Formative Assessment Patterns in CLIL Primary Schools in Cyprus Dina Tsagari35 and George Michaeloudes36 University of Cyprus
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is an educational approach which involves the integration of subject content and foreign language learning. It has been used as an umbrella term to include forms of bilingualism that have been applied in various countries and contexts for different reasons. The present research explored formative assessment (FA) practices in a CLIL pilot programme in Cyprus. Data was collected through teacher questionnaires and classroom observations. The results showed that the teachers under study seemed to prioritise content over language while the FA methods frequently used were questioning and provision of evaluative and descriptive feedback. Also instances of code switching and L1 use were not excessive. Finally, the most common pattern used in classroom interaction was Initiation – Response – Feedback (IRF). Overall, the results showed, considering learners’ successful responses, that teachers’ FA strategies were effective to an extent and promoted learning in the CLIL lessons observed. Key words: CLIL, formative assessment, feedback, classroom interaction, code switching.
1. Introduction The necessity for the European Commission to ‘create a channel of shared understandings in tandem with the acknowledgement of the diversity of the European models’ (Coyle, 2007, p. 554) and the need ‘to achieve a greater degree of plurilingualism and [..] make Europe the most competitive and knowledge-based economy in the world’ (De Graaf, Koopman, Anikina and Weshoff, 2007, p. 603) has led to the development of an Action Plan for language learning. According to it, all European citizens need to be fluent in their mother tongue plus two other European languages known as the MT+2 formula (Marsh, 2003). Various pedagogical innovative methods were used to implement the plan. The use of CLIL was one of them. The present chapter explores the ways in which CLIL is implemented in a specific teaching environment by examining the Formative Assessment (FA) methods that teachers use. In the sections that follow we first define the nature of CLIL and FA and then describe the rationale of the methodology employed. Finally, we present and discuss the results and make suggestions for further research in the field and recommendations for teachers. 35 36
[email protected] [email protected]
75
2. Literature review 2.1 CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a pedagogical approach in Europe37 (Gajo, 2007; Eurydice, 2006) whereby a school subject is taught through the medium of a second language. CLIL is currently implemented in various levels of education in several countries in Europe and in other parts of the world (Kiely, 2009; Pavlou and Ioannou-Georgiou, 2008). Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008, p. 9) define CLIL as ‘a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language’. CLIL aims to improve both learner proficiency in subject matter and second/foreign language learning. This is achieved through communicative methods and task-based activities which aim at creating an environment conducive to learning. Teachers of CLIL scaffold learning by using a variety of resources, visual aids, games, role-play and collaborative problem solving to promote content and language learning. Significant research, focusing on learners, has been conducted to examine CLIL effectiveness. For example, research, conducted in Switzerland by the Education Department (Serra, 2007) showed that those students taught in L2 performed better in oral and written tests than those taught in L1. In another research study that explored the effectiveness of CLIL in the Dutch CLIL context, De Graaf, Koopman, Anikina, and Westhoff (2007) found that ‘students who have followed a CLIL curriculum reach higher levels of proficiency in English than their peers, without any negative effects on their academic proficiency in L1 or on other school subjects’ (ibid, p. 605). CLIL learners, outperformed non-CLIL learners in all language skills tests and grammar test, in the Basque context as reported by Lasagabaster (2008). Finally, Mehisto et al., (2008), based on research findings, concluded that ‘students generally achieve the same or better results when studying in a second language’ (ibid, p. 20). CLIL learners also develop linguistic awareness, become able to compare languages and make the appropriate decisions and verifications in order to transfer their meaning effectively (ibid). 2.2 Formative assessment One of the main aims of classroom-based assessment is to provide teachers with the necessary information on learners’ performance. This type of assessment can be 37
76
For discussions of CLIL in the US context see Brinton, Snow and Wesche, 2003; Snow, 2013.
