Bilingual Degree Teachers' Beliefs: A Case Study in a Tertiary Setting

Matthew Johnson Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs

1

Bilingual Degree Teachers’ Beliefs: A Case Study in a Tertiary Setting

Matthew Johnson

Universidad de Alcalá de Henares


2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………...3

Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………………..4

CLIL …………………………………………………………………………………..4

What is CLIL? ………………………………………………………………...5

What is CLIL not? …………………………………………………………….9

Why CLIL? ……………………………………………………………….....12

Teachers’ Beliefs …………………………………………………………………….14

What are Teachers’ Beliefs’? ………………………………………………..15

Where do Teachers’ Beliefs Come from? …………………………………...16

Can Teachers’ Beliefs be Changed, and if so, how? ……………………….. 19

The Study …………………………………………………………………………………....22

The Institution ……………………………………………………………………….23

The Students …………………………………………………………………………23

The Participants ……………………………………………………………………...24

The Bilingual Project ………………………………………………………………. 26

Data Collection ………………………………………………………………………29

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 31

Findings ……………………………………………………………………………...31

First Questionnaire …………………………………………………………..31

Second Questionnaire ………………………………………………………..36

Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………...40

Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………………….49

References …………………………………………………………………………………...53

Appendix …………………………………………………………………………………….56


3

INTRODUCTION

Universities in Spain are starting to implement bilingual degree itineraries in which

English is used as a vehicular language for the teaching of some subjects. This is a response

to the challenges of an increasingly globalised world in which there is greater student

mobility and a greater need to be able to operate between cultures in more than one language.

As yet, however, there is no consensus amongst universities on how to implement a CLIL

approach and each university tends to develop a different model. Whilst research in the field

of CLIL at tertiary level does exist, there is a general lack of research on teachers’

perceptions or training at that level. It is in the context of CLIL at university that this study

takes place.

The success of any educational innovation is dependent on many factors and not least

of these is the educators themselves charged with applying the changes in practice. This study

focuses on five lecturers at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros teacher training

college in Acalá de Henares, Spain. In 2009 they volunteered to participate in a teacher

development programme of language and methodology training which would be designed to

prepare them for the challenges of teaching their subjects through English using a CLIL

approach. This would imply a significant undertaking on their part as they repositioned

themselves as content and language teachers rather than content teachers only. As subject

experts, it was assumed that their initial attitudes and beliefs regarding bilingual education

would be founded on the restricted knowledge of the uninitiated and received wisdom. This

study was conceived to examine if and how the participants’ beliefs would develop and

change over the course of a two and a half year teacher development programme focusing on

CLIL. The assumption was that their knowledge of CLIL would naturally increase, but would

that influence their beliefs and if so, how?


4

In addition to a shortage of research related to CLIL at tertiary level, research into

teachers’ beliefs in the field of bilingual education is similarly underrepresented. A study then

of teachers’ beliefs in the context of the implementation of a CLIL programme at a Spanish

university is both timely and relevant. Beliefs exert an important influence on teachers’

methods, actions and behaviour (see, for example, Pajares 1992). A fuller understanding of

these beliefs could provide insights into what is required to give university CLIL programmes

a greater chance of success.

LITERATURE REVIEW

CLIL

CLIL is a term first coined by David Marsh in 1994. In 2003 in its action plan for

promoting language learning and linguistic diversity the European Commission stated that

CLIL “has a major contribution to make to the Union’s language learning goals” (2003: 8). It

made a commitment to funding transnational projects aimed at developing and disseminating

methodologies for teaching subjects through vehicular languages and promised to increase

support for schools wishing to implement CLIL. In 2006, Eurydice published a report of

information gathered on the availability of CLIL in European education and training systems.

The report confirms that only in a minority of European states is there no CLIL provision. In

other states provision exists, but varies widely in terms of the subjects taught or the

proportion of school timetables in which a CLIL approach is used. Some states have pilot

projects, some have incorporated CLIL into mainstream education, others have a blend of

both. What is clear is that CLIL provision is increasingly widespread in some form or other

throughout the EU and will have an ever greater role to play in the future. Nevertheless,

despite its growing ubiquity, the meaning of CLIL and what it implies is not commonly


5

understood. In the following pages I will examine what CLIL is and what it is not. I will also

look at arguments for why the implementation of a CLIL approach is an appropriate response

to changes in educational needs in the 20th century.

What is CLIL?

The acronym CLIL stands for Content and Language Integrated Learning. Coyle,

Hood & Marsh succinctly define it as “a dual-focused educational approach in which an

additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language”

(2010: 1). The key word in the acronym is perhaps “integrated” and the goal of the CLIL

approach is that students simultaneously learn a foreign language without neglecting the

content in a content lesson. Do Coyle emphasises that “Integration is a powerful pedagogic

tool which aims to ‘safeguard’ the subject being taught whilst promoting language as a

medium for learning as well as an objective of the learning process itself” (2002: 27). In

essence, CLIL can be seen as a powerful approach given that, executed well, the learning of

content does not suffer and the acquisition of a foreign language in meaningful contexts is

successfully achieved.

The notion of using a vehicular language to study academic content is far from new,

however, and several authors point this out with examples from the Roman Empire and even

earlier (Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2010; Ball 2009a; Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008).

According to many of its advocates though, the aim of CLIL goes beyond the learning of a

language; the language is not only something gained in the process, but also a tool with

which cognition can be developed. This is a more recent development. Mehisto et al. (2008)

add the CLIL-related goal of developing learning skills to those of subject knowledge and

language proficiency, thus moving beyond the idea of a dual-focused to a trial-focused

approach. According to Meyer (2010), “A holistic methodology is needed that transcends the


6

traditional dualism between content and language teaching” (2010: 26). CLIL is about more

than simply learning language and content simultaneously then.

Several authors have devised neat conceptual frameworks that summarise the

essential characteristics of good CLIL practice. Perhaps the most well-known of these is

Coyle’s four Cs framework of key principles. This is useful as a checklist of important CLIL

elements for educators in such contexts and is easy to remember. The four Cs are content,

communication, cognition and culture (Coyle 2002). CLIL must be content-driven and

together with communication and cognition, the first three of the four Cs can be seen as being

mutually interdependent. Content and thinking processes (cognition) must be analysed for

linguistic demand and complexity in order to avoid placing too heavy a burden on learners in

terms of thinking and language at the same time. Here Coyle, Hood & Marsh (2010) use

‘language’ and ‘communication’ interchangeably thereby giving importance to authentic and

meaningful communication in the vehicular language. Coyle sees that, “Language, thinking

and culture are inextricably linked” (2002: 28). She argues that this makes a fourth C, culture

inherent in CLIL and that studying a subject through a foreign language facilitates an

understanding of the culture of that language. This opportunity should be exploited because a

focus on culture promotes intercultural awareness, which is becoming an increasing necessity

in an ever more globalised world.

In a variation of Coyle’s 4 Cs, Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols use a framework of four

guiding principle for successful outcomes in CLIL; cognition, community, content and

communication (2008). ‘Culture’ is exchanged for ‘community’ here, but shares several of

the same considerations such as giving importance to the interests of others and taking into

account one’s role in both a local and global context. ‘Community’ seems to emphasise the

same need to foster tolerance and understanding in a globalised world as Coyle’s ‘culture’


7

does, but approaches this from a slightly different conceptual premise. Mehisto et al. (2008)

also argue that cognition is the driving force behind CLIL, again in a slight deviation from

the more common idea related to CLIL of being content-driven, which seeks to differentiate

it from language-driven approaches. Their assertion is that cognition is the foundation of all

strong pedagogy and successful learning, CLIL being no exception.

As a more comprehensive framework, Mehisto et al. (2008) also suggest thirty core

features of CLIL methodology, which they categorise into six more general groups; multiple

focus, safe and enriching learning environment, authenticity, active learning, scaffolding and

co-operation. These core features stress, among other ideas, the need for cross-curricular

themes and projects, reflection on the learning process, building learner confidence to

experiment, making connections between learning and real life, using current multi-media

materials, peer and co-operative group work, negotiation of meaning, activating schemata,

responding to different learning styles, fostering creative and critical thinking, and involving

parents and the local community. All of these features would appear to be desirable and

indeed achievable in any educational programme or context and not only CLIL-specific. The

authors in fact recognise this, but what is clear is that given the inherent obstacles associated

with teaching content in a vehicular language such an attention to these details of good

practice becomes essential for CLIL to succeed. Indeed, CLIL “demands focus on how

subjects are taught whilst working with and through another language rather than in another

language” (Coyle 2002: 27).

A further attempt clearly to define and encapsulate CLIL follows a six-point

framework of conceptual sequencing, conceptual fronting, language as vehicle, specific task

design, a trinity of conceptual, procedural and language outcome objectives, and activities

which enhance peer communication, reading strategies, student production and cognitive


8

skills (Ball 2009b). The essence of conceptual sequencing and conceptual fronting is that

content is king. Contents are pushed to the fore and sequenced in such a way that is logical,

coherent and connected in content subject terms whereas language is subordinate to the needs

of the content subject. Language as a vehicle and therefore an integral part of the approach,

task design which incorporates scaffolding or textually embedded language, and activity

types which both encourage and indeed necessitate peer communication all fit nicely into

Coyle’s ‘communication’ as ‘language’ notion. The weight given to procedural outcomes,

reading strategies and cognitive skills all match the importance of cognition as well.

A familiar picture or pattern is emerging then of the trial-focused approach mentioned

earlier. Prominent advocates and practitioners of CLIL seem to concur that contents or

concepts, language and thinking skills are inextricably intertwined and co-exist in a state of

mutual interdependence. Coyle’s fourth C, culture, is re-imagined as ‘community’ in the case

of Mehisto et al. (2008) and is conspicuous by its absence in Ball’s (2009b) definition of

CLIL. Otherwise there is a striking consensus despite some semantic differences.

A continuing debate does exist, however, as to what CLIL really is; an approach, a

methodology or something else. This is not merely a semantic argument. Ball (Ibid.) defines

an approach as being “similar to a philosophy of teaching” whereas a method has “features

and parameters [which] are instantly identifiable”. Coyle et al. concede that CLIL shares

many features with other educational practices but assert that it is an innovative fusion of

both subject and language education (2010). They argue that CLIL takes elements from

influential theoretical perspectives and good educational practice and merge them into

something fundamentally innovative: a new approach. More controversial is the notion that

CLIL is an ‘umbrella term’ which covers as many as a dozen educational approaches such as

bilingual education, immersion, language showers and enriched language programmes


9

(Mehisto et al. 2008). The Eurydice report (2006: 8) calls CLIL a ‘generic term’ for all types

of teaching in which subjects are taught through a second language. These seem too disparate

that they might be covered by one all-embracing term however. It feels too flexible, too

inclusive, too vague. At the other extreme, Ball (2009a) contests that CLIL is indeed a

methodology due to the fact that, in his opinion, certain features and parameters must be

present if a class can really be called a CLIL class. This feels too rigid and prescriptive and

runs counter to what Coyle et al. (2010) argue is CLIL’s strength, that it is theoretically sound

and can be rigorously applied to practice whilst retaining the flexibility and adaptability that

allows it to be suited to many different educational contexts.

