilingualism is the
ability to speak two languages perfectly. However, this is an ambiguous belief. (See
Appendix 2 to understand the levels of proficiency and bilingualism according to the
Common European Framework (CEFR 2001) cited in Madrid-Fernández, 2005:4)
If someone is monolingual, how can he/she affirm his/her perfect language knowledge
and proficiency? We are unable to know all the vocabulary and idioms in our own
language. Depending on our expertise, we might know more about, for example,
business terms than science terms, but we will not be able to know every term in all the
different technical fields. The same is true if we speak two languages.
This is why finding an accurate definition of bilingualism is an arduous task. There are
many definitions by different authors; in Harding & Riley’s work (2003: 23), some of
them are quoted:
7
“Bilingualism [is] native-like control of two languages…Of course, one cannot define a
degree of perfection at which a good foreign speaker becomes a bilingual: the
distinction is relative” (L. Bloomfield, 1933)
“The phenomenon of bilingualism [is] something entirely relative…We shall therefore
consider bilingualism as the alternate use of two or more languages by the same
individual” (W. E. Mackey, 1962)
Bilingualism naturally evolved due to the interaction of civilisations through commerce
and conflict. In some countries, over time, people who were bilingual immersed into the
official language of the country, and reverted to monolingualism. Nevertheless, more
recently, thanks to the media and new technologies, bilingualism has significantly
increased, as well as monolingualism with a strong bias towards English. According to
Baker & Prys Jones (1998): “Language contact, and hence bilingualism, derive from a
collage of individual economic need, societal and cultural change, and movements in
political power”.
However, in an educational context, bilingualism is thought to be teaching minorities to
integrate into society by combining their language learning with the predominant
language. In this sense, Cummings & Tamayo (1994: 1) define it as “instruction to
minority groups through the use of their mother language and, progressively, a
mainstream language”.
The definition above takes us to the difference between bilingualism and CLIL. The
latter according to Marsh (2006), can be defined as follows:
The term Content and Integrated Learning (CLIL) was adopted by European
experts in 1996 as a generic ‘umbrella’ term to refer to diverse methodologies which
lead to dual-focused education where attention is given to both topics and language
of instruction. It is used to describe any educational situation in which an additional
(second/foreign) language is used for the teaching and learning of subjects other
than the language itself. (2006: 4)
However, this dual-focused education practice is older than the CLIL term. In ancient
times, the Romans adopted the Greek language after the invasion, in order to have
more knowledge and opportunities (see Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2010).
Around 1965, the primary method of teaching language and content was immersion
programs in Canada. The aim was to give the opportunity to English-speaking students
to be as proficient in French as the northern population. As Swain & Lapkin (1982) and
8
Swain (2000) (cited in Navés, 2008: 2) point out, “Canadian Immersion Programmes
are by far the most highly acclaimed language learning programmes. […] Instruction is
given in the target language from kindergarten on or starting at some time during
elementary school”.
Afterwards, this educational trend expanded throughout North America and Europe. In
the mid-1990s, the European Commission’s White Paper, ‘Teaching and Learning
towards the learning society’ stated that “upon completing initial training everyone
should be proficient in two Community foreign languages” (Novotná & Hofmannová,
2000).
In response to the new request, EU specialists created the term Content Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL); in Spanish, Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y
Lenguas Extranjeras (AICLE).
The differences between CLIL and bilingualism are distilled by Nikula & Marsh (1997,
cited in Romu & Sjoberg-Heino, 1999: 88): “The term bilingual teaching is often used
when the aims are to provide language minorities with teaching, both in their own, as
well as in the majority language”. However, CLIL “says that the learning of a foreign
language and that of the content of another school subject take place at the same
time”.
Nevertheless, as Lasagabaster and Sierra (2010: 368) emphasize, the definitions put
forward by Marsh and Coyle, who are “two of the main advocates of the CLIL
approach”, may cause more confusion than clarification.
This issue is not trivial: if the terms are used interchangeably, teachers, researchers
and learners will be misled. Teachers will have increased pressure, researchers will
reach unclear conclusions and students will have unrealistic goals.
According to Lasagabaster and Sierra (370-373), there are more differences than
similarities. Pérez-Cañado (2012) also names a comprehensive list of authors who
differentiate CLIL from bilingual education.
First of all, the language of instruction in bilingual teaching is the language that the
majority use; for example, immersion programs in Canada teach English and French,
both of which are official languages of the country. However, in CLIL the language of
instruction is usually a language only used in the education institution where the
program takes place. The students only have contact with the language during
instruction periods, but not the rest of the time outside the institution.
9
In fact, as Wolff (2003 cited in Pérez-Cañado 2012:4) states: “Language is taught in
CLIL, as it holds a central place”. However, there is not as much contact as in
immersion programs, where usually the official language is the same as the language
of instruction. In that sense, as Muñoz (2002 cited in Pérez-Cañado 2012:4) puts it,
CLIL “aims at achieving a functional as opposed to a (near) native-like competence”.
Within Europe, as Muñoz (2007 cited in Pérez-Cañado 2012:4) says, it is conceived “to
increase mobility and achieve higher standards of the L2 without altering national
curricula”.
Regarding immersion programmes, teachers are bilingual and have a perfect
command of the language of instruction. That is not the case in CLIL, where there is a
lack of trained teachers with CLIL training.
In immersion programs, the books are similar for all the students, regardless of their
mother tongue. However, in CLIL, materials are not the same as those of their native
English counterparts; they are adapted to the students’ needs.
Regarding research, immersion programs have a long tradition; for example, in
Canada, dating back to the 1960s. However, CLIL programmes are still experimental in
many cases and much more research is needed.
Other differences pointed out by Lasagabaster and Sierra are the starting age, the
language objective and the particular case of teaching immigrant students. However,
unlike the other differences, these cannot be generalised in the study of CLIL.
In the Chilean case, most of the institutions using CLIL methodology have early
immersion programs beginning with Pre-Kindergarten. With respect to the language
objective, it is true that, from a CLIL perspective, to reach a native-like level might be
too ambitious. However, many of these institutions have this objective in mind. That is
why they employ native teachers in the schools. Finally, the case of immigrant students
is applicable in Spain, where learning Basque or Catalan is compulsory. However, in
other countries, such as Ireland, students have to study Gaelic. However, in the case of
immigrants they are not obligated to learn it; it is sufficient to learn English. Also in
countries such as Chile, immigrants do not have this handicap in CLIL institutions.
Nevertheless, to understand the value of CLIL, we need first to understand the pros
and the cons of this approach.
10
2.2. Positive and Negative Perspectives on CLIL
The problem with Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) is that in schools
the number of hours is usually limited due to a lack of time for teaching other
curriculum subjects (see Appendix for the teachers’ replies at a traditional school).
However, as was previously mentioned in the CLIL definition, content and language are
taught and learned simultaneously, so there are no time constraints.
As García-Mayo & García-Lecumberri (2003) and Muñoz (2006) (cited in Pérez-Vidal,
2007) state:
From the point of view of language acquisition, it is claimed that not only exposure
but ‘intensity’ of exposure, that is an increase in the number of hours over shorter
periods of time, may benefit language achievement more than longer periods of
instruction with a lower number of hours, something which CLIL programs can
guarantee, as they are generally organised in parallel to conventional language
teaching. (2007: 2)
When English is taught as a subject, the linguistic aim is the priority over the topical
content. Hence, the content becomes ‘disposable’ (see CLIL master’s material, 1.6.
“Slaves to the language: Disposable Content”). For example, a topic might be “My
everyday life”, but the aim is only to learn and practice the Present Simple.
Nevertheless, due to the subjects being taught in the second language (in this case, in
English), there is no need to find a topical content such as “My everyday life”, because
the topical content is the subject itself.
Therefore, as Marsh (2000) titles his study, we are “using languages to learn and
learning to use languages”. CLIL gives the opportunity to learn a language naturally, as
we learn our mother tongue. We learn it because we have to use it and we are
exposed to it constantly. Afterwards, we learn more vocabulary, as well as grammatical
structures, and various other aspects. We do not learn it by first reading all the
grammar rules, memorising vocabulary and using structured conversations.
As cited in Morgan (Masih, ed. 1999: 42), Hellekjaer suggests that CLIL “is the most
logical and effective way of implementing Krashen’s theory of comprehensible input,
(1995: 139) where learners acquire language in a natural way more akin to their
mother-tongue learning”. Although Krashen’s Input Hypothesis has been widely
criticised, it has set the bases for developing the CLIL approach, as well as creating
other hypotheses, such as Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1985). Krashen stated, after
observing immersion programs that comprehensible input develops comprehensible
11
skills, but fails to produce ‘error-free-native-like’ language (see Järvinen, 2008). Swain
elaborated the Output Hypothesis, based on the affirmation that “demanding spoken
activities challenge and stretch the speaker’s limits of language ability and force the
learner’s interlingua to develop” (Järvinen, 2008:7).
There are many other authors who also agree that acquiring a language is more
successful when it happens in a natural way, similar to the process of learning the first
language. Among them, Dueñas (2004) cites Krashen (1984), Savignon (1993), Snow
(1993) and Wesche (1993). They suggest that:
(…) a second language is most successfully acquired when the conditions mirror
those present in first language acquisition, that is, when the focus of instruction is
on meaning rather than on form; when the language input is at or just above the
competence of the student, and when there is sufficient opportunity for students to
engage in meaningful use of that language in a relatively anxiety- free environment.
(Dupuy, 2000: 206)
The idea of having a goal and meaningful content also plays an important role in the
students’ motivation. They understand that what they are learning is important for their
future, not only because they are learning a second language, but because they are
learning science, social studies, math, history, business, etc. According to Seregély,
(2008: 4): “It has been proven that one important benefit of CLIL method is that it
increases students’ motivation and their willingness to learn”.
CLIL makes the students feel that they have more cognitive ability. As Marsh (2000)
points out, CLIL is not only about linguistic competence, “CLIL can also have an impact
on conceptualisation, literally ‘how we think’”.
On the other hand, there is also a potential downside to CLIL. As with any other
educational project, it presents difficulties and constraints and it requires time,
investment and effort.
The CLIL approach is not exportable. The idea of implementing CLIL in every country
and for every citizen is still a utopia. In developed countries with bilingual/multilingual
traditions, CLIL will be easily successful over time. However, in developing countries
with insufficient financial resources, infrastructure and which maintain a strong
monolingual culture. CLIL is not and will not be for everyone. This is the case in
continents such as America, as we shall see in subsequent headings.
12
CLIL also requires investment in teacher training. The problem is that language
teachers might be or might not be capable of teaching a subject such as Science, due
to their lack of knowledge of that subject. The same happens with content/subject
teachers; they might not have the confidence to teach a particular subject in English
because they do not have adequate English proficiency.
Among teachers, there is also a certain fear of being made redundant and losing their
jobs. As Graddol (2005) states in a newspaper article: “There will be losers in the global
drive for English”. He suggests that CLIL will change the role of an English teacher and
his/her relationships with students and institutions. Therefore, he wonders what this
trend might cause “spoken everywhere but at what cost”.
Last but not least, this type of education is more demanding on learners. It is tiring to
read, write, listen and speak in another language as well as your mother tongue.
However, as Marsh (2000) points out, “it is possible that the workload will feel heavier
for the child, but it is up to the school to ensure that this is kept to an acceptable level”.
Once we know more about Bilingualism and CLIL, it is necessary to delve deeper into
the prior research carried out by institutions as a backdrop to our own study.
2.3. Bilingualism & CLIL research in different countries
Around 1965, immersion programs started to develop in Canada. For this reason, there
are over three thousand papers focusing on this topic there (see Marsh, Nikula, Takala,
Rohiola & Koivisto, 2006). Although they are of academic interest, these papers are of
little practical value for this project since the research is highly contextualised.
Therefore, it cannot be exported and applied to the South American context.
Nevertheless, due to the lack of CLIL research in South America, we will take a brief
look at the Canadian, North American and European contexts.
As Cummins (1998) highlights: “The Canadian French immersion programs were the
first to be subjected to intensive long-term research evaluation”. When immersion
programs were implemented in Canada, parents were concerned about the students’
first tongue development due to the instruction in a second language, as well as what
the students’ proficiency would be in the second language. Therefore, during the first
two decades after implementation, many studies were carried out comparing immersion
students with monolingual students. All the results were positive, the immersion
programs were considered effective (see Navés, 2008).
13
Among those studies, the most relevant were carried out by Lambert & Tucker (1972)
Swain & Lapkin (1981), Swain (1974), Cummins (1998), Cummins & Swain (1986),
Genesee (1984 and 1987) and Harley et al. (1990). Through books and journal articles,
they observed and collected relevant information about French immersion programs in
schools within predominantly English-speaking population areas. They compared the
different types of immersion, from full to partial, and in early, medium and late stages of
study, with traditional programs. They also researched on socio-psychological aspects,
such as motivation and entity among others. The conclusion was that the immersion
students had an adequate French and English command compared to their English-
French only counterparts. However, the productive skills, writing and speaking, were
still weak as compared to their monolingual peers (see Harley et al., 1990). They also
realised that the immersion students had a greater motivation to study the target
language, as well as being more culturally open-minded.
Bilingual Education methodology has also proved extremely successful, as
documented by extensive research in the last three decades, notably from North
America (see Genesee &1987, Rebuffot, 1993, cited in Masih ed., 1999)
In the United States, as Navés (2008: 3) says: “integration of content and language has
a long tradition […] as Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and in Bilingual Education
Programmes (BE)”. However, in the US, these studies have focused on BE (Bilingual
Education) as programs for migratory population. Due to the mix of cultures and the
large Latin American population, the country has been ‘forced’ to adapt their education
system in order to integrate this segment into North American society.