‘summative’ and/or ‘formative’ (Rea-Dickins, 2007). Formative assessment (FA), in particular, is integrated in everyday classroom routines (Leung and Mohan, 2004). Its purpose is to promote and assess learning. During FA procedures, the teacher is required to adopt a dual role: that of ‘facilitator of language development and assessor of language achievement’ (Rea-Dickins, 2008, p. 5). This dual role is achieved through classroom interaction. There are various patterns of classroom interaction identified in the literature. The most popular pattern is the IRF pattern (Initation-Response-Feedback) proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). According to it, the teacher initiates a learning opportunity (e. g. by asking a question), the learners respond to this initiation and then the teacher does a follow-up move in response to learners’ previous answers (for further discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the IRF see Tsagari and Michaeloudes, forthcoming). Various teacher-oriented actions such as ‘questioning’, ‘observing’ and giving ‘feedback’ to learners’ responses are identified during IRF instances. Questioning is the most common action of the three. In some cases this comprises 70 % of teachers’ classroom talk (Tsui, 1995). Teachers ask learners questions to retrieve information reflecting on students’ learning and their teaching effectiveness, to highlight knowledge gaps and inadequacies, to revise previous subject matter, etc. Questions are also used to identify any misconceptions, to promote discussion, or to explore areas requiring further clarification (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall and Wiliam, 2003). In an effort to create opportunities for students to engage in the learning process, teachers also help learners ask questions during the lesson to obtain appropriate feedback that will enhance learning. Another very powerful tool that teachers use to gather classroom data is ‘observation’. Gardner and Rea-Dickins (2002) explain that ‘Teachers […] reported that observation and the collection of language samples were the most useful means for monitoring their learners’ language progress’. Teachers observe learners’ attitudes and responses while teaching subject matter. Learners’ comments, interactions and even body language are also observed by teachers to retrieve as much information as possible to adjust and revise their lesson plans accordingly. The purpose of both questioning and observation is to identify learners’ level of achievement that will eventually lead to the provision of appropriate feedback in order to promote learning. Through the provision of feedback, teachers help and scaffold learners to achieve desired performances. Tunstall and Gipps (1996), based on empirical research, created a typology of various types of feedback divided in the following two categories: ‘evaluative/judgmental’ feedback (teachers judge learners’ responses by approving or disapproving and rewarding or punishing them), and ‘descriptive’ feedback (teachers provide learners with feedback based on their current achievement to specify attainment or improvement and to construct achievement or plan the way forward) (Tunstall and Gipps, 1996). 77
3. Aims of the study The present study aimed at examining the nature of FA in the CLIL context of primary schools in Cyprus. It investigated the nature of focus in CLIL lessons (content and/or language) and examined the types of FA methods and strategies teachers used. The study was exploratory, as no other empirical study on this specific topic had been conducted at the time, and was based on the following research questions: 1. Do teachers focus on subject matter knowledge or L2 language in CLIL lessons? 2. What ways do teachers use to assess learners’ achievement in subject matter knowledge? 3. What ways do teachers use to assess learners’ achievement in L2?
4. Methodology of the study In order to answer the research questions, quantitative and qualitative data was collected to safeguard the research validity of the study (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000). In particular, questionnaires were administered to CLIL teachers and observations of CLIL classes were conducted to gather as much accurate data as possible in order to triangulate the research results (McDonough and McDonough, 1997). In the present chapter, given the confines of space, we will present the results of the observations conducted in the CLIL classes observed. However, we will make reference to the results of the teacher questionnaires in case a point need exemplification or elaboration. The interested reader can refer to Michaeloudes (2009) for fuller presentation and discussion of the results of the questionnaire study. Classroom observations were conducted to gain a clearer picture of the teaching and FA practices used in CLIL lessons. Cohen, et al., (2000, p. 305) argue that observations can ‘discover things that participants might not freely talk about in interview situations, move beyond perception-based data and access personal knowledge’ (see also McDonough and McDonough, 1997; Sapsford and Jupp, 2006). Non-participant observations were conducted since active participation in the lesson might have influenced the reactions of teachers and learners and, therefore, affect the accuracy of the data (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983 cited in McDonough and McDonough, 1997). Also other than audio-recording the classroom observations, field notes were taken recording non-verbal actions by teachers and learners and description of resources and materials used during the lesson. 78
Overall, five lessons were observed and audio-recorded in three of the state primary schools employing CLIL (see Table 1). All the teachers were female. Two of them were located in Nicosia (T1 and T3) and one in Limassol (T2). Geography and Home Economics were the most popular subjects in CLIL implementation at the time of the study. Table 1. CLIL lesson observations TEACHERS
SUBJECT
DURATION (minutes)
CLASS LEVEL
T1
Geography1 (G1)
40
5th
T1
Geography2 (G2)
40
6th
T2
Geography3 (G3)
40
6th
T3
Home Economics1 (HE1)
80
5th
T3
Home Economics2 (HE2)
80
6th
4.1 Analysis of data As soon as the data processing of the tape-recordings (transcription and insertion of relevant field notes in the transcriptions) was completed, the analysis of the observational data (content analysis, see Paltridge and Phakiti, 2010) was done manually using a specially-designed grid which consisted of several categories (see Table 2). In the analysis grid, the first column contained the lesson transcript. The second one contained the field notes taken. The third column indicated whether the teacher’s focus was on content (C) or language (L) while the fourth examined the nature of turn-taking that occurred in the lessons based on the IRF model: (I) was used to code instances of initiation, (R) to code learners’ responses and (F) when feedback was provided to learners (In the event that there was no R or F following teacher’s inititation, the turn was not coded). Feedback was further analysed in the next column as ‘evaluative feedback’ (E) and ‘descriptive feedback’ (D) following Tunstall and Gipps (1996) typology. The final column was used to identify instances of code switching by learners or teachers (C).
