To use or not to use CLIL?

A bird's-eye view of Content and

Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Norway:
Teaching practices and student development in secondary school

Karina Rose Mahan, Ph.D. candidate in English Didactics

Project Description, University College of Southeast Norway

Main Objective and Summary

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a bilingual teaching approach in which a non-
language subject (such as history or science) is taught in a foreign language. Many countries in Europe
have implemented this teaching approach in the belief that it will boost English proficiency (cf.
Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Lorenzo, 2007). The goal of this study is to determine if this approach is
conducive to learning English in Norway, and if it can address the nation’s insufficient level of
academic English. It is an empirical, longitudinal study that will investigate three CLIL classes in
three different Norwegian counties. The project will determine how the teachers at these three
different schools teach within the CLIL approach, how the students respond to it, and how the students
develop their written English skills over the course of a year.

Background and Theoretical Framework

The English situation in Norway
Norway is a country that needs its people to be proficient in English. The 2006 Knowledge Promotion
Reform (LK06) emphasizes this, stating that as a small country, its inhabitants will need English for
international communication (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2006, 2013).
Schwach, Brandt, and Dalseng (2012) uncover that 25% of course materials at university level are in
English, and 95% of workers in the private industry in Norway report using English to some degree
in the workplace (Hellekjær, 2007). This would imply that Norwegians are expected to master a high
level of English proficiency as adults.
Although English proficiency appears to be a national priority, few hours are allocated to English
class. From 1st - 4th grade, children are taught English for 1 hour a week; from 5-10th grade, 2 hours a
week (Skoledata.net, 2015). English language researchers in Norway have found that this is not
sufficient, and Norwegians are not prepared for the level of English they will encounter as adults.
Hellekjær (2005) illustrated this in the “Acid Test” – a test that proved that 2/3 of senior upper
secondary school students would not have managed the level of English required for admission to
universities in English-speaking countries. Hasselgren (1994) and Hellekjær (2005) indicated that the
largest hurdle for Norwegian learners of English is vocabulary. I investigated this in my Master Thesis
(Mahan, 2013), and found concurrent results: half of all lexical errors were due to the fact that
Norwegian students had inappropriately used colloquial or simplified words in academic texts. In
other words, many Norwegian learners of English do not possess the academic vocabulary that is
demanded of them as adults.
The reasons for this are many. In addition to few English hours, the hiring of English teachers is lax:
according to Statistics Norway, 43% of English teachers in primary and lower secondary school have
no credits in English (Lagerstrøm, Moafi, & Revold, 2014, p. 19). This means that nearly half of all
teachers from grades 1-10 have no formal competence in English. A third cause could be the type of
English that Norwegians are exposed to outside of school: Norwegian production of English is
characterized by the colloquial English found in television, everyday conversation and on the Internet
(Mahan, 2013). The job of schools and English teachers should be to counteract this by introducing
English texts that will bring Norwegian students of English up to an academic level of English. CLIL

1
could contribute with more hours in English, and it targets academic English.

An introduction to CLIL
CLIL is a teaching approach that is widely used in Europe and has existed in the Norwegian school
system since 1993 (Svenhard, Servant, Hellekjær, & Bøhn, 2007, p. 140). CLIL is called ‘the
European label for bilingual education,’ and its implementation is relatively new in comparison with
other immersion programs used outside of Europe (Lorenzo, 2007, p. 28). In Europe, this approach
is used in over 30 countries (Pérez-Cañado, 2012) and is believed to enhance both language and
content learning (Lorenzo, 2007). Most teachers, however, use this approach to improve their students’
English abilities (Dalton-Puffer, 2011). It serves two purposes: it helps students develop their
language skills and it transforms the target language into a tool to learn other subjects (Drew, 2013,
p. 4). CLIL's goal is to eliminate the separation between language teaching and subject matter, so it
draws on tenets of immersion.

Teaching CLIL in Norway

The Ministry of Education and Research has certain requirements in order for a teacher to use the
CLIL approach in Norway – at least 30% of the teaching is in the target language, the students must
comply, teaching must correspond to the current curricula and the students have the same exam
requirements as non-CLIL classes (Hellekjær, 2005, p. 53). Any CLIL instruction is either initiated
by the county or the individual teacher (Paulsen, 2010b). In a national survey of CLIL conducted in
2004, it was estimated that 3-4% of high schools were actively engaged in CLIL, although this number
is no longer estimable (Svenhard et al., 2007). The Foreign Language Center confirms that there have
been CLIL classes conducted in English, German, French and Spanish for a wide variety of subjects,
starting as early as the sixth grade. The typical CLIL classroom in Norway has been the social sciences
taught in English in upper secondary school (Svenhard et al., 2007), although successful CLIL
teaching has been documented as low as the 7th grade (Brevik & Moe, 2012).