There are numerous studies about BE and CBI in the different states, most of them
centred on Spanish and English, but others focused on languages, controversies,
policies and American bilingual history and tradition (Kloss & Heinz, 1977; Crawford,
1999 & 2000; Frum, 2000; Ovando, 2003; Krashen, 2002; August & Hakuta, 1997; and
Brinton et. al.. 1989)
As cited in Pérez-Vidal (2007: 42), Krashen (1985: 57) heralded bilingual acquisition in
the United States as: “the most successful language teaching program ever recorded in
professional language teaching literature”.
Based on Canadian immersion programs and North American Bilingual Education,
Europe has developed CLIL as a reply to the motto “Europe will be multilingual or it will
not be” (Pérez-Vidal, 2007: 2). As Pérez-Cañado (2012: 2) states: “CLIL is considered
14
to be a descendent of French immersion programs and North American bilingual
teaching models”.
In Europe, they are still very much behind and CLIL is still a confusing and
controversial issue. The problem is that European countries are very different. It is not
the same situation to implement English immersion programs in Germany as in Spain.
As Lasagabaster (2008 cited in Pérez-Cañado 2012: 5) claims: “the CLIL situation in
one European country cannot be extrapolated to another, given the very different
circumstances surrounding language teaching across the continent”.
The origins of CLIL can be traced to the German-Franco programs (see Lorenzo, Casal
& Moore, 2009). Bilingual teaching in Germany has been developing since the 1960s,
as in Canada. The country has received awards on several occasions during the last
decades because of its bilingual educational programs. This is not a consequence of
educational investment or language policies, but, rather a positive result of the
enthusiasm and commitment of teachers and universities. In fact, a German has to
study two subjects in order to become a state school teacher, usually a language and a
content subject. Also, most students learn two subjects (see Vázquez, 2007 & Wolff).
Pérez-Cañado (2012) divides the European research outcomes comprehensively in
four groups. In Central European countries (The Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland,
and Austria), she claims that “both exploratory and experimental studies have been
developed […] in order to gauge the effects of CLIL” (2012: 9).
Northern European countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway and Estonia) have also vastly
implemented CLIL programs: “in these countries research has been carried out
primarily into the effects of CLIL on foreign language and mother tongue competence,
on subject matter learning, and into stakeholder perspectives” (2012: 6).
Many cases of CLIL success can be found in different European countries, although
they were implemented later in the late 1980s, such as in Finland (see Björklund, Mård-
Miettinen, Bergström & Södergård, 2006; Marsh, Nikula, Takala, Rohiola & Koivisto ,
2006), The Netherlands (see Admiraal, Westhoff & de Bot, 2006), Sweden (see Sylvén,
2004 & Murray ed. 2003 and Bergström, 2006), Austria (Seregély, 2008) and the Czech
Republic (see Novotná & Hofmannová, 2007), among others.
Within Pérez- Cañado’s Southern group, CLIL projects in Spain were implemented in
the 1990s after the European Commission’s White Paper (1995) and the Bologna
Declaration (1999) (see European Policies in Vez, 2008; Ballesteros Martin, 2009).
However, due to the multilingual situation in different Spanish provinces, the studies
15
have been more focused on Spanish and other languages, such as Catalan-Spanish
bilingual programs, rather than English Bilingual Education. As Lasagabaster and Ruiz
de Zarobe (2010 cited in Pérez Cañado 2012: 13) highlight: “drawing and
uncomplicated, homogenous picture of CLIL policy in Spain is an impossibility”. There
are a few studies centred on specific cases depending on provinces (see Lorenzo,
Casal, Moore & Alfonso, 2009; Lorenzo, Casal & Moore, 2009; Madrid-Fernandez,
2005; Pérez-Vidal, 2007; Fernández Fernández, Pena Díaz, García Gómez & Halbach,
2004; Lasagabaster, 2008; and Pena Díaz & Porto Requejo, 2008).
Nevertheless, Pérez-Cañado (2012:12) claims that “the situation of Spain […]
particularly stands out within the European landscape”. As Coyle (2010, viii cited in
Pérez-Cañado, 13) states: “Spain is rapidly becoming one of the European leaders in
CLIL practice and research”. Despite this, Vez (2009 cited in Pérez-Cañado 2012: 16)
claims that “there is not yet a solid empirical evidence from EU countries on which to
base definitive claims about the educational advantages of multilingual education”.
After this general overview of the research carried out around the world, it is necessary
to expound on the Latin American context, as the broader backdrop to the Chilean
context.
2.4. Plurilingualism, Bilingualism & CLIL in Latin America
First of all, we will provide a general overview on multilingualism in Latin America and
bilingual education programs designed to integrate the countries’ official language in
the indigenous population. Then, we will focus on English bilingual education.
Multilingualism in Latin America comes naturally from all the different indigenous
languages, the Creole languages existence and the foreign languages variety migration
from Europe, Asia and Africa (see López & Küper, 1999). After Spanish colonisation,
Spanish became the official language and the indigenous languages were forbidden.
Those who spoke them were severely punished. Even after the independence
movements in the various countries, those who spoke indigenous languages were
marginalised. At the beginning of the 1930s, educational programs began to be
implemented in public schools in order to teach indigenous people Spanish and
Portuguese. Nevertheless, there are areas where children attended school knowing
five or six different languages and the teachers ignored that language variety
competence, sacrificing it to monolingualism in Spanish or Portuguese. Plurilingualism
is very common in Amazonian areas and also in cities which are situated at borders, as
16
is the case of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay, where the population speaks Spanish,
Portuguese and Guaraní (see López & Küper, 1999).
This situation changed in the 1960s, when the different countries acknowledged the
benefits of bilingual education. Therefore, they implemented two types of bilingual
education depending on the countries’ context: ‘transition’, which consists in teaching
initially in the native language and gradually replacing it by the second language; and
‘maintenance’, which involves teaching both languages at the same time throughout
the educational program (see Cummings & Tamayo, 1994).
According to Modiano (1973), Dutcher (1982) and Miller (1982), cited in Cummings &
Tamayo (1994), Bilingual Education has been successful in different Latin American
countries: “the bilingual approach produces better results in tests of reading
comprehension”- They also claim it improved other student skills.
Hence, in Guatemala, the Ministry of Education adopted a program of
‘castellanización’, where bilingual teachers were hired to teach children from
Kindergarten, oral Spanish, as well as to read and write in their native language. Years
later, they developed a program for teacher training, the ‘Programa Nacional de
Educación Bilingüe’ (PRONEBI) (see Cummings & Tamayo, 1994).
In Peru, they also developed a bilingual program, ‘Proyecto Experimental de Educación
Bilingüe Puno’ (PEEB), which created a curriculum developed in Spanish and Quechua
or Aymara.
However, since the 1970s a new initiative promoted by the different ministries of
education has been pursued to recover the indigenous language, as well as to maintain
their culture and traditions: ‘Educación Intercultural Bilingüe’ (EIB). EIB has been
developed in countries such as Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru
(see Taylor, 2006, and Hornberger, 2000).
Globalisation has also affected many countries in Latin America and the number of
people learning English has increased over the last few years. According to Matear
(2008: 132- 133), there are three main reasons: first “middle income countries in Latin
America are experiencing a shift away from production characterised by low wages and
skills, to services through business process outsourcing (BPO) and information
technology outsourcing (ITO). The aim is to attract foreign direct investment and
knowledge industries […]”. Second, “in some countries the inclusion of English in the
curriculum is related to the governments’ commitment to promoting equitable access to
education. […] In Latin America knowledge of English as a foreign language is often
17
associated with enhanced employment opportunities and social mobility […]”. And
third, as English is the language of science, communication and information
technology, “a lack of these skills can present barriers to accessing knowledge, which
in turn places limitations on the production and use of knowledge”.
Despite the resistance in some Latin American countries to cultural domination by the
United States and hence reluctance to learn English3, there is a long tradition of
bilingual project development. In Colombia, bilingual institutions were founded in the
1910s and 20s for the education of children of expatriate communities (see Mejía,
2008). Some studies have been carried out recently at universities to determine what
strategies and instruction to implement in order to develop CLIL (Otálora, 2009). In
Argentina, as early as the 18th century, the British community established “English
Schools”, which had the same methodology and evaluation as in the United Kingdom.
Nowadays, some of them which still exist maintain the curriculum (see Renart, 1994).
There are also countries where English is an official language, such as Guyana,
Barbados or Belize.
Nevertheless, it was in the 1990s when ministries of education started to develop
national education policies for teaching and learning English. More recently, ambitious
programs have been planned with the goal of having an English bilingual population in
the future. This is the case of Colombia, where the government launched the ‘Social
Program for Foreign Languages without Borders’ with the objective of making the
country bilingual in ten years (Graddol, 2006).
Also between 2009 and 2010, different studies were published in the ‘Latin American
Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning’ in Argentina (Curtis, 2012). Those
papers reflected the growing interest in CLIL in Latin America.
The problem lies in the difficulties of implementing the CLIL approach in public
education, as Graddol (2005) suggests: “English is likely to become the major
mechanism for structuring social and economic inequality across the world”. In Latin
America there are still lot of inequalities. According to Matear (2008):
To date, knowledge of English in Latin America has reflected existing political and
economic power structures. It has remained the preserve of the elite with access to
private schooling, and as such it demarcates and divides social groups by
reinforcing an unequal distribution of wealth, resources and knowledge. (2008: 2)
3 This happened in Brazil, where the legislation proposed to prohibit the use of English in publicity as well
as creating a new Portuguese language to designate basic computer operations (see Rohter, 2004).
18
The other problem is the lack of trained teachers, even those who follow the English as
a Foreign Language approach, as Zappa-Hollman (2007) says: “as reflected in the
works of other scholars who have examined the impact of recent education reforms in
Latin American context, the shortage of trained EFL teachers […] is not an isolated
case”.
However, this study is focused on bilingualism and CLIL in Chile, which has not been
mentioned yet. In the next section we will describe the different bilingual education
projects in this country and the main hurdles to overcome in this arena.
2.5. Bilingualism and CLIL in Chile
The major indigenous population in Chile is Mapuche. This is an indigenous population
which is based mostly in the South of Chile and Argentina. However, they are not well
accepted by the rest of the population; even people who have Mapuche ancestors
deny their roots.
It was in 1990, after the country re-established democracy, that the government started
to discuss the need of an indigenous law. They elaborated on the alternatives and
ideas for an educational program aimed at indigenous communities (see López &
Küper, 1999).
The Ministry of Education next engaged in bilingual education planning. The first step
was the implementation of a version of bilingual and intercultural education (‘Educación
Intercultural y Bilingüe’ -EIB), as in other countries like Bolivia and Peru (see Taylor,
2006). In Chile the EIB goal was the rescue, promotion and development of indigenous
languages, because they are the most important component for the preservation of
indigenous identity (see Cañulef, ed. 1996). They believe that knowing an additional
language supposes having a greater intellectual competence, access to broader
cultural horizons, more tolerance towards diversity and more adaptability to changing
situations.
Conversely, English bilingual education has a long tradition. There are bilingual schools
which were founded in the 1930s (including one of the schools subject of this study),
most of which were established by wealthy and well- educated British families who
migrated to Chile and wished to have institutions to teach their children in the style of
traditional British education.
In the mid-1970s, several British schools wanted to become more powerful, with higher
standards and a larger variety of activities to offer to their students. The result was the
19
‘Association of British Schools in Chile’ (ABSCH) in 1977, with seven founders (one of
them is the object of this study) and members. Currently, there are nineteen member
schools. Ten of them are in Santiago de Chile (one is the subject of this study).
In their webpage, www.absch.cl, the Association states that their mission is: “to support
the school members in their effort to offer quality education which reflects the best
educational experiences of the British system cooperating with the Chilean and British
educational authorities”. However, this type of bilingual education is private; therefore, it
is only affordable to a relatively small number of people.
In Chile, education has always been marked by power and social class and even more
so when it is related specifically to English language teaching, because this type of
education has been associated with the curriculum of prestigious British and American
schools. As Matear (2008: 143) points out, “the education system in Chile distributes
access to a quality education inequitably, being contingent on the purchasing power of
the family”. As Nuñez & Gutiérrez (2004, also cited in Matear 2008) say:
There is evidence that when seeking employment, an individual’s potential earnings
are determined more by the school they attended, their family background, and the
neighbourhood in which they live than their academic performance at school or
university. (2008: 143)
Chilean society is so highly class-oriented and it is often necessary to have a “contact”
in order to obtain a good job .Furthermore, it is difficult for any government education
initiative to be equal for all. Hence, children in public schools might be less motivated to
learn and improve their English skills if they perceive that it will have no impact on
future opportunities. As Matear (2008: 140) underlines: “the marked segmentation of
the Chilean education system by social class may present challenges in motivating
students who perceive […] that they will have a few opportunities to use the English
language skills […]”.
Nevertheless, since 1990, the Chilean government has focused on a policy of
educational equality by increasing education investment and raising standards,
particularly in public schools. It was in 1998 that the foreign language curriculum was
reformed, as McKay (2003, cited in Matear 2008) stated: “knowledge of English should
be considered an essential skill for facilitating international communication, accessing
information, participating in information networks, and engaging in commercial
exchanges”.
20
In spite of this initiative, six years later a National Diagnostic Test for Competence in
English carried out by the Ministry of Education demonstrated that “the existing
provision was insufficient to achieve these goals” (Matear, 2008). Matear (2008: 135-
136) says that also in the last decade “the cost of education was transferred
increasingly to the individual and the family, to the extent that by 2005 private
expenditure accounted for 46% of the total while 54% of investment came from the
public purse”. Hence, the gap between the richest and the poorest is quite evident.
It was in 2004 that the Ministry of Education decided to initiate a phase in an 18-month-
old programme, officially known as ‘English Open Doors’ (EODP), with the objective of
extending the use of English to all levels of society. As the Minister of Education, Sergio
Bitar (cited in Rohter, 2004) said, this is “an instrument of equality for all children”. The
government’s ambitious goal was to make all 15 million of Chilean people fluent in
English within a generation (see Rohter, 2004).
