Implementing a content and language integrated learning program in New South Wales primary schools: teachers' perceptions of the challenges and opportunities.
Fielding, Ruth ; Harbon, Lesley
ABSTRACT
In 2009, the then State Minister for Education in New South Wales, Verity Firth, announced a plan to introduce bilingual education in four primary schools across the state for the National Asian Languages and Studies in School Program (NALSSP) priority languages: Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean. This paper reports on one aspect of a larger project undertaken by the researchers to examine how the schools, teachers, parents and children in the four schools experienced the implementation of this program and how they viewed the success or otherwise of the program at the end of the first two years of policy implementation. This paper focuses on reporting the perceptions of teachers (the bilingual teachers themselves, the support (classroom and assistant) teachers and senior executive teachers at each school) in relation to the implementation of this innovative and challenging model of languages education in the Australian context. The findings indicate that implementation of such programs is challenging, and that to succeed teachers need support to collaboratively plan, to develop their understandings of bilingual styles of teaching, and that a whole school approach to such a program facilitates smoother implementation.
KEY WORDS
CLIL, language teaching, language learning, primary languages education, accomplished teaching of languages and cultures
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
CONTEXT
In 2009, the then State Minister for Education in New South Wales, Verity Firth, announced a plan to Introduce bilingual education in four primary schools in NSW for the NALSSP priority languages: Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean. This paper reports one set of data from the larger project undertaken by the researchers to examine how the schools, teachers, parents and children involved experienced the implementation of this program and how they viewed the success or otherwise of the program after two years. This paper focuses on reporting the perceptions of teachers (the bilingual teachers themselves, the support teachers and senior executive teachers at each school) in relation to the implementation of this Innovative and challenging model of languages education for the Australian context.
After a call for expressions of interest was released by the then Department of Education and Training NSW, four schools were selected to implement what were termed 'bilingual programs', one In each of the four specified priority languages in four different schools (see http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/secondary/languages/bilingual/index.htm and http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/nalssp/ for further information).
One of the criteria outlined in the parameters for program implementation was that the language to be taught was not intended to be a language maintenance program (that is, a program which enables students to maintain their skills in a language which Is spoken at home) or heritage language program (that is, a language deemed as part of the student's background and which was the medium of some formal schooling prior to living in Australia). Rather, the bilingual programs in the four schools were intended to be taught through a second language program model for second language learners (ACARA, 2011, p. 21). Second language learners are those who are introduced to learning the target language at school as an additional, new language for them. The first language used before they start school and/or the language they use at home is not the target language.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Such programs add a new language for all (or most) students in the program. The programs were therefore intended to be potentially open to any student enrolled, and to increase the pool of students learning and using an additional language.
In each school there was a very short time between notification of selection for the program (September 2009) and the first class starting (late January 2010). Schools had to plan immediately for the new Kindergarten (for most students, the initial year of schooling) and Year 1 (for most students, the second year of schooling) intakes for the bilingual program streams.
A recruitment process was initiated to appoint bilingual teachers for each school program. In some cases this was a language teacher already working in the school. In other cases new teachers were recruited through regular recruitment processes. In one school the initial round of recruitment did not find a suitable teacher and a second call for applicants occurred, resulting In the employment of a bilingual teacher. The Implementation plan, with the necessary staffing funding committed to by the Department, was for the new K-1 class to continue as a bilingual stream through to Year 6, so that after completion of six years of participating In the bilingual program, there would be a stream of bilingual classes across all year groups in the school (see http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/secondary/languages/bilingual/index.htm for further information).
In early 2010 each school was to be provided with one full-time bilingual teacher and one volunteer/part-time language assistant or native speaker to teach in the Kindergarten and Year 1 classes. In reality, implementation meant a more flexible and creative staffing solution. Sourcing the bilingual teachers proved more challenging in some schools and for some languages. Similarly, ensuring there were native speaker assistants was not always possible, and so some schools had periods where only the bilingual teacher was present. Thus implementation took place In different ways according to the availability of staff, the size and location of the schools, and the development of resources. During the first half of the first year of implementation of policy, staffing needs were eventually met.
BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND THE AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT
BILINGUAL EDUCATION
Bilingual education has been examined in detail in a number of contexts, most notably Canada and the US. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) bilingual programs have seen particular focus in the European context (see, for example, Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013). In general, bilingual education programs are understood to have either 'strong' or 'weak' aims, depending upon whether they aim to add a language to the student's existing repertoire or whether the program will ultimately seek to transfer the student Into studying only in the dominant language of the society (see Baker, 2012 for a full exploration of the terms 'weak' and 'strong' in relation to bilingual education).
On the whole, the programs that are generally considered to be 'strong' are those that add an additional language without detriment to students' existing languages, such as in immersion programs (Baker, 2012; Garcia, 2009; Swain & Johnson, 1997). 'Submersion' and 'transitional' programs are considered to be 'weak' programs as they enable a student to use two languages in the early years of the program and then gradually remove the home or heritage language to leave only the dominant language of the schooling context (Baker, 2012; Garcia, 2009).
BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN AUSTRALIA
Bilingual education is not widespread in Australia. The programs that are in place differ from school to school as they have each developed in different circumstances and as a result of different initiatives or have been developed as one off individual programs. Types of bilingual programs include transitional, enrichment and full bilingual programs (Jones-Diaz, 2013). It is here that we emphasise that our study neither looks at transitional programs (where children move through learning programs solely in the common language of the classroom), nor enrichment programs (where children's first heritage language Is maintained for a period). Rather we examine programs that involve development of the two languages in parallel (Jones-Diaz, 2013, p. 5). These programs are also sometimes termed 'partial Immersion', 'dual language' or 'content and language Integrated learning' (CLIL) programs, where nominated subjects are taught in each language (Mehlsto, Frigols & Marsh, 2008).
A 2002 study examining immersion programs In Australia reported that there were 49 primary level, and 14 secondary level 'Immersion' programs in operation across Australia--these were classified as programs which delivered language learning In an Immersion style to students who generally spoke English at home (de Courcy, 2002). This count Included only language programs that could claim that more than 50% of the classroom instruction and learning was undertaken In the immersion language (de Courcy, 2002). Other Australian research has identified approximately 50 schools In Australia that have Immersion programs (Moloney, 2008), and may not be accessible to students from minority language backgrounds, thus other program types cater to those specific needs.
Interestingly, these statistics cited above are embedded in a wider Australian society context where, especially in the larger cities and centres of highest population numbers, bilingualism Itself (either in the home or In the community) Is relatively common for Australian citizens (see Sims and Ellis, this issue, for discussion of bilingualism in regional communities In Australia). One might presume, therefore, that bilingual education might be important to governments In Australia. While census data show that many people live bilingually In New South Wales (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2006) not all children are offered access to an additional language program in their school, let alone a bilingual program. The perception Is that the curriculum Is crowded, with schools either not offering languages programs at all, or offering Implementation models that do not allow all students equal access to this learning of/through an additional language.
Data from a previous study support such perceptions (Harbon & Fielding, 2011). Pre-service teachers reported on models of implementation they found in primary schools during their school experience sessions. Schools offered 'language experience' through mention of culture links In the Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE) curriculum, or limited exposure (such as 30 minutes per week study of an additional language), all the way up to full language learning programs with daily lessons through the K-6 continuum (Harbon & Fielding, 2011).
Bilingual programs using the CLIL model are seen as one means of addressing the crowded curriculum barrier to Implementing language programs in primary schools. Programs that enable the learning of language to take place at the same time as content learning do not always require additional teaching time allocation In the timetable, although they do require additional allocation of teacher planning time as well as extra resources.
The tenuous nature of many bilingual programs both in Australia and in other countries around the world has been attributed, in many cases, to implementation via 'weak' models of implementation (Cummins, 1996; 2000; 2003), which have involved students' home languages removed from the educational setting (noted by Jones-Diaz In 2013 as 'subtractive' and marginalising children from bilingual homes), thereby aiming eventually for children's literacy development in the common language of the classroom. Recently, however, In the Australian context, Victoria and New South Wales have implemented a number of strong (or 'additive') bilingual programs (Fielding, 2009, 2011, 2013; Harbon & Fielding, 2013; Jones-Diaz, 2013), where the aim of the curriculum Is to see children develop as bilingual and biliterate. As some of these strong models have been a guide for implementation of the four recently created New South Wales models, the expectation has been that the new programs will also exhibit strong program characteristics.
It is important to explore strong language programs In today's multilingual and multicultural Australian society. In strong programs we see students develop language skills, intercultural awareness and first and additional language literacy skills through their engagement with another language (Fielding, 2009, 2011, 2013; Fielding & Harbon, 2013; Harbon & Fielding, 2011, 2013; Jones-Diaz, 2013; Molyneux, 2005; Turner, 2013; Wiltshire & Harbon, 2010). Evidence shows that language learning and the metalinguistic awareness developed through language learning can enhance students' development of literacy skills in English and any other languages In which they have a background (Blalystok, 2002; Fielding, 2012; Hamers & Blanc, 2000).
CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) can be seen to fit under the umbrella of 'strong' bilingual programs. CLIL is often compared to 'immersion' learning, but is argued by some to differ from immersion because there is no minimum number of hours per week required in the new language in a CLIL program, whereas immersion Ideally takes place for at least 50% of learning time. CLIL learning is where the content of any learning area is taught through the medium of another language, for example Geography being taught through French (Coyle, 2007, 2013; Mehisto, Frigols and Marsh, 2008).
CLIL has been adopted in a number of countries as a model of delivering sustained and meaningful language education because at the same time CLIL programs deliver subject area content. This approach has been embraced most strongly In Europe. It is seen by teachers as a pedagogy that is practical in terms of time allocation (Ioannou Georgiou, 2012). Belgium, Estonia and Malta report the most use of CLIL within Europe (where English is the additional language), indicating that CLIL is the basis of over 30% of their school language profiles (European Commission, 2012).
