Assessment of Young Learners’ English Proficiency in Bilingual Content Instruction CLIL

This applied linguistic study in the field of second language acquisition investigated the assessment practices of class teachers as well as the challenges and visions of language assessment in bilingual content instruction (CLIL) at primary level in Finnish basic education. Furthermore, pupils’ and their parents’ perceptions of language assessment and LangPerform computer simulations as an alternative, modern assessment method in CLIL contexts were examined. The study was conducted for descriptive and developmental purposes in three phases: 1) a CLIL assessment survey; 2) simulation 1; and 3) simulation 2. All phases had a varying number of participants. The population of this mixed methods study were CLIL class teachers, their pupils and the pupils’ parents. The sampling was multi-staged and based on probability and random sampling. The data were triangulated. Altogether 42 CLIL class teachers nationwide, 109 pupils from the 3rd, 4th and 5th grade as well as 99 parents from two research schools in South-Western Finland participated in the CLIL assessment survey followed by an audio-recorded theme interview of volunteers (10 teachers, 20 pupils and 7 parents). The simulation experimentations 1 and 2 produced 146 pupil and 39 parental questionnaires as well as video interviews of volunteered pupils. The data were analysed both quantitatively using percentages and numerical frequencies and qualitatively employing thematic content analysis. Based on the data, language assessment in primary CLIL is not an established practice. It largely appears to be infrequent, incidental, implicit and based on impressions rather than evidence or the curriculum. The most used assessment methods were teacher observation, bilingual tests and dialogic interaction, and the least used were portfolios, simulations and peer assessment. Although language assessment was generally perceived as important by teachers, a fifth of them did not gather assessment information systematically, and 38% scarcely gave linguistic feedback to pupils. Both pupils and parents wished to receive more information on CLIL language issues; 91% of pupils claimed to receive feedback rarely or occasionally, and 63% of them wished to get more information on their linguistic coping in CLIL subjects. Of the parents, 76% wished to receive more information on the English proficiency of their children and their linguistic development. This may be a response to indirect feedback practices identified in this study. There are several challenges related to assessment; the most notable is the lack of a CLIL curriculum, language objectives and common ground principles of assessment. Three diverse approaches to language in CLIL that appear to affect teachers’ views on language assessment were identified: instrumental (language as a tool), dual (language as a tool and object of learning) and eclectic (miscellaneous views, e.g. affective factors prioritised). LangPerform computer simulations seem to be perceived as an appropriate alternative assessment method in CLIL. It is strongly recommended that the fundamentals for assessment (curricula and language objectives) and a mutual assessment scheme should be determined and stakeholders’ knowledge base of CLIL strengthened. The principles of adequate assessment in primary CLIL are identified as well as several appropriate assessment methods suggested.

Portfolio as an Indicator of Young Learners’ English Proficiency in Mainstream Language Instruction (EFL) and Bilingual Content Instruction (CLIL)