A study carried out by the ‘Sistema de Medición de Calidad de la Educación’ (SIMCE)
in 2004 revealed that the students’ academic achievement is very much related to
socio-economic background. Hence, not only in English but in other subjects, the level
was poorer when the children came from poorer families with a low education level,
even if they were in private funded schools. Those who came from the wealthier
families with higher education levels, even if they were from publicly funded schools,
obtained better results (see Matear, 2008). In this sense, Matear (2008) states that:
The principal barriers to effective learning and achievement in English have less to
do with the type of school attended […] instead they appear to be rooted in the
socio-economic background, the home environment and the lower levels of cultural
capital presented by children from low income families. (2008: 141)
In order to compensate for this disadvantage, the EOPD created the ‘National
Volunteer Centre’ (NVC) (subject of this study) which brings native or nearly native
English speakers to Chile as volunteers to teach and assist in English language
instruction. The focus is on poor urban and rural areas with the objective of facilitating
contact with a native speaker who does not only teach the children English, but other
culture and values, as well as creating curiosity towards other countries. They also
support other activities, such as English camps or games like ‘spelling bees’.
The government has also invested in teacher training and the development of already
existing teachers. Teachers receive ongoing support through offers of total immersion
21
English programs, as well as summer camps and study trips abroad (see Matear
2008).
Nevertheless, the future of a Bilingual Chilean population is still uncertain, as Matear
(2008) underscores:
The power structures embedded in the education system are linked forward to the
employment market. Under such circumstances government initiatives such as
EODP will struggle to provide equitable access to language learning for all children
regardless of their socio-economic background and educational circumstances.
English id likely to continue to act as a gatekeeper to positions of wealth and
prestige, despite investment by the state in language learning, and will open doors
for some but not all. (2008: 143)
Perhaps the key is to support and promote more initiatives such as the National
Volunteer Centre. It is necessary to change the population’s mindset before they are
able to speak another language and therefore be globally minded. Perhaps, by
facilitating global access to English to all students, not only those in private schools,
Chile will have a new bilingual generation which is both open-minded and adaptable.
If we are to find the answer of how to implement CLIL in Chile publicly, we first need to
know more about Chilean educational policy regarding English and its latest project,
the EODP, among other initiatives.
2.6. Chilean Education Policy towards English and the EODP
After seventeen years of military government, in 1990, with the democratic transition,
the Chilean government decided to evaluate and invest in the education system in
order to offer more quality and equality (see ‘Informe Nacional de Chile’, 2004).
Since 1990, three stages can be identified in the development of the education system.
First, from 1990 to 1995, the government tried to create the bases for the future.
Therefore, the onus was on improving the educational environment, resources and
employment conditions. They built new buildings with better infrastructure, and
acquired new textbooks and other education materials. Other initiatives were taken
including the increase of teacher’s salaries.
Second, from 1996 to the beginning of 2000, there was a period of intensification. The
government increased the number of school hours, creating full-time-teaching, as well
as completely changing the educational curriculum. The objective was to reinforce the
education of those students who had more difficulties, as well as to promote
22
professionalism among employees, with training, stays abroad and rewards for
educational excellence.
Third, after 2003, the government once again decided to change the curriculum. The
success of the changes and new approach became noticeable when, around the
middle of the decade, students’ and teachers’ skills were measured by national and
international tests. The results were very unsatisfactory. Chilean authorities realized
that, despite governmental measures, the educational level did not reach the standards
of globalization. The population was not ready for international demands. Hence, they
decided to focus on intensifying the ‘global skills’, in other words, English and IT skills
(see ‘Informe Nacional de Chile’ 2004).
It was in 2004 that the government launched the EODP. According to Bohn (2003: 160-
161 cited in Matear 2008): “The decision on the language to be taught to future
generations is certainly an educational issue, but it is also a highly political and
financial one in which power, domination, and political affiliation play central roles”.
Therefore, the Chilean Education Ministry embarked on a ten-year multifaceted plan
designed to deliver one thousand hours of English language learning to every student
in the country. The aim of the program is to achieve a working knowledge of English
among all students, both written and spoken. The plan included:
First, to provide the country’s seven thousand English language teachers ways to
improve their own comprehension of English and their teaching methods;
Second, to improve study-abroad programs for Chilean English teachers;
Third, to implement standards-based testing and measurement that will give educators
a comprehensive tool through which they can measure advances in competency.
Finally, to develop a program to bring English native speakers from countries such as
the United States, Canada, the UK and Australia to assist in teaching English; the result
being the National Volunteer Centre (cf. section ‘Objectives’) (See
www.teachingchile.com)
The EODP also organizes public speaking competitions, English debate tournaments,
spelling bees and English Camps. The interest of the general population was evinced
by the participation and attendance at a promotional fair held in Santiago in 2005,
‘Expo Inglés’ (see Matear, 2008). According to Matear (2008: 10), the evidence is due
to “a widespread perception among high school students, their parents and teachers,
23
that having English language skills improves future opportunities for employment and
study”.
The latest initiative dates to 2009: ‘Chile Habla Inglés’ (Chile Speaks English), a
campaign launched by different communication and technology businesses with the
collaboration of the Ministry of Education. The mission is to transform Chile into a
bilingual country (see www.chilehablaingles.com). They have promoted English
learning through publicity, videos, the internet and competitions, such as the one which
took place last year. The participants were teenagers and they had to choose a public
person and decide what questions they would ask him/her. The winner received a prize
consisting in a trip to visit the BBC in London.
Another promotional tool is an online English learning program for kids. It consists of a
family of flamingos who live in ‘Mingoville’. The program practices the four skills
through songs, games, videos, exercises and interaction. It is free, although it will not
be indefinitely. They “sell” it to parents to teach at home and to schools as a learning
tool. However, this kind of digital teaching might suppose a lack of motivation after
some time, as well as an access problem because financial constraints . Nevertheless,
digital teaching is not part of our research.
What it is clear is that education is a fundamental instrument of public policy. However,
it is not exclusive; only in conjunction with economic and social policies will educational
policy be able to cope with the challenges of contributing decisively to the creation of
social cohesion and to reinforcing democratic coexistence (see ‘Informe Nacional de
Chile’, 2004).
3. Objectives
As was mentioned in the section ‘theoretical background’, there is a thin line between
bilingualism, immersion programs and CLIL. As has also transpired from the literature
review, there is a need for more research on CLIL and bilingualism in South America
and Chile.
Among the different Latin American countries, especially in South America, Chile has
been chosen because it has the most ambitious project to make the population
bilingual within a generation, as well as having an innovative approach through the
EODP, despite the difficulties inherent in its implementation.
The objectives are:
24
To characterize and compare the different English language teaching models which
have been implemented in four institutions, -public non-bilingual and private fund
bilingual schools, in Chile.
- To determine language teachers’, coordinators’, and teaching assistants’
perceptions on the way CLIL schemes are working (Qualitative study).
- To determine students’ perspectives on the way CLIL schemes are working, vis-
á-vis speaking competence and motivation.
The aim is to provide data to push CLIL implementation forward by clarifying what its
application entails, as well as identifying its main strengths and weaknesses, hence
offering valuable information to re-orient its application in order to guarantee its
success. There are no studies to date on these aspects. That is the niche this study
intends to fill. At the end of the day as Masih (1999: 41) says: “Any CLIL project or
program will - and will want to – improve learners’ foreign language competence”.
4. Methodology
4.1. Sample: The National Volunteer Center & the schools
In order to meet the afore-mentioned objectives, as well as to understand CLIL and
bilingualism, the study has focused on four institutions: the National Volunteer Center
(NVC), Colegio Universitario Inglés, Esclavas del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús (CUI),
Trewhela’s School and Craighouse School.
Before more in-depth examination and discussion in this study, it is important to identify
the institutions chosen and why. First it is necessary to have a general overview of
them in terms of history, mission and methodology.
National Volunteer Center:
Three coordinators who were previously volunteers were interviewed by email, two of
them male and one female (see Table 1 at the end of this section).
Supported by the Ministry of Education and the UN Development Program, the
National Volunteer Center as part of the project EODP works with native and near-
native English speakers between twenty-one and thirty-five years of age to teach
English in Chile under the direction of head teachers in public and semi-private
schools. (See www.centrodevoluntarios.cl). The aim is to increase listening and
25
speaking comprehension and the overall practice of English, both for students and
teachers throughout the country.
The NVC was founded in 2004 as one of the initiatives included in the EODP. It started
with fifteen volunteers working in a pilot program in the Antofagasta region (North of
Chile). The number has increased over the years and now they have more than one
thousand and five hundred volunteers. (See ‘Volunteer Manual 2012’)
In the past, apart from the general coordinator, the rest of people working at the NVC
were volunteers. They welcome the new volunteers, offer an orientation week, teacher
training, as well as support them with legal issues and insurance, among other aspects.
They also find them host families and places to live and work. Volunteers have the
opportunity to learn Spanish by paying for a course. They must also complete a free
Spanish language course, the e-Language Spanish course at the end of the voluntary
period, in order to be eligible to take the BULATS test (an internationally recognized
certification to test Spanish proficiency). Volunteers also receive a participation bonus.
The volunteers are English teaching assistants working with students ranging from 5th
grade (approximately ten years old) to 12th grade (approximately seventeen years old).
The volunteers’ service ranges from five-to eleven-month stays in the country.
They teach twenty-five hours per week and spend an additional ten hours leading
extra-curricular activities, such as sports, reading clubs, etc, depending on the schools’
interest. They are also engaged in speaking competitions, spelling bees, debates and
camps organized by the EODP.
According to the NVC webpage, the volunteers’ responsibilities are “to focus on
improving the students’ speaking and listening skills; to motivate the students to take an
interest in learning English; and to share their culture with the students, thus
broadening their worldview”.
The NVC has implemented a new curricular training this year. The methodology
consists of promoting teamwork between the head teacher and the volunteer. Basically,
the volunteer will have a week to observe his/her colleague teaching. The English
lessons will last two hours, in which the class will be divided in half, being some of the
students with the teacher and the others with the volunteer. This initiative is intended to
26
offer the student time with the volunteer to speak and listen to a native speaker (see
‘Teaching Guide’)4.
Colegio Universitario Inglés: Esclavas del Sagrado Corazón de Jesús:
A female teacher was interviewed by email and phone, as well as ten students, six girls
and four boys (see Table 1 at the end of this section).
El Colegio Universitario Inglés (CUI) is a private school in which English is taught as a
foreign language and not as an integrated language.
It was originally founded in 1914 by Elizabeth Weber, but in 1926 ‘las Esclavas del
Sagrado Corazón de Jesús’ (a Christian congregation) decided to take care of the
school. Hence, the congregation implemented their Christian beliefs and tradition in the
education system. The school has approximately five hundred students and sixty-five
teachers. The types of families whose children attend the school are also traditional
Christian families belonging to the upper-middle social class.
The school’s mission, is therefore, centred on Christian values and the bible. Their aim
is to develop the cultural and religious aspects of the children through understanding
history and at the same time, the love which comes from God. Students are expected
to be respectful, reciprocal, generous and honest. The school offers a serious
academic formation, as well as, knowledge and analysis of reality through the Bible’s
principles.
The school’s education project is determined by spirituality and the congregation’s
religious mission.
CUI methodology is student-centred; they give the students the opportunity to build
their knowledge and acquire artistic and technical abilities. The teacher’s role is to
facilitate the students’ learning and motivational experiences.
However, they do not specify curricular goals, in dictate teaching techniques. Nor does
the school prioritize certain subjects. English is subordinate. In this subject, they expect
that the students are able to communicate, receive and produce information in English,
which allows them to widen their knowledge of the contemporary world and their
approach to other cultures (see ‘Proyecto Educativo Institucional’).
4 The intention was to question ten students. However, permission was not given.
27
Trewhela’s School:
Two female teachers were interviewed, as well as ten students, six boys and four girls
(see Table 1 at the end of this section).
The school was founded in 1937 by Miss Alice and Miss Virginia Trewhelas Lamb.
They were renowned teachers from the United Kingdom, who were awarded by the
Order of the British Empire (O.B.E) by Queen Elisabeth due to their project of
spreading English as a language, as well as the ‘Gabriela Mistral Award’ by the Chilean
Government because of their contribution to education.
In contrast to CUI, Trewhela’s is a secular scientific and humanistic institution with
emphasis on the English language. Trewhela’s is also a privately funded school. At
present, there are one hundred and fifty teachers and one thousand three hundred
students. Their mission is to educate people to be competent in English as well as
adaptable to a dynamic and multicultural society.
The school has their own education projects approved by the Ministry of Education.
The first nine years of formal education are taught in English. From 7th grade
(approximately twelve-year old students), English teaching is intensified in order to be
eligible for external examination by the University of Cambridge. They sit the KET (Key
English Test) Certificate exam, which they have done for four consecutive years. This
year has changed to the online version. Therefore, they practice it in class and at home
with a password for access and in November they take the formal exam.
Since 1999, the school has been catalogued by the Ministry of Education as
an‘Establishment of Special Singularity’ due to the excellent results the students have
obtained on external examinations, such as those carried by SIMCE and their curricular
innovations.
They emphasize English teaching and bilingualism through different events and
opportunities, such as exchange programmes with schools in the US and New
Zealand; preparation for the University of Cambridge and TEFL exams; and the
celebration once per year of the ‘British Week’, among others.
What is significant about Trewhela’s School is that last year it welcomed a few students
from public schools located in the same urban area. Primarily due to the inequality of
access to education and the stratification of the system, last year there were numerous
public strikes and social problems lead by students. Many schools were temporarily
closed and the students left in ‘stand by’. Therefore, a few private schools, among them
28
Trewhela’s, were selected by the Ministry of Education to integrate those students into
their schools, until the situation improved. (See the link to the news story video on the
National TV in the bibliography).