79
Table 2. Example of analysed observational data Geography 1- Transcribed lesson Learning episode
Field notes
C/L
IRF
E/D
10. T1: Yes. Very good! You said Switzerland, France, Netherlands … 11. L1: Luxemburg. 12. T1: Luxemburg, yes, about here. Yes, Βέλγιο, Belgium. 13. T1: And this? 14. L1: Πολωνία (Poland). 15 T1: Yes. Πολωνία, Poland.
The learner points at various European countries on the map.
C
F I
E
C/L
R F
D
I R F
E
C
C C
The number of instances in each column was added up and is presented as percentages in Graph 1. The coding scheme was checked and piloted with an experienced language teacher who used it on samples of the transcripts. The agreement of the interpretation of codes was high.
5. Presentation of findings and discussion 5.1 Focus on content or language? The analysis of the observational data aimed to identify whether lesson focus was on content and/or language. In a CLIL environment the teacher’s focus of assessment is expected to be on both (Kiely, 2009). Graph 1 presents the percentages of instances coded as focus on ‘content’, ‘language’ and ‘content and language’ (see also Table 2, third column). Graph 1. Focus in CLIL lessons
Content
Language 15% 40%
80
Content and Language
45%
Overall, the analysis of the lessons showed that teachers tend to prioritise content slightly more than language. In 45 % of the assessment episodes identified (Graph 1), teachers assessed content while in 40 % they assessed language and only in 15 % they assessed both content and language. (These results reflect teachers’ views as expressed in the questionnaires, see Michaeloudes, 2009). Various reasons can explain why teachers did so. It might be the case that teachers focused on content more because learning in a CLIL environment might disadvantage some learners in terms of content learning. Perhaps in their attempt to achieve learning objectives regarding content, teachers placed greater emphasis on content (Coonan, 2007). It might also be the case that the learners’ high proficiency in English (almost at B1 level, CEFR; Council of Europe, 2001), gave the opportunity to teachers to place emphasis on content as learners could use L2 efficiently. Coyle (2007, p. 549) also stresses that ‘The more advanced the students’ level of foreign language, the less attention it seems is needed to be paid to linguistic development’. Actually learners were taught English as an independent subject twice weekly from year 4. In informal discussions with teachers, they stressed that the majority of learners had also been attending private afternoon lessons for at least two hours, twice a week, since year 3, which might have also impacted on their high language level. In the following subsections, selected extracts from the classroom transcripts will be presented and discussed to exemplify types of classroom interaction generated in the lessons that place emphasis on content and/or language. The text in brackets is a direct translation from L1 to L2 while the underlined text is field notes that provide extra information. Teachers’ and students’ names were replaced with pseudonyms for reasons of anonymity. 5.2 Focus on content The following extract is taken from a lesson on home economics. The teacher is trying to guide the learners to identify certain content words (Extract 1). Extract 1. Example of focus on content 133. T3: Yeah … say that or the other one or in Greek … you can give one sentence in Greek … 134. S1: Σίδηρο (iron). 135. S2: Strong. 136. T3: Nαι (yes) strong. What makes us strong with dairy products? What do we have? Nαι (yes) they make our bones … 137. S1: Σίδηρο (iron). 81
138. T3: Ναι (yes) σίδηρο, iron and what else..? And? And cal… cal… 139. S1: Calcium. 140. T3: Calcium. Very well! (Home Economics 1, Teacher 3) In her attempt to help students reach the desired content knowledge (‘calcium’), the teacher prompted students to use L1 (turn 133). When students came up with the correct word, ‘iron’ (turns 134 and 137), she then scaffolded them to find the desired word ‘calcium’ (turn 139). In this learning episode, and similar others, content learning seemed to be more important than language. During the numerous instances of focus on content in the lessons observed, teachers used L2 very often. Teachers were seeking content achievement rather than language performance when they prompted learners to answer in L1 (e. g. turn 133). Despite the fact that learners were taught through the medium of another language, the teachers’ preference for content safeguarded the high standards of achievement for learners. 5.3 Focus on language Even though focus on language was not as frequent as focus on content (see Graph 1), the teachers employed an interesting array of methods to assess language. The most common technique was direct questioning usually evaluating whether students knew or could translate a word from L1 to L2 and vice versa. Teachers usually asked learners for simple translations in cases of new or difficult words, to reaffirm students’ understanding of English. Very often simple questioning was used for reassurance (Extract 2). Extract 2. Example of questioning 212. T2: Do you know? Do you know the name of this animal? It has long teeth in the front. 213. S1: Kάστορας (beaver). 214. Τ2: Κάστορας (beaver). Very nice! In English, what is the name? B…? 215. S1: Beaver. 216. T2: Very good! Beaver is the national animal of Canada. National animal? 217. S1: Εθνικό ζώο (national animal). 218. T2: Εθνικό ζώο (national animal). Very good! (Geography 3, Teacher 2) In this learning episode the content-related answer expanded language learning, i. e. the targeted unknown word ‘beaver’ (turns 213–215) led to the unknown phrase ‘national animal’ (turn 216). 82
