Cover not available
Article published In:
CLIL and Bilingual Education in the Netherlands
Edited by Tessa Mearns and Rick de Graaff
[Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 7:2] 2018
► pp. 177–202

Juggling ideals and constraints

The position of English teachers in CLIL contexts [*] *

| Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
| Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences | University of Amsterdam
| University of Groningen | University of Pannonia

In bilingual streams in the Netherlands, school subjects are taught in an additional language so that pupils learn both subject content and the target language by using language meaningfully. Teachers of English in bilingual streams (TEBs) are often expected to collaborate with subject teacher colleagues (STs). In addition, they teach separate language lessons. This provides TEBs with specific challenges. This article reports on a focus group (FG) study exploring the extent to which the ideals of stakeholders in bilingual schools in the Netherlands reflect the literature on this topic, using a frame of reference developed for this purpose (Dale, Oostdam, & Verspoor, 2017). Five FGs were held with TEBs and STs from Dutch schools in the network for bilingual education and with members of the network’s quality assurance panels. Each FG consisted of between three and six participants with a similar role in bilingual education; audit panel chairpersons, audit panel secretaries and STs and TEBs from different schools. Participants were asked to discuss what an ideal English teacher would do in English lessons and in cooperation with subject colleagues. Data consists of five transcripts of the FG discussions. On the basis of inductive and deductive analyses (using MaxQDA), the ideals of stakeholders are positioned in the framework to explore to what extent different types of stakeholders have complementary or conflicting views. The findings suggest that stakeholders need to develop more shared understandings and a shared language to allow TEBs to realise their ambitions.

Keywords: language teachers, CLIL, collaborative practices, pedagogical practices, language focus, content focus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1An analytical framework for language teaching in bilingual education
    • 2.2From theory to stakeholder ideals
    • 2.3Positioning stakeholder ideals in the quadrants
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials and procedure
    • 3.3Data collection and analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Identifying and positioning stakeholder ideals
      • Observed and expected distribution of comments per stakeholder group
    • 4.2Complementary and conflicting views
      • Q1 Literature / language arts
      • Q2 Language and communication
      • Q3 Content support
      • Q4 Subject-specific language
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
    • Q1 Literature / language arts
    • Q2 Language and communication
    • Q3 Content support
    • Q4 Subject-specific language
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.18002.dal
References
Arkoudis, S.
(2006) Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 415–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borg, S.
(2006) Teacher cognition and teacher education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V.
(2008) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chopey-Paquet, M.
(2015) Investigating teacher partnerships for CLIL developing a model for subject-content and language teacher pedagogic collaboration towards integration (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Aberdeen. Retrieved from [URL]
Coyle, D.
(2011) Post-method pedagogies: Using a second or other language as a learning tool in CLIL settings. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp. 49–74). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
(2010) Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Creese, A.
(2000) The role of the language specialist in disciplinary teaching: In search of a subject? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(6), 451–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: Language and subject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 597–616. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Is this content-based language teaching? Linguistics and Education, 16(2), 188–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J. W.
(2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dale, L., Oostdam, R., & Verspoor, M.
(2017) Searching for identity and focus: Towards an analytical framework for language teachers in bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U.
(2013) Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(4), 545–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
European Platform
(2012) Standard for bilingual education in English – havo/vwo. Haarlem: Europees Platform.Google Scholar
(2013) Bilingual education in Dutch schools: A success story. Haarlem: European Platform.Google Scholar
Fasoglio, D., & Tuin, D.
(2018) Hoe goed spreken leerlingen Engels als zij het voortgezet onderwijs verlaten? De ERK-streefniveaus onderzocht. [How well do secondary school pupils speak English on leaving school? An investigation of CEFR attainment targets.] Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 19(1).Google Scholar
Freeman, D.
(1996) Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers know. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom: Qualitative research in second language education (pp. 88–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
HBO-raad
(2011–2012) Kennisbasis docent Engels bachelor. Den Haag: HBO-raad.Google Scholar
Krueger, R. A. & Casey, M. A.
(2015) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Messelink, A.
(2018) Tweetalig onderwijs in het voortgezet onderwijs [Bilingual education in secondary schools]. Den Haag: Nuffic.Google Scholar
Nuffic
(2016) B2 or not B2 – Taalvaardigheden en ERK-niveaus in tweetalig onderwijs. Retrieved from [URL]
(2017) Tweetalig onderwijs. Retrieved from [URL]
Schleppegrell, M. J.
(2018) The knowledge base for language teaching: What is the English to be taught as content? Language Teaching Research. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(1988) Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 61, 68–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms: Research perspectives. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 521, 529–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, D. R.
(2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 271, 237–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trimbos, B.
(2007) Concretisering van de kerndoelen MVT. Engels. Enschede: SLO.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Dale, Liz, Ron Oostdam & Marjolijn Verspoor
2021. Towards a professional development tool for teachers of English in bilingual streams: the dynamics of beliefs and practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 24:9 ► pp. 1288 ff. DOI logo
Mearns, Tessa & Nivja de Jong
2021. Sketching a motivational landscape. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 9:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Oattes, Huub, Ron Oostdam, Rick De Graaff, Ruben Fukkink & Arie Wilschut
2018. Content and Language Integrated Learning in Dutch bilingual education. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 7:2 ► pp. 156 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.