Journal of ELE Praxis

Journal of ELE Praxis, Volume 1, Issue 1, 2024, 59-77, https://doi.org/10.51474/elepraxis.v1i1.559

Publication date: Nov 24, 2024

Views: 1 | Downloads: 1

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) focuses on content and language objectives in teaching and learning activities. The study has explored the English language teachers’ perceptions of the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach in the context of English language classrooms conducted in urban secondary schools in Kaski, Nepal. The study utilizes the narrative inquiry research design, remaining under the interpretive paradigm of the research. Four English teachers from different schools participated in this exploration, providing valuable insights that followed a systematic process to collect and analyze data. In-depth interviews using open-ended questions allowed for a comprehensive exploration of their perceptions. The study uncovered a multifaceted picture of English language teachers' perceptions of implementing CLIL. Teachers expressed varying awareness of the CLIL approach, highlighting the importance of training and continuing support for professional development. Challenges identified include a lack of training, insufficient CLIL materials, and low English language proficiency among students, hindering effective CLIL instruction. The study suggests that strengthening teacher training, resource allocation, and classroom management strategies can create a more conducive learning environment, fostering the successful integration of the CLIL approach in English language classes. The findings suggest the active involvement of educational authorities in addressing these challenges and promoting the effective use of CLIL for improved language instruction and classroom engagement.

hard CLIL soft CLIL English language teachers narrative inquiry teacher development Nepal