Another strategy teachers used while focusing on language was elaboration. Teachers used this strategy when there was evidence – through student body language, facial expressions, questions or their silence – that students did not understand the question or the assigned task. Elaboration very often works as scaffolding. Ellis (2003, p. 180) defines scaffolding as ‘the dialogic process by which one speaker assists another in performing a function that he or she cannot perform alone’. Scaffolding in the CLIL lessons observed happened when teachers helped learners to find the desired answer, e. g. by giving more explanations or simplified tasks. For example, in Extract 3, from a lesson on Home Economics, the teacher prompts the learner to place a picture in the right place. Extract 3. Example of elaboration 74. T3: Now, let’s revise the words. Mary! Can you show us where the milk group is? … Can you show us the milk group? … Where is the dairy product group? … The milk group. (The student goes to the food pyramid and places the pictures in the appropriate space= points to the right group). 75. T3: Ah … there it is. Let’s put it up there. (Home Economics 2, Teacher 3) In Extract 3, the teacher asks the learner to place the picture in the right place of the food pyramid as the focus is on content. The learner struggled so the teacher repeated the question. The teacher did not receive an answer so she further elaborated by simplifying the question. He used the word ‘milk’ rather than the possibly unknown word ‘dairy’, helping thus the learner to respond correctly. What is interesting in this extract, is that the learner does not use language in her response. Instead the learner demonstrates her understanding of the language used in the teacher’s questions by placing the picture in the right place. Such learning episodes confirm the results of the teachers’ questionnaires, too, whereby the teachers reported that they provide explanations and elaborate on complex areas that learners need help with. Another interesting aspect of focus on language was the pronunciation of some ‘tricky’ words whereby teachers helped learners to identify and correct pronunciation (Extract 4). Extract 4. Example of correction of pronunciation 372. T3: No not all. Can you give me the name of one product that doesn’t have preservative and show it to me please? Yes, John? 373. S1: Tea cakes (PRONUNCIATION ERROR) 83
374. T3: Tea cakes (Teacher repeats using the correct pronunciation) …. show me the tea cakes. Show me. Tea cakes are good. They don’t have preservatives. (Home Economics 1, Teacher 3) After the teacher’s question (turn 372), the learner responded by wrongly pronouncing the word ‘tea’. This could be attributed to interference of L1 whereas, unlike English, written Greek is pronounced phonetically. The teacher corrected the problem by modeling the correct pronunciation of the word. Actually the teacher repeated the word offering the correct pronunciation three times (turn 374) to reinforce learning (These actions were reported by teachers in the questionnaires, too). 5.4 Focus on content and language Whole class activities were frequently supported by visual aids like pictures. This is not uncommon. Coonan (2007, p. 636) stressed that ‘Teachers highlight the importance of materials with regard to content in CLIL lessons’. In the questionnaires teachers also reported using ‘visual aids’, and ‘media’ to help learners overcome difficulties. Learners were asked, for example, to name objects in pictures (focus on language), then categorise the objects according to content knowledge. For instance, in Extract 5 the teacher uses a map to focus on content and language during a geography lesson. Extract 5. Use of visual aids 79. T2: Look at this big map here (The teacher points at the World Atlas). I want you to make sentences in your groups about where Canada is. (She sticks a strip of paper with a full sentence written on it on the World Atlas) OK? You can also use your World Atlas. Open your World Atlas. On page 8.Ok? This is the map of the world. Find Canada. (She goes around the tables to make sure that the groups are working properly) Bravo James! Bravo to the table of Cancer (name of the group). Ok. You have 30 seconds τριάντα δευτερόλεπτα to make your sentences. It’s very easy. 80. T2: Ok. Are you ready? 81. L1: Yes. (Geography 3, Teacher 2) In this learning episode, the teacher provides the learners with a sample sentence and the necessary words in the appropriate language form and asks learners to construct their own statement sentences. Learners are expected, through their 84