What is CLIL not?

There seems to be a considerable degree of agreement in terms of the key features of

CLIL even if it defies easy and neat definition. The question ‘what is CLIL like?’ would

appear to be easier to respond to satisfactorily than ‘what is CLIL?’ Clegg observes that,

“When you talk to people about CLIL, you have to ask them what they mean by it, because

otherwise you’ll find you’re talking about different things” (2009: 11). In response to

common misconceptions regarding the approach it is also useful to look at what CLIL is not.

CLIL is not language at the expense of content. Maljiers et al. (as cited in Van de

Craen et al. 2007: 70) compile reflections on CLIL practices by authors from twenty

European countries. In response to the question “Describe the aims of CLIL” it is noteworthy

that most authors considered the primary aims of CLIL teaching and learning to be related to

the promotion of language learning, of language proficiency, internalisation of the language

and the encouragement of linguistic diversity. Van de Craen et al. (2007) suggest that this is

an unfortunate side effect of the success of CLIL in Europe and that CLIL is seen as being


10

about the promotion, in the great majority of cases, of English. Such a view, whilst being

perhaps a natural and common sense one, fails to recognise the wider ranging potential

benefits of a CLIL approach. If CLIL were only interested in increasing language

proficiency, it would be unjustifiable given that the focus would be taken away from learning

science in a CLIL science lesson, for example. In such a scenario surely language proficiency

would be achieved to the detriment of the learning of subject matter.

A further example of foreign language learning being the primary goal of many CLIL

programmes can be seen in the Colegios Bilingües de la Comunidad de Madrid Syllabus

document. It is clear from the introduction that the focus has been placed heavily on language

aims. It is stated that “the fundamental objective of this programme is that the pupil achieve a

progressive command of the English language” (1). Browsing through the document, it

becomes evident that its contents are almost exclusively lists of functional or situational

language, grammar and vocabulary. The objectives are all linguistic and focused on the

acquisition of these items. Moreover, the vocabulary mentioned seems far removed from the

type of vocabulary that would appear in a science, history or geography lesson and more akin

to the typical vocabulary found in lower level EFL textbooks. The Comunidad de Madrid

Syllabus seems to have decided on the language aims in advance and quite separately from

the linguistic needs of the subjects taught in English. This would be typical of a traditional

language course, but seems out of place in an integrated bilingual programme. Language

appears here to take precedence over content, which is contrary to the CLIL principle, and

integration of content and language, much less cognition and culture or community, is not

evident. CLIL should not be supplanting content with language by dedicating more timetable

space to the attainment of linguistic aims. This is the main characteristic which differentiates

CLIL from content-based learning (CBL), where language is the main focus.


11

A later document, the Boletín Oficial de la Comunidad de Madrid shows a slight shift

in focus in the annex pertaining to guidelines for the primary curriculum in bilingual schools.

Amongst the overall objectives are those of acquiring “new knowledge through the

instrumental use of English” and gaining “cultural awareness” (2011: 41), something

conspicuously lacking in the Comunidad de Madrid Syllabus. Nevertheless, the remainder of

the guidelines focuses on developing reading, writing, speaking and listening skills in the

way that a traditional language course would as opposed to dealing with content teaching

through a vehicular language. This seems more akin to CBL than CLIL.

CLIL is not just changing the language of instruction. It is much more than simply

increasing exposure to a target language by doing the same thing through a different vehicle.

The Eurydice report on Content and Language Integrated Learning at School in Europe

(2006) reveals a widespread lack of methodological training for teachers across Europe. In

most cases, a pre-requisite for teachers being recruited as CLIL teachers is that they have

subject knowledge and language proficiency. Some programmes require that teachers have

teaching qualifications in both a content subject and a foreign language, others that they have

a subject teaching qualification and a certain level of foreign language proficiency. This

seems to suggest an underlying assumption that knowing a subject and knowing a foreign

language is enough to deliver lessons in which both content and language will be successfully

learned. Eurydice (2006: 52) also reports the common complaint amongst CLIL teachers

throughout Europe that “there are virtually no initial and in-service training programmes

devoted to methods used specifically to teach a subject in other than the normal language of

instruction”. This exemplifies what pre-service CLIL teachers fear and in-service CLIL

teachers know from experience, that there is a considerable gap to be spanned between

knowing a subject and a foreign language and being prepared and able effectively to teach the


12

subject in that language. Education policy makers and administrators, however, appear not

always to recognise this.

CLIL is not an attempt at assimilation. It does not attempt to usurp the first language.

A mere translation of materials and activities carried out in the mother tongue would leave

learners floundering. Such an approach would not “force the teachers to change their whole

methodological approach, or force them to design their own materials, or force the subject

teachers to think more carefully about the crucial role of language in their specialist fields”

(Ball 2009c). If learners are treated as native speakers and left to sink or swim, that is not

CLIL. Likewise, if they are required to complete cognitively undemanding tasks such as

learning vocabulary lists or labelling diagrams in a content class, even if language and

content are present, that is not CLIL. A final point made by Mehisto et al. (2008: 20) is that

CLIL is not an approach only for the brightest, most academically gifted students. They cite

several countries where CLIL has been implemented across the ability range with success.

Why CLIL?

CLIL has met with some resistance and parents often have very real concerns about

the education that their children involved in CLIL programmes are receiving. In many cases

these reservations are based on prevailing misconceptions. One such idea is that devoting less

time to studying in L1 will be detrimental to the development of the mother tongue. The fear

is that, for example, native Spanish-speaking children learning Science through English will

develop the subject-specific language in English, but not in their native Spanish. Another

common sense idea is that learning in a foreign language is more difficult than in the mother

tongue and therefore contents must be reduced leading to children learning less. There are

also many new and practical difficulties for teachers to overcome, so in the face of all this the

question has to be, why CLIL?


13

A CLIL approach can be justified, if there is a clear added value to the learning

experience. Van de Craen et al. (2007) present six tenets based on a wide range of research

that they have considered. The overview of the evidence they present suggests that to varying

degrees a CLIL approach positively affects second language development, attitudes and

motivation towards language learning, cognitive development and the exploitation of brain

plasticity in young learners. They also conclude that there are no negative effects on mother

tongue development or subject matter knowledge.

One of the principal arguments for implementing CLIL is that it can represent an

efficient use of time. The European Commission action plan for promoting language learning

and linguistic diversity states that CLIL “provides exposure to the language without requiring

extra time in the curriculum” (2003: 8). Coyle also stresses that CLIL implies a “meaningful

and economic use of study time” (2002: 28). This optimisation of time would seem to be as

good a reason as any considering how curricula subjects compete with each other for space

on the timetable and any increase in dedication to one normally implies a reduction in

another. This is not so with CLIL, which can augment time dedicated to language learning

without diminishing time dedicated to other areas of the curriculum.

Another argument is that like any innovation or new approach, CLIL requires an

increased focus on pedagogical practice. The placing of obstacles in the path of learning

brings about the development of measures with which to overcome them. Neither teachers

nor learners are likely to have all of the linguistic means they have at their disposal in the L1.

A transmission model of teaching is therefore rendered impracticable because teachers have

to find ways for learners to understand content. According to Coyle (2002) such a shift brings

with it the need to redefine methodologies by taking into account both teacher and learner

language and that this inevitably leads to greater engagement and interaction in the


14

classroom. This opinion is seconded by Ball (2009b) who points out that teacher talk is

reduced and student-student focus is augmented through a greater dependence on skills,

group work and collaborative tasks. This is described by Mehisto et al. (2008: 21) as “the

hands on, participatory nature of the CLIL classroom”. The combination of so many elements

of good pedagogical practice which is learner-centred and caters for different learning styles

is a powerful reason to recommend CLIL. It makes teachers and learners work harder to co-

construct meaning and learning and, as Mehisto (2009: 1) puts it, “Our minds are more likely

to wander when we are learning through our first language, but CLIL requires heightened

attention which may well lead to improved learning.”

CLIL would also seem to respond to 21st century needs in that it encourages

interculturality. Learners are given the opportunity to raise their awareness of other cultures

and to operate in them through their studies due to the fact that it is neither desirable nor

possible to divorce language and culture. As Coyle puts it, “Studying a subject through the

language of a different culture paves the way for understanding and tolerating different

perspectives” (2002: 28). What could be more important in a modern world in which new

economies are rising to prominence, everyday work contexts are both plurilingual and

pluricultural, languages are increasingly used as a lingua franca and there is an inexorable

interconnectedness and interdependence of economies, businesses and workers in different

countries and on different continents?

TEACHERS’ BELIEFS

Research interest in teachers’ beliefs has been growing over the past few decades as

evidenced by a significant number of studies and publications since William Perry (1970)

first investigated them (cited in Brownlee & Purdie 2001). It has been argued that teachers’


15

beliefs can be a strong predictor of teachers’ behaviour (Pajares 1992). Nevertheless, research

into teachers’ beliefs has been hindered somewhat by problems of definition,

conceptualisation and differing understanding teachers’ beliefs (Ibid.). The following pages

examine the nature of teachers’ beliefs, their origins, how they can change and develop, and

the difficulties of accessing them.

What are teachers’ beliefs?

The concept of teachers’ beliefs defies easy definition. Pajares (1992) highlights the

semantic problem and lack of consensus regarding terminology used found in literature

related to the topic. He suggests, however, that the confusion lies fundamentally in the

distinction between beliefs and knowledge and that it is difficult to identify exactly where

knowledge ends and belief begins (309). An example of the beliefs-knowledge confusion is

Bustos Flores (2001: 254) citing various frameworks for effective practices in bilingual

teaching (Clark and Pérez 1995; Baker 1997; Dalton 1998) when discussing teachers’

epistemological beliefs. These include such things as language proficiency, linguistic

knowledge, cultural knowledge and teacher competencies in the case of Clark and Pérez; the

ability to communicate clear directions, pace lessons, provide immediate feedback, monitor

student progress, amongst others in the case of Baker; and joint productive activity, language

and literacy development, meaning making, complex thinking and instructional conversation

for Dalton. Whilst these are all doubtlessly elements of good teaching practice and not by any

means necessarily unique to bilingual teaching, they fall clearly into the realm of knowing

how to teach effectively given that they are skills or competences which can be acquired

through training, rather than underlying beliefs about teaching or learning.