Craighouse School:
Three female teachers were interviewed, as well as ten students, five boys and five
girls (see Table 1 at the end of this section).
Craighouse is a private bilingual school (Spanish and English) that comprises Pre-
school, Primary and Secondary levels. The school was founded in 1959 by a British
couple, Mr. Charles T. Darling and his wife Joan Gibson-Craig-Carmichael. It began as
a bilingual boys’ school in a rented house, with fifty-eight students. However, the
number of students has increased over the years. In 1965, the Mr. Charles T. Darling
Foundation decided to create a construction company, ‘Inmobiliaria Craighouse S.A.’,
in order to cope with the school’s growing number of students. Nowadays, the school
has one thousand eight hundred students and one hundred fifty teachers.
Mrs. Darling, like the Trewhela’s founder, was also awarded by Queen Elisabeth II the
‘MBE’ (Member of the British Empire) due to her commitment and diffusion of British
culture outside the United Kingdom; and the ‘Gabriela Mistral Award’ by the Chilean
Ministry.
In 1994, the headmaster and Mrs. Darling wrote the first educational project. In 2004,
the school embarked on a curricular revision to meet the needs of the national Chilean
curriculum and the requirements of the International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO,
a non-profit educational foundation which offers students from three to nineteen years
old, in over three thousand schools around the world, programmes “to develop their
intellectual, personal, emotional and social skills to live, learn and work in a rapidly
globalizing world” (see www.ibo.org).
Since 2008, the school has full IB status, offering programmes to Primary, Middle and
Senior year students. It is also a founding member of the Association of British Schools
o Chile (ABSCH) and the Latin American Head’s Conference (LAHC, an association of
schools’ leaders with an international focus in Latin America).
As stated in the schools webpage (www.craighouse.cl) the school has “a commitment
with respect to the acquisition of English enables or pupils to become bilingual or highly
proficient in the English language by the time they graduate. The entire learning
process takes place through the English language when our pupils are at young age-
29
this is what we understand as full-immersion from Play Group to year six
(approximately twelve years old). From Years Seven onwards, the teaching of English
is comprised of a rich and varied programme of studies reinforced by the school
environment itself”.
The school also promotes English language and a diversified culture, through different
events, such as the celebration of an ‘International Day’ where students and parents
share their culture through costumes, food, decoration, etc. They also have a talent
show, which imitates the show ‘British Got Talent’, as well as end of the course
projects, where the students do research on a topic and present it to other students and
parents.
Table 1. Breakdown of the sample
TEACHERS/COORDINATORS STUDENTS
M F M F
NVC 2 1 - -
CUI - 1 4 6
TREWHELA’S 2 6 4
CRAIGHOUSE 3 5 5
TOTAL 7 2 15 15
In the case of teachers and coordinators, the majority are female. Regarding students,
in total between the CUI, Trewhela’s and Craighouse, an equal number of boys and
girls were questioned. However, separately, at CUI, there were fewer boys than girls
questioned. At Trewhela’s, the opposite was true; and at Craighouse the number was
the same. Other studies, like Seregély’s study (2008) used this variable based on
Sylvén’s study (2004), because the results were different according to gender. Males
obtained higher scores.5
5Nevertheless, gender was not used as a variable in this study, due to our reduce sample.
30
4.2. Research Design
In order to know and understand more about the CLIL and bilingual methods, this study
has followed a mixed quantitative-qualitative research design. As Denzin (1970) terms
it, ‘multiple triangulation’ has been employed. More specifically it has been of three
types, as Brown (2001) classifies it:
‘Methodological Triangulation’, as the study has employed three instruments to gather
information: observation, interviews and questionnaires.
‘Data Triangulation’, as multiple sources of information have been consulted to mediate
biases interjected by people with different roles in the language teaching context:
teachers, volunteers, coordinators and students.
‘Location Triangulation’, since language learning data has been collected from multiple
data-gathering sites: NVC, CUI, Trewhela’s and Craighouse.
4.3. Instruments
This study has employed three instruments: first, an interview protocol for teachers,
and in the case of the NVC, coordinators and volunteers; second, classroom
observation; and third, questionnaires to students.6
As stated by Priest (1996: 106): “the goal of qualitative research is to understand the
insider’s perspective” in other words, this kind of research, according to Iorio (2004: 6),
“seeks to explain the world rather than measure it […] going ‘into the field’ to gather
data by observation and interaction with people from whom they hope to learn”.
Iorio (2004:104) suggests that the in-depth interview has the advantage that the
researcher “has time to devote to a single individual”. One of the limitations of
qualitative research is that the data obtained is subjective; for example, in the
6 However, before proceeding, it is important to say that due to the lack of support in different Chilean
educational institutions, it has been impossible to gather more information and details. It is very difficult to
get access to schools, whether private or public. Perhaps it is related to the fact that there have been
problems with student’ abuse. Most of the school policies do not allow entrance to those who do not
belong directly to the school because it is a ‘violation’ against the students’ rights and privacy, even though
the students are not filmed and it is an anonymous survey for academic purposes. In fact, on the National
TV news story about Trewhela’s School, the reporter points out that from all the schools integrated in the
helping students’ plan, only Trewhela’s allowed them access.
31
interviews some of the questions are: “What do you think about Bilingualism? And
CLIL? What are your hopes/perspectives towards Bilingualism and CLIL in Chile?”. The
aim of these questions is to have a collection of impressions, perceptions and opinions,
more than facts (see Appendices 6 and 7). As stated in the master’s subject
‘Observation & Research’ (section 2.2. ‘Quantitative versus Qualitative approaches’),
for some researchers this type of approach is interesting “not because they hold the
‘truth’ about something, but precisely because they are a record of opinions and
perceptions important to the learners-ideas which cannot easily be tapped in other
ways”.
Other questions had the objective to determine whether most of the teachers were
Chilean or foreigners. Some questions had the objective to clarify the teachers’
experience, if they had CLIL training, their number of students and the number of hours
they taught (see Appendices 4, 4.2, 5, 6 and 7). One of the main lacunae of CLIL in
Latin America is the lack of trained teachers, as underscored by Zappa-Hollman
(2007); this is why questions about experience and training should be asked. In
addition, the type of subjects, their evaluation of the students’ communicative
effectiveness, or the tasks they use in order to develop listening and speaking skills are
also canvassed. Their use of translation, how they motivate the students concerning
their hopes and perspectives as teachers, and the students’ selection process are
equally included (see Appendices 4, 4.2, 5, 6 and 7). Based on other studies, the
questions for teachers are similar in terms of motivation and perspectives/hopes.
Seregély (2008) emphasised motivational aspects, because she found that for teachers
CLIL was as motivating as for students. There are also numerous studies that
highlighted CLIL as being more motivational than other methods.
In the case of NVC, the questionnaire was tailor-made in order to find out as much as
possible about the volunteers, their nationalities, motivation, and experience, with
respect to the institution, the selection process, and above all, to understand the
differences in their methods and tasks (see Appendices 4, 4.1 and 4.2).
Finally, vis-à-vis classroom observation, it was introduced in the 1960s as a teacher
training method. Through it, the trainees could receive feedback about their
performance. It was and is also used to evaluate what constitutes effective teaching.
There are two ways to approach class observation: through the teachers and students
being perceived as objects and not informing them about your mission, or by involving
them in the process. (See master’s subject ‘Observation & Research’).
32
In this study, the requirement was beforehand to explain to sub-directors, teachers and
students the study’s objective, as well as to identify the institutions involved in this
academic project. Hence, the subjects were involved in the process.
During the observation, the protocol was to understand the class structure and content,
identify what methods and tasks were used in the class, what subject, what materials,
and whether there was use only of the target language or of the mother tongue as
well.7
A naturalistic approach was used, as described in the master’s subject ‘Observation &
Research’. This type of research “may use comparison groups and can involve the
collection of both quantitative and qualitative data […]. The researcher does not create
special groups for the purposes of experimentation and observation. Instead, naturally
occurring groups become the focal point (Watson-Gegeo, 1988 cited in 3.5.
‘Ethnography – Observation & Research’) […] regularly scheduled classes are likely
sites in which to use naturalistic approach, which is known as ethnography”.
The classes observed were selected with the intention of maintaining the same level in
all the different schools, thereby allowing us, to compare the results, without the
influence of other variables. The level chosen corresponds to courses in the last stage
of Basic Primary Education, where the children are ten years old. The age was decided
due to outside circumstances: the first school could only offer that space for the
researcher to carry out the study, and afterwards, the others were selected at the same
level to have matching criteria.
Regarding the selection of institutions, the NVC was selected because of its innovative
and unique approach and because it is implemented in public schools. It might be the
answer to achieve equity of access to bilingualism.
The other schools were selected by the general need of having both bilingual and
traditional schools so as to compare the data. One of them should belong to the
ABSCH (Craighouse), as well as having another bilingual school (Trewhela’s School)
and a traditional one (Colegio Universitario Inglés). These schools were chosen due to
the fact that their profiles matched the criteria of our research project.
7 The initial intention was to observe different classes, not only English language classes, but also other
subjects taught in English, such as Science, Social Studies or Maths. However, due to availability and time
constraints on the schools’ part it was only possible to observe two English classes and one Maths class.
33
In regards to the questionnaires for students, in order to be fair with the different
English levels depending on the institution, all the questions were asked in Spanish.
The objective was to clarify the following: the length of time they had been in that
school, if they participated in extra-curricular activities, whether they wanted to live
abroad some day, if they liked English and felt comfortable speaking in English and
finally their self-evaluation, “del uno al cinco, ¿Cómo puntuarías tu nivel de inglés
hablado?” (“From one to five, how would you score your English speaking level?”). In
addition, they were asked speak in English by describing a picture (see Appendix 3).
According to Baker (1996: 22-24 cited in Vaasa, 2006): “One way of measuring a
person’s language proficiency is to let that person state how well s/he knows a
particular language”.
The picture that the students had to describe was selected in accordance with the
criteria of other speaking tests done previously. The most popular was the ‘frog story’
(cited in Lasagabaster, 2008: 35) “a widely used instrument in which students are
asked to describe what is going on in a series of twenty four pictures. The frog story
has been used in many different contexts all over the world with different languages
and with children, teenagers and adults” (see Mayer, 1969). Our questionnaire is a
series of nine in which a child is doing different activities.
The answers should have been recorded; as Brown & Yule (1984: 105) state, “it makes
a lot more sense to tape-record the student as he speaks, if only as a means of
checking at a later stage, weather the initial impressions were correct”. Nevertheless,
due to a lack of resources and permission constraints it was not possible. Therefore,
the method used was to transcribe everything they said about the picture (see
Appendix 3).
4.4. Procedure
Quantitative research must be reliable; in other words, the same procedure should be
repeated in order to generate consistent results, as Priest (1996: 87) says: “if a survey
question is so ambiguous that answers to it might be different at different times […] or if
content analysis uses categories that mean entirely different things to different people,
the results lack reliability”. Hence, the goal of this kind of research is, according to
Priest (1996: 88), “to measure something (whether opinions, knowledge or beliefs […])
as precisely as possible”.
Therefore, all the students who completed the questionnaires were the same age and
had the same questions with the same picture. As Brown & Yule (1984: 108) state: “the
34
practical requirement which is met by a task-based approach to the assessment of
spoken production is that there should be some constancy of elicitation input that is
every student is asked to do the same thing”.
The subjects were ten students from each school randomly selected by the teacher
and they were all of the same age. The number of students was decided due to the
time and resource constraints; ten was a standard, workable number. The students
were queried as a group. Questioning one by one would have taken too long for the
teacher and the school. Therefore, each question was asked to the group and in turn
students would answer individually. Regarding the picture, each of them was
approached and asked for to their description.
As for the qualitative research, the in-depth interviews were carried out through
different methods: face-to-face, by phone and by e-mail8. However, as Dillman (2000:
224) suggests: “a number of studies have noted differences in the answers provided to
telephone, face-to-face, and mail questionnaires”.
Therefore, in the case of NVC, the coordinators’ interview was answered by e-mail and
not all the questions were replied to. The volunteers’ interview was answered following
past-volunteers’ testimonials on the webpage. Regarding the students’ questionnaire
and class observation, the petition was denied.
At CUI, it was also impossible to obtain authorization to observe classes and question
students. However, the alternative was to interview the teacher through email and by
phone, asking about the class in order to have a general idea, even of the target
information. The teacher was the one who asked the questions to ten of the students.
At Trewhela’s and Craighouse, classes were observed and teachers were interviewed:
at Trewhela’s two teachers and at Craighouse, three teachers (this was due to teacher
availability) and at both schools ten students of the same age were questioned. 9
8 The initial intention was to carry out all of them face-to-face. However, this was complicated to
achieve due to authorisation and availability matters on the teachers’ part.
9 After weeks applying for authorisation to different schools, only Trewhela’s and Craighouse
School allowed access.
35
5. Results and Discussion
The data collection and analysis are divided into two sections: the qualitative data (two
instruments: observation and in-depth interview) and the quantitative data (instrument:
the students’ questionnaire).
5.1. Qualitative Data Collection: About the teachers and their class
5.1.1. About the class: What English Language Teaching Models are being
implemented in public and privately funded schools in Chile? What are the
differences?
As was stated in the section on objectives, the first goal was to clarify the English
teaching models being implemented in both public and private schools in Chile. What
are the differences?
We will explain and compare using a naturalistic approach; in other words, through
observation of a naturally occurring group becoming the focal point. The data is
explained in the context of a basic primary level of ten-year-old students. This is
described and not represented on a table or graph, due to the extension and
complexity of the data collected.10
NVC places volunteers throughout Chile, and depending on the school’s curriculum,
they adapt and assist co-working with a head teacher. The structure of the class is to
follow the content that the teacher has already planned through text-books and other
resources, such as the internet. The difference in the bilingual schools is that CLIL is
nonexistent because English is taught as a separate subject. The volunteers’ main
objective is to motivate students through useful and interesting content, topics and
activities.