content knowledge to select the correct word in L2. They then form a sentence using the sample structure provided. By drilling the same pattern to describe the location of a country on the map students learned the appropriate L2 expression. Other instances of equal emphasis on both content and language were included in group or independent tasks. For example, in Extract 6, learners were asked to work in groups using L2 or work on their worksheets independently, focusing on content. Extract 6. Use of group work activity 133. T2: Very good! Now where in Canada do we find these climates? I don’t want you to guess. I want you to find the place that you find them. I want you to go to page 51 on your World Atlas (She shows the Atlas to the learners) Ok? And in your groups study the map of Canada that talks about the climates of Canada. Ok? And I want you to decide in your groups where we find this climate, ok? At which point? You have less than a minute. You have about 40 seconds. Where do we find the Arctic climate?(She monitors the groups and she helps learners) 134. T2: Ok? Have a look at the colours of the map please. Ok, so I’m listening. Arctic climate. Yes! 135. L1: To the A 136. T2: At point A. Very nice! Excellent! We have the Arctic climate, αρτικό κλίμα, a very very cold climate up in the polar zone. Yes, Helen! (She sticks the labels of the climate on the map) (Geography 3, Teacher 2) Extract 6 is an example of a learning episode where a task-based activity is used to assess and promote content and language learning. In this and other similar instances, learners were assigned a task and prompted to interact with their partners in order to find the answer. The teacher’s detailed instructions promoted communication, as the learners were asked to work with their partners to reach the content learning outcome using the target language. Learners would interact with their peers using short sentences in English. The teacher assessed both aspects (content and language) simultaneously using the same task in the lesson. Coonan (2007, p. 634) in his research about teachers’ perception of CLIL stressed that ‘All teachers express a preference for pair/group work’ and that group work occupies 30 %-40 % up to 70 % of the lesson. Group work activities are more effective as they create opportunities to integrate learning. Another strategy used while focusing on both content and language was the use of body language, gestures and facial expressions, evident when the teacher pointed to maps, objects or other displays in the classroom, helping learners recognise and find the appropriate word. In Extract 7 the teacher uses body language to scaffold learners. 85
Extract 7. Use of body language 164. T3: Ah … προστατεύει μας (it protects us). Very good! It protects us. So it’s good for not getting a cold, right? And for what else? For …? 165. S1: Skin. 166. T3: Skin and … (The teacher points at her nails) 167. S1: Nails. 168. T2: Nails. Very good! Cold, skin and nails. (Home Economics 1, Teacher 3) The focus in this particular learning episode was mainly on content, which is why the teacher also uses L1. As the learners had difficulties to find the target word the teacher pointed at her nails (turn 166). The focus here is on content (the teacher scaffolds learners to find a related answer) and language (the teacher expects learners to find the content related answer in L2). 5.5 Code switching The analysis of the CLIL lessons observed identified instances of code switching defined as the ‘alternation between two (or more) languages’ (Eldridge 1996, p. 80). The analysis showed that both teachers and learners used code switching for different purposes. For example, teachers used L1 to give clearer instructions, explain new subject matter and motivate learners to participate in the learning process (see Extracts 5, 6). Learners used L1 when they did not know the meaning of a word or when they did not understand the teacher when she used L2 (Extract 8). On some occasions, learners felt comfortable to answer in L1 while in others learners asked the teacher whether they were allowed to use L1 (see Extract 8). Extract 8. Example of code switching 194. T3: Cheese. Very good. Milk cheese. Does anyone know the word for all these products that are made of milk? 195. S1: Can I say it in Greek? 196. T3: Yes. 197. S1: Γαλακτοκομικά προϊόντα (dairy products). 198. Τ3: Γαλακτοκομικά προϊόντα (dairy products). 199. T3: Do you know it in English? It starts with D. 200. S1: Dairy products. 201. T3: Very good! Dairy products. (Home Economics 1, Teacher 3) 86