In Germany, CLIL models have been Identified since 2005 and a review of these indicates that students in CLIL programs have very strong writing skills in German and English, with at least equal competence and achievement in subject area content compared to non-CLIL groups of students (Finkbeiner, Olsen & Friedrich, 2013). Research in European CLIL programs has shown that program goals, teacher motivation, teacher training and professional learning, levels of stakeholder collaboration, and access to teaching and learning materials all differ greatly and thereby impact school offerings (Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013; de Zarobe, 2013). A study of CLIL programs in Poland has revealed that the models vary, depending upon (i) the amount of second language used by both teachers and students, (ii) the particular focus of the subject content (iii) the teacher's pedagogy, and (iv) differences in students' motivations and learning styles (Czura & Papaja, 2013). It has been shown to be crucial to explore the pedagogy of individual teachers particularly when more than one adult is present in the classroom (Cummins, Early, Leoni, & Stille, 2011; Dafouz & Hibler, 2013). It has also been emphasised that it is essential to look at individual contexts when exploring CLIL programs (Turner, 2013).
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
It therefore has been extremely important to support and document the implementation of these four CLIL programs in NSW which might serve as models for future implementation of languages education throughout the primary years, address concerns about crowded curricula, and improve literacy outcomes for all students.
METHOD AND DATA COLLECTION
A multiple case study research design was used to capture data across four different primary schools. We collected data during a two year period: as the students entered Year 2 in 2011, and through to Year 3 in 2012. The aim was to capture the perceptions of key stakeholders involved in the bilingual programs in these four schools: the teachers, parents, students and leadership teams (principals and their senior executive staff). As no formal evaluation of the program was planned by the department itself, we sought to undertake this research to gather an initial set of data which would enable further comparison in the future and could act as an initial snapshot of the implementation.
In the wider project, data were gathered using questionnaires, interviews and focus groups to obtain all stakeholders' perceptions about initial implementation and challenges. We also observed lessons in all of the schools to gain first-hand experience of the teaching in practice for ourselves, so that we would more fully understand stakeholders' comments about the programs. In the questionnaire there were opportunities to supply fixed and open responses to each of the questions seeking perceptions about the model of implementation, the bilingual teachers, the teaching and learning, their own support and involvement as well as what they, as stakeholders, perceived was needed to support the program for the future.
For the data reported here, the bilingual teachers, the support teachers and senior executive teachers at each school responded to the questionnaire. The questionnaire included 5 point Likert item statements and open-ended response sections. The teachers chose whether or not to elaborate their responses in the open-ended sections.
In this paper we report on our analysis of the questionnaire and focus group/ interview data from teachers in the schools, about their perceptions of the way the implementation of the program had taken place and their perceptions about the program itself. Each set of data gathered through the research instruments was thematically analysed using a grounded approach and content analysis. This means that themes emerged both from the data through the participants' own words, and from the existing literature on CLIL. Table 1, below, summarises these data, indicating that a total of 55 teachers across the four schools completed questionnaires and/or focus groups/interviews.
TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE PROGRAM
The question framing this paper is: What are the teachers' perceptions of the first three years of implementation of the Bilingual Schools Project?
We begin reporting the teachers' perceptions with an initial statement about terminology. A key definition of CLIL was provided to and agreed by stakeholders as representing the programs in their schools:
In short, CLIL is a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language (p. 11). The CLIL strategy, above all, involves using a language that is not a student's native language as a medium of instruction and learning ... Language teachers in CLIL programmes play a unique role. In addition to teaching the standard curriculum, they work to support content teachers by helping students to gain the language needed to manipulate content from other subjects (Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008, p. 9).
This definition has therefore been used for the purposes of both researchers and participants having a shared understanding of CLIL. The responses were identified as fitting into six broad themes: the positive aspects of implementation; the teaching within the CLIL classrooms; the learning outcomes; teacher collaboration; the negative aspects of implementation; and suggestions for improvement.
TEACHERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE POSITIVE ELEMENTS OF IMPLEMENTATION
Comments made by various teachers directly involved with the CLIL program indicated that the program was a positive experience for students. Within the theme of the positive elements of implementation, teachers mentioned the particular benefits for schools in isolated areas that a CLIL-style program offers:
Like its amazing because we're ... this is ... we're very, very isolated from, different cultures, here.... so it's like ... It's like winning the lottery ... it's just WOW! (Classroom assistant volunteer, School 1).
Teachers also indicated the learning outcomes they observe in their students as well as the advantage that such learning gives these students over others:
students demonstrate the ability to read, write, speak and perform in [language] (Anonymous questionnaire, open response)
As a LOTE teacher rather than classroom teacher, I can only comment on the students' language proficiency--which is astounding. The fluency of the infant pupils under the bilingual program far surpasses that of the Yr 6 students who have learnt LOTE language 1 day/week for the past 6 years. (Open Comment, Questionnaire)
I think that most, no not most, a great proportion of the school are already bilingual when they come here. And that providing them with another language is a great opportunity for both them and the children that don't have a second language.