Interest in CLIL grew after the Knowledge Promotion curriculum (LK06) underlined the importance
of English in Norway and classified it as a competence (Paulsen, 2010a, p. 9). In 2009, the Foreign
Language Center recruited eight schools to participate in a CLIL project. The results of this project
(Fokus på språk, 2010, 2012) indicated a great potential for CLIL in Norway as an alternative foreign
language teaching approach. However, there is not enough empirical evidence to fully explain the
effects of this teaching approach. My project wishes to aid in this area.

CLIL research
CLIL research is growing rapidly and is being conducted all over the world. One challenge is that the
CLIL approach (and its success) depends on many factors, and its results vary from country to country.
Positive results in Spain may not apply to Norway. Sylvén (2013) stresses this in her article: “CLIL
in Sweden: Why does it not work?” She argues that CLIL is not an effective teaching approach in
Sweden. She compares empirical results from CLIL research done in Finland, Germany, Spain and
Sweden. The article concludes that the success in the other countries can be due to factors such as
clear national CLIL policies, bilingual teacher training, low age of implementation and amount of
extramural English. Sylvén suggests that the Nordic countries will not see positive results for CLIL:
we do not have national policies or teacher training to support the CLIL approach, and we implement
it too late (upper secondary school). Furthermore, she believes that since the Nordic countries have
such a high exposure to English, CLIL teaching will not make much of a difference.

The few empirical studies of language outcome in Norway have suggested that even between
countries as similar as Norway and Sweden, the effects of CLIL could differ. Where the CLISS project

2
found few results on language outcome gains (Sylvén, 2013), Norway has found completely different
results. CLIL students of English in Norway score higher on listening (Brevik & Moe, 2012; Moe,
2010) and reading (Brevik & Moe, 2012; Hellekjær & Hopfenbeck, 2012; Moe, 2010), in comparison
with non- CLIL students. Notably, these studies all focus on receptive language skills, and not active
ones (speaking and writing). To my knowledge, no studies on active language skills within the CLIL
approach have been conducted in Norway. This project proposes a study that will focus on several
aspects of CLIL that have hitherto not been researched in Norway: progression of active language
skills (writing), observation of CLIL classrooms, teacher perspectives and student attitudes. The aim
of this project is to add to the limited repertoire of research that places CLIL in a Norwegian context
and answer the question: How does CLIL work in Norway? CLIL is considered by many researchers
to be a solution to limited language skills in a country. However, CLIL teaching varies depending on
the teacher, class and country. The scope of this project is therefore to investigate how CLIL teaching
is executed in Norway and how students develop within this teaching approach.

The false proficiency: Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills

Cummins (2013) distinguishes between two types of language proficiency: BICS (Basic Interpersonal
Communication Skills) and CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency). He states that these
two levels exist in all languages – a level where the speaker communicates on a day-to-day basis
through cues and context (BICS), and a more cognitively demanding level in which the speaker can
perform with little to no contextual clues (CALP). The second level of language learning takes many
more years to acquire, and has gone under many names in English: English for specific purposes,
Academic English, Workplace English, Business English, etc. When foreigners move to a new
country, a BICS level can normally be achieved within 2 years, whereas CALP will take at least 5
years to develop close to that of a native speaker (Cummins, 2013, p. 2). It has been suggested that
Norwegians veer toward the BICS end of the scale, but erroneously judge themselves as mastering
CALP as well (Hellekjær, 2007). BICS-competent speakers are often lulled into a false sense of
accomplishment, since they manage to communicate well in the language. This is why a study by
Menken, Kleyn, and Chae (2012), for example, revealed that students of foreign origin who have
attended school in America for seven years or more are often mistaken as native speakers due to their
strong oral skills. In reality, these students have not developed a CALP level of English and are as a
result not given the language support they actually need. CLIL has been suggested as a viable teaching
approach to promote a CALP level of English, as studies have shown that CLIL students have a more
varied vocabulary than their counterparts (cf. Ackerl, 2007; Seregély, 2008). My study will use the
BICS/CALP framework to examine if CLIL teaching in Norway promotes this level of English.