Volunteers use various different materials; beforehand they are provided with
examples, forms, internet resources, and exercise sheets. They coordinate with the
teacher and use the text-books and workbooks, as well as tapes and videos, but they
can also provide their own material depending on what they want to teach (for
example, cards, pictures, newspapers, etc).
10 As was mentioned before, access to the NVC schools and Colegio Universitario Inglés, was denied.
However, some observations can be included from the NVC webpage (www.centrodevoluntarios.cl) and
the phone interview with one of the CUI primary teachers about her method and class.
36
What it is interesting is that, due to the fact that they have a ‘native’ English speaker as
their teacher, translation is not used at all. The class is divided and half of the class
works with the volunteer and practices their communicative competence. In fact, this is
the same approach that Craighouse School has in their ‘library’ time/subject. The class
is divided. Half of the students go to the library to learn about reading skills and
strategies, and the other half remain with the native teacher/assistant. Moreover, the
rest of the head teachers in their respective subjects also have a native
assistant/teacher.
At CUI, English is only a subject. The class lasts approximately forty minutes and they
have five hours per week. The teacher complains because of the time constraints.
Every year she requests to increase the hours in the school’s curriculum. Nevertheless,
as she says, “English as a subject is not the school’s priority”.
However, the methodology and materials used are the same as in Trewhela’s School.
Both schools have the Oxford textbook and workbook with the ‘I Tools’ application. ‘I
Tools’ allow the teacher to have all the book and workbook content, digitalised, such as
tasks, activities, videos and audio.
According to the CUI teacher, this is a very motivating and useful application because
the students can interact with her and each other. She has a digital/interactive board
(the same as at Trewhela’s School) where she corrects the students’ exercises.
Different students go to the board and write their answers .The students in this way can
get the teacher’s feedback and support immediately. She does not have to revise each
and every book one by one. The students have some time to do exercises in the
workbook and then work in groups in the class. Those who finish early are requested to
help and assist their peers. This approach is exactly the same at Trewhela’s.
In both schools, CUI and Trewhela’s vocabulary, grammar and phonetics are learnt
together with the four basic skills: speaking, listening, reading and writing. At CUI they
are now learning ‘Comparatives and Superlatives’. All four-skill-activities are being
taught in relation to the main concept. Therefore, in order to practice listening, they
listen to a dialogue between two adults who are comparing two pictures. In order to
practice speaking for example, they watch a video with two children speaking about the
differences in a picture. Next they practice by matching different pictures they watched
with different sentences. They also have the ‘freedom’ to create their own dialogues
based on comparatives and superlatives.
37
What they do at CUI is very similar to the NVC schools. However, the NVC teaching
guide also includes how to develop the four skills: reading, writing, speaking and
listening. Our study is focused on linguistic competence. Moreover, one of the
questions included in the interview for the teachers, is “What tasks do you use in order
to practice speaking and listening skills?”. Therefore, only the methodology used to
practice these two skills is mentioned.
In order to enhance listening skills, the volunteer will divide the corresponding task into
three stages: ‘Pre-Listening’, ‘While-Listening’ and ‘Post-Listening’. This is a method
which has been widely studied by researchers such as Underwood (1998, cited in the
master’s subject ‘Developing Languages Skills’). In the ‘pre-stage’, the volunteer will
practice motivation, introduction to the listening content, speaking and predicting,
among others. In the ‘while-stage’, the volunteer will carry out different tasks related to
content comprehension, such as questions, filling gaps, etc. The last stage is used to
recap and integrate speaking by personalizing it, hence making the content more
meaningful.
According to the teaching guide, “developing speaking ability is one of the main goals
of the volunteer’s work with the students”. Speaking should be developed through four
stages: motivation, model, practice and application. Similar to the listening stages, the
volunteer first introduces the content to the students by motivating them through
personalization, vocabulary familiarity, etc. Then the volunteer gives an example, the
model, to be practiced afterwards. The students will mostly practice in pairs or groups.
In order to apply the three stages, the volunteer needs to make sure that the students
will have enough time to talk; in other words this is a student-centred activity. These
activities should be preceded by a listening activity because listening and speaking are
bonded with each other; as Nunan (1989, cited in the master’s subject ‘Developing
Languages Skills’) states: “successful communicators develop ‘conversational listening
skills’”.
The two class methods at NVC schools and CUI are based on the traditional model
‘PPP’ (Presentation, Practice and Production), where the content is introduced
(presentation); students are asked to use the target language within already-made
context usually practicing oral skills in groups and pairs (practice); and the students are
asked to use ‘freely’ the language they have acquired (production). (See the master’s
subject ‘Tasks & Projects’).
The problem with this model followed by the NVC and CUI is that the lessons are
highly structured and it is not a natural way to learn because the language is broken
38
into small chunks and fed to the students. However, it remains a common practice,
because it is an easy, organised and effective way of delivering the ‘structure of the
day’ in a very short teaching time.
Trewhela’s and NVC also share similar methods and activities, such as ‘Total Physical
Response’ (TPR). This methodology was very popular between the 1960s and 1980s,
as a solution to old-fashioned previous traditional methodologies. It was developed by
James J. Asher. (See the master’s subject ‘Methodological approaches’). Basically it
consists in giving the students imperative orders such as “sit down”, “stand up”, and
they have to do them ‘physical response’. At NVC and Trewhela’s they practice the
game ‘Simon says’. The teacher says out loud: “Simon says hands down, Simon says
hands in front, Simon says walk over your chair, and Simon says sit on your desk…” at
the end of the ‘game’, the winners receive candies. ‘Simon says’ is also included as a
daily routine and agenda in the NVC’ ‘Teaching Guide’.
In all the schools, they use Spanish. The exception is Craighouse School, which uses
English exclusively. However, at Trewhela’s School, their webpage says that the
educational programme is taught in English the first nine years and then intensified
afterwards in order to sit for the Cambridge examinations. Nevertheless, it is not an
immersion programme, such as the one at Craighouse. Instead, at Trewhela’s, the
students have a total of eleven subjects and only four are taught in English. Even
though some that are supposed to be taught in English, they are actually taught in
Spanish, such as ‘Social Studies’
Since the students are welcome at Carighouse School in the morning, they are greeted
in English. They express themselves with teachers at all times in English. At
Craighouse, they have nine subjects, but only two are taught in Spanish. The method
they use is quite different from the other schools and more innovative. To begin with,
they do not follow a book and workbook only. They follow the IBO curriculum for the
three levels: Primary Years Programme (PYP), Middle Years Programme (MYM) and
Diploma Programme (DP). The curriculum has different units with different content and
objectives and from this they build different activities and assessments through the use
of books, the internet, newspapers, and journals. The students have their own
notebook, which is designed by the school, and there they keep a record of everything.
All classes have a lot of information on the walls concerning values, vocabulary,
attitudes, pictures, drawings, four skills strategies, different cultures, art (for example,
aboriginal art), all in English.
39
In Maths they follow the Singapore Method. The main reference is the book ‘My Pals
are here’. This is a direct and simple approach with many pictures to make it easier to
understand. For example, now they are learning ‘conversion, simplifying and equivalent
fractions’ through the use of pizza drawings as a reference.
There is a lot of interaction in the class, the teacher writes on the board exercises and
all the students collaborate to solve the problem. She uses English at all times, in this
case with technical Maths vocabulary, such as ‘denominator’. The students switch to
Spanish sometimes to explain themselves, they use a kind of ‘Spanglish’, for example:
“teacher, you have to ‘dividir’ …” However, the teacher never uses Spanish; besides,
there is an assistant from the UK.
The teacher encourages the students who are struggling. For example she says to one
of them: “take the idea out of your mind that you can’t do it. If you follow the steps I’m
explaining to you, you will do it. Don’t say all the time that you don’t understand, just
open your mind and listen”.
In the English language class, they have recently been developing writing skills.
Cognitive skills are developed by proposing a topic in this case, ‘Italy’- and giving the
students the task of researching and discovering as much as they can about it.
Meanwhile, the class will be decorated with Italian flags, pictures and facts. Each of
them will have to write a report on a specific topic; for example ‘Italian food’.
In class each day they write a part: the introduction, the first paragraph and so on. They
are divided in small groups and work in teams; they have the resources to continue
investigating, such as a laptop and are supervised by an assistant.
The students are now expected to demonstrate what they have written and what
questions they might have. This is a very different approach from that at the other
schools. It is student-centred and interactive and it develops writing abilities as well as
cognitive strengths. The only limitation is that it requires a mature attentive class. In this
atmosphere, the children are quite distracted and it is difficult to maintain the attention
of all of them, even though there are two teachers in the class.
To summarise: the observation protocol can be divided in two groups.
1. NVC and Craighouse, which share similar class structures in terms of student-
focus, class division for practice and student communication skills development.
Also in terms of materials, both use a variety of resources and introduce the use
40
of newspapers, cards, the internet, etc. Also, many tasks are similar and the use
of English is exclusive.
2. CUI and Trewhela’s have similar class structures, materials and use similar
tasks and Spanish as the language of instruction.
These outcomes can be compared with other studies in Colombia, related to identifying
effective instructional strategies (Otálora, 2009) at Universidad La Sabana; Argentina,
regarding bilingual schools curriculum and the use of the target language and the
mother tongue (Renart, 1994); and in Chile, related to initiatives to facilitate access to
English education for students with different economic situations (Manzo & Zehr, 2006),
(see section ‘Theoretical Background).
5.1.2. About the teachers: What are the experts’ perceptions on the way CLIL is
working?
The second objective of this study was to flesh out the experts’ perceptions (teachers,
volunteers and coordinators) on the way CLIL is working.
Due to the difference in Trewhela’s, Craighouse, CUI interviews, with NVC interviews,
and because the NVC interviews were not entirely answered by the coordinators and
volunteers, we will highlight some of the NVC results, and then summarize the other
answers in a table (see also Appendices 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5, 6, 6.1, 7, 7.1 and 7.2).
NVC
Regarding the teaching experience, generally, the coordinators and volunteers do not
have extensive experience. Most of them have worked for less than a year, the
maximum being three years. Most came to Chile because they were interested in
international education, and if they had a positive experience, they decided to stay and
become coordinators.
Other questions used in the interviews were tailor-made to understand as much as
possible about NVC (see Appendice 4 and 4.2.). Regarding the coordinator and
volunteers’ responsibilities, their duties involved volunteer recruitment and support, as
well as run orientation. Some do class observation, while others are responsible for
issues related to host families and the volunteers’ payments.
Related to the institutional statistics, the EODP has a total of forty-two staff members
including fifteen Regional Representatives, five of which make up the NVC. In 2012,
they brought in three hundred twenty volunteers; in total there have been one thousand
41
six hundred fourteen volunteers since 2004 working in over three hundred different
schools.
The coordinators’ role is to match the interests of the English teaching volunteers with
the interest of schools interested in volunteers. Therefore, on the one hand, they
receive the schools’ applications, which must meet certain requirements, such as
having space for the volunteer to teach English, having a proficient full time English
teacher and presenting at least two potential families to host the volunteer, among
others.
Regarding the selection process, the volunteers’ selection starts with a statement of
purpose and an essay submission. Those candidates selected are interviewed via
Skype and are given some questionnaires. Coordinators look for motivation, flexibility
and experience. Volunteers receive a week of orientation in order to know more about
Chilean culture, the NVC and EODP, as well as TEFL. They learn how to develop the
different skills, class management, as well as planning and executing lessons.
Regarding the number of hours of teaching and their nationalities, they teach twenty-
five hours per week plus ten hours of extra-curricular activities. They come from all
over the world; currently a total of nineteen different nationalities are represented. Most
of the volunteers’ stories on the webpage are from Americans. All of them refer to
volunteering as a “positive experience”. They emphasise the challenge and the
necessity to be open-minded. All of them were warmly welcomed by teachers, schools,
students and host families. Many of them agree that they felt like a “rock star” because
they were not placed in the capital but in smaller cities and towns of other regions, such
as Copiapó, Inquique and Linares, where the people are not used to foreigners living
among them.
They had very different experiences due to the environment and the placement
schools; for example, one of the volunteers in a school in Iquique was in a semi-private
school and another in a public school characterised by students from disadvantaged
backgrounds. The second one mentions that she struggled with the school’s system: “I
really enjoy my relationship with my head teacher and my students, but have found
myself frustrated with the inconsistency of the schedule” (see
www.centrodevoluntarios.cl)
Many of these volunteers were graduates not specialised in education. Some of them
found their vocation with this experience and others have grown and benefited with
42
career opportunities in other fields thanks to the NVC (see ‘Alumni’ in the NVC
webpage)
CUI, Trewhela’s School and Craighouse School:
Regarding the questions to the teachers in the schools, the objective was to determine:
the teachers’ experience; their nationalities and studies; whether they have CLIL
training; the number of students they have, their age, and their nationalities; the
number of hours they teach; the subjects; the materials; whether they use translation;
and their self-evaluation of their students’ communication effectiveness from one to
five. The answers are shown in the table below:
Table 2. Summary of teacher responses at CUI, Trewhela’s and Craighouse
Questions CUI TWS* CH*
Teaching
experience
7 years 6-8 years 12-26 years
Origin Chile Chile Chile & South
Africa
Studies Education Education Education
CLIL Training No No No
Number of
students
136 27-29 32
Students’ age 6-10 10 6-10
Students’ country Chile Chile, UK, New
Zealand and
Pakistan
90% Chile
10% foreigners
Number of
teaching hours
per week*
20 40 24-30
Subjects English English, Social
Studies and
English, Maths,
Integrated Areas*
43
Science
Materials Oxford I tools Oxford I tools Marshall Cavendish
International*
Oxford Dictionary
Internet,
newspapers,
journals…
Translation* Yes Yes No
Communication
Score*
3 3-4 2-5
* TWS: Trewhela’s School & CH: Craighouse School
* The teaching hours refer to hours teaching different subjects in English including all the teaching groups that each
teacher has.