I think that in some ways, the children that are mono-languaged [sic.] are a bit disadvantaged. (Classroom teacher, Focus Group, School 2)
Some teachers indicated the learning strategies they see children developing in the program:
... by experiencing the bilingual situation, children can develop their skills for communication ... and also the learning strategies for the second language ... Students can apply those strategies for communicating with people who do not speak their own language. (Bilingual teacher, Focus Group School 2)
We are getting so much good feedback and so much interest from the parents, that there's no Issue about filling the classes at all. In fact, for next year, we're almost up to 27 for Kinder... They are grabbing the content and [our Bilingual Teacher] can tell you stories of kids who have got the whole Idea of solar energy in Korean and yet they can explain It to you In English as well. (Early Childhood teacher, Focus Group, School 3)
... you know, the brain is like that much, but if they can expand. So there's strategy learned from other parts from other language, so they can apply from each other. It's not about the language, it's about the strategy they learn so they are more ... how can I say that ... I think they are more intelligent. And they work harder as well. (Bilingual Teacher 2, Focus Group, School 4)
There was also acknowledgement of the positive advantage that an early start to language learning offers to the children:
I think bilingual education is fantastic and the earlier you start, the better it is. I know there is a lot of research now as well that shows the benefits of being bilingual and there's a lot more grey matter in the brain, and it really leads to other parts, like problem solving. (Bilingual Teacher 2, School 3)
I believe that to be fluent in another language bilingual is the best way, even though it's not the only way. LOTE, learning languages as a subject will take many, many years and also it will take a really long time and therefore forget easily. And bilingual education is not only for the language influence but also for the intellectual and social and intercultural and to be a global citizen. Now as you can see it's like a global village. So I think it's really vital, really beneficial for the students to be bilingual and they have the chance. (Bilingual Teacher 1, Focus Group, School 4)
At School 4, one of the CLIL teachers reported her belief that the students develop much stronger thinking skills in addition to meeting outcomes. She commented:
I think they think about their thinking more. Once they know how to acquire and compare different languages ... 'cause I have the little ones. They think about thinking, they think about 'what am I trying to say', they try to guess it, and they talk to their peers. They think a lot about, a lot more about languages and they compare language a lot more, and once they get older they're a lot more used to acquiring different languages and I find that they think differently from the LOTE children that I teach. (School 4, Classroom Teacher)
This response indicates that for School 4, particular school teachers outside of the bilingual program can see students' learning outcomes. The anonymity of the questionnaire responses does not enable us to ascertain in all cases which teacher (bilingual teacher, support (classroom or assistant) teacher, senior executive teacher) provided which type of response. However, the focus groups and interview comments enable some of these perceptions to be attributed to either bilingual teachers or classroom teachers.
COMMENTS ON THE TEACHING IN THE CLIL CLASSROOMS
There were a number of comments indicating the types of positive perceptions teachers have about their colleagues' teaching.
our teacher ... is unreal (Classroom assistant volunteer, interview, School 1)
Our bilingual teacher's methods and attitude blend perfectly with our school culture and our principal has been incredibly enthusiastic about the bilingual program (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
[we are] very lucky to have [the] bilingual teacher. She's amazing. (Classroom teacher, interview, School 1)
In this third year of the program she is doing an excellent job ... so lucky to have such an enthusiastic, talented, devoted and positive person to run the bilingual program. She is a great asset to our school and I thoroughly enjoy planning classes and performances with her. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Teachers working together was praised as a model, indicating that where positive comments came through there is also a possible link to good levels of teacher collaboration in those settings:
Before we had our two native speakers as classroom teachers and they worked so well with [current CLIL teacher]. It was just so fluid and easy. [Early childhood teacher, Focus Group, School 3)
A number of teachers made comments about the CLIL teachers' classroom management and we can see therefore an associated need for the support of new and recently qualified teachers:
Classroom management skills are still developing. [Teacher] works very hard to manage the program and deliver it to the children. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Each bilingual teacher has their own strengths--some are more accomplished than others. They work hard, putting time into lesson preparation. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
I believe my daughter's progressed really a lot, I think [teacher]'s teaching is working. (Assistant teacher, Interview, School 3)
We can see here a variety of perceptions about how the classes are running, with some perceptions from a range of teachers and executive staff that the teaching is accomplished.
COMMENTS ON THE LEARNING OUTCOMES AND ENGAGEMENT
The open responses to the questionnaire indicated agreement that students appear to be achieving intended learning outcomes.
My students are very good at Japanese. They are writing now too. Outcomes achieved by majority rather rapidly. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Students who have learnt from kindergarten are understanding most of the content. It surprises how accomplished they have become in year 2. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Due to team planning all outcomes are achieved. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
It's fun and exciting for them. They learn relevant things that are useful. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
All children are involved in lessons and participate. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
The majority of students in most classes are engaged learners during Japanese. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Within a related sub-theme, engagement was shown to differ with teachers reporting that students are fully engaged in some instances and less engaged in other instances.
As a support teacher I observe lessons when walking past classrooms or when I'm teaching near a bilingual class--generally the students are fully engaged In the lesson, they enjoyed the lesson and learn a lot in the lessons. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Yes they are motivated. And the passion. They want to learn. That's why I think the skills, the attitude, the learning attitude, how working attitude, they will apply to the other subjects as well. (Bilingual teacher, interview, School 4)
I see many students struggling with the content. The students aren't always inspired by the learning experiences ... My understanding of students' learning would suggest that only certain learners will benefit from this program. Many students with different learning styles or from different backgrounds may be negatively impacted by the immersion program. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
In the closed response section, when responding to whether students are 'engaged' in the bilingual program, more than half of the teacher respondents provided a 'neutral' response. They were equally undecided about whether students know a lot about language or language learning per se as a result of their participation in the bilingual program. This, in our opinion, appears to reflect the amount of knowledge (or lack of it) that teachers outside the program may have about the program and whether they have seen any teaching within the program. We would like to explore this more fully in a future set of interviews, with a view to making recommendations about preparing all teachers in a school for the introduction of a bilingual program.