The previous example seems rather clear cut, but the task of distinguishing belief

from knowledge is often considerably more problematic. In a wide-ranging review of


16

publications related to beliefs, Pajares (1992) finds four common characteristics associated

with beliefs, all of which seem to point towards beliefs being inherently subjective and

unreliable. Firstly, the characteristic of existential presumption results in beliefs being formed

by chance experiences or successions of events, taken-for-granted and resistant to persuasion

or logical counter-argument. Secondly, the characteristic of alternativity is the result of

individuals being able to construct a situation based on beliefs that runs contrary to reality.

Thirdly, the characteristic of affective and evaluative loading means that beliefs operate

independently of the cognition associated with objective knowledge. Finally, the

characteristic episodic structure of beliefs means that they are constructed by and stored as a

series of snapshots of key episodes or events, whereas knowledge is semantically stored. To

completely separate beliefs from knowledge, however, seems impossible. They tread on each

other’s toes, overlap and intertwine. It seems unsatisfactory to conclude that knowledge is an

objective truth wholly independent of belief, which is a subjective, distorted subversion of

truth. Binary oppositions are too strong to define two related concepts which are so

inextricably linked, but it seems reasonable to suggest that knowledge tends towards being

objective and cognitive, beliefs towards being affective and evaluative. Pajares concedes that

“the educational community has been unable to adopt a specific working definition” (1992:

313) to distinguish knowledge from belief, even though it is a common distinction. Rokeach

(1968; cited in Pajares 1992) for example sees belief as a kind of knowledge which has both a

cognitive and an affective component.

Where do teachers’ beliefs come from?

A peculiarity of the teaching profession, in contrast with other careers, is that teachers

do not start out as complete novices by virtue of the fact that they have already experienced

education as learners, as Pena and Porto (2008) point out. Teachers bring with them ideas


17

about teaching and learning the first time that they set foot in a classroom in the role of

teacher that they started to formulate, however subconsciously, as children. As a

consequence, such ideas may be deep-seated, difficult to change and have a significant effect

on how they teach. The same would certainly not be true of surgeons, lawyers or pilots who

are unlikely to have ingrained beliefs about how to carry out their work.

In line with Vygotskian theories of the construction of knowledge, Bustos Flores

(2001: 252) asserts that “our quintessential ideas, beliefs, and conceptualisations are

formulated from experiences we have had within a sociocultural context. For example, our

beliefs about the world are given to us through our familial and educational experiences”.

The same can be said of an individual’s beliefs regarding education. A person’s beliefs as far

as education is concerned are related to how that person was taught; our perception of

education is the one handed down to us by the education we received and the attitudes

towards education of the society in question. As Bustos Flores puts it, “In essence, the social

structure becomes the mechanism for modelling expectations and standards of the norms of a

given community or society” (Ibid.).

Pajares (1992) explains that cultural transmission can be divided into three

components; education, schooling and enculturation. Education and schooling can be

characterised as deliberate and intentional. The former can be either formal or informal and

its intention is to condition behaviour according to the requirements of the given culture. The

latter takes place outside the home and is the process of teaching and learning. In contrast,

enculturation is incidental and is the result of the assimilation of a society’s cultural elements

through observation of and participation within that culture. As individuals we are all

susceptible to cultural transmission. Teachers and their beliefs are therefore heavily

influenced by the process of cultural transmission. Teachers are products of both the


18

educational system and the society in which they themselves were raised, with its attitudes

towards and expectations of education.

Greeno (1989) argued that teachers have implicit epistemological beliefs; that what a

teacher thinks about the nature and origin of knowledge and learning influence their view of

themselves and others as learners (cited in Bustos Flores 2001). Bustos Flores offers a

refinement of Schommer’s influential (1990) framework of five dimensions of

epistemological beliefs by adding a sixth (cited in Bustos Flores 2000: 2).

The certainty of knowledge acquisition is dependent on whether knowledge is seen as from either a duality or a relative perspective. The control of knowledge acquisition is defined as the beliefs of learning as either being perceived from an incremental or an entity perspective. The source of knowledge acquisition is the belief that knowledge is either acquired from experts or is socially constructed. The speed of knowledge acquisition is defined relative to the predetermined amount of time required for learning. Depending on how the structure of knowledge acquisition is perceived, learning is believed to be simple or complex. The interaction of knowledge acquisition can be defined as the individual’s beliefs regarding the interaction between language, culture and thought.

Clearly a teacher’s individual stance on each of these underlying epistemological beliefs will

have a profound effect on his or her teaching. It might be said that a teacher’s teaching style

is the product of a combination of beliefs and knowledge which are fused and put into

practice. Bustos Flores (2001: 254) speculates that “in all likelihood, beliefs about how

learning occurs modulate teachers’ approaches. Therefore, it is proposed that these

epistemological beliefs become translated into observable teaching behaviour or teaching

style.” To this we can add that we are interested in what teachers beliefs are in relation to not

only knowledge and learning, but also to teaching and learners themselves.


19

Can teachers’ beliefs be changed, and, if so, how?

A fundamental question then is can teachers’ beliefs, once crystallised, be subject to

change? They are rooted in personal experience, but may be modified over time with

exposure to training or to new experiences which serve to challenge them. Richardson (1998)

offers anecdotal evidence that a common perception about teachers is that they are highly

resistant to change and often get stuck in a rut and proceed as they have always done. She

dismisses this idea, however, and argues that certain catalysts and certain conditions can

facilitate and bring about both minor and major changes. Richardson argues that voluntary

change is more likely to be both effective and sustained than imposed change. Naturally,

teachers will feel more inclined to change if it is of their own accord, rather than being

dictated by an institution, education authority or ministry. According to Guskey (2002), such

voluntary change is likely to be due to teachers’ desire to become better educators, fight

boredom and alienation, increase professional satisfaction, improve pupils’ results and

improve the day-to-day operation of their classrooms. Richardson (1998: 2) concurs and

offers the encouraging insight that teachers are generally student-centred in their thinking and

“undertake change voluntarily, following their sense of what their students need and what is

working. They try out new ideas. These changes, while often minor adjustments, can be

dramatic”.

Two contrasting models of teacher development reveal very different results. The

first, the training model can be seen in Richardson’s (1998) terms as a ‘deficit model’. This is

likely to have been imposed from above starting from the premise that something is not

working, is missing or needs to be updated or improved. The assumption is that there are

desired behaviours or techniques and teachers can learn or be trained to replicate them in

their classrooms. This model has clear objectives and outcomes. Clearly, if this need is not


20

perceived by teachers beforehand, enthusiasm for such staff development may well be low.

Meyer (1988) in a study of reading development programmes provides evidence that such

staff development has a mere 15% success rate (cited in Richardson 1998). Richardson also

cites evidence that momentum is lost in longer term staff development programmes and the

implementation of desired behaviours decreases over time. This suggests that teachers tend to

revert to doing things the way they did before if it was not they who initiated change.

Bustos Flores (2001: 255) suggests that encouraging

teachers to examine their beliefs may assist […] reflective practices. When teachers engage in critical reflection, they gain insights that may assist their development as effective [teachers] … Gallimore and Tharpe (1990) asserted that teachers, like all learners, have their own zone of proximal professional development (ZPD).

The second model then is a reflective, collaborative model, which reports a greater

probability of achieving lasting change. This is not a deficit model and differs from the

training model in that there are no pre-conceived objectives, outcomes or desirable

behaviours. Teachers are encouraged to explore their own practices and come to personal

decisions on aspects and direction for change. By assessing personal goals, results and

beliefs, teachers are involved in an on-going process of development and change and it is

hoped that they will continue beyond the timeframe of the original programme. In one such

programme Richardson (1998: 6) reported that teachers continued to reflect on their practice

and experiment thoughtfully to the point where they “had become confident in their decision-

making abilities… and felt empowered to make deliberate and thoughtful changes in their

classrooms”.

A complementary view is offered by Guskey (2002) in that he sees teachers’

willingness to embrace change as being a prerequisite to change happening and being


21

sustained. The argument is that professional development leaders labour under the

misconception that a change in teachers’ beliefs precedes a change in their classroom

behaviours and practice. In typical teacher development scenarios, externally imposed

programmes, or at least programmes initiated from above by management, are designed to

‘sell’ to teachers a new belief that, when taken on board, will lead to a change in practice.

Guskey argues that in reality, the inverse is true and that the process moves from stages of

teacher cynicism to teacher scepticism and only if new practices are deemed by the teacher to

be valid based on their own experience will a change in belief be brought about. Guskey

shares Richardson’s positive view that teachers are motivated and convinced by an

improvement in their students’ learning when it comes to making changes. In this context the

notion of improvement is essentially unquantifiable and there is no set threshold which must

be met before new practice can be considered successful so that “learning outcomes include

whatever kinds of evidence teachers use to judge the effectiveness of their teaching” (Guskey

2002: 384). This could mean an upswing in class test results or external, standardized

examinations, more regular attendance, a perceived increase in motivation, participation in

class, or even better behaviour. Guskey is convinced that experienced teachers “seldom

become committed to a new instructional approach or innovation until they have seen it work

in their classroom with their students” (Ibid.).

A change in teacher beliefs is possible then, but certain favourable conditions need to

be in place if that change is likely first to happen and second to be lasting. Teachers need a

certain level of self-motivation for change, time for that motivation to be fostered and the

opportunity to experiment and see what they perceive as tangible and valuable results. They

need to be encouraged and enabled to continue an on-going process of reflection and

questioning of beliefs and practice. Of course, a balance of autonomy and community must

also be struck because they also need guidance and support due to the danger of teachers


22

arriving at new, unwarranted assumptions based on erroneous perceptions, as Richardson

(1998) warns.