1. Aiba, C., & Izumi, J. (2024). CDFs across contexts: Analyzing a learners’ written corpus for CLIL classrooms. Asian Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 31, 16-32.
2. Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of Social sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9-16.
3. Ball, P. (2009). Does CLIL work? In D. A. Hill, & A. Pulverness (Eds.), The best of both worlds? International perspectives on CLIL. Norwich Institute for Language Education.
4. Banegas, D. L. (2012). CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 5(1), 46-56.
5. Barr, C. D., Uccelli, P., & Phillips Galloway, E. (2019). Specifying the academic language skills that support text understanding in the middle grades: The design and validation of the core academic language skills construct and instrument. Language Learning, 69(4), 978-1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12365
6. Becker, K. (1998). On the perfectly general nature of instability in meaning holism. The Journal of Philosophy, 95(12), 635-640.
7. Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course CLIL module. Cambridge University Press.
8. Biçaku, R. Ç. (2011). CLIL and teacher training. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 3821.
9. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. ASCD.
10. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
11. Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251-269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1540-4781.2012.01330
12. Campillo, J. M., Sánchez, R., & Miralles, P. (2019). Primary teachers' perceptions of CLIL implementation in Spain. English Language Teaching, 12(4), 149-156.
13. Chase, S. E. (2008). Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. Sage.
14. Clandinin, D. J., & Caine, V. (2013). Narrative inquiry. In Reviewing qualitative research in the social sciences. Routledge.
15. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education. Routledge.
16. Conn, C. E. (2010). Learning the hard way (but still learning!): Using team teaching as a vehicle for pedagogical change. Business Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 87-91.
17. Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts. Learning through a foreign language, 46-62.
18. Coyle, D. (2006). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating learners and teachers. Scottish Languages Review, 13(5), 1-18.
19. 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.
20. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge.
21. Cresswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
22. Czura, A., & Anklewicz, A. (2018). Pupils’ and teachers’ perceptions of CLIL in primary school: A case study. Linguodidactica, 22, 47-63.
23. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 7-23). U. Smit (Ed.). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
24. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204.
25. Descombes, V. (2013). The institutions of meaning: A defense of anthropological holism. Harvard University Press.
26. Eslami, Z. R., & Geng, Z. (2021). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL). In Research questions in language education and applied linguistics: A reference guide (pp.23-27). Springer.
27. Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402-430.
28. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2016). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research. Routledge.
29. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Heinemann.
30. Gordon, M. (2009). Toward a pragmatic discourse of constructivism: Reflections on lessons from practice. Educational Studies, 45(1), 39-58.
31. Hillyard, S. (2011). First steps in CLIL: Training the teachers. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 1-12.
32. Hüttner, J., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. (2013). The power of beliefs: Lay theories and their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777385
33. Ikeda, M. (2021). “How would you like your CLIL?”: Conceptualising Soft CLIL. In Soft CLIL and English language teaching (pp. 9-26). Routledge.
34. Jia, Q. (2010). A brief study on the implication of constructivism teaching theory on classroom teaching reform in basic education. International Education Studies, 3(2), 197-199.
35. Kachru, B. B. (2006). World Englishes and culture wars. The handbook of world Englishes, (pp.446-471). Wiley.
36. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). The Routledge handbook of world Englishes. Routledge.
37. Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Association Press.
38. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
39. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Yale University Press.
40. Kvale, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
41. Lasagabaster, D., & de Zarobe, Y. R. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge.
42. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
43. Llinares, A. (2015). Integration in CLIL: A proposal to inform research and successful pedagogy. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 58-73.
44. Llinares, A., & Morton, T. (Eds.). (2017). Applied linguistics perspectives on CLIL. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
45. Lochtman, K. (2021). Does CLIL promote intercultural sensitivity? A case-study in Belgian CLIL and non-CLIL secondary schools. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 9(1), 31-57.
46. Lormand, E. (1996). How to be a meaning holist. The Journal of Philosophy, 93(2), 51-73.
47. Lo, Y. Y. (2019). Development of the beliefs and language awareness of content subject teachers in CLIL: Does professional development help? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(7), 818-832. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1318821
48. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
49. Mahan, K. R., Brevik, L. M., & Ødegaard, M. (2018). Characterizing CLIL teaching: New insights from a lower secondary classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 24, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1472206
50. Mariotti, C. (2006). Negotiated interactions and repair patterns in CLIL settings. VIEWS, 15(3), 33-39.
51. Mariotti, C. (2007). Interaction Strategies in English-Medium Instruction. Franco Angeli.
52. McDougald, J. (2015). Teachers' attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 17(1), 25-41.
53. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan.
54. Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based language teaching. In J. Cenoz, & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond bilingualism: Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 35-63). Multilingual Matters.
55. Miao, Y., Pinkwart, N., & Hoppe, U. (2006, January). Conducting situated learning in a collaborative virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Web-Based Education (pp. 7-12). ACTA Press.
56. Musumeci, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based instruction: Communication at cross-purposes? Applied linguistics, 17(3), 286-325.
57. Nakanishi, C., & Nakanishi, H. (2016). How do students think about soft CLIL in the Basque Secondary Schools? Asian Journal of Education and eLearning, 4(1).
58. Neupane, B. P. (2023). Trajectory of identity negotiation of English language teachers from Nepal: A narrative inquiry [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Kathmandu University.
59. Neupane, B. P. (2024). Sociocultural environment and agency in identity construction of English language teachers. The Qualitative Report, 29(7), 19481968. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2024.6756
60. Neupane, B. P., & Bhatt, S. P. (2023). English language teachers’ professional journey and construction of their identity. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 12(1), 109-130. https://www.ojed.org/index.php/jise/article/view/4411
61. Neupane, B. P., & Joshi, D. N. (2022). Perspectives on teacher education in South Asia: A comparative review. The Harvest, 1(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3126/harvest.v1i1.44333
62. Neupane, B. P., & Gnawali, L. (2023). Narrative analysis in English language teachers’ professional identity research: A review. Journal of NELTA, 28(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.3126/nelta.v28i1.61371
63. Neupane, B. P., Gnawali, L., & Kafle, H. R. (2022). Narratives and identities: A critical review of empirical studies from 2004 to 2022. TEFLIN Journal: A Publication on the Teaching & Learning of English, 33(2), 330-348. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v33i2/330-348
64. Nikula, T., Dafouz, E., Moore, P., & Smit, U. (Eds.) (2016). Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096145
65. Patel, N. V. (2003). A holistic approach to learning and teaching interaction: Factors in the development of critical learners. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(6), 272-284.
66. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.
67. Piaget, J. (2013). The construction of reality in the child. Routledge.
68. Pistorio, M. I. (2009). Teacher training and competences for effective CLIL teaching in Argentina. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 2(2).
69. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “meaning”. University of Minnesota Press.
70. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage.
71. Romanowski, P. (2018). CLIL’s role in facilitating intercultural learning. Applied Linguistics Papers, (25/2), 71-87.
72. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. & Jiménez Catalán, R. M. (Eds.). (2009). Content and language integrated learning: evidence from research in Europe. Second language acquisition. Multilingual Matters.
73. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
74. Saldana, J. (2018). Writing qualitatively: The selected works of Johnny Saldaña. Routledge.
75. Skinnari, K., & Bovellan, E. (2016). CLIL teachers’ beliefs about integration and about their professional roles: Perspectives from a European context. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 145-167). Multilingual Matters.
76. Tan, M. (2011). Mathematics and science teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of language in content learning. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 325342. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1362168811401153
77. Uhlig, F. (2018). Holistic teaching and holistic learning, exemplified through one example from linear algebra. In Challenges and strategies in teaching linear algebra (pp. 353367). Springer International Publishing.
78. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
79. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
80. Wood, T. (2012). From alternative epistemologies to practice in education: Rethinking what it means to teach and learn. In Constructivism in education (pp. 331-339). Routledge.
81. Yang, B. (2006). A holistic conceptualization of adult learning and its critiques of selected concepts and theories. Adult Education Research Conference. https://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2006/papers/79

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.