However, open questionnaire comments indicated much more strongly that positive outcomes were perceived and visible in the programs:
The fluency of the bilingual students is proof of the program's success. The fact that they have attained this fluency and have excellent pronunciation, despite our teacher's non-native background, is testament to her dedication and hard work. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
As a LOTE teacher rather than classroom teacher, I can only comment on the students' language proficiency--which is astounding. The fluency of the infant pupils under the bilingual program far surpasses that of the Year 6 students who have learnt LOTE Indonesian 1 day/week for the past 6 years. They also display a high enthusiasm for Indonesian language and culture ... they can contextualise their language learning--relate it to reality rather than just theory. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
The children can describe and explain in both Mandarin and English. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
My students are very good at Japanese. They are writing now too. Outcomes achieved by majority rather rapidly. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Students who have learnt from kindergarten are understanding most of the content. It surprises how accomplished they have become in year 2. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Due to team planning all outcomes are achieved. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
It appears that both enjoyment and engagement seem to be linked for these teachers, to the achievement of outcomes in the language. Teachers indicate that their students enjoy learning and also are achieving We might extrapolate that high expectations and achievement of outcomes therefore can be seen as linked to the students' enjoyment and engagement in the programs.
COMMENTS ABOUT TEACHERS' COLLABORATION
Teachers' perceptions as to whether classroom teachers and CLIL teachers collaborate in their planning were mixed. There were comments that indicated some teachers did not feel involved in the delivery of the program. Comments gathered for this questionnaire item which illustrate these differing responses are:
We plan together to ensure outcomes are reached. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
We do work as a team. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Some planning is done at the beginning of the term. Discussion about the delivery of the lessons is regular. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
They do what they can and I fill in the blanks, e often evaluate and assess and plan informally together. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Our recent planning time worked well but there has been little time to plan together. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
We plan lessons and programs together. This is very time consuming when we are already 'time poor' in our school. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
When on BL program/class, a great deal of time needs to be spent liaising with BL teacher for program to be effective. Time is scarce and this can in turn affect other programs in the school. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Time for planning is minimal. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
It appears that collaboration is essential for the teachers to see their work blending with the rest of the curriculum and for teachers in the home classroom and the bilingual class to work together towards common aims for their students. However, it is not always facilitated in terms of time allocation for teachers to be able to meet and co-plan.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
TEACHER PERCEPTIONS ON THE LESS POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAMS
The less positive comments ranged from comments on engagement to comments on achievement and comments on teacher behaviour management.
Students are not developing deep understanding of what is being taught in bilingual, many are not engaged and they fail to see the relevance. The concepts that are presented are not allowing the students to take part in higher order thinking tasks and are not developing conceptual understanding. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
I do not believe the outcomes for the KLAs students are studying are being met. This is due to the students still learning the language, and this takes longer to complete activities that address the outcomes. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Children are having a "wonderful time" talking, mucking around and not at all engaged in the class lesson --little control by the bilingual teacher over class discipline. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Our bilingual teacher is a new graduate who is in his first year of teaching. His focus is learning basic teaching like behaviour management, writing a program etc. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Japanese content, most lesson structure and resources are excellent. Behaviour management poor/ overlooked as so much content to get through (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Other comments indicated ambivalence when responding to a statement about student learning outcomes:
Hard to say as we are not in the classroom and no written feedback is provided as what each child achieves. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
It can be seen from these responses that some teachers do not always have positive perceptions about the CLIL program as a whole. Our anecdotal observations would lead us to believe that such responses are more likely those of the support (classroom or assistant) teachers, or senior executive teachers, but the anonymity of the questionnaire responses makes it difficult to definitively explore this perception. There are also differences across schools which may point to broader issues of the school culture in certain contexts leading to resistance in embracing the program implementation.
The following excerpt from the Focus Group at School 2 indicates an anxiety among teachers commenting about the bilingual learning alongside NAPLAN pressures.
Researcher: NAPLAN? What are the challenges involved with that?
Teacher 6: Time.
Teacher 4: Time for assisting the children in the processes of it all ... and basically time to teach, Maths and English. We've been quite limited this year. And that's frustrating again. And, it's quite frightening actually.
Teacher 3: The timetabling is ... yeah.
Teacher 4: Having to take on Year 3 and teach NAPLAN in the normal fashion, quite easy, but this has been a struggle because we just don't have the time to go over concepts to teach them in the depth you would like to and would need to have it taught to them.
Teacher 6: And it's rushed. Nothing's ever finished.
Teacher 5: We've missed out on a lot. Everything's rushed.
Teacher 6: It's 'Put down your pencils, we won't come back to that at all'.