Tämä soveltavan kielitieteen ja kielitaidon arvioinnin toimintatutkimus tarkasteli kieliportfolion ominaisuuksia ja mahdollisuuksia nuorten oppijoiden englannin kielen arvioinnissa kahdessa eri oppimiskontekstissa: englanti oppiaineena (EFL) ja kaksikielinen sisällönopetus (CLIL). Tutkielman itsenäiset, kahteen eri englannin kielen rekisteriin (arkikieli ja akateeminen kieli) kohdistuneet portfoliokokeilut olivat erillisiä tapaustutkimuksia. Molemmat portfoliot perustuivat väljästi Eurooppalaiseen kielisalkkumalliin, ja ne olivat osa tutkielmantekijän luokkaopetusta ja -toimintaa. EFL -portfoliokokeilu 9-10-vuotiaille kolmasluokkalaisille toteutettiin marraskuun 2011 ja toukokuun 2012 välisenä aikana, kun CLIL -portfoliokokeilu n. 7-9-vuotiallle ensimmäisen ja toisen luokan oppilaille kesti kaksi lukuvuotta 2012–2014. Molemmissa kokeiluissa myös oppilaiden vanhemmat kuuluivat tutkimusjoukkoon, samoin CLIL -portfolion toteutuksessa avustaneet ja opettajanäkökulmaa edustaneet opettajaopiskelijat. Portfoliokokeilun aloitti myös kaksi muuta CLIL -opettajaa, mutta kumpikin kokeilu päättyi alkuvaiheeseensa. Tarkemman tarkastelun kohteina olivat tutkimuksen osallistujien kokemukset ja mielipiteet portfoliokokeiluista. Erityisesti tavoitteena oli selvittää, miten informatiivisena englannin kielitaidon indikaattorina kieliportfoliota pidettiin. Myös kehitysehdotuksia kerättiin. Trianguloitu aineisto koottiin sekä puolistrukturoiduin kyselyin että vapaaehtoisin teemahaastatteluin, jotka äänitettiin. EFL -aineisto koostui 18 oppilaskyselystä, 17 huoltajakyselystä ja 7 oppilashaastattelusta. CLIL -aineistoon sisältyi 19 oppilaskyselyä, 18 huoltajakyselyä, 7 oppilashaastattelua ja yksi opettajaopiskelijoiden (N=3) ryhmähaastattelu. Aineisto analysoitiin pääosin kvalitatiivisin menetelmin temaattisen sisältöanalyysin keinoin, mutta myös laskien frekvenssejä ja prosenttisosuuksia. Osallistujien mielipiteet ja kokemukset olivat hyvin samankaltaiset ja positiiviset kummassakin portfoliokokeilussa. Merkittävä enemmistö sekä oppilaista että huoltajista koki, että portfolion avulla on mahdollista osoittaa englannin kielitaitoa ja sen kehittymistä. Oppilaat kuvailivat portfoliotyötä hauskaksi ja kivaksi, ja heidän mielestään portfoliotehtävien pitäisi olla tarpeeksi haastavia, sisältää taiteellisia ja luovia elementtejä sekä kohdistua tuttuihin, mielenkiintoisiin aiheisiin. He totesivat, että portfolion avulla voi oppia lisää kieltä. Vanhempien mielestä portfolio kertoo koulun vieraiksi jääneistä oppisisällöistä, auttaa ymmärtämään lapsen ajatusmaailmaa ja motivaatiotasoa sekä paljastaa heidän kielitaidostaan uusia ulottuvuuksia. Opettajaopiskelijat havaitsivat, että portfolion avulla voi tutustua oppilaiden kieli- ja kulttuuritaustoihin sekä kartoittaa heidän kielellisiä tarpeitaan. Tämän tutkielman teoreettisen tarkastelun ja tulosten mukaan kieliportfolio tukee erinomaisesti uuden Perusopetuksen Opetussuunnitelman (NCC 2014) tavoitteita ja arvioinnin uudistuspyrkimyksiä sekä lainsäädännön arvioinnille asettamia edellytyksiä. Portfolio on erittäin suositeltava nuorten oppijoiden kielitaidon arviointimenetelmä perinteisten rinnalle.

Profiles of Second Language Learners in Bilingual Education: A Comparative Study of the Characteristics of Finnish and American Students

The purpose of this comparative study is to profile second language learners by exploring the factors which have an impact on their learning. The subjects come from two different countries: one group comes from Milwaukee, US, and the other from Turku, Finland. The subjects have attended bilingual classes from elementary school to senior high school in their respective countries. In the United States, the subjects (N = 57) started in one elementary school from where they moved on to two high schools in the district. The Finnish subjects (N = 39) attended the same school from elementary to high school. The longitudinal study was conducted during 1994-2004 and combines both qualitative and quantitative research methods. A Pilot Study carried out in 1990-1991 preceded the two subsequent studies that form the core material of this research. The theoretical part of the study focuses first on language policies in the United States and Finland: special emphasis is given to the history, development and current state of bilingual education, and the factors that have affected policy-making in the provision of language instruction. Current language learning theories and models form the theoretical foundation of the research, and underpin the empirical studies. Cognitively-labeled theories are at the forefront, but sociocultural theory and the ecological approach are also accounted for. The research methods consist of questionnaires, compositions and interviews. A combination of statistical methods as well as content analysis were used in the analysis. The attitude of the bilingual learners toward L1 and L2 was generally positive: the subjects enjoyed learning through two languages and were motivated to learn both. The knowledge of L1 and parental support, along with early literacy in L1, facilitated the learning of L2. This was particularly evident in the American subject group. The American subjects’ L2 learning was affected by the attitudes of the learners to the L1 culture and its speakers. Furthermore, the negative attitudes taken by L1 speakers toward L2 speakers and the lack of opportunities to engage in activities in the L1 culture affected the American subjects’ learning of L2, English. The research showed that many American L2 learners were isolated from the L1 culture and were even afraid to use English in everyday communication situations. In light of the research results, a politically neutral linguistic environment, which the Finnish subjects inhabited, was seen to be more favorable for learning. The Finnish subjects were learning L2, English, in a neutral zone where their own attitudes and motivation dictated their learning. The role of L2 as a means of international communication in Finland, as opposed to a means of exercising linguistic power, provided a neutral atmosphere for learning English. In both the American and Finnish groups, the learning of other languages was facilitated when the learner had a good foundation in their L1, and the learning of L1 and L2 were in balance. Learning was also fostered when the learners drew positive experiences from their surroundings and were provided with opportunities to engage in activities where L2 was used.