A final caveat worth mentioning is that of difficulties in ascertaining what beliefs

teachers actually hold. There are three associated obstacles in relation to this. First of all, it

cannot be disregarded that teachers’ beliefs may in many cases by latent and at least to some

degree subconscious or unconscious. Furthermore, beliefs may well be more difficult to

verbalise than knowledge and it may be assumed that there is a gap between teachers’ beliefs

and how they may be expressed. These two factors potentially render teachers’ beliefs less

than completely accessible. In addition, Woods (1996: 27) makes the pertinent point that

“teachers may, in responding to questions about generalized beliefs, answer according to

what they would like to believe, or would like to show they believe”. Even if we were to have

a working definition of teachers’ beliefs, ideas about where they originate from, the notion

that they are observable through behaviour and an understanding of how they can be

modified through teacher development programmes, the challenge of how to gain access to

those beliefs with a high degree of confidence remains.

THE STUDY

The focus of this study is university lecturers responsible for teaching their students

through a foreign language, in this case English. An understanding of the circumstances in

which they work is key to making sense of the study and placing it in the wider context of

bilingual education. They are the main protagonists, but the educational institution itself and

the students who are studying for their degrees also form an important part of the overall


23

picture. What follows is an overview of the institution, the students, the lecturers and the

training they have received to prepare them to meet the challenge of teaching through English

in bilingual degree programmes.

The Institution

The Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros was founded in 1973 in the city of

Alcalá de Henares in the Autonomous Community of Madrid. It is a private tertiary college

affiliated with the public institution of the Universidad de Alcalá and offers teacher training

degrees with specialities in Infant Education, Primary Education and Social Education. Since

the academic year 2010-11, students have the possibility of studying for a degree in Infant or

Primary Education in a bilingual programme. The Escuela currently has some two thousand

students studying for their degrees either in the traditional mode or through distance learning,

and approximately seventy teaching staff. As a consequence, there exists a sense of a close-

knit and familiar learning community in which students find staff both approachable and

available to guide them in their studies.

The Students

Students at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros are typically in their late

teens and early twenties, although there are some more mature students who have decided,

after some years’ work in another field, to change career path and work towards a teacher

training degree. Distance learning students are often graduates in one speciality of education,

and perhaps even currently employed as teachers, who are working towards a second degree

in another speciality. Those who have opted to study their degree in the bilingual programme

first had to complete an initial level test aimed at ascertaining their level of English. A B1

level according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)

was established as the desired minimum. Indeed, the majority of students entered with an


24

average B1 or B2 level, although there are a few exceptions at both extremes with some

students having a consolidated A2 level and others as high as a C2 level.

The Participants

Lecturers at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros tend either already to hold a

Ph.D. in their area of expertise or to be in the process of gaining their Ph.D. The college is

broadly divided into two departments, those of Education Science and Specific Didactics.

Lecturers belonging to the former department are typically pedagogues and psychologists,

whereas those in the latter department are subject area specialists in humanities, natural

sciences, music, art, physical education and so on. There are currently fifteen lecturers

involved in the bilingual project to some degree or in some capacity. They come from both

departments and have somewhere between two and thirty years of teaching experience. At the

time of writing (May 2012) five of the lecturers have started teaching their subjects in

English. Due to the way the degrees are organised and the timing of subjects, others will not

do so until the next academic year. Eight of the lecturers have been involved in the bilingual

project since its inception and have received all of the training provided. It is on five of those

lecturers that this study will focus, two of whom have started teaching in English, three who

are yet to do so. An overview of the training given to lecturers will be given later, but what

follows below is a brief profile of each of those on whom this study focuses. They have been

called lecturer one, lecturer two and so on in the interests of anonymity.

Lecturer one (L1)

Lecturer one is working towards his Ph.D. in Education. He has worked in education

at all levels for thirty years and as a lecturer in Special Educational Needs at the Escuela


25

Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros since 1993. He has yet to start teaching in English at the

college, but will do so during the academic year 2012-13. His level of English is currently

CEFR B2.

Lecturer two (L2)

Lecturer two has a Ph.D. in Fine Arts, and an M.A. in Aesthetics and the Theory of

Art. He has been working as a lecturer in art teacher training at the Escuela Universitaria

Cardenal Cisneros for twenty-three years. He has yet to start teaching in English at the

college, but will do so during the academic year 2012-13. He has, however, given several

seminars and workshops in English on MEC courses for primary teachers. He is also

involved in research projects related to bilingual education. His level of English is currently

CEFR C1.

Lecturer three (L3)

Lecturer three is working towards her Ph.D. in Psychology. She has worked as a

lecturer at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros as a lecturer in Psychology for five

years. She is now teaching classes in English for the second academic year. She has taught

the subject Pedagogical Diagnosis to first year students of the Infant Education speciality in

2010-11 and 2012, Attention to Diversity to second year students of the Infant and Primary

specialities in 2011-2012, and Early Intervention to second year students of Infant Education,

a total of five courses. Her level of English is CEFR C2.

Lecturer four (L4)

Lecturer four has a Ph.D. in Psychopedagogy. She has worked as a lecturer of

Education at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros for eight years. She is now teaching

classes in English for the second academic year and has taught the subject Didactics to first


26

year students of both the Infant and Primary Education specialities, a total of four courses.

She is also involved in research projects related to bilingual education. Her level of English is

currently CEFR C1.

Lecturer five (L5)

Lecturer five has a Ph.D. in Art History and has an M.A. in Cultural Management. He

has worked as a lecturer of History, Geography and Social Sciences at the Escuela

Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros since 1995. He has yet to start teaching in English at the

college, but in December 2010 he gave classes in English at Duksung Women’s University in

Seoul, South Korea. He has also given several seminars and workshops in English on MEC

courses for primary teachers. He is also involved in research projects related to bilingual

education. His level of English is currently CEFR C1.

The Bilingual Project

The Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros Bilingual Project was started in 2009.

The first bilingual Teacher Training degrees were offered and implemented in the academic

year 2010-11. In that programme a minimum of thirty per cent of the total number of credits,

72 of 240 European credit transfer system credits (ECTS), are taught in English. Teaching

through English in the bilingual programme follows a content and language integrated

learning (CLIL) approach. The Bilingual Project website

(http://proyectobilingue.cardenalcisneros.es/) states as an objective the improvement of

methodological knowledge and awareness with regards to bilingual education. A further

stated aim is the development of language proficiency in English of students during their

degrees. Success in reaching these goals would prepare future teachers for the demands of the

bilingual schools in many of Spain’s autonomous regions.


27

Beyond the teaching of subjects in English using a CLIL approach, however, several

other initiatives have been implemented to aid and support students’ progress. These include

on-site, extra-curricular language classes provided by the British Council and workshops

given by guest speakers related to bilingual education, known as Bilingual Open Workshops

(BOW). In addition, lecturers involved in the project organise and participate in an annual

Bilingual Campus, a week-long, practical course aimed at teachers currently teaching in

bilingual primary schools. Not all participants have this profile, however, as several places

are also awarded in the form of grants to students of the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal

Cisneros. Furthermore, several lecturers involved in the project are also conducting research

into various areas of bilingual education.

Lecturers involved in the project initially volunteered to take part. They have received

language training with a view to developing their language proficiency in the form of on-site

classes provided by the British Council. These classes take place twice per week and are two

hours in length. Lecturers have also received short intensive courses in the summer, again on-

site, and some have taken advantage of partial funding on the part of the college to do

intensive summer language courses at other institutions.

Methodological training has been extensive and ongoing. In total, lecturers have

participated in more than two hundred hours of CLIL training on seven courses over a period

of more than two years between October 2009 and January 2012. These have varied in length

and in focus and a brief outline of each in chronological order is given below.

• Introduction to Bilingual Education : A 40-hour online course dealing with

cognitive theories of bilingualism, models of bilingual education and the challenges of

teaching through a foreign language delivered by the Universidad de Alcalá.


28

• Content and Language Integrated Learning: A 52.5-hour course delivered by

Pilgrims, Canterbury, UK. Areas explored included CLIL resources and materials,

lesson plan design for CLIL, assessment of language and content, formative and

summative assessment and needs analysis.

• CLIL Syllabus Design: A 6-hour course provided on-site by lecturers from

Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Germany. Areas dealt with included task

design, scaffolding students input and output, promoting higher order thinking skills

and developing intercultural competence.

• Literacy in the Bilingual Classroom: A 9-hour course dealing with communication

and collaboration in the bilingual classroom, the use of authentic texts and writing for

a reason, provided by a teacher trainer from the British Council.

• Classroom English – improving communication in bilingual classes at university:

A 12-hour course focusing on functional language in the classroom and creating a

communicative classroom, provided by an expert from the British Council.

• CLIL : A 50-hour course delivered by the Norwich Institute for Language Education,

Norwich, UK. Areas explored included CLIL frameworks, task, activity, unit and

syllabus design, and discourse issues in CLIL.

• Look back and move on – teaching in the bilingual degrees: A one-hour teacher

development session in which experiences, concerns and difficulties were shared and

reflected upon.

• CLIL Teacher Training at Higher Education : A 42-hour course delivered by

visiting experts from the University of Aberdeen, Universidad de Alcalá, University

of Calabria and Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. The course dealt with

issues such as the analysis and creation of materials, assessment of and for learning,

working on high and low order thinking skills and making teaching brain-compatible.


29

Data Collection

This research can be characterised as an intrinsic case study because it does not

necessarily represent other cases, but is of interest due to its own value or speciality (Dörnyei

2007). Its aim was to identify how teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards bilingual education

might have changed in the light of an ongoing teacher development programme designed to

prepare them for the challenges of teaching content subjects through English in a tertiary

setting. In order to achieve this, the qualitative rather than quantitative research method used

was a logical choice because attitudes and beliefs cannot be quantified. The research was

longitudinal, with data being collected over a two and a half year period. A change in

attitudes and beliefs is unlikely to occur in the short term without a due process of

experimentation and reflection, so the more extended timeframe was deemed necessary in

order to produce observable changes of worth.

In order to collect data, two instruments were used, an initial questionnaire and a

follow-up questionnaire. Data was first gathered by means of a short, open questionnaire

administered to eight initial participants by e-mail in September 2009, before the teacher

development began. A second questionnaire containing five of the original six questions, plus

a modified sixth question was administered in March 2012 to the five participants who had

both completed the original questionnaires and remained in the programme at that point (see

Appendix). By using essentially the same questionnaire with a gap in time of a little over two

years, a neat and potentially very revealing comparison was possible.

Dörnyei suggests that when carrying out a case study, “almost any type of research

method can be used that can yield case-specific data” (2007: 152). The decision to use short

questionnaires with open questions was based on a desire to use time efficiently and to obtain

more extended qualitative data than multiple choice, Likert scale or semantic differential


30

scale questionnaires could provide. Open questions allow greater freedom of expression and

enable the collection of richer responses than quantitative questionnaires can yield.