In this extract, the difficulty of the learner to answer the question is due to language not content. Code switching seems to promote learning as the focus is on content and gives the learner the chance to prove his/her knowledge of the topic. In other instances, L1 was used when learners were asked by their teachers to translate a word or phrase. Such questions were used as comprehension checks. The learners responded by saying the word in L1 (see Extract 8). Teachers occasionally used L1 when they gave instructions or when they taught new complicated subject matter. Overall, the use of code switching was not excessive (see also Extracts 3, 4, 6). This could perhaps be attributed to the learners’ good command of L2 gained over the two years of learning English at state school. Another reason could be the use of effective methods and strategies. Teachers’ integration of visual aids in the lesson (see Extracts 3, 5, 6) and the use of body language (see Extract 7) scaffolded learners’ understanding and acquisition of new vocabulary. Another reason could be the fact that the observed lessons took place at the end of the academic year when, as Coonan (2007) suggests, the level of the use of L2 is gradually increased thus increasing learners’ familiarity with the CLIL lesson routines and strategies. All learners had completed one year and some were in their second year of learning English. They were familiar with instructions in L2 and seemed to respond efficiently using it without the need of regular code switching. Learners’ code switching occurred when they did not know the equivalent word in English and provided an answer in L1. 5.6 The IRF pattern The analysis of the observational data showed that the teaching pattern favoured by teachers was mainly teacher-fronted. Actually, the majority of the learning episodes were initiated by the teachers (e. g. Extract 2, 3, 5, 6), who directed their lessons to pre-planned learning objectives. The discourse pattern observed in the lessons echoed the Initiation – Response – Follow-up (IRF) framework (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975). This was used later as a basis to code the transcripts of the lessons observed. However, despite the fixed lesson format and structure followed, the CLIL lessons observed were effective. As Coyle (2007, p. 556) argues ‘… teacher – learner questions are a means of engaging learners cognitively and generating new language use’. To retain a balance and dual focus on both content and language, teachers followed pre-planned teacher centered routines. Their objectives might not have been achieved if the structure of the lesson was more flexible, e. g. focus on either content or language. 87
The structure of the lessons observed does not mean that learners were not given the opportunity to express themselves. The analysis showed that learners felt free to ask questions when they faced difficulties, e. g. Extract 8. Students also asked for more elaboration, clearer instructions or explanations of unknown words. They seemed to work in a safe environment where they could express themselves with confidence. This is evidence that teachers were not confined to their teaching plans and remained open to students’ questions during the lessons. As teachers explained in the questionnaires, they wanted to make sure that they were comprehensible by students while teaching in L2. Teachers also made sure that negative comments from other learners were avoided. The fact that teachers seriously considered learners’ responses and, elaborated on them, was evident in all lessons transcribed (e. g. Extracts 1, 2, 4, 6). According to Gourlay (2005), this is the ‘embedded extension’ of an IRF episode. The teacher asks a question, the learner responds, the teacher expands on learners’ response with feedback. In the transcriptions, these instances were identified when feedback was marked with ‘D’ – ‘descriptive’ (see Table 2). Teachers moved from the IRF model to the embedded extension probably because they identified a misconception or a difficulty amongst learners, received specific questions from learners or wanted to move the focus on content or language. A very common pattern used in the CLIL lessons observed is the I-R-F-R-F (see Extracts 6, 9) whereby the teacher asks a question, the learners answer it, and the teacher then provides learners with feedback, usually ‘evaluative’. Then another learner follows the routine of this pattern answering the next question. This pattern occurred while teachers assess learners on a particular task or when they worked independently (e. g. on worksheets). 5.7 Feedback All instances of feedback identified in the IRF column of the framework (see Table 1) were categorized as ‘evaluative’ or ‘descriptive’ according to Tunstall and Gipps (1996). Evaluative feedback was more commonly used than descriptive feedback (see Extract 2, 8, 9). In the analysis of the data this appeared in a variety of forms. Rewarding words like ‘yes’ and ‘well done’ in combination with repetition of correct answers were the most common instances of evaluative feedback found. In the following extract (see Extract 9), the teacher praises learners when they successfully find countries on the map. 88