Teachers also indicated anxiety about how NAPLAN would impact upon the program at other points in the data collection:
I think that was a bit daunting at first, because we have to worry about NAPLAN. With having the K-2 area, that's easier to organise, timetable and plan than Year 3 because when you go to Year 3, you do have things like sport. So you're trying then to juggle all the timetables to make them fit while still trying to teach to the department's guidelines of hours and times and that type of thing. (Classroom teacher Focus Group, School 2)
THE IMPLEMENTATION MODEL
Teachers at all schools agree incremental implementation (adding a year at a time) is the only feasible model of implementation in the early stages of introducing CLIL programs. There are varying views as to whether implementation beginning at Kindergarten or Year 1 would be better. A few teachers identified their preference for the program to be implemented In only a small number of classes as opposed to implementation across the whole year level, believing that approach to be problematic in the current model of implementation. However, in contrast, some teachers believed that the students in the non-bilingual stream were missing out on important opportunities and therefore suggested that all students be involved in the bilingual program.
An early childhood teacher at School 3 commented In the Focus Group: Especially with a big school. It might have been too much of a shock to the system Ito introduce to the whole school at once).
Open comments from the questionnaires indicated:
Gentle implementation is preferable and the earlier (K) the better. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
The program actually began in kindergarten. I agree that this is the best model. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
We started in Kindy but Year 1 would be better--when we know the children. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
[Staged implementation! gives a chance to build on resources and train staff. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
This [staged] model gives schools time to adapt to the changes that need to take place, i.e. timetables, planning, writing programs, making resources, scope and sequences etc. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
As each new grade receives the program, there is a lot of organisation involved. This would be difficult if all grades started at the same time. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Implementing the program throughout the whole school at once would be chaotic! (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
I feel that if the whole school had had the availability of the program from the start and it had been a whole school program then there would not have been the apprehension that developed as it made its way through each grade. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
At times I feel that the program would have benefitted as a whole school as students in other grades did not understand the language during assembly and felt left out. On the other hand, the program is so large that it would have been too difficult to implement all at once for the bilingual teacher and create a whole new program each year. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Different grades have varying 'issues', so it would be good to address these as a whole school from the beginning. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Such agreement indicates the strong preferences for incremental implementation across all four schools.
TEACHER SUGGESTIONS REGARDING ONGOING NEEDS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Close to 30 of the 55 teachers indicated that they believed that more support is needed for the successful implementation of this bilingual program. In many cases this is linked to funding, staffing and the need for ongoing support to make the program a success.
Teachers across the schools indicated that they feel a number of things are needed to make the programs more successful, with a particular emphasis upon the need for a commitment to the provision of teaching assistants:
We really need to have another native speaker teacher assistant (we don't have one this year). (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
An assistant for each teacher (bilingual) should be a "given"--nonnegotiable every year. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
More teaching assistance. More teaching resources. Time for preparing resources related to units at the school. (It's always different for each term and year). (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
This year we had no support for an assistant. As most of the teachers on the bilingual classes do not understand Japanese they feel hopeless in assisting at times. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Teacher assistant again and more support from fellow teachers. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
There needs to be assistance to help create and manage resources for classrooms and for relationship between class and home. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
The need for guaranteed funding was emphasised:
We will need further funding to continue the program once the initial grant runs out. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
... More funding [for] resource making. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Some responses also mentioned the need for more teacher development:
Teachers should be trained for the age group they teach. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
Some mention was made of the need for links with the country/ies related to the language of the CLIL program through cultural exchange:
To make this school bilingual it would definitely benefit from having more cultural assistance, e.g. exchange teachers from the target country. (Anonymous response, questionnaire)
It is clear that ongoing funding and the need for the promised staffing levels are the main priorities of the teachers responding to the questionnaire and interviews. In addition the teachers need professional learning support and assistance in developing links to the countries associated with their languages.
DISCUSSION
It must be made clear that each of the four schools is undertaking the implementation of the program in their own unique circumstances that affects the ease or difficulty of implementation. This reflects the observations made in several findings in European CLIL research that contextual differences must always be taken into account (Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013; de Zarobe, 2013; Turner, 2013). In undertaking a case study exploration of these schools it has been shown that key contextual variations emerging from the implementation challenges include (i) urban versus rural, (ii) large school versus small school, (Iii) native speaker teacher versus non-native speaker teacher, (iv) experienced teacher versus beginning teacher, (v) secondary trained teacher versus primary trained teacher (Harbon & Fielding, 2013). Nevertheless there were also common areas of concern--most notably concern about ongoing funding, sufficient staffing and support, and sufficient training--across all four schools. The differing contexts therefore need to be taken into account when interpreting these findings.
IS THE CLIL PROGRAM A SUCCESS?
Open responses in the questionnaires and focus group/interviews indicate that for the most part teachers believe that the CLIL programs are a success. Teachers believe there is school community enthusiasm for the program. The perceived fluency demonstrated by some students in the teacher responses is cited as a testament to the success of the program. A number of studies cite perception of fluency as one means of measuring achievement in bilingual contexts (Bialystok, 2002; Fielding, 2012; Hamers & Blanc, 2000). Teachers perceive there to be challenges in reconciling "time" for teaching in the NAPLAN testing context. However it is seen in other studies that CLIL Is a practical solution in terms of productive use of time (Ioannou Georgiou, 2012).