Responses may include useful quotes, examples and illustrations in addition to providing

perspectives on issues which the researcher had not anticipated (Dörnyei & Taguchi 2010).

Thus qualitative data was obtained, but one of the common problems associated with

qualitative research, that of an overabundance of data, was avoided due to the small number

of participants – eight initially and five in the final phase. Measures were also taken to

combat another problem associated with open questions, that of a need for greater

respondent-availability time. By sending the questionnaires to the participants via e-mail,

they could complete them as and when they were able to do so. The questionnaires were also

written in Spanish, the mother tongue of the participants, with a view to enabling them to

express themselves with as much confidence and clarity as possible.

The six questions in the first questionnaire were designed to gain information about

the participants’ previous knowledge of bilingual education, their concerns and

preconceptions regarding bilingual education and their perceived needs and expectations

prior to embarking upon a period of training. In question one, respondents were asked to give

a definition of bilingual education and in question two to explain what they thought the

objective of bilingual education is. These would, it was hoped, provide some insight into

what the participants already knew about the topic. Questions three, four and five focused

more on the implications for the participants in their work as future teachers in a bilingual

programme. Question three deals specifically with a common concern, that of the difficulties

of learning contents through a foreign language forcing educators to reduce subject contents.

Question four sought to discover the participants’ ideas regarding methodology in bilingual

education and question five gave them scope to articulate any other worries they might have.

The sixth question aimed to ascertain what participants felt was necessary in terms of training


31

them to better cope with the challenges ahead of teaching in a bilingual programme. The

second questionnaire contained the same first five questions, but the sixth question was

modified so that participants could express whether or not they felt the extensive training they

had received was sufficient or whether there was still a need for further training. By using

essentially the same questionnaire it would be possible to see how the participants’

knowledge, attitudes, concerns and beliefs regarding bilingual education had evolved in the

light of their training and, in two cases, teaching in the bilingual programme.

Data Analysis

The initial questionnaires were analysed on a question by question basis for both

similarities and differences amongst participants’ responses. Key words and key ideas were

cross-referenced in order that generalisations could be made where possible and disparity

amongst responses highlighted where relevant. The follow-up questionnaires were analysed

in a similar way. In addition, however, responses were also cross-referenced with the general

observations made from the initial questionnaires in order to look for emerging patterns of

change. An additional factor to be taken into account was that two of the five lecturers had

begun teaching in English by the time the second questionnaire was administered whereas the

other three had not. I also tried to focus analysis the on instances in which the two practising

bilingual lecturers’ responses coincided with each other but differed from the other lecturers’

responses as this could potentially be significant.

Findings

First Questionnaire – September 2009

Based on the responses to question one of the initial questionnaire it is possible to

make several generalisations. Firstly, and as might have been anticipated, three of the five


32

respondents conceived bilingual education as being that in which two languages are used

indistinctly in order to teach subjects. Respondent two characterised it as the teaching of

subjects other than English language in English. Respondent one, in addition to mentioning

the presence of two languages, also defines a bilingual model as educating with two different

cultural contexts. All five respondents coincide then in highlighting the presence of two

languages, with one making the assumption that English is the vehicular language and only

one considering the cultural element. Secondly, four of the five responses include the word

“contents”, which suggests that the participants are in agreement as to the importance of

content objectives as well as language objectives. Thirdly, the participants’ choice of words

hints at a view of the lecturer as someone who transmits a body of knowledge to students.

The expressions “se imparte”, “enseñar” and “la transmission de contenidos” are used (Ls 2,

3 and 5), which suggest a teacher-centered view, whereas only one of the five lecturers (L1)

used “enseñar y aprender”, which suggests at least a joint effort between teacher and student.

Answers to question two are even more uniform and reveal an almost unanimous

view that the objectives of bilingual education are to improve the command of a non-native

language. Respondents say that “se trata de aprender otro idioma distinto al materno” (L1),

that the objective is to “aumentar el conocimiento en la lengua inglesa de los alumnos” (L2),

to “adquirir un dominio instrumental de las dos lenguas” (L4), or to “favorecer la adquisición

de una segunda lengua” (L5). Three of the five do however stress that it is subject contents

which are being taught through the vehicular language, giving importance to contents while

expressing the learning of another language as the principle motivating factor behind a

bilingual model.

Responses to the first two questions display some consistent ideas amongst this group

of lecturers. They see that two languages are present in bilingual education and students’


33

increased command of the second language is its raison d’être. There also seems to be an

underlying assumption that knowledge and contents are transmitted from teacher to learner

and that in a bilingual model this will happen in a language other than the students’ mother

tongue. As a gauge of the participants’ prior knowledge of bilingual education, this is

interesting in that it broadly follows Van de Craen’s (2007) overview of how the aims of

CLIL programmes are often seen throughout Europe. Indeed, this promotion of language

proficiency through an economical use of time which combines subject and language

teaching is a key objective of the European Commission in its action plan (2003). By

comparing the respondents’ answers to Do Coyle´s 4 Cs framework for CLIL, it is clear that

the notions of content and communication (or language) are given importance, but culture is

absent in all but one lecturer’s answers (L1) and cognition is wholly absent. This suggests

that to the uninitiated the latter two elements are less obvious components of bilingual

education.

The third question was intended to canvass the participants’ thoughts towards a

commonplace concern among many of those with vested interests in bilingual education: the

ability to learn the same contents in a foreign language as in the mother tongue. None of the

participants were entirely convinced that this is possible. Reservations were varied, but all

constituted a lack of certainty. One participant (L5) drew on his experience as a father of

children attending a bilingual school. He viewed his children’s linguistic competence very

positively as a result of the education they were receiving, but was less certain of their subject

knowledge. Three of the lecturers (Ls 2, 3 and 4) felt that learning the same contents was

achievable, but only if the level of the students in the foreign language was sufficiently high

not to be of any impediment. The final lecturer (L1) raised doubts about how students with

special educational needs would cope with the additional obstacle that learning through a

foreign language would create.


34

Question four, regarding the need for a change in methodology when teaching in

another language, yielded some interesting responses. Four of the five were in no doubt that

such a change would be necessary. The fifth felt that no change would be necessary as long

as both teacher and student had a high level command of the vehicular language, but would

be necessary if that were not the case. The participants were less clear, however, on what the

necessary changes would consist of. One lecturer (L4) believed that the traditional methods

associated with the transmission model of teaching would need to be abandoned in favour of

a more interactive and participative methodology. Another expressed in general terms the

need for “algunas técnicas concretas que faciliten al alumno la comprensión de los conceptos

y al mismo tiempo el afianzamiento y perfeccionamiento de la lengua en cuestión” (L3),

alluding to the integration of content and language. A further idea expressed by one

participant was of a wholesale overhaul of procedures, objectives, materials and teaching

style, but they were not specific on the details of this (L1). Another said that they had heard

of CLIL, but was unsure of what it consisted. These responses seem to be to some degree at

odds with those given to question one in which a teacher-centred transmission model of

teaching was reflected. They hint at a feeling that that model will not be entirely adequate

although they were understandably vague on the details at that early stage.

The fifth question gave respondents free rein to express any other concerns they might

have about bilingual education. Here there were three main concerns. The first, expressed by

two of the lecturers, was their own level of English and ability to carry out lessons in English.

Two other lecturers alluded to this less explicitly in terms of the extra time and effort they

would need to invest in order to teach, in this case, in English. Their comments also lead on

to the second worry that dedicating more time to linguistic aspects may detract from the

subject contents. They repeated ideas from question three about the possible reduction or

limiting of contents as a side-effect of teaching through a foreign language, which


35

demonstrates the importance they place upon this concern. One lecturer (L3) was worried by

the third issue that “impartir la material en ingles reste fluidez a las clases, que relantice

excesivamente el ritmo”. Of course, if contents take longer to teach, then the logical

extension of this idea is that they would need to be reduced to fit the timeframe, which is

related to concern number two.

Questions three to five then provided some general insights into the participants’

concerns regarding bilingual education and the implications of these in their future daily

work as lecturers in a bilingual programme. They saw difficulties in being able to cover in

English contents that they would otherwise cover in their native Spanish and the effect this

might have on their students’ learning. They seemed loathe to have to reduce contents, but

were uncertain as to whether or not this was avoidable. In some cases they were worried

about their own level of English and ability to teach in English, and were also apprehensive

about how much effort would be required to prepare and deliver classes in the second

language. They seemed aware of the need for a change in methodology, but generally not of

the specific changes required. Interestingly, the choice of words used by the respondents

echoed that of earlier questions with “dar”, “enseñar” and “impartir” again suggesting a

rather teacher-centred model.

In question six most of the respondents made reference to the dual aim of the training

they were about to receive. Three of them referred to discovering new “métodos” or

“metodología” and one referred to this as a new “enfoque”, which of course is a subtle

difference, but a pertinent one given the debate on whether CLIL constitutes an approach, as

most would have it, or a methodology as some would argue. The second element of the dual

aim is the improvement of the lecturers’ language level in English. Both elements are very

much in line with the concerns and needs expressed in earlier questions. One participant saw


36

the training not as something to be received, but as an opportunity to “compartir ideas,

pensamientos, razones, metodologías y emociones” (L1), perhaps anticipating a further need

in the future for the lecturers to collaborate more closely in the bilingual project than would

otherwise be the case.

Second Questionnaire – March 2012

In question one, slight variations on one broad idea are represented. One of the

participants continues to define bilingual education as that in which various languages are

used at the same time. The other four, however, largely coincide that bilingual education

consists of some teaching and learning happening in a language other than the mother tongue.

The two teachers who have already embarked upon teaching in English further qualify this

with assertions that the foreign language should not be an obstacle to learning or limit

learning in any way (L3, L4). One of them also specifies that key features are active,

participative lessons in which communication is prized. Two of the other lecturers mention

improving the level of the second language in students and one characterises this as

facilitating the students’ comprehension of contents.

Answers to question two generally place at least as much emphasis on the subject

aims as the linguistic ones, in contrast to the September 2009 questionnaire. The most

unequivocal example of this is from one of the practising bilingual lecturers (L4) who said

that “el objetivo ultimo debe ser adquirir los mismos conocimientos que en una asignatura en

castellano pero mejorando el conocimiento del idioma”. Here it is clear that in the opinion of

the respondent the language aim is an added value which is subservient to the content aim.