* Integrated Areas: Science, Social Studies, Arts and Technology
* ‘My Pals are here!’ Maths 2nd
Edition. Singapore 2004-2007
* Translation: At CUI, the teacher tries to avoid it, but it is impossible because otherwise, they do not understand her. At
Trewhela’s teachers say that some of the activities they carry out request translation. At Craighouse, teachers say that
they never use it because the school’s philosophy is full immersion.
* At CUI, the teacher points out that due to time constrains they are not fluent. At Trewhela’s they score them between
three and four, because according to them, they can write and understand very well but they cannot produce. At
Craighouse, they emphasise that if you compare it to a native the level would be less, but otherwise it is ten. This is not
the opinion of the South African teacher who scores them as two.
What is interesting about these results is that most of the teachers apart from the South
African teacher at Craighouse, are Chilean. Therefore, they tend to give good scores to
their students when they are asked how they would rate them on their communicative
effectiveness.
Nevertheless, the only foreigner and native speaker had a very different and revealing
opinion. She feels they cannot express themselves very well because they frequently
use Spanish words. On average, she would score them with two, maximum two and a
half. She states: “I would have expected at least a four after all these years in an
immersion program”. She adds: “I find that there is a tendency to translate directly from
44
Spanish also among teachers”. She also says that children have difficulties to
understand native speakers like her, because they are accustomed to ‘Chilean-
English’.
When the teachers are asked about how they motivate their students, this South
African teacher also provides very interesting answers. She believes that motivating
the students is the hardest thing to achieve. “I try to motivate them with small rewards
such as extra play time, or stars stickers”. However, these students usually come from
wealthy families, therefore as she says, they are ‘indulged’. It is difficult to surprise a
child who has everything. As she points out: “attitude is a more difficult thing to achieve
than improving proficiency”.
Other colleagues use the same approach of rewarding the students. At Trewhela’s and
CUI where they have a digitalised system; they believe that this is also a very
motivational instrument. They also try to find conversations, questions, activities; in
other words, meaningful content for motivation. They combine that with task balance,
games and other strategies; as one of the teachers at Craighouse says: “avoiding a flat
class using attitude, voice, gestures, etc”.
At CUI and Trewhela’s they follow the same tasks in ‘I Tools’, such as songs, poems,
games, videos, role play, pair and group work. However, at Trewhela’s they also do
presentations and debates related to an English subject, as well as Science and Social
Studies.
At Craighouse, they have very different methods, using tapes, stories, web pages,
informal conversations and prepared presentations among others. Specific activities
such as ‘Success For All’, are also used, based on reading comprehension. The
students read a text. Then the teacher divides the class into groups. Each has a
different role: one group will formulate questions; the other will answer; others will
agree or disagree; and the last will summarise everything. This is a very complete
activity which practices not only listening and speaking skills, but also writing and
reading skills, as well as cognitive skills and interaction. To conclude, at Craighouse
they practice speaking and listening through the use of language in context. They try to
integrate the language through meaningful content. They move away from grammar
exercises and practice activities such as presentations and group discussions.
The teachers at the two bilingual institutions were also asked about their thoughts on
bilingualism and CLIL in general in the Chilean context, in addition to their aims, hopes
and perspectives towards working in a bilingual institution. All of them agree with the
45
idea that bilingualism is a must and essential in a globalised world. The South African
teacher goes even further, saying that she “can’t imagine what’s like to be monolingual.
I can’t imagine what the thought processes would be because bilingual students have a
higher IQ. It makes the world’s frame bigger”.
However, the experience of the native teacher is completely different from the rest. She
was born, grew up and studied in a multilingual environment. She has taught in Africa
and Asia where the class itself was multilingual and the only common language was
English. However, she points out that bilingual schools such as Craighouse are
different because they are open to other cultures and essentially international.
Referring to their personal aims, they also admit to being satisfied if the students leave
school being proficient in both languages, Spanish and English.
Some of them affirm to “feel proud” when they see the good results of their students.
“It’s important that you can teach others to speak a language because it’s going to be
important in their lives”.
Regarding bilingualism in Chile, in general they are quite negative. “If the methodology
and minds change might be possible, but right now it’s very difficult. In pubic schools
most of the teachers do not have the English level and use a translation method”.
Another teacher says: “I can’t imagine people from depressed sectors of society
achieving bilingualism, because they don’t have it in their environment and they can’t
afford it!”
Regarding information about the cost and the selection process, the three schools
differ on tuition fees. Craighouse is the highest, around four hundred thousand Chilean
pesos per month (over six hundred and fifty euros). All three have similar admission
process: a test and student and parent interview.
The outcomes can be related to other Latin American studies which are centred on
teachers and experts’ perceptions, for example, in Argentina (Zappa-Hollman, 2007).
However, the study is centred on the teachers’ opinions on change of policy and
instruction in EFL. As well as studies centred on the quantity of the target language use
in a CLIL class (Renart, 1994), there are also previous studies in Chile, about the
teachers’ opinions and struggling on the change of policies and instruction in EFL
(Abrahams and Farias, 2010) (see section Theoretical Background).
46
5.2. Quantitative Data Collection
5.2.1 About the students: What is the students’ perception on the way CLIL is
working?
The study includes the answers of CUI, Trewhela’s and Craighouse, with a total of thirty
students (see Appendix 3). The third objective of the study was to determine students’
perception on the way CLIL programs are working.
As Greene (1998) points out: “The only way to evaluate whether the use of any native
language instruction is harmful or helpful is to compare students who receive any
bilingual instruction to those who are taught only in English” (in this case who are
taught only in Spanish).
The questionnaire’s objective is to define the subjects the students learned in English,
whether they have English extra-curricular activities, if they like the English language
and feel comfortable using it, and whether they would like to live in the future in an
English-speaking country (see the answers on the table below).
Table 3. Summary of student responses on the questionnaire
Questions CUI TWS CH
Subjects in English English English, Maths,
Social Studies &
Science*
All of then except
Spanish &
Religion
Extra-curricular
Activities in English
No No No
Si No Si No Si No
Te gusta el Inglés* 9 1 10 0 3 7
País extranjero* 7 3 5 5 7 3
Comodidad* 8 2 10 0 10 0
* The rest of the subjects Spanish Language, Technology, Arts, Music, Laboratory, Sports and Computing-are taught in
Spanish. When the sub-director was asked, she said that the subject teachers’ major is Spanish. In other words, they do
not have enough qualified teachers in order to teach these subjects in English.
47
* The last questions are in Spanish in order to be fair with the students of the different schools, bilingual and non-
bilingual. “Do you like English?”
* “Would you like to live in a foreign country? This question was formulated in order to check if they see English
necessary for their future
* How comfortable do you feel speaking in English?”
None of the schools promote extra-curricular activities related to English. That is an
advantage of the NVC, where volunteers dedicate ten hours per week to develop
activities such as reading, cinema, sports clubs, etc.
It is important to highlight that the majority of students questioned at Craighouse do not
like English. This will affect their performance. As Sylvén (2004 cited in Seregély, 2008)
says:
Not surprisingly, a positive attitude towards the language and a high level of
motivation are helpful for the language acquisition process at large, whereas
students whose attitudes are less positive and who lack motivation will have greater
difficulties improving their lexical proficiency. (2004: 226)
Regarding the question about the time the students attended the different schools,
most of the students at CUI started school in Pre-Kindergarten (less than four years) or
Kindergarten (four years), except three who started in 2011. At Trewhela’s all of them
started in Kindergarten, just like at Craighouse.
As mentioned in the section on ‘Instruments’, according to Baker (1996 cited in Vaasa
2006), a possible way of measuring a person’s language proficiency was to let them to
determine it by themselves. Below, there is a graph which shows the students’
speaking self-evaluation from one to five, which shows that most of the students
believe that they have a good spoken English command:
Figure 1. Students’ self-evaluation of their spoken English
48
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CUI
TWS
CH
The next graph evaluates speaking competence. Students should be able to make
themselves understood through vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar/structures.
The students were scored as they score themselves, from one to five in the use of
vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar/structures11.
The score ranks from one (which means that the student does not have speaking
proficiency) to five (which is the maximum score).
In vocabulary, the parameters are: one, most words are spoken in Spanish; two, when
there are at least two words in Spanish; three, there is no use of Spanish words and the
student uses at least a complex word (‘vegetables’ or ‘steak’); four, there are at least
two complex words; five, perfect use of vocabulary.
In pronunciation, the parameters are: one, the student cannot be understood; two, only
some of the words/sentences are understood; three, the student is understood
although he/she makes one or two mistakes (e.g. ‘chower’ to refer to ‘shower’); four,
the student has almost perfect pronunciation, with some isolated mistakes; five, perfect
pronunciation.
In grammar/structures, the parameters are based on the description of nine slides: one,
none of the slides are correctly described or there are grammar and structure mistakes
in all of them; two, more than the half of the slides is wrong; three, between four and
11 In the case of CUI there is an exception, pronunciation is not analysed because I could not
listen directly to the students.
49
five slides are wrong; four, more than the half of the slides is correct; five, there are no
mistakes.
The total score for each variable, vocabulary, pronunciation and grammar/structures is
the result of adding the scores for each student and dividing it by ten. For example, at
CUI, the sum of all the students’ scores in vocabulary is thirty-one, divided by ten: 3.1.
Figure 2. Mean scores for vocabulary, pronunciation, and grammar
0
1
2
3
4
5
CUI TWS CH
Vocabulary
Pronunciation
Grammar
This graph is merely descriptive of the students’ speaking proficiency. According to
what was explained before, Craighouse is the school with teachers who have more
expertise, and where there is no use of translation; they have native speakers and the
method is innovative. However, the graph shows a low score for their students. This
might be due, as the native teacher at Craighouse said in her interview, to a lack of
motivation. In the questionnaire, the students at Craighouse were the ones with the
highest number of English dislikes.
Perhaps it is not enough to have the best methodology if the children feel that they will
not need English ‘to survive’. These outcomes are related to other studies about
attitude and motivation and their importance towards acquiring a language, such as
Seregély, E.M. (2008) and Dueñas, M. (2004), among others.
The results are not entirely objective due to the fact that there is not enough data and
at CUI the pronunciation could not be analysed. Moreover, it is difficult to measure
speaking proficiency. Other studies, such as the one carried out in the Netherlands to
50
evaluate bilingual secondary education and the students’ language proficiency in
English (Admiraal, Westhoff & de Bot, 2006: 80), used the CITO test. However, this test
is time-consuming and requires the students to use the language in different real-life
situations.
The results are based on a limited set of data and therefore cannot be generalised and
held as conclusive. The process of language acquisition is very complex and too many
variables are involved. However, based on observation and teachers’ interviews,
Craighouse School seems to be the most experienced and innovative, and according
to the last graph, the students’ speaking proficiency appears the lowest, perhaps
because of lack of interest12.
It is difficult to relate these outcomes of the students’ perception to the way CLIL is
working with similar studies in Latin America, because most of the studies on the
subject are related to CLIL methodology, teacher’ training and perceptions.
6. Conclusion
Nowadays, to be bilingual, especially in English is not considered a special skill. Most
of the population are bilingual or plurilingual. In many countries, such as South Africa,
they are born and raised in a multilingual environment. It is also common to find
multilingual schools, where the only language used is English.
Unfortunately, what Graddol (2006) suggested might be true: English may become
another ‘discrimination instrument’ for those who will not be able to learn it and use it.
As Matear (2008) states: “English is likely to continue to act as a gatekeeper to
positions of wealth and prestige […] will open doors for some but not all”. In order to
succeed and achieve a cohesive society, not only educational policies, but also
political, economical and social policies have to focus on facilitating educational equal
access.
In the Chilean context, this study has characterized the different teaching models
implemented in public and privately funded schools. The EODP, which founded and
funds the NVC, might be the key to obtaining a more equitable educational system. If
the NVC continues to develop, it might be possible to achieve maybe not a bilingual
12 All the data is anonymous because of an agreement with the different institutions about not mentioning
any of the people involved in the study.
51
population in the near future, but at least a population interested and motivated to learn
other languages. This initiative might be exportable to other countries.
As regards the first objective of the study, we have characterized and compared the
different English language teaching models which are being implemented in public and
private institutions. The results show that none of the language teaching models
followed by the institutions can be exportable as the perfect methodology. Perhaps a
combination of all of them would be optimal. The key is to use language in context as
well as developing learning strategies and values. It is not necessary to follow a book.
Maybe we as teachers should take the risk and approach new methods, tasks and
activities. It is important to use ‘real language’ and use other resources, such as
journals, newspapers and web pages among others. Also, in order to motivate
students, extra-curricular activities in English should be taken into consideration.
Surprisingly, only the NVC project is presently committed in this way.
Vis-à-vis the second objective, the experts’ perception, we have found that they
generally believe that it is necessary to improve, first of all by changing people’s
mindset of English being a priority. They feel satisfied with the results of their students.
However, when the teacher is a native-English-speaker, the perception is much more
critical.
Finally, regarding the third objective, to the students’ perception, they generally feel
comfortable and like English language, although other variables, such as motivation,
might affect their learning process.
This study cannot be generalised and exportable to other contexts. However, it
facilitates a descriptive overview of bilingual and CLIL education in Chile, as well as
some teacher and student’ perceptions of it. The study provides bilingual and CLIL
educational information on Chile and Latin America, to those who wish to know more
about bilingual methodology and its benefits. It promotes further research in order to
improve some of the current methods and develop a stronger interest in English as the
global language.