Research Questions
The overarching research question for this project is:

What characterizes a Norwegian CLIL classroom, its teaching methodologies and its students?

In general, CLIL research can be divided into three areas: teaching methods, content outcomes and
language learning outcomes (Brevik & Moe, 2012, p. 215). My project will touch upon teaching
methods and language learning outcomes. Classroom research consists of three main agents: the
researcher, the teacher and the students. This study will examine the CLIL classroom through the
perspectives of these three agents. The main research question is split into three themes that intend
to each answer a part of the main research question. The themes are as follows:

1. The CLIL Classroom

RQ1: What characterizes CLIL teaching in Norwegian upper and lower secondary
schools?
RQ1a: What teaching methodologies are observable in the classrooms?
RQ1b: Which similarities and differences are observable in three CLIL classrooms? Do these
classrooms have a common denominator that embodies the “CLIL” approach?

3
CLIL teaching has become so popular that it is “on the verge of becoming a victim of its own success”
(Georgiou, 2012). The methodologies, approaches and interpretations of it are so varied across
different countries, that it is becoming difficult to determine what CLIL even is. In light of this,
establishing the contents of a Norwegian CLIL classroom is viewed as important. This theme puts
the researcher in focus. In order to determine what characterizes a Norwegian CLIL classroom, it
needs to be objectively observed by an impartial third party. The goal of this theme is to identify the
main traits of CLIL teaching. Are there any methods in common characteristic of “CLIL”? RQ1 will
form the basis for Article 1.

2. The CLIL Teacher

RQ2: How do CLIL teachers perceive their own teaching?
RQ2a: How do the observed teachers describe their CLIL instruction?
RQ2b: What are the CLIL teachers’ thoughts on their teaching approach, and how do they
relate this to their own beliefs of second language learning (SLL)?

The results of CLIL classes have, unsurprisingly, depended on the teacher's motivation and skills
(Paulsen, 2010b). This theme targets the second agent: the teacher. As a follow-up or elaboration of
the first theme, these research questions attempt to uncover how CLIL teachers explain their approach.
There must be a reason behind why the CLIL teachers have chosen their teaching methods. RQ2 will
probe deeper into the teachers’ reasoning. Will teachers that prescribe to different SLL theories choose
a different CLIL approach? RQ2 will form the basis for Article 2.

3. The CLIL student

RQ3: What characterizes a CLIL student?
RQ3a: How do the observed students characterize their CLIL instruction, and what are their
attitudes toward (learning) English?
RQ3b: What characterizes the students’ written development in English across a school year?

The last theme comprises many aspects. Firstly, it wishes to examine how students react to the CLIL
teaching, and if some methods work better than others do. Secondly, it wishes to control for some of
the factors that Sylvén (2013) mentions in her article: attitudes toward English and extramural English.
Could these two factors contribute to positive/negative attitudes toward CLIL teaching, and affect
their level of English? Lastly, this theme includes language outcomes. This project will investigate
the longitudinal effects of CLIL on written English over a period of ten months. RQ3b will use the
BICS/CALP framework to determine if this teaching approach fosters this level of language
proficiency. Few longitudinal studies have been conducted on language outcomes (Pérez-Cañado,
2012, p. 331). This project will therefore also contribute to the CLIL research community on an
international level. RQ3a will form the basis for Article 3, and RQ3b will be treated in Article 4.

4
 Methods
This project uses a mixed-methods approach, as it incorporates both qualitative and quantitative data
(Creswell, 2009, p. 3). Themes 1 (CLIL classroom) and 2 (Teachers) are qualitative, and theme 3
(students) is quantitative. A qualitative approach is considered essential to this study, as it examines
human interaction – how/why teachers choose and implement bilingual teaching approaches, and how
students respond to them. However, the third theme examines a large number of participants,
gathering performance data (written texts) and attitude/habit data (survey/questionnaire). In order to
examine the relationship between these variables, a quantitative approach is more appropriate
(Creswell, 2009, p. 15). The study furthermore uses a triangulation of methods. Three data sources
will be used to investigate the CLIL classroom: video observation, taped interviews and student
surveys/questionnaires. The use of several data sources allows for instance interviews and
surveys/questionnaires to be cross-checked with observable data. This will allow for more robust data
(Bryman, 2012, p. 635)

Table 1 gives an overview of all participants, and table 2 provides a full overview of data collection
and analysis.