This is echoed by one participant (L2) who said that the objective is “que el alumnado

desarolle competencias lingüísticas y comunicativas en la segunda Lengua al mismo tiempo


37

que adquiere los conocimientos de las materias en cuestión” and another who defined the

objective as “aprender determinados contenidos del currículum mediante el uso de una lengua

diferente a la lengua materna” (L5). In addition, two respondents mentioned cultural or

intercultural objectives. Language acquisition was no longer pushed to the fore as the main or

only objective of bilingual education in the opinion of the participants. Their new definitions

were more multi-dimensional and emphasised content over language, which is sometimes

now referred to as communication, and included a cultural element. Three of the four Cs are

given some prominence then, with the fourth, cognition, still somewhat conspicuous by its

absence.

In the September 2009 questionnaire, without exception the lecturers had doubts in

question three as to whether it would be possible to learn the same contents through an L2 as

in L1. In the follow-up questionnaire the shift is dramatic and they were unanimous in saying

yes, it is possible. One participant said, “Sí. Debe hacerse. Porque no se trata de aprender otro

idioma sino de aprender lo mismo mediante el uso de otro idioma.” This was the same

participant (L5) who, in questionnaire one, was less than convinced by his experience as the

parent of children in a bilingual school. He does not elaborate and explain why he is now so

sure, however. One participant suggested it was difficult yet achievable and that careful

planning was a key consideration “para no olvidar ningún contenido importante, pero

seleccionando, priorizando puesto que a veces los contenidos son excesivos y algunos de

ellos innecesarios” (L3). This seems to suggest a more competence-based view of education

as opposed to a content-based view. This is an idea expressed more explicitly by one

respondent that learning is “el desarollo de una serie de competencias que van ligadas a unos

contenidos” and that these “se pueden transferir de una lengua a otra” (L4). Two others

affirm that an appropriate and efficient methodology can successfully combat the deficits,

limitations and barriers inherent in teaching and learning through a second language.


38

Two and a half years ago the group of lecturers were sure that a change in

methodology was required in order to teach in a second language. They were, however, very

vague on the details of this and what such a change would entail. In their responses to

question four in the March 2012 questionnaire they were very much more specific in their

answers and tended to coincide on the major features of the required methodology. The most

consistently expressed opinion is that a traditional transition model of lecture-style classes is

inadequate and that a move away from this is essential. Two respondents express this

explicitly, but most allude to it in their choice of words. The most commonly repeated

adjectives used to describe the methodology throughout the five questionnaires are “active”

and “participative”, used in four of the five. One said that learning would need to be “no tan

centrado en el professor y mucho más centrado en el alumno” (L2). Three of the five also

mention scaffolding, with one adding that this is necessary for both input and students’

output. Indeed, in the words of another participant, opportunities for student output are

considered important in this methodology in order to “potenciar las habilidades

comunicativas” (L5).

Two of the lecturers answered at length and described the methodology as they saw it

in some detail. In addition to an active and participative methodology in which scaffolding is

vital, one of them (L4) mentioned that learning must also be individualised, that the role of

the teacher was as facilitator or guide, and that cooperative learning should be a modus

operandi. She defined a methodology for bilingual education as containing strong elements

of all good teaching practice which ought to be present in teaching in the mother tongue as

well. The other lecturer (L2) highlighted the need for teachers to rely less on verbal language

and more on visual support and multi-modal input. He also emphasised the importance of

taking into account and catering for different learner styles and multiple intelligences, and

establishing “formas de evaluación que pueden recoger lo que el alumno ha aprendido sin que


39

el idioma sea una barrera para expresarlo, etc”. Both of the lecturers have had close contact

with CLIL in action. L4 is one of the two practising lecturers, while L2 is involved in a

research project designing and helping to deliver CLIL activities for art education in a

primary school. This close experience with implementing CLIL may contribute to the

confidence and specificity with which they respond to the question on methodology.

A dramatic shift can also be seen between answers supplied in question five of the

September 2009 and March 2012 questionnaires. In the first one, the lecturers focused very

much on their own situation and worries about themselves. They were concerned about their

own level of English, about the extra work teaching in English would entail and the reduction

of contents. In the March 2012 questionnaire, however, they seem to have interpreted the

same question very differently. Three of the five appear to believe in the potential of a CLIL

approach, but are concerned, not for themselves, but for how it will be put into practice in

schools. For one, without a change in approach in schools “sin modificaciones los proyectos

bilingües se convertirán en hacer lo mismo pero en otro idioma” (L1). Likewise, another

commented that “me preocupa que su implementación en los colegios, si no se hace de la

manera adecuada, puede generar una serie de perjuicios a los alumnos menos aventajados”

(L2). A third said that “me preocuparía que no se hiciera bien y que por tanto los alumnos

perdieran contenidos” (L3).

The other two lecturers continue to focus on their own circumstances. One has yet to

start teaching in English and remains concerned about what will happen if the change in

methodology is not sufficient for students to understand what they need to. The other has

been teaching in English and says that she is not worried at the moment. She said that she has

introduced many changes in her lessons, that the great majority of students had responded

well to the extra demands and that “los alumnos aprenden y desarollan las mismas


40

competencias que en castellano” (L4). She makes reference to having overcome her fears and

insecurities and seems content with the development of her classes in the bilingual

programme.

After an extended period of training spanning more than two years, it is to be

expected that what the lecturers perceive as their continuing training needs are very different

from their initial needs. In question six of the March 2012 questionnaire these needs fell into

four main categories. The first of these was the need for specific training, teaching resources,

activities or strategies for individual subject areas that lecturers teach, as mentioned by two

lecturers. They felt that, in the words of one, they have an idea of what CLIL involves and

general ideas and models, but need a subject-specific range of activities. Two other lecturers

would like to continue developing their English language skills, although one refers to this as

“estrategias comunicativas” rather than simply language level. A further aspect which was

valued as a very positive part of the experience was that of sharing experiences with

colleagues. Two participants saw the opportunity to do this as being more important than

further methodological training. The last suggestion by one respondent was rather than

receive further training to undertake action research both with his own students and in

bilingual schools.

Discussion

It is possible to make several inferences regarding the general beliefs of the five

lecturers from their responses contained in the September 2009 questionnaire. One of the first

things I noticed was that, both explicitly and implicitly through the language they used to talk

about bilingual education, or in fact education in general, a reliance on a transmission model

of education was strongly suggested. This is an important indicator of epistemological


41

beliefs. If a teacher sees their role as transmitting contents or knowledge to students, then this

must be based on the notion of the source of knowledge acquisition coming from experts as

opposed to being socially constructed, in Bustos Flores’ terms (2000). Likewise, in terms of

the control of knowledge acquisition, this is indicative of an epistemological view of

knowledge as an entity, something which can be transferred from one to another. An

important question to consider is from where do these beliefs originate?

The five lecturers teach in a teacher training college. Not only are they aware of the

theories of education of Bruner, Piaget and Vygotsky, constructivism, cooperative and

collaborative learning and so on, but they also teach them in their lessons. This would seem

then to be very much at odds with the beliefs that I have inferred from their responses in the

initial questionnaire. The answer to this conundrum can perhaps be found in Bustos Flores’

ideas (2001) and Pajares’ ideas (1992). Beliefs are strongly influenced by personal

experience. As products of a university system in which the transmission model of lectures

was the dominant or perhaps only teaching mode, it makes sense that the participants in this

case study would draw upon this experience. The way they were taught is a powerful

influence on the way they teach even though it may contradict what they know in theory to be

optimal teaching practice. In some of their answers they imply that university is unlike school

because of the complexity of abstract ideas and concepts. Seemingly bilingual education

would be fine for children and adolescents, but when they get to university the content is so

complex that it needs an expert to explain it and both lecturer and student need a sufficient

command of the language in order guarantee understanding. This is evidenced in comments

at the beginning of the process in the September 2009 questionnaire such as, “habrá

conceptos que no se podrán trabajar igual” (L2), or that a change in language “puede

dificultar o limitar la adquisición de los mismos contenidos” (L4). They articulated at that

stage the worry that the teacher “no podría dar todo el tipo de contenidos que considere


42

necesarios al mismo nivel o en la misma complejidad debido al inglés” (L2), and that “el

profesor tiene que esforzarse para que los alumnos pueden comprenderle” (L5).

Given their background in education theory, it is doubtful that the lecturers would

have advocated a transmission model of teaching for primary schools, so why would they

believe it appropriate for tertiary settings? It is perhaps surprising that at the beginning of this

process they did appear to have considered it apt for university, at least in a non-bilingual

setting. Two further reasons for this can be suggested, both related to what Pajares (1992) had

to say about cultural transmission through education, schooling and enculturation. Firstly,

related to the notion of schooling, it is a curious reality the world over that whilst school

teachers are usually required to undergo an extensive period of training, university lecturers

are usually exempt from such a requirement. In the majority of cases, university lecturers

have not been taught how to teach and this case is no exception. The application form for

someone wishing to obtain an academic post at the University of Alcalá, for example,

(https://portal.uah.es/portal/page/portal/empleo/pdi/curriculum/doctor.pdf) has sections

related to research, publications, conference papers, academic qualifications and teaching

experience. It also has sections for other qualifications, courses or training, but there is no

explicit mention of any specific teaching qualification. The same is true for evaluation

procedure of ACAP for the Universities in the Autonomous Community of Madrid

(http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?c=CM_Actuaciones_FA&cid=1142435320657&idConse

jeria=1109266187254&idListConsj=1109265444710&idOrganismo=1109266227448&langu

age=es&pagename=ComunidadMadrid%2FEstructura&pid=1109265444699&sm=11092661

00977).

What lecturers tend to know and believe about teaching at university seems not to be

the result of structured, intentional training. It is largely the result of their own experience and


43

enculturation. The transmission model of lecture-style lessons, the “métodos tradicionales

caracterizados por ser muy unidireccionales, profesor-alumno”, in the words of one of the

participants, is what both lecturers and students expect to see at university. The situation is

changing with the Bologna process which stipulates that group sizes are varied with some

lessons being delivered in large groups, others in smaller seminar groups. Even so, the

division of contact time is still heavily weighted towards whole group “theoretical” sessions.

A typical subject with 6 ECTS credits has thirty hours of whole group theory lessons, fifteen

hours of half group practical lessons and three hours of small group seminars. Spaces are

being adapted for this new type of degree, but the predominant learning space in public

universities is still the lecture theatre, set up to fit in as many as 200 students often with a

stage at the front so that the lecturer can deliver the lesson. It is no wonder that this mode of

teaching persists.