7. Limitations of the study and lines for future research
The potential limitations of this study concern, to begin with, instrument’ validation;
none of the instruments employed, observation, questionnaires and interviews, were
subjected to the critical scrutiny of external experts and administered to a
representative sample so as to ascertain their internal consistency and reliability.
Therefore, the results can only be descriptive, as they are not scientifically validated,
52
and they cannot be generalised. Also the sample is numerically limited and the data is
not complete (not all the questionnaires and interviews were answered and not all the
class observations were carried out). Further research would thus be recommendable,
with validated instruments and access to a larger sample of study.
Nevertheless, we hope this study contributes additional data to the way CLIL schemes
are playing themselves out in Chile. It provides information on CLIL weaknesses and
strengths as it is currently being implemented, as well as on its different strategies and
teaching models. This is enforced with the teachers and students’ perceptions. There
are no studies integrating all these aspects in Latin America, and this study thus comes
to fill a niche which will hopefully continue to be explored through further research on
the subject.
53
References
- Abrahams, M.J. & Farias, M. (2010): “Struggling for Change in Chilean EFL
Teacher Education”. Colombia Applied Linguistics Journal, Vol 12, Number 2,
ISSN 0123-464. Bogotá, Colombia, pp 110-118
- August & Hakuta (1997): “Improving schooling for language minority children: a
research agenda” National Academy Press
- Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G. & De Bot, K. (2006): “Evaluation of Bilingual
Secondary Education in the Netherlands: Students’ Language Proficiency in
English” Routledge. Educational Research and Evaluation Journal 12:1, 75-93
- Baker, C. & Jones Prys, S. (1998): “Encyclopedia of Bilingualism & Bilingual
Education” Multilingual Matters
- Ballesteros, F.J. (2009): “La Enseñanza de las Lenguas en el Espacio Europeo
de Educación Superior”. Revista de la Asociación de Inspectores de Educación
de España. 10
- Björdklund, S., Mård-Miettinen, K., Bergström, M. & Södergård, M. (Eds.)
(2006): “Exploring Dual-Focussed Education. Integrating Content & Language
for individual and societal needs”. Vaasa
- Brinton, D., Snow, M. & Wesche, M. (1989): “Content-Based Second Language
Instruction”. New York: Newbury house
- Brown, G & Yule, G. (1984): “Teaching the spoken language. An approach
based on the analysis of conversational English”. Cambridge University Press
- Brown, J.D. (2001): “Using Surveys in Language Programs” Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
- Cañulef, E. (1996): “Hacia la interculturalidad y bilingüismo en la educación
chilena: Fundamentos y bases curriculares desde la perspectiva Aymara-
Atacameña y Mapuche. Editorial Pillman, Temuco
- www.centrodevoluntarios.cl
- www.chilehablaingles.com
- www.craighouse.cl
54
- Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010): “Content & Language Integrated
Learning”. Cambridge University
- Cummins, J. (1998): “Immersion Education for the Millennium: What we have
learned from thirty years of Research on Second Language Immersion”
- Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (1986): “Bilingualism in Education: Aspects of Theory,
Research and Practice. Longman
- Cummings, S.M. & Tamayo, S. (1994): “Language & Education in Latin
America: An overview”
- Curtis, A. (2011): “Colombian teachers’ questions about CLIL: Hearing their
voices – in spite of ‘the mess’”. Latin Amerian Journal of Content & Language
Integrated Learning, 5 (1) 1-8
- Crawford, J. (2000): “At war with diversity. US language policy in an age of
anxiety”
- Crawford, J. (1999): “Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory & Practice”
- Denzin, N.K. (ed.). (1970): “Sociological Methods: A Source Book”. Chicago:
Aldine.
- Dueñas, M. (2004): “The whats, whys, hows and whos of content-based
instruction”. International Journal of English Studies, 4 (1), pp 73-96
- Dupuy, B. (2000): “Content- based instruction: can it help ease the transitions
from beginning to advanced foreign language classes?” Foreign Language
Annals 33, 2: 205-223
- Fernandez, Fernadez, R., Pena Díaz, C., García Gómez, A. & Halbach, A.
(2004): “La Implantación de Proyectos Bilingües en la Comunidad de Madrid:
Las Expectativas del Profesorado antes de iniciar el Proyecto”. Departamento
de Filología Moderna, Universidad de Alcalá
- Frum, D. (2000): “How we got here: the 70s”.
- Genesee, F. (1994): “Integrating Language & Content”
- Genesee, F. (1984): “Beyond Bilingualism: Social Psychological Studies of
French Immersion programmes in Canada”. Canadian Journal of Behavioral
Science, 16: 4
55
- Genesee, F. (1987): “Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion
and Bilingual Education”. Newbury House Publishers
- Greene, J.P. (1998): “A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual
education”. University of Texas
- Graddol, D. (2006): “Why Global English may mean the end of English as a
Foreign Language” English Next
- Graddol, D. (2005): “Spoken everywhere but at what cost?” The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/apr/20/guardianweekly.guardianwe
ekly11
- Harding, E. (2003): “The Bilingual Familiy: A Handbook for Parents”. Cambridge
University Press
- Harley et al. (): “The nature of language proficiency”. Cambridge University
Press
- Hornberger, N. H., (2000): “Bilingual Education Policy and Practice in the
Andes: Ideological Paradox and Intercultural possibility”. 31 (2): 173-201
- Informe Nacional de Chile. Agosto 2004. “La educación chilena en el cambio de
siglo: Políticas, Resultados y Desafíos.
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/National_Reports/ICE_2004/chile.pdf
- Krashen, S. (1985): “The Input Hypothesis Issues and Implications” California
Laredo. Publishing Co. Inc
- Krashen, S. (1984): “Writing: Research, Theory and applications”
- Kloss, H. (1977/1998): “The American Bilingual Tradition”. Newbury House
- Lasagabaster, D. (2008): “Foreign Language Competence in Content and
Language Integrated Courses”. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal 1: 31- 42
- Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J.M. (2010): “Immersion and CLIL in English: more
diffrences tan similarities”. ELT Journal 64 (4): 367-375
- Lambert, W.E. & Tucker, G.R. (1972): “Bilingual Education of Children: the St.
Lambert Experiment. Newbury House Publishers
56
- López, E. & Küper, W. (1999): “La Educación Intercultural Bilingüe en America
Latina: Balance y Perspectivas”. Revista Ibero Americana de Educación. 20
Mayo-Agosto
- Lorenzo, F., Casal, S & Moore, P. (2009): “The Effects of Content & Language
Integrated Learning in European Education: Key Findings from the Andalusian
Bilingual Sections Evaluation Project. Oxford University Press
- Lorenzo, F., Casal, S & Moore, P. (2009): “Bilingüismo y Educación. Situación
de la Red de Centros Bilingües en Andalucía”. Actualidad 39
- Mayer, M. (1969): “Frog, where are you?”
- Masih, J.ed. (1999): “Learning Through Foreign Language: Model, Methods &
Outcomes” CILT Pulications
- Matear, A. (2008): “English Language Learning & Education Policy in Chile: Can
English Really Open Doors for All?” Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28:2,
131-147
- Maljers, A., Marsh, D. & Wolff, D. (eds.) (): “Windows on CLIL. Content &
Language Integrated Learning in the European Spotlight”
- Madrid-Fernandez, D. (2006): “Bilingual & Plurilingual Education in the
European and Andalusia Context”. The International Journal of Learning. 12: 4
- Manzo, K. & Zehr, A. (2006): “English now the Foreign Language of Schools
Abroad”
- Marsh, D. (2000): “Using languages to learn and learning to use languages”
- Marsh, D. (2006): “English as a Medium of Instruction in the New Global
Linguistic Order: Global Characteristics, Local Consequences”. UNICOM
- Marsh, D., Nikula, T., Takala, S., Rohiola, U. & Koivisto, T. (2006): “Language
Teacher Training & Bilingual Education in Finland”
- Marja-Järvinen, H. (2008) “Language in Content Instruction. Issues in promoting
language and learning in CLIL type provision”
- Merrill, S. (1974): “French Immersion Programmes across Canada: Research
Findings”
57
- Merrill, S. & Lapkin, S. (1981): “Bilingual Education in Ontario: A Decade of
Research”. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
- Mejía, A.M., (2008): “Enrichment bilingual education in South America”
- Navés, T. (2008): “Effective Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
Programmes” Multilingual Matters
- Novotná, J., Hadj-Moussová, Z. & Hofmannová, M. (2000): “Teacher Training
for CLIL – Competences of a CLIL Teacher”
- Nunan, D. (1989): “Designing tasks for the communicative classroom”
Cambridge University Press
- Otálora, B.A. (2009): “CLIL Research at Universidad de la Sabana in Colombia”.
Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning. 2(1): 46-
50
- Ovando, C.J. (2003): “Bilingual Education in the United States: Historical
Development &Current Issues”. Bilingual Research Journal, 27 (1)
- Pérez-Cañado María Luisa (2012): “CLIL Research in Europe: past, present,
and future”. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI:
10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
- Pérez Vidal, C. (2007): “The Need For Focus on Form (FoF) in content and
language integrated approaches: An Exploratory Study” Universitat Pompeu
Fabra
- Pena Díaz, C. & Porto Requejo, M,.D. (2008): “Teacher belief in a CLIL
education project”
- Rebutoff, J. (1993): “Le point sur l’immersion au Canada”
- Renart, L. (1994): “Bilingual Schools in Argentina: Has CLIL always been
around?”
- Rohter, L. (2004): “Learn English, Says Chile, Thinking Upwardly Global”
- Seregély, E.M. (2008): “A comparison of lexical learning in CLIL and traditional
EFL classrooms” Universität Wien
58
- Sauvignon, S.J. (1983): “Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom
Practice”
- Taylor, G. (2006): “Methodological challenges in complex comparisons: Bilingual
and Intercultural education research in Bolivia, Peru & Chile” Research in
comparative and interactional education, 1, 2
- Televisión Nacional: Video Trewhela’s School
www.trewhelaschool.cl/Site/dowload/documentos/nota_tvn.wmv
- www.teachingchile.com
- www.trewhelaschool.cl
- Underwood, M. (1998): “Teaching Listening”. Madrid Alhambra Longman
- www.universitarioingles.cl
- Vazquez, G. (2007): “Models of CLIL: An evaluation of its status drawing on the
German experience. A critical report on the limits of reality and perspectives”.
Freie Universität Berlin
- Vez, J.M. (2008): “Multilingual Education in Europe: Policy Developments”.
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
- Wolff, D. (): “Content & Language Integrated Learning: An evaluation of the
German Approach”. University of Wuppertal
- Zappa- Hollman, S. (2007): “EFL in Argentina’s Schools: Teacher’s Perspectives
on Policy Changes and Instruction”. TESOL Quarterly Volume 41, Issue 3, 618-
625
59
Appendix
1. Number of Latin American Languages spoken in 1988.
60
2. Bilingual Levels_ Madrid-Fernández, D. (2005): “Bilingual and Plurilingual
Education in the European and Andalusian Context”. The International
Journal of Learning. Volume 12, Number 4. Pp 178-185
61
3. Students’ questionnaire
- ¿Cuándo entraste en el colegio?
- ¿Qué asignaturas aprendes en inglés?
- ¿También aprendes español?
- ¿Te gusta el inglés? ¿te gustaría estudiar o trabajar en un país de habla
inglesa?
- ¿Tenéis actividades extraescolares?
- Del 1 al 5, ¿Cómo puntuarías tu nivel de inglés hablado?
- ¿Te sientes cómodo hablando en inglés?
- Describe este dibujo o foto en inglés, por favor.
62
Some of the students’ answers while describing the pictures were:
“A boy is get dressed. A boy is studying, a boy is play football”
“He’s watching TV, he’s sleeping,…”
“A boy is eating. A boy is… shower. A boy is making boat.
“This is sleeping, this is eating, this is TV. This is a ‘crucero’.
“First I study, then I go to play, I ride a bicycle, I do this, then I sleep y ‘el próximo día
me ducho’”.
4. NVC Coordinator interview
- How long have you been in the Centre?
- Why did you start?
- What are your responsibilities?
- From where do you get funds?
- When was the Centre founded?
- How many employees does it have?
- How many volunteers?
- How many schools?
- How does the volunteer programme work?
- How is the training that the volunteers receive? For how long?
- Do volunteers have the opportunity to stay and get a job in NVC afterwards?
- Where are the volunteers from?
- How are they selected? What is the criterion?
- How long is the volunteer programme?
- What do you think about Bilingualism? And CLIL?
- Is it possible to achieve Bilingualism in Chile? How?
63
4.1. Answer
- How long have you been in the Centre? The current NVC team is made up of 3
“interns” and one coordinator. Of the interns, the answers are 7 months, 4
months, and 2.5 months. Our coordinator started in her role in January, but has
worked in the NVC since September 2009.
- Why did you start? We were all former volunteers (4 semesters, 2 semesters,
and 3 semesters). I think I speak for all of the interns by saying that we came as
volunteers because we were interested in international education, stayed on as
volunteers because we loved the experience, and started working with the NVC
because we wanted to keep having an impact on the program.
- What are your responsibilities? Our general role is recruitment and volunteer
support. We all deal with daily volunteer and regional issues, run orientations,
and fully participate in the application, interview, and acceptance process. More
specifically, one is working to grow the part-time program, makes host family
visits and classroom observations, is responsible for any issues relating to host
families, coordination of volunteers for English Camps, TEFL workshops in
orientation, regional support in the Metropolitan Region, and volunteer issues
from Santiago to the south. Another works with our partner institutions and
volunteers from those institutions, which constitute approximately a third of our
volunteers, and coordinates orientation locations and resources. Another is
responsible for volunteer payments, volunteer health insurance and medical
issues, online recruitment and advertising, webpage administration, volunteer
meals during orientation and in country travel, and volunteer issues from
Santiago to the North.