Open responses to the questionnaire indicated a variety of reactions across the schools to the visibility of the learning outcomes amongst the students involved. Some teachers said they are unaware of the learning outcomes for the language and so felt unable to comment. Some teachers observed that considerable time Is spent on classroom management, thereby inhibiting achievement of learning outcomes for a majority of students. In contrast some teachers commented on the achievement of both language and content outcomes. There are comments that some students are engaged and some easily lose interest. We would argue that this is a challenge in any classroom and is not a consideration specific to the CLIL environment.
Teachers at all schools agree incremental implementation of one year at a time is the only feasible model. Incremental implementation allows a building of resources and teacher expertise without stretching the programs at the initial stages. Incremental implementation reduced the severity of the teachers' fears.
HOW ARE THE CLIL TEACHERS VIEWED?
Across the responses many teachers mention that there is a range of CLIL teachers with different experiences and skills and that they therefore cannot make a general statement about bilingual teachers' capabilities. Lack of experience in classroom management and age/level appropriate pedagogies were issues identified in relation to some newly qualified teachers. Many teachers were described as talented and going above and beyond the call of duty in implementing the program in their contexts.
IS MORE SUPPORT NEEDED?
Overall, participants agreed that ongoing support is crucial to the viability of the programs. Open responses indicated that across the schools teachers feel more support is needed in the form of assistants who are native speakers, experienced K-6 CLIL teachers, teaching resources, support from parents and local community, and commitment to the programs that would be shown by appropriate ongoing funding.
The need for more support can be seen through the teachers' desire for their program to be an ongoing success and their concern that if financial and institutional support reduces the programs will be in danger of not surviving. As the NALSSP funding comes to an end it is particularly important to all of the teachers, parents and students involved that further funding be committed to these programs.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
It can be seen from the teacher responses that there is both immense pride in the bilingual programs in these schools, and at the same time concern among some staff. While we might assume that this is due to some teachers not being involved in the program, the anonymity of responses through the questionnaire precludes us from knowing exactly the source of the concerns. It would be valuable to explore the perceptions of two groups: teachers within the CLIL programs; and teachers in the 'regular' streams to ascertain whether there is a need for an 'open classroom' policy where it might be possible for teachers to pair up to visit other classrooms and see the learning taking place. Such a scheme would need to operate in a non-threatening way to enable new teachers in the bilingual programs to find their feet before feeling they are being observed or judged. There is also a need for the teachers in the non-bilingual stream to be given an opportunity to see how the conceptual learning takes place in a bilingual program, to explore how it is that time spent on language learning is also time on task in the other KLAs and how this language learning can and might contribute to their students' understanding of language and improved literacy skills in English.
For the model to continue successfully there is a need to set up professional learning that enables a growing workforce of teachers to participate in this stream of education. As the program grows, more and more bilingual teachers will be needed throughout each school and these new teachers, as well as those who have been in the program from the start, will need support and opportunity to develop their pedagogies, feel supported in the roles, and have an avenue for answering their questions and concerns. Inquiry by the teachers themselves to explore their own pedagogies would be an ideal means for them to explore and answer questions they have about their pedagogies. In addition some professional learning in the theories and methods of CLIL education for all staff would be extremely beneficial in developing whole school understanding about the program itself and where it fits within the big picture of CLIL education.
The ongoing training should also extend beyond the program to the staff in the school not involved in the program to demonstrate what is taking place in the CLIL stream and to develop a cohesive and supportive environment for the program in all schools. Understanding what the program aims to do, who it is designed for, how it works, and how it differs from other language programs is essential for a whole school approach to the program to be developed.
These programs need to be fostered and enabled to grow. The teachers are doing excellent work with their students, and now need to be supported to show how these programs can grow within the schools and be emulated in other schools. In the wider Australian community there is growing demand for students to develop language learning skills, intercultural understanding, and global citizenship skills. If the education system in Australia is going to meet the political calls for increased language learning outcomes at the end of secondary school, there is a need for schools to be offering strong, systematic language learning programs in the primary sector. The undeniable challenges of the crowded curriculum highlight models such as these CLIL programs as the ideal means of exploring how quality language learning might be delivered to all Australian students.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the schools, teachers and principals who welcomed us into their classrooms and enabled us to see their work in progress. Without their cooperation this research would not have been possible. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the Department of Education and Communities NSW, whose curriculum support officers have been supportive and encouraging of this research from the outset. We would also like to acknowledge a Faculty Research Grant from The University of Sydney, which assisted us to conduct the research. We would be happy to provide the questionnaire items to interested readers by email.
REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2006, Selected 2006 census facts and figures. Retrieved 11 September 2014 from: http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/2006quickfacts?opendocument&navpos=320
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. 2011. The shape of the Australian Curriculum Languages. Sydney: ACARA. Retrieved 11 September 2014 from: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Languages_-_Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum_new.pdf
Bialystok, E. 2002. Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research, Language Learning, 52, 1, 159-199.
Coyle, D. 2007. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10, 5, 543-562.
Coyle, D. 2013. Listening to learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 3, 244-266.