Table 1. Participants in three case studies

Cases School #1 School #2 School #3

Study Lower secondary (LS) General studies (GS) General studies (GS)
program
Bilingual CLIL in all subjects except CLIL in Social Science CLIL in Science
program Norwegian (full immersion) (one subject) (one subject)
Time frame Data collection at schools will happen between August 2016 - June 2017
Participants Student sample 1: 9th grade Student sample 2: Vg1 students in Student sample 3: Vg1
CLIL students in one class one CLIL class students in one CLIL class

Teacher sample 1: Teacher sample 2: Teacher sample 3:

The content subject teacher(s) The content subject teacher(s) The content subject teacher(s)

5
 Table 2. Data collection, data analysis, and articles across the case studies

Methods Quantitative and qualitative

Themes The CLIL classroom Teachers Students
Key words: Observation, Traits Key words: Perception, Key words: Attitudes,
Awareness, Choices Development
Main RQ1: What characterizes CLIL RQ2: How do CLIL teachers RQ3: What characterizes a
research teaching in upper and lower perceive their own teaching? CLIL student?
questions secondary schools?
Sub RQ1a: What teaching RQ2a: How do the observed RQ3a: How do the observed
questions methodologies are observable in teachers describe their CLIL students characterize their
the classrooms (video)? instruction (interviews)? CLIL instruction, and what are
their attitudes toward
RQ1b: Which similarities and RQ2b: What are the CLIL (learning) English
differences are observable the teachers’ thoughts on their (questionnaire/survey)?
three CLIL classrooms? Do teaching approach, and how do
these classrooms have a they relate this to their own RQ3b: What characterizes the
common denominator that beliefs of second language students' written development
embodies the pedagogical learning (interviews)? in English across a school year
methodology “CLIL” (video)? (written texts)?

Data Video observations (RQ1a,b and
collection RQ2b): 4 consecutive lessons in
each classroom will be recorded
using the LISA design1.
Teacher interviews (RQ2a,b): A
semi-structured interview in
which teachers describe their
teaching methodologies
immediately after the final
observed lesson.
Student questionnaire (RQ3a):
Distributing a Norwegian
version of the Ferguson Tripod
Questionnaire2 used in the
LISA project, immediately
after the final observed lesson.

Student survey (RQ3a):

Collecting background
information about the students
(gender, first language, reading
and using English out of
school, attitudes towards
English in general).

Student texts (RQ3b): Written

tests in English from all three
cases. Distributed in August
and again in June, identical or
similar tests for comparison.

1
http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/english/research/projects/lisa/index.html
2
http://tripoded.com/teachers/