With regards to the lecturers’ specific beliefs about bilingual education at the

beginning of the process, three main observations can be made based on the September 2009

questionnaire. The first of these is that the teaching and learning process will be

automatically more difficult in a second language. The second, which is clearly closely

related, is that it may be necessary, although undesirable, to reduce either the quantity or

complexity of contents when teaching through another language. The third is that a change in

methodology will be necessary, although there is less certainty about what that change would

entail. The origin of these beliefs is less clear. In part, they seem to conform to a common

sense view that both learners and teachers having fewer linguistic resources at their disposal

when using a foreign language will hinder learning. Consequently learning requires more

effort and takes longer so, in the absence of extra time to devote to learning, contents must be

reduced. These conditions, by logical extension, create a need for modification of the

methodology employed.


44

These common sense ideas, however, are likely to be reinforced by enculturation. On

both a professional and personal level, some of the lecturers have contact with stakeholders in

the various bilingual projects in schools in the Autonomous Community of Madrid. They are

to some degree exposed to the opinions of parents, teachers and even their own children

involved in those projects. Attitudes towards the bilingual projects are undoubtedly mixed.

The implementation rate has been has very fast (see Llinares & Dafouz 2010), causing

challenges and teething problems which affect attitudes towards the projects from all

quarters. There is evidence to suggest that a significant number of teachers involved in the

programmes in schools are yet to really understand bilingual education after several years

working within them and also cite a lack of resources and training (see for example

Fernández & Halbach 2011). Dobson, Pérez & Johnstone (2010) in a British Council report

also conclude that some teachers perceive the bilingual project to be inappropriate for those

pupils judged to be academically weak or those having special educational needs. In the same

report 24% of parents who responded felt that their child’s overall progress was negatively

affected by having to study through the medium of English. Although, of course, it cannot be

assumed that the lecturers in this case study were aware of this research, they are likely to be

exposed through society and the media to some of the ideas and reservations contained

within. One lecturer mentions the example of his own children and another asserts that “la

apuesta por el bilingüismo es una apuesta política”. It is a current topic and everybody is

exposed to the common concerns of the stakeholders: politicians, teachers, parents and

pupils.

Analysis of the responses to the March 2012 questionnaire reveals marked differences

when compared with the September 2009 questionnaires. The principal aim of the lecturers’

extensive training period was to equip them with the knowledge, resources and techniques so

that they would be better prepared to implement a CLIL approach to their teaching on a


45

bilingual degree programme. New knowledge, however, seems to have caused a change in

beliefs. The beliefs-knowledge distinction is a difficult one, as Pajares (1992) asserts.

Nevertheless, what the lecturers learned about CLIL seems to have caused a shift in

epistemological beliefs among the participants, at least as far as teaching at university is

concerned. They saw the need for a move away from a lecturing style towards a learner-

centred, active, participative methodology. In terms of a view of the source of knowledge

acquisition and the control of knowledge acquisition, this is very significant and is indicative

of a belief that knowledge is socially constructed and incremental rather than an entity

acquired from experts. One case in particular gives a strong sense of what others also make

implicit, that a change has occurred beyond only the domain of an approach to bilingual

teaching. One of the practising lecturers (L4) states that “he introducido muchos cambios en

mi día a día, tanto en las clases en inglés como en las que imparto en castellano”. This

represents a new perspective on teaching and learning in a university context, not merely a

new approach exclusive to teaching in another language.

A further trend worthy of mention is how the participants interpreted and responded

to question five about aspects of bilingual education that worried them. The general move

from being concerned about their own situation in the September 2009 questionnaire to later

being concerned about how successfully bilingual education is being implemented in schools

is significant. It suggests that they are no longer worried for themselves. As a result of the

training they have received, they believe and accept that with a CLIL approach bilingual

education can be successful. They are perhaps aware, however, that it has taken them two

years of training to come to that conclusion and feel sufficiently well equipped to be able to

carry it out successfully themselves. They are also aware that many teachers involved in the

bilingual schools have not had the same luxury and worry about the potentially negative


46

effects of CLIL done poorly. Their responses show that they believe in CLIL, but believe less

so in it being implemented effectively in schools.

This new stance is a very different one from their original one that can be seen in the

September 2009 questionnaire. It is also reflected in how they now define bilingual education

and perceive the objective of bilingual education. They no longer see the learning of English

as the primary goal, but rather as an added value to be gained from the teaching of subject

contents through English. They are almost unanimous in now believing that, contrary to their

initial fear, content learning can be achieved without reduction. They see that the inherent

obstacles in teaching through another language can be overcome with the application of a

strong CLIL approach. Only one lecturer maintains the idea to a degree that contents might

be reduced, but justifies this by saying that it is a question of prioritising and trimming what

is superfluous. This in itself represents a change in the belief that contents must be somehow

delivered to students and that the role of a subject is not only to learn contents, but also to

develop the competences specific to it and applicable to the wider curriculum. Reducing

contents here does not suggest a problem but an opportunity to streamline and optimise the

use of time.

Whilst beliefs are difficult to divine and must be inferred from the participants’

responses to questions, the questionnaires give a clearer idea of how their knowledge of

bilingual education has evolved. A simple comparison of the number of words used to

respond to the questions in the initial and final questionnaires suggests that they know a great

deal more about bilingual education now, which is to be expected. All but one of the lecturers

answered at greater length in the follow-up questionnaire, with the average words used

increasing from 323 in the first and 459 in the second, an increase of over 40%. Noticeably

their definitions of bilingual education and articulation of its aims are closer to the standard


47

definitions of CLIL in the March 2012 questionnaire than in the initial one. The most striking

difference, however, is in their responses to the fifth question regarding the need for

methodological change and of what that change would consist. Here they not only affirm that

a change is necessary, but also enumerate key characteristics, displaying significantly greater

knowledge. The sixth question is also very revealing in that three out of the five no longer

feel the need for external training. They feel it would be more beneficial for them at this stage

to have the opportunity to continue sharing their own ideas and experiences with their

colleagues or to undertake their own research. The other two also express the feeling that they

have a sufficient grounding in CLIL only to need specific ideas for their own particular

subject areas.

The evidence provided by the two questionnaires suggests that over the course of the

two years’ of training in CLIL there has been a change in not only knowledge, but also

beliefs amongst the participants. Given that both beliefs and teachers are seen as being highly

resistant to change, how has this change been brought about? Several favourable conditions

need to be in place in order for this to happen. Richardson (1998) argued that self-motivation

is a prerequisite for change. In this case the lecturers all volunteered to participate in the

bilingual programme and it was not something which was imposed upon them. Their

motivation for this is not clear from their responses to the questionnaire, but it would be

logical to suppose that it was for one or a combination of the reasons Guskey (2002) lists

such as a desire to continue developing as educators, take on a new challenge, or increase

professional satisfaction. As a starting point this was extremely positive. It must also be

accepted that time is essential for lasting change to happen, and this would appear to be one

of the strengths of this particular case. The first lecturer to start teaching in the bilingual

programme began methodological training a year before she started to teach in English. The


48

second had a year and a half and the other three will have been afforded between three and

three and a half years before they start.

The period of teacher development undertaken by the participants conforms more to

Richardson’s (1998) reflective, collaborative model than the contrasting deficit model. There

was no initial assumption that something was wrong that needed to be fixed. The bilingual

project was an opportunity for a new challenge, an innovation. The lecturers were required

only to concede that they would need new tools with which to face a new educational

context, not admit that what they were doing in their present context was in any way faulty.

Psychologically this is quite different and is more likely to facilitate change. The participants

have been provided with opportunities to collaborate, reflect upon their practices and share

their ideas and experiences. It is noteworthy that in question six of the second questionnaire

they express a desire to continue in this vein, reflecting, collaborating, as Richardson (1998)

suggests, in an on-going process of development which extends beyond the original scope of

the training.

As yet, only two of the participants have started teaching through English and as such

are the only ones who have had the opportunity to experiment in their own lessons and reflect

upon the results. This is an important element for change according to Guskey (2002), who

asserts that teachers seldom become committed to a new approach until they have seen it

work. This does not seem to be the case here, however. Certainly it is one of the lecturers

already teaching through English with a CLIL methodology who appears to be most

convinced when she states that her students in the bilingual programme are developing the

competences as well as her students in the Spanish programme. Otherwise, it is difficult to

distinguish between the participants and they all express commitment to the bilingual

programme and a CLIL approach. Perhaps they believe in it precisely because they have not


49

yet had the opportunity to experiment and finally confirm or refute their beliefs. Whether or

not that will change remains to be seen and the implementation of CLIL will be the defining

moment for them.

In spite of the evident strengths of the training programme, there is one area in which

there seems to be no perceptible change in teachers’ beliefs. This is the element of cognition

in CLIL. Cognition is not mentioned by any of the lecturers in the September 2009

questionnaires, making it the only one of the four Cs not alluded to. Content, communication

and culture are all mentioned in the March 2012 questionnaire too, but cognition still remains

notably absent. Taking into account the extent of the training received, it is perhaps surprising

that there has been such little impact on teachers’ beliefs regarding cognition when other

aspects do seem to have been affected. It may well suggest that beliefs related to thinking and

how learners think are more resistant to change than beliefs about the nature of knowledge

and how it is created. This is not to say necessarily that change in beliefs about cognition

have not taken place here, but I have detected no evidence of it in the data collected and

analysed, which possibly suggests that there is little change, if any. The lecturers considered

knowledge and skills to be important, yet cognition did not even merit a mention.

CONCLUSIONS

The original purpose of this study was not to assess the efficacy of the

extended period of training in CLIL for the group of lecturers. Nevertheless, amongst other

things, the data does provide insights into the success of the training programme. The

participants have evolved in terms of their understanding of bilingual education, what it

consists of and what its objectives are. In terms of increasing the lecturers’ knowledge of the

CLIL approach and providing them with the tools with which to teach through English on the


50

bilingual degree programme, the training period can be deemed an overall success. The

increase in knowledge, however, has also been a catalyst for further, perhaps even more

significant change. There is evidence in this study of a change in beliefs about how

knowledge is acquired as a result of an increase in knowledge and change in attitudes. Whilst

this may seem a bold assertion, I would argue that it is not surprising given the circumstances

of this specific case. Very favourable conditions for teacher change were created. Lecturers

volunteered for the programme, time has been on their side with a long and comprehensive

training period, they were given opportunities to reflect and collaborate, and, in two of the

five cases, experiment and put into practice what they had learned.