Cummins, J. 1996. Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J. 2000. Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. 2003. Bilingual education: Basic principles. In J. Dewaele, A. Housen & L. Wei (Eds.) Bilingualism: Beyond basic principles. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J., Early, M., Leoni, L., & Stille, S. 2011. 'It really comes down to the teachers, I think': Pedagogies of choice in multilingual classrooms. In J. Cummins & M. Early (Eds.). Identity texts: The collaborative creation of power in multilingual schools. 153-163. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Czura, A. & Papaja, K. 2013. Curricular models of CLIL education in Poland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 3, 321-333.
Dafouz, E., & Hibler, A. 2013. 'Zip your lips' or 'keep quiet': Main teachers' and language assistants' classroom discourse in CLIL settings. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 3, 655.
Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. 2013. Content and Language Integrated Learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46, 545-559. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444813000256
De Courcy M. 2002. Learners' experiences of immersion education: Case studies of French and Chinese. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
de Zarobe, Y. R. 2013. CLIL implementation: From policymakers to individual initiatives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 3, 231-243.
European Commission. 2012. First European survey on language competences, European Commission Education and Training: ECML Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/docs/en
Fielding, R. 2013. Bilingual Identity Negotiation in practice: Teacher pedagogy and classroom interaction In a bilingual program. Language Learning Journal, 1 (2013). DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2012.757635
Fielding, R. 2012. Considering biliteracy and multiliteracies in the primary classroom. In Johnston, J. (Ed.), Contemporary issues in Australian literacy teaching. Brisbane: AACLM/ Primrose Hall Publishing Group.
Fielding, R. 2011. 'I sort of feel like I'm a part of France as well': Student perspectives of bilingual identity. Babel, 46, 1, 13-21.
Fielding, R. 2009. Bilingual education in an Australian primary school: Student identification with more than one language. 2nd International Conference on Language, Education and Diversity LED 2007, New Zealand: University of Waikato.
Sims, M & Ellis, E. 2014. Raising children bilingually is hard. Why bother? Babel, 49, 2.
Fielding, R. & Harbon, L. 2013. Examining bilingual and bicultural identity in young students. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 4, 1-18.
Finkbeiner, C., Olson, A. M., & Friedrich, J. 2013. Foreign language learning and teaching in Germany: A review of empirical research literature from 2005 to 2010. Language Teaching, 46, 4, 477-510.
Garcia, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st Century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Harbon, L. & Fielding, R. 2011. Enriching the primary curriculum with languages education: But what about the in-school reality? Paper presented at the AFMLTA National Conference 2011, Enrich, Consolidate, Aspire: Towards 2030, Darwin, 6-9 July.
Harbon, L. & Fielding, R. 2013. Bilingual education programs in four primary schools in New South Wales, 2009-2012: A report to continue the conversation. Sydney: The University of Sydney.
Ioannou Georgiou, S. 2012. Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT Journal. 66, 4, 495-504.
Jones-Diaz, C. 2013. Institutional, material and economic constraints in languages education: Unequal provision of linguistic resources in early childhood and primary settings in Australia, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17, 3, 272-286. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2012.754400
Mehisto, P, Frigols, M.J., & Marsh, D. 2008. Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multicultural education. London: Macmillan.
Moloney, R. 2008. You just want to be like that: Teacher modeling and intercultural competence in young language learners. Babel. 42, 3.
Molyneux, P 2005. Transportable literacies and transformative pedagogies: An investigation of the tensions and choices in the provision of education for bilingualism and biliteracy. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne.
Swain, M., & Johnson, K.R. 1997. Immersion education: A category within bilingual education. In K.R. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives. 1-16. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, M. 2013. CLIL in Australia: The importance of context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16, 4, 395-410.
Wiltshire, J. & Harbon, L. 2010. French and English together in one primary school in New South Wales. Babel: Journal of the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, 44, 3, 14-25.
Ruth Fielding is an Assistant Professor of TESOL and Foreign Language Teaching at the University of Canberra. She is the convener of the TESOL and Foreign Language Teaching program. Ruth has worked for the past nine years as a language teacher educator and a researcher with a focus on multilingualism and identity, as well as language teacher education, intercultural language learning and transition in language learning. She has been researching various aspects of bilingual programs in schools in NSW since 2006 and obtained her PhD in 2010. Her book on bilingual identity will be released by Springer in mid-2015. She was formerly a teacher of French and German at secondary school level. She can be contacted at ruth.fielding@canberra.edu.au
Lesley Harbon has worked with pre-service language teachers at the University of Tasmania and the University of Sydney spanning the past 18 years. Her research interests include the exploration of the value of short- term international experiences for language teachers, language teacher professional development, intercultural language education, and bilingual/CLIL language education. Table 1: Numbers of participating teachers who completed the questionnaire and/or took part in the focus group or interview SCHOOL 1 SCHOOL 2 SCHOOL 3 Numbers 1 x bilingual 4 x bilingual 4 x bilingual of teachers' teacher teachers teachers responses 1 x NS parent 18 classroom 1 x parent/ volunteer teachers language assistant 1 language assistant SCHOOL 4 Numbers 4 x bilingual of teachers' teachers responses 21 classroom teachers