6
 Data Video observations: Use the
analysis PLATO manual to code the
videos.
Articles Article 1: Observations of
CLIL classrooms
Article 1 will report the findings
on teaching methodologies from
all three cases in the form of
RQ1. It will compare the three
CLIL classrooms to determine if
there are any common traits that
these three classrooms may
possess. This article can be
written in collaboration with a
researcher familiar with PLATO
(Write Spring 2017)
Teacher interviews: Categorize
the self-reported data according
to the PLATO manual.
Article 2: I'm a CLIL teacher:
How bilingual teachers in
Norway define their
methodologies
Article 2 will discuss the
perceptions that CLIL teachers
have of themselves as CLIL
teachers and how they interpret
bilingual teaching. It will
examine the relationship
between the video data and
teacher interviews. This article
will answer RQ2 and can be
written in collaboration with a
researcher experienced in
qualitative research.
(Write Fall 2017)
Student questionnaire: Use
SPSS to analyze the survey
data. Present in graphs.
Student survey: Use SPSS to
analyze the survey data in
graphs.
Student texts: Assessment of
texts using a framework that
evaluates lexis, grammar,
length of sentence, etc. Use of
statistical analysis to determine
statistical significance.
Article 3: I’m a CLIL
student: Attitudes and use of
English inside and outside
the CLIL classroom
Article 3 will discuss the
results from student attitudes
toward English/CLIL and their
English use outside of school
in the form of RQ3a.
(Write Spring 2018)
Article 4: Language learning
outcomes in a
CLIL classroom after one
year
Article 4 will report the
findings on student texts from
all three cases in the form of
RQ3b.
(Write Fall 2018)
7
 Reference List
Ackerl, C. (2007). Lexico-grammar in the essays of CLIL and non-CLIL students: Error analysis of
written production. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 6-11.
Brevik, L. M., & Moe, E. (2012). Effects of CLIL teaching on language outcomes. In D. C. Tsagari,
Ildikó (Ed.), Collaboration in Language Testing and Assessment (Vol. 26, pp. 213-227): Peter
Lang AG.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(3rd ed. ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Cummins, J. (2013). BICS and CALP: Empirical Support, theoretical status, and policy implications
of a controversial distinction. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies:
Socially situated views and perspectives (pp. 10-23). New York: Routledge.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-Language Integrated Learning: From Practice to Principles?
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182-204. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092
Drew, I. (2013). Using content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in the 9th grade : teaching
about the second world war from a global to local perspective in English lessons. 2013:
Akademika, cop. 2013.
Georgiou, S. I. (2012). Reviewing the puzzle of CLIL. ELT journal, 66(4), 495-504.
Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: a study into the ways Norwegian
students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2),
237-258. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.1994.tb00065.x
Hellekjær, G. O. (2005). The Acid Test: Does Upper Secondary EFL instruction Effectively Prepare
Norwegian Students for the Reading of English Textbooks at Colleges and Universities? .
(Unpublished Doctoral Thesis), University of Oslo.
Hellekjær, G. O. (2007). Fremmedspråk i norsk næringsliv : Engelsk er ikke nok! Fokus på språk,
(3). http://hdl.handle.net/11250/147925 Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11250/147925
Hellekjær, G. O., & Hopfenbeck, T. (2012). Lesing. Fokus på språk, 28, 84-124.
Lagerstrøm, B. O., Moafi, H., & Revold, M. K. (2014). Kompetanseprofil in grunnskolen.
Hovedresultater 2013/2014: Statistisk sentralbyrå.
Lorenzo, F. (2007). The sociolinguistics of CLIL: Language planning and language change in 21st
century Europe. Revista española de lingüística aplicada, 1, 27-38.
Mahan, K. R. (2013). Lexical Errors in Norwegian Intermediate and Advanced Learners of English.
(Unpublished Master Thesis), University of Oslo.
Menken, K., Kleyn, T., & Chae, N. (2012). Spotlight on “Long-Term English Language Learners”:
Characteristics and Prior Schooling Experiences of an Invisible Population. International
Multilingual Research Journal, 6(2), 121-142. doi:10.1080/19313152.2012.665822
Moe, E. (2010). CLIL og språkutvikling. Fokus på språk, 24, 38-61.
Paulsen, J. M. (2010a). Hvilke faktorer har betydning for implementering og spredning av CLIL? :
analyse av CLIL i videregående skole 2009-2010 : del 2 Oppdragsrapport (Høgskolen i
Hedmark : online), Vol. nr. 3-2010.
Paulsen, J. M. (2010b). Lærerperspektiver på CLIL : didaktiske valg og rammebetingelser :
evaluering av CLIL i videregående skole 2009-2010 : del 1 Oppdragsrapport (Høgskolen i
Hedmark : online), Vol. nr. 2-2010.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: past, present, and future. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315-341.
doi:10.1080/13670050.2011.630064
Schwach, V., Brandt, S. S., & Dalseng, C. F. (2012). " Det gikk på engelsk og norsk, engelsk og
norsk". En undersøkelse av språk i pensum på grunnivå i høyere utdanning.
Seregély, E. M. (2008). A comparison of lexical learning in CLIL and traditional EFL classrooms.
(Doctoral Dissertation), Universität Wien, Vienna.
Skoledata.net. (2015). Fag- og timefordelingen i grunnopplæringen. Retrieved from
8
 http://www.skoledata.net/Planer/Kulo/Fagogtime/kap2.htm
Svenhard, B. W., Servant, K., Hellekjær, G. O., & Bøhn, H. (2007). Norway. In A. M. Maljers, David,
Wolff, Dieter (Ed.), Windows on CLIL (pp. 139-146): European Platform for Dutch Education.
Sylvén, L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden: why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across
contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3),
301-320.
The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2006). English Subject Curriculum [LK06]
[Press release]. Retrieved from http://data.udir.no/kl06/ENG1-03.pdf?lang=eng
The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2013). English Subject Curriculum [LK06].
Retrieved from http://data.udir.no/kl06/ENG1-03.pdf?lang=eng