Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 11:1 (2023) ► pp.55–89

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and the linguistic difficulties of Saudi students learning algebra

ORCID logo | Prince Mohammed Bin Fahd University

This study explores the type of linguistic difficulties that Saudi students encounter in Introductory Algebra courses at college level and how an integrated pedagogical approach, such as Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), might impact students’ learning of both algebra and the language needed to learn it. A mixed-method design was implemented for 12 weeks to collect and analyze data in three phases. The study sample comprised of a study group of 28 students from an Introductory Algebra class. Findings identified and classified the types of difficulties that the students encountered and suggested a CLIL instructional model to overcome or minimize them.

Keywords: content and language integrated learning (CLIL), dual focus, pedagogy, Saudi, classroom discourse, algebra
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Study design
    • 3.1Participants and settings
    • 3.2Methods and instrumentation
    • 3.3Study Intervention Plan
    • 3.4Study phases
      • i.Phase 1: Pre-intervention (1 week)
      • ii.Phase 2: Intervention (10 weeks)
      • iii.Phase 3: Post-intervention (1 week)
  • 4.Study findings
    • 4.1Pre-intervention questionnaire
    • 4.2Documents
      • 4.2.1Academic language and academic literacies
      • 4.2.2Understanding questions and giving answers in English
      • 4.2.3Translating word phrases into algebraic expressions
      • 4.2.4Natural language in the academic context
      • 4.2.5Writing definitions of concepts
      • 4.2.6Using the available resources
      • 4.2.7Interaction and communication
      • 4.2.8Understanding the meaning of some abbreviations and words
      • 4.2.9The Use of L1
      • 4.2.10Eastern Arabic Numerals and Western-Arabic Numerals
        • Phase 2.Summary of findings
    • 4.3Post-intervention questionnaire – Students’ perceptions
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1First research question
    • 5.2Second research question
    • 5.3Limitations
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 1 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.20009.elt
References
Borg, S., & Alshumaimeri, Y.
(2012) University teacher educators’ research engagement: Perspectives from Saudi Arabia. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28 (3), 347–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brady, H. E., Collier, D., & Seawright, J.
(2004) Refocusing the Discussion of Methodology. In H. E. Brady, & D. Collier. (Eds.), Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards (pp. 3–20). Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Barwell, R.
(2009) Multilingualism in mathematics classrooms: Global perspectives. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cazden, C. B.
(1986) Language in the classroom. Annual review of applied linguistics, 7 1, 18–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D.
(2010) Content and language integrated learning. Ernst Klett Sprachen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P.
(2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C.
(2008) Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In Delanoy, W., Volkmann, L. (Eds.), Future Perspectives in English Language Teaching (pp. 7–23). Carl Winter.Google Scholar
(2011) The French influence on Middle English morphology: A corpus-based study on derivation. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S.
(Eds.) (2011) The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.Google Scholar
Durkin, K., & Shire, B.
(1991) Primary school children’s interpretations of lexical ambiguity in mathematical descriptions. Journal of Research in Reading, 14 (1), 46–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldhaber, A. S.
(2006) Math as a language in its own right. American Scientist, 94 (2), 185–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kersaint, G., Thompson, D. R., & Petkova, M.
(2014) Teaching mathematics to English language learners. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krieger, Z.
(2007) Saudi Arabia puts its billions behind Western-style higher education. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54 (3). pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Kunitzsch, P.
(2003) The transmission of Hindu-Arabic numerals reconsidered. The Enterprise of Science in Islam: New Perspectives, 3–21.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y.
(Eds.) (2010) CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Marsh, D., & Mehisto, P.
(2011) Approaching the economic, cognitive and health benefits of bilingualism: Fuel for CLIL. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra- F. Gallardo del Puerto. (Eds), Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning, 361. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J.
(2008) Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T.
(2015) A plurtliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning-mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mohan, B. & Leung, C. & Slater, T.
(2010) Assessing Language and Content: A Functional Perspective. In A. Paran & S. Lies. (Eds.) Testing the Untestable in Language Education (pp. 217–240). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moores-Abdool, W., Yahya, N., & Unzueta, C. H.
(2009, May). Learning preferences of Saudi university students with native English-speaking teachers. The 2nd. Annual Conference of Saudi Arabia Association of Language Teachers (KSAALT), Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia.Google Scholar
Moschkovich, J. N.
(2007) Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the Learning of Mathematics, 27 (1), 24–30.Google Scholar
Nikula, T.
(2006, August). CLIL as student empowerment? Observations on language use in Finnish CLIL Classrooms [paper presentation]. ESSE8 Conference, London.
(2007) The IFR pattern and space for interaction: Observations on EFL and CLIL classrooms. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit. (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 179–204). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K.
(1999) Towards a systemic functional analysis of multisemiotic mathematics texts. Semiotica, 124 (1–2), 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., Star, J. R., & Bryant, J.
(2011) The cognitive predictors of computational skill with whole versus rational numbers: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 536–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veel, R.
(1999) Language, knowledge and authority in school mathematics. In F. Christie. (Ed.), Pedagogy and the shaping of consciousness: Linguistic and social processes (pp. 185–216). Continuum.Google Scholar
Zydatiß, W.
(2012) Linguistic thresholds in the CLIL classroom? The threshold hypothesis revisited. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 16–18.Google Scholar