Beliefs are characterised by being difficult to access and any expression or

interpretation of them cannot be trusted entirely. Herein lie both the strengths and weaknesses

of this study. The questionnaires did not pose specific questions about beliefs; they did not

explicitly solicit responses about the beliefs of the participants. As a consequence, it could be

argued that they were not entirely efficient as instruments of data collection and did not yield

as much data as might have been possible. Questions could have been more specific and

explicit and other data collection methods such as interviews and direct observation of the

two practising bilingual teachers could have been used in the interests of triangulation. The

benefit of using the questionnaires, however, was in how they allowed a very neat

comparison. By not explicitly asking for expressions of underlying epistemological beliefs,

the respondents were not ‘on their guard’ and the factor of responding with what they thought

they ought to respond was reduced. Any conclusions regarding beliefs in this study are based

then on what can be inferred from their responses often based on what was unconsciously

revealing semantically.


51

Further limitations of the study are those often inherent in qualitative research. It is

clear that the sample size is small and the generalizability of the findings low. This is

certainly a very idiosyncratic case study based on the responses of only five participants, but

it may provide insights into similar cases. With an increase in Spanish universities offering a

bilingual itinerary in their degree courses, this case will likely become one of many which

share similar features. Additionally, in such small-scale qualitative research the role of the

researcher is sometimes questioned for their personal biases and idiosyncrasies, (Dörnyei

2007). Certainly I have been very close to the bilingual project and the participants, which

may have led to some unintentional subjectivity in analysing and reporting the results of the

data. Analysis has been quite in-depth, however, and it is hoped that another researcher not so

closely connected to the project would also arrive at similar conclusions by applying the same

methods of analysis.

One of the strengths of such research is that it can be a good starting point from which

to generate further lines of research or plans of action. In terms of further research, there are

several logical extensions of this study which could provide meaningful results. The five

participants in this study form only one part of the bilingual project at the university and even

they are not entirely homogeneous given that two have started teaching in English and three

have not. There are several other teachers who became involved at a later stage who have

already started teaching in English because of the demands of the degree curriculum. They

have less training in CLIL, but currently more hands-on experience. A comparative study of

these lecturers taking much more into account their individual profiles could potentially be

very revealing. A more in-depth study using personal diaries and observation of the three

lecturers from the point when they begin teaching in English would also highlight how they

develop from the defining moment of putting theory into practice. Other universities are

employing different models when implementing bilingual itineraries, which would make


52

comparative studies rather pertinent. Some offer more limited methodological training to the

participating lecturers, others language training, others no training at all. In some universities

lecturers volunteer to participate, in others the come under some pressure to do so,

particularly if it is known that their level of English is high. This study could well form part

of a much wider body of research in the future.

An important area which certainly merits further research in the light of this study is

that of teachers’ beliefs with respect to cognition. The benefit to the development of thinking

skills is the added value of CLIL and a powerful argument in favour of its adoption as an

approach. CLIL will be a greater success at tertiary level if the benefits to cognition are

recognised and potentiated. This study reveals that teachers’ beliefs about cognition appear

more resistant to change than other beliefs, which suggests that this is a theme worthy of

attention. The questions of why beliefs about cognition are less susceptible to change and

how to bring about change in those beliefs are significant.

Conclusions to this research would not be complete without a mention of how the

participants themselves might benefit from having taken part in it. Future training might

focus on developing the aspect of cognition as this seems to lag behind other aspects. The

lecturers between them also called for provision of specific ideas related to their own

particular subject fields, the opportunity to continue collaborating and sharing ideas and

experiences with their colleagues, and the chance to conduct action research. Given the

successes of the bilingual project thus far, the lecturers’ appreciation of their future training

and development needs should be trusted. It would be wise to facilitate these steps so that

they may build upon the solid foundation which has been created through this reflective,

collaborative model.


53

REFERENCES

Baker, C. (1997). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Avon, England: Multilingual Matters

Ball, P. (2009a). What is CLIL? Available from http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/articles/article-what-is-clil/500453.article

Ball, P. (2009b). Defining CLIL parameters? Available from http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/articles/article-defining-clil-parameters/550513.article

Ball, P. (2009c). How do you know if you’re practising CLIL? Available from http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/articles/article-how-do-you-know-if-youre-practising-clil/500614.article

Boletín Oficial de la Comunidad de Madrid (2011). Número 17. Available from http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urlordenpdf&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=CM_Orden_BOCM&blobwhere=1142628228755&ssbinary=true

Brownlee, J. & Purdie, N. (2001). Changing epistemological beliefs in pre-service teacher education students. Teaching in Higher Education 6 (2): 247-268.

Bustos Flores, B. (2000). Using an Epistemological Framework to Explore a Bilingual Teacher’s Beliefs and Practices. Diversity Studies. Available from http://www.2cyberwhelm.org/archive/diversity/unders/pdf/teacher.pdf

Bustos Flores, B. (2001). Bilingual Education Teachers’ Beliefs and their Relation to Self-reported Practices. Bilingual Research Journal, 25 (3); 275-299. Available from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8965917/Bilingual-Education-TeachersBeliefs-and-Their-Relation-to-Self

Clark, E.R. & Pérez, B. (1995). Preparing teachers for south Texas programs, practices and processes. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Clegg, J. (2009). Education through a Second Language: Conditions for success. Hill, D.A. & Pulverness, A. (eds). The Best of Both Worlds? International Perspectives on CLIL. Norwich: NILE: 10-31

Colegios Bilingües de la Comunidad de Madrid Syllabus. Available from http://www.educa.madrid.org/web/cp.victorjara.fuenlabrada/files/syllabusbinguemadrid.pdf

Coyle, D. (2002) ‘Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission’s Language Learning Objectives’. Marsh, D. (ed) (2001). CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension. Jyväskylä: UniCOM: 27-29

Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dalton, S.S. (1998) Pedagogy Matters: Standards for Effective Teaching Practice. Retrieved October 17, 2001 from http://www.cal.org/crede/pubs/research/RR4.pdf

Dobson, A., Pérez, M.D. & Johnstone, R. (2010). Bilingual Education Project in Spain: Evaluation Report. Madrid: British Council.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


54

Dörnyei, Z. & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in Second Language Research. New York: Routledge.

European Commission, (2003) Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An action plan 2004-2006. Brussels

EURYDICE Content and Language Integrated Learning at School in Europe. (2006) Available from http://ec.europa.eu/languages/documents/studies/clil-at-school-in-europe_en.pdf

Fernández, R. & Halbach, A. (2011). Analysing the Situation of Teachers in the Madrid Autonomous Community Bilingual Project. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J.M. & Gallardo del Puerto, F. (eds.) Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang: 241-270.

Greeno, J.G. (1989). A Perspective on Thinking. American Psychologists, 44 (2): 131-141

Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional Development and Teacher Change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8 (3/4): 381-391.

Llinares, A. & Dafouz, E. (2010) Content and Language Integrated Programmes in the Madrid Region: Overview and research findings. Lasagabaster, D & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (eds.) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 95-114.

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. & Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Oxford: Macmillan

Mehisto, P. (2009) Exploring CLIL. Available from http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/methodology/articles/article-exploring-clil/500470.article

Maljiers, A., Marsh, D. & Wolff, D. (eds.) (2007). Windows on CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in the European Spotlight. Alkmaar: European Platform for Dutch Education.

Meyer, L. (1988). Research on implementation: What seems to work. In S. J. Samuels & P. D. Pearson (eds.), Changing School Reading Programs (pp. 41-57). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Meyer, O. (2010). Towards Quality CLIL: Successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso, 33: 11-29.

Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of educational research, 62 (3): 307-332.

Pena Díaz, C. & Porto Requejo, M.D. (2008). Teacher Beliefs in a CLIL Education Project. Porta Linguarum 10: 151-161.

Perry, W.G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Richardson, V. (1998). How Teachers Change. Focus on Basics: Connecting research and practice, 2 (C). Available from http://www.ncsall.net/?id=395

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass


55

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (3), 498-504.

Van de Craen, P., Mondt, K., Allain, L. & Gao, Y. (2007). How and why CLIL works. An outline for a CLIL theory. Vienna English working papers, 16 (3): 70-78 Available from http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/Views_0703.pdf

Woods, D. (1996). Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press


56

APPENDIX

Questionnaire One

Cuestionario previo al comienzo de la formación – septiembre 2009 Datos básicos Área en la que impartes tu docencia: ¿Cuántos años llevas ejerciendo la enseñanza? ¿Has tenido contacto con algún proyecto de enseñanza bilingüe con

anterioridad? � Sí � No En caso afirmativo, ¿puedes explicar en qué consistió el contacto?: __________________

Cuestión 1: ¿Cómo definirías la enseñanza bilingüe? ¿En qué consiste?

Cuestión 2: Según tu opinión, ¿cuál es el objetivo de este tipo de enseñanza?

Cuestión 3: ¿Crees que es posible aprender los mismos contenidos en lengua extranjera que mediante la lengua materna? ¿Por qué?

Cuestión 4: ¿Crees que enseñar a través de otra lengua implica un cambio metodológico? En caso afirmativo, ¿en qué consiste este cambio y por qué es necesario?

Cuestión 5: ¿Hay algún aspecto de la enseñanza bilingüe que te preocupa?

Cuestión 6: ¿Qué esperas de la formación que vas a recibir en relación con la enseñanza bilingüe? ¿Qué preguntas y/o necesidades te gustaría que resolviera?


57

Questionnaire Two

Cuestionario de la formación marzo 2012 Datos básicos Área en la que impartes tu docencia: ¿Cuántos años llevas ejerciendo la enseñanza? ¿Ya has dado clase en el proyecto bilingüe?

� Sí � No

Cuestión 1: ¿Cómo definirías la enseñanza bilingüe? ¿En qué consiste?

Cuestión 2: Según tu opinión, ¿cuál es el objetivo de este tipo de enseñanza?

Cuestión 3: ¿Crees que es posible aprender los mismos contenidos en lengua extranjera que mediante la lengua materna? ¿Por qué?

Cuestión 4: ¿Crees que enseñar a través de otra lengua implica un cambio metodológico? En caso afirmativo, ¿en qué consiste este cambio y por qué es necesario?

Cuestión 5: ¿Hay algún aspecto de la enseñanza bilingüe que te preocupa?

Cuestión 6: ¿Crees que todavía necesitas más formación? Qué formación te gustaría recibir en el futuro en relación con la enseñanza bilingüe? ¿Qué preguntas y/o necesidades te gustaría que resolviera?

Bilingual Degree Teachers' Beliefs: A Case Study in a Tertiary Setting

Documents

Transcript of Bilingual Degree Teachers' Beliefs: A Case Study in a Tertiary Setting