Extract 9. Example of evaluative feedback 52. S1: Italy. 53. T1: Italy. Very good! 54. S2: Italy. 55. T1: Yes. 56. S3: Germany. 57. T1: Very good! And … 58. S4: Belgium. 59. S5: Λουξεμβούργο (Luxemburg). 60. T1: Λουξεμβούργο (Luxemburg). Yes. Here is Luxemburg and … 61. S6: Βέλγιο (Belgium). (Geography 1, Teacher 1) In this part of the learning episode, the common ways of evaluative feedback are clear: the repetition of the correct answers, the use of ‘yes’ to show approval and rewarding words like ‘very good’ are used by the teacher to promote learning through appraisal and reward and motivate learners. Another strategy used was game-like activities: the teacher would allocate points to student groups to motivate them to achieve the desired learning outcomes (see Extract 10). Extract 10. Use of a game-like activity 142. S1: It’s a grain. 143. T3: Very good. One point for this group. Έλα (Come on) Jenny! Ιs this a grain food or a non-grain food? 144. S2: Non-grain food. 145. T3: Very good! One point for the other group. Grain food or non- grain food? 146. S3: Non-grain food! 147. T3: Very good! Έλα (Come on)! Grain food or non-grain food. It’s rice. (Home Economics 1, Teacher 3) The use of games such as these engaged learners’ interest. It actually motivated them to participate in the learning process by answering content-related questions using L2 and created an enjoyable atmosphere during the lesson. As the CLIL lesson requires focus on more than one parameters, when a learner answered a particular question successfully, the tendency of the teacher was to provide the learner with both evaluative and descriptive feedback. When an answer, with focus on content for example, needed more elaboration to meet language requirements, there was a further expansive prompt from the teacher. 89
Extract 11. Example of descriptive feedback 25. T3: So what’s this? 26. S1: Kiwi. 27. T3: Very good! So Kiwi is a … It is a … 28. S1: Fruit! 29. T3: Fruit. Very good! Sit down! Go to your place. 30. S2: Strawberries. 31. T3: Strawberries are … 32. S3: Fruit. (Home Economics 1, Teacher 3) This learning episode is characteristic of focusing on both content and language. The teacher provides the learner with descriptive feedback (turn 27) to specify attainment for the learner to reach content achievement, e. g. the categorization of kiwi as ‘fruit’ (turn 28). The teacher was not satisfied with the learners’ first response (turn 26) as she was looking for both content and language competence that she achieved through the provision of descriptive feedback.
6. Conclusion The results of the study are indicative of the complexity of focus in CLIL lessons (also in Snow, 2012). As was seen from the analysis of the data, even in the learning episodes where content was prioritized, the language used was L2. Conversely, when the focus was on language, this was related to content. In addition, the analysis also revealed a variety of FA methods and strategies used by teachers to assess either content or language or both areas simultaneously. In the majority of the instances, the main strategy teachers used to assess content and language was ‘questioning’. This was used to motivate learners and encourage them to use the target language. The most common interaction sequence was the IRF pattern, which followed a teacher-fronted style of teaching. Teachers also praised learners very often. This stimulated students’ confidence and motivation. In addition, teachers provided learners with evaluative feedback in the form of rewards and descriptive feedback, which expanded the IRF interaction sequences of the lesson (into IRFRF) and created an open learning environment. However, even though the FA strategies that teachers employed seemed to be effective to an extent, more work needs to be done to further enlighten the nature of FA and its relation to the implementation of CLIL. The results of the study, valuable as they are, are somewhat limited. One of the factors affecting the scope of the study was that, due to the innovative nature of CLIL in Cyprus, 90
a very small number of teachers (17 in total) were using CLIL at the time of the research. Observations of more CLIL classes from different teachers could offer a clearer picture of the ways in which FA takes place in CLIL lessons. The lack of time and opportunity to interview the teachers observed after their lessons was also a limiting factor. The observational data could have been further enhanced if video-recorded lessons were allowed. Further research could include parents’ perspective, too. For example parents’ satisfaction of feedback on learners’ performance would be another area to explore, as parents are crucial stakeholders in the implementation of CLIL. Their comments are valuable as they can lead to the adjustment of teaching strategies and assessment procedures. Finally, given the use of FA practices by teachers in the present study, we would like to highlight the importance of teacher training in FA for the successful implementation of CLIL (for other teacher training aspects related to CLIL teaching see Pavlou and Ioannou-Georgiou, 2008). We believe that teachers can become clearer and more confident about the focus of their assessment in their CLIL contexts (Massler, 2011) if they are given the opportunity to attend professional development courses that combine FA and CLIL education. For example, teachers can be trained in applying the Tunstall and Gipps (1996) typology, while employing FA strategies in their CLIL lessons. We hope that future research will shed more light in the ways FA is implemented in CLIL classes in Cyprus and other educational contexts.
References Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., and Wesche, M. B. (2003). Content-based second language instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London and New York: Routledge Falmer. Coonan, C. M. (2007). Insider Views of the CLIL Class Through Teacher Self – Observation – Introspection. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 623–646. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D. (2007). Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. 91
De Graaf, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An Observation Tool for Effective L2 Pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624. Eldridge, J. (1996). Code-switching in a Turkish secondary school. English Language Teaching Journal, 50(4), 303–311 Ellis, R. (2003). Task – based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice European Unit. Gajo, L. (2007). Linguistic Knowledge and Subject Knowledge: How Does Bilingualism Contribute to Subject Development? The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 562–581. Gardner, S., & Rea-Dickins, P. (2002). Focus on Language Sampling: A key issue in EAL Assessment. London: National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum (NALDIC). Gourlay, L. (2005). OK, who’s got number one? Permeable Triadic Dialogue, covert participation and the co-construction of checking episodes. Language Teaching Research, 9(4), 403–422. Kiely, R. (2009). CLIL-The Question of Assessment. Retrieved from Developing Teachers.com website: http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtrain ing/clil1_richard.htm Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign Language Competence in Content and Language Integrated Courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31–42. Leung, C., & Mohan, B. (2004). Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts: assessment as discourse and assessment of discourse. Language Testing, 21(3), 335–359. Marsh, D. (2003). The relevance and potential of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) for achieving MT+2 in Europe. Retrieved from ELC Information Bulletin website: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/elc/bulletin/9/en/marsh. html Massler, U. (2011). Assessment in CLIL learning. In S. Ioannou-Georgiou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL Implementation in primary and Pre-primary Education Nicosia Cyprus: Ministry of Educaiton Cyprus Pedagogical Institute Cyprus. McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research Methods for English Language Teachers. N. Y.: Arnold. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers Limited. 92
Michaeloudes, G. (2009). Formative Assessment in CLIL: An Observational Study In Cypriot Primary Schools. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Bristol, UK. Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (Eds.). (2010). Continuum Companion to Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. London: Continuum. Pavlou, P., & Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2008). ‘Η εκπαιδευτική προσέγγιση CLIL και οι προοπτικές εφαρμογής της στην Δημοτική και Προδημοτική Εκπαίδευση της Κύπρου’. In E. Ftiaka, S. Symeonidou & M. Socratous (Eds.), Quality in Education: Research and Teaching. Nicosia: University of Cyprus. Rea-Dickins, P. (2007). Classroom-based assessment: possibilities and pitfalls. In C. Davison & J. P. Cummins (Eds.), The International Handbook of English Language Teaching. Norwell, Massachusetts: Springer Publications (Vol. 1, pp. 505–520). Rea-Dickins, P. (2008). Classroom-based assessment. In E. Shohamy & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and Education (2 ed., Vol. 7, pp. 1–15). Sapsford, R., & Jupp, V. (2006). Data Collection and Analysis (2 ed.). London: Sage publications. Serra, C. (2007). Assessing CLIL at Primary School: A Longitudinal Study. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 582–601. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Snow, M. A. (2012). The Changing Face of Content-Based Instruction (Via DVC). 50th Anniversary Lecture Series, Cyprus Fulbright Commision, J. W. Fulbright Center, Nicosia (17 May 2012). Snow, M. A. (2013). Content-based language instruction and content and language integrated learning. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Tsagari D. & Michaeloudis, G. (forthcoming) ‘Formative Assessment Patterns in CLIL Primary Schools in Cyprus’. In Tsagari, D., S. Papadima-Sophocleous & S. Ioannou-Georgiou (eds) International Experiences in Language Testing and Assessment – Selected papers in Memory of Pavlos Pavlou. (Language Testing and Evaluation Series). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH. Tsui, A. B. M. (1995). Introducing Classroom Interaction. London: Penguin. Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher Feedback to Young Children in Formative Assessment: A Typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389–404.
93