- From where do you get funds? The English Opens Doors Program is sponsored
by the Chilean Ministry of Education and the United Nations Development
Programme-Chile.
- When was the Centre founded? The EODP, along with the NVC, were founded
in 2003. The first volunteers arrived in 2004 - there were 15.
- How many employees does it have? The NVC currently has a coordinator and
four interns. The EODP has 42 staff members, including 15 Regional
Representatives (one in each region), of which 5 make up the NVC.
64
- How many volunteers? We brought 320 volunteers to Chile in 2012. There have
been 1614 volunteers total since 2004.
- How many schools? This year the program has sent volunteers to
approximately 300 different schools. Some schools received volunteers in the
first and second semesters.
- How does the volunteer programme work? Our goal is to match the interest of
volunteers in teaching English in Chile with the interest of schools who wish to
have a volunteer. To do this, there are two processes that result in a volunteer
working in a school. In Chile, schools apply to have volunteers. To do this, they
must have a teacher with a high enough designated level of English, provide a
classroom solely for the volunteer’s use, provide two potential host families for
an EODP representative to visit and approve, and the director has to sign a
contract with the program stipulating these and other items. While schools do
this, the NVC recruits volunteers. Applicants must be native or near-native
English speakers, with a university degree or equivalent. Our application
consists of a statement of purpose and an essay about their potential teaching
initiative. Applicants also list geographic (North, Central, South, and urban, mid-
sized, or rural) and family preferences. The NVC team then reviews
applications and selects applicants to interview via Skype. Applicants fill out a
pre-interview questionnaire designed to see if volunteers will be productive and
flexible while working independently in a developing country. During these
interviews we look for motivation, evidence of program research, enthusiasm,
experience, and flexibility. Successful applicants then are accepted to the
program and given pre-departure information. Our coordinator then uses their
placement preferences to match successful school and volunteer applicants.
Upon arrival to Chile, we coordinate transportation to their provided
accommodations, as well as a week-long TEFL and Chilean culture orientation.
Then, we send volunteers to their regions, where they are met with their
Regional Representative (the person in charge of EODP regional activities, and
the volunteers' primary resource in Chile). The NVC then provides support to
the volunteers and Regional Representatives throughout the year.
Inside the classroom, Volunteer’s primary goal is to work with students on
speaking and listening skills. A secondary goal is to provide an invaluable
resource for Chilean head teachers to practice and perfect their English. The
EODP model is for volunteers to team-teach with their head teacher for the first
65
half of the class, before splitting the class and taking half to a separate
classroom to work independently. Volunteers should only speak in English while
working with students, as that is the reason they were brought to Chile.
Volunteers work at least 25 pedagogical hours per week inside the classroom,
with an additional 10 hours set aside for extracurricular activities and planning
(both independently and with head teachers).
- How is the training that the volunteers receive? For how long? Volunteers
receive 5 days of orientation. The first day is general information about EODP,
the Chilean educational system, their role as volunteers, etc. The next three
days are targeted training sessions on speaking lessons, listening lessons, and
classroom management. Volunteers observe a sample lesson, learn about the
theory behind each topic, and then plan and execute lessons in “microteaching”
sessions each day. The final day is cultural information and testimonials given
by NVC staff members who were former volunteers.
- Do volunteers have get opportunity to stay and get a job in NVC afterwards? All
current and the overwhelming majority of former NVC staff members are former
volunteers. Currently, only the coordinator is not a former volunteer.
- Where are the volunteers from? Volunteers come from all over the world. Most
come from the United States, followed by Great Britain. These are followed by
other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia,
South Africa, and India. Finally, we have volunteers from non-English speaking
countries who demonstrate their fluidity through their application and Skype
interview. Just this year we have had volunteers from many countries, including
Indonesia, the Philippines, Sweden, Greece, Nepal, Spain, Botswana,
Singapore, Germany, Hungary, Mexico, and Slovakia.
- How are they selected? What are the criteria? I think I accidently answered this
above, and the requirements are below.
- How long is the volunteer programme? Volunteer programs vary in length from
4-9 months. 2012 had 7 programs, including 1 in February, 2 in March, 1 in
April (volunteers in these could choose to leave on July 27th or November 30th),
2 in June and 1 in July (end date: November 30th). 2013 will have 5 programs:
66
VS Fecha
capacitación
Fecha
término
1 4 al 8 de marzo 26 de julio/30
de noviembre
2 18 al 22 de
marzo
26 de julio/30
de noviembre
3 8 al 12 de abril 26 de julio/30
de noviembre
4 17 al 21 de
junio
30 de
noviembre
5 29 de julio al 2
de agosto
30 de
noviembre
- What do you think about Bilingualism? And CLIL? We will try to get our boss to
answer this for you.
- Is it possible to achieve Bilingualism in Chile? How? We will try to get our boss
to answer this for you.
4.2. Volunteers’ Interview
- Where are you from?
- How old are you?
- How long have you been in the centre?
- How was the selection process?
- Would you like to become an English Teacher?
- What are your studies?
- What about your future plans related to teaching?
- Why did you want to come here?
- Do you speak Spanish?
- Do you take Spanish lessons?
- What do you know about the country?
- How many students do you have? And schools?
- How many hours do you teach?
- What is the students’ age?
- How would you score their communication effectiveness in general from 1 to 5?
- Are all the students Chilean?
- How did they welcome you the first time?
67
- What exactly are your responsibilities?
- What tasks do you use in order to practice speaking and listening skills?
- How do you motivate your students?
- What do you think about Bilingualism?
- Do you know about CLIL?
- Do you think you might be able to achieve bilingualism through your teaching?
- What textbooks do you use? Do you follow the school books?
5. CUI Interview & Answers
- ¿Cuánto tiempo lleva trabajando en este colegio? 7 años llevo en este colegio,
pero comencé como profesora jefe de un curso haciendo todas las asignaturas
en español (lenguaje, matemática, ciencias, historia, etc.) Luego, me
especialicé en inglés y llevo 3 años siendo profesora exclusivamente de inglés
de 1º a 4º Básico.
- ¿Cuál es su experiencia previa? Éste ha sido el único colegio donde he
trabajado y realizados mis distintas prácticas docentes.
- ¿Qué estudió? Estudié Pedagogía General Básica en la Universidad Finis
Terrae y luego realice la Especialización de ESL en la Universidad Gabriela
Mistral.
- ¿Ha vivido en un país de habla inglesa? No.
- ¿Cuántos alumnos tiene? El promedio por cada curso es de 34 alumnos. Como
tengo 4 cursos, tendría a mi cargo como profesora de inglés 136 alumnos
aprox.
- ¿De qué edad son sus alumnos?
1º Básico: 6 a 7 años
2º Básico: 7 a 8 años
3º Básico: 8 a 9 años
4º Básico: 9 a 10 años
- ¿Cuántas horas enseña inglés a la semana? 5 horas en cada curso.
- ¿Utiliza el español en sus clases? ¿Con cuanta frecuencia? ¿en qué
ocasiones? Intento realizar la mayor parte de la clase en inglés pero hay veces
que necesito utilizar el español porque de lo contrario no me entienden. Las
instrucciones las doy en inglés. Los alumnos me responden mucho en español
y yo les repito lo que me dicen en inglés. Al no ser un colegio bilingüe y al
tener pocas horas de inglés a la semana, cuesta realizar toda la clase en
inglés.
68
- ¿Qué actividades realiza para practicar listening y speaking? Contamos con un
texto de estudio (Family and Friends) que incorpora las 4 habilidades (listening,
speaking, eading and writing). Este texto incluye I-Tools que gracias a la
pizarra interactiva que tenemos en cada clase podemos trabajar el listening y el
speaking en cada clase. Hay muchos cantos, chants, poems, todas las
instrucciones son con listening, ejercitación y el speaking es a través de
diálogos y de lo que yo hago en las clases mismas.
- Del 1-5 ¿Cómo evaluaría el nivel general de inglés hablado de sus alumnos? 3.
- ¿Cómo motiva a sus alumnos? Las clases son bastante lúdicas porque yo
intento motivar a los niños bastante con premios, diplomas, etc. Además, el
texto es muy entretenido y el I- Tools es un desafío constante para los alumnos
ya que está lleno de juegos y actividades interactivas. No se dan cuenta cómo
van aprendiendo día a día.
- ¿Realiza actividades extraescolares relacionadas a practicar el inglés? No.
- ¿Le importaría que observara alguna de sus clases?
- ¿Le podría hacer un cuestionario breve a los alumnos?
6. Trewhela’s Interview
- Where are you from?
- How long have you been in the school?
- What was your previous experience?
- Do you have CLIL training?
- How many students do you have?
- How many hours do you teach?
- What is the students’ age?
- What subjects do you teach?
- What materials do you use? Do you have specific CLIL textbooks adapted to
teaching different subjects in English?
- Is there any subject which is taught in Spanish?
- How would you score the students’ communication effectiveness in general
from 1 to 5?
- Are all the students Chilean?
- What tasks do you use in order to practice speaking and listening skills?
- Have you used translation at any time?
- How do you motivate your students?
- What do you think about Bilingualism? And CLIL?
69
- What are your personal aims in your work with a Bilingual Institution?
- What are your hopes/perspectives towards Bilingualism and CLIL in Chile?
- Is this a private school? Approximately how much is the cost for students?
- How is the students’ selection in order to be accepted in the school?
- From which age can the students start in the school?
- Does the school belong to ABSCH?
6.1. Answers
The two teachers were asked at the same time
- Chile.
- Eight years, six years.
- Twenty-three years in a bilingual school. Twenty-seven years in a traditional
school.
- No.
- Twenty-nine students and twenty-seven.
- Forty hours per week.
- English and Social Studies, and English and Science.
- The books are in English.
- 10 All except Maths, Social Studies, Science and English.
- From three to four.
- There are three foreigners.
- We practice through the CD-Rom, following the book. We also have reading
books. We train them for the KET exams. They also do role-plays, pair work
and presentations.
- Sometimes we use translation because it is requested as part of the activities:
for example, “how would you say this in your own language?”
- They are already motivated because they know ‘English is a must’.
- “I love it! It is the only way to do it. You know the language through other
contents. I think it is the best way to learn English”.
- “My aim is the communication of the students anywhere, anytime. I’m
happy if I can achieve that. It’s my goal”. “We feel proud when we see a
good level in the examinations”.
- “If the methodology and the mind change it might be possible. However, it
is very difficult in public schools”.
- Three million and a half per year including transportation and lunch.
70
- They have to do an abilities test in the case of Pre-Kindergarten and English
tests in superior levels. Parents also have to do an interview.
- Since they are three years old.
- It does not belong
7. Craighouse interview
- Where are you from?
- How long have you been in the school?
- What was your previous experience?
- Do you have CLIL training?
- What are your studies?
- How many students do you have?
- How many hours do you teach?
- What is the students’ age?
- What subjects do you teach?
- What materials do you use? Do you have specific CLIL textbooks adapted to
teaching different subjects in English?
- Is there any subject which is taught in Spanish?
- How would you score the students’ communication effectiveness in general
from 1 to 5?
- Are all the students Chilean?
- What tasks do you use in order to practice speaking and listening skills?
- Have you used translation at any time?
- How do you motivate your students?
- What do you think about Bilingualism? And CLIL?
- What are your personal aims in your work with a Bilingual Institution?
- What are your hopes/perspectives towards Bilingualism and CLIL in Chile?
- Is this a private school? Approximately how much is the cost for students?
- How is the students’ selection in order to be accepted in the school?
- From which age can the students start in the school?
7.1. Answer
- Chile.
- Twenty-six years.
- Another bilingual school. In total thirty-four years.
- I do not.
71
- Education.
- Thirty-two.
- Twenty-four hours.
- Between eight and ten.
- English, Maths and integrated areas.
- Singapore method in Maths and in English we use different ones: Oxford,
Collins, etc.
- Only Spanish.
- Five. There are two in the class who mix English and Spanish.
- Ten per cent are foreigners.
- Listen to stories, to tapes, web pages, they listen to different accents. I also
read stories to them. We also do informal conversation, prepared presentations,
etc.
- Never, I use simple words.
- It depends on what you are doing, you use different ways: conversation,
questions and interaction.
- “I think English is essential. It is another tool for the modern world”
- “It’s important to be able to teach others to speak a language. It’s always
an advantage and it will be necessary in their lives”.
- Four hundred thousand per month.
- Students have to pass an exam. Parents an interview
- Four years.
7.2. Answer
- South Africa.
- In this job over six moths.
- Before coming here I worked at an international school in Botswana. I also
taught in schools in Cape Town. I was also in Europe and Asia. In total I have
twelve years of international experience.
- “I do not. However, I have always worked for bilingual and multilingual
schools. Besides there are eleven languages in South Africa, therefore,
you are used to this kind of education. Language has always been
integrated in the educational approach”.
- Education.
- Twenty-eight.
- From twenty-five to thirty.
72
- Between nine and ten.
- English, Maths and integrated areas.
- “I use a lot of internet more than anything. I use British and American web
sites as well as the IB web-site. I do not use text-books because I come
from a different system” 12- “Personally I do not think they can express a
lot. About two or two and a half, because they use lots of Spanish words”.
- “We do separate listening activities. We also try to integrate the language
through meaningful content”.
- “This is the area I find the hardest. I think that due to the fact that they
come from wealthy families, they are already indulged. Therefore, they do
not have a need for anything”.
- “I come from a multilingual country. I am bilingual myself. I can’t imagine
what it’s like to be monolingual”. However, she was surprised by how many
people speak in English. However, when it is in public institutions, such as
migration or banks, nobody speaks the language. Only ten percent of the
Chilean population speaks in English.
- “People who are bilingual, is because they really wanted to be bilingual”
- “I would like to see an improvement and so that by the time they leave
school they can call themselves bilingual. They can do a job in English
comfortably, and become translators, teachers…”