Bilingual Degree Teachers Beliefs: A Case Study in a Tertiary Setting. Matthew Johnson. Universidad de Alcalá de Henares

Transcription

1 1 : A Case Study in a Tertiary Setting Matthew Johnson Universidad de Alcalá de Henares

2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction...3 Literature Review..4 CLIL..4 What is CLIL?...5 What is CLIL not?.9 Why CLIL?...12 Teachers Beliefs.14 What are Teachers Beliefs?..15 Where do Teachers Beliefs Come from?...16 Can Teachers Beliefs be Changed, and if so, how?.. 19 The Study...22 The Institution.23 The Students 23 The Participants...24 The Bilingual Project. 26 Data Collection 29 Data Analysis Findings...31 First Questionnaire..31 Second Questionnaire..36 Discussion...40 Conclusions.49 References...53 Appendix.56

3 3 INTRODUCTION Universities in Spain are starting to implement bilingual degree itineraries in which English is used as a vehicular language for the teaching of some subjects. This is a response to the challenges of an increasingly globalised world in which there is greater student mobility and a greater need to be able to operate between cultures in more than one language. As yet, however, there is no consensus amongst universities on how to implement a CLIL approach and each university tends to develop a different model. Whilst research in the field of CLIL at tertiary level does exist, there is a general lack of research on teachers perceptions or training at that level. It is in the context of CLIL at university that this study takes place. The success of any educational innovation is dependent on many factors and not least of these is the educators themselves charged with applying the changes in practice. This study focuses on five lecturers at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros teacher training college in Acalá de Henares, Spain. In 2009 they volunteered to participate in a teacher development programme of language and methodology training which would be designed to prepare them for the challenges of teaching their subjects through English using a CLIL approach. This would imply a significant undertaking on their part as they repositioned themselves as content and language teachers rather than content teachers only. As subject experts, it was assumed that their initial attitudes and beliefs regarding bilingual education would be founded on the restricted knowledge of the uninitiated and received wisdom. This study was conceived to examine if and how the participants beliefs would develop and change over the course of a two and a half year teacher development programme focusing on CLIL. The assumption was that their knowledge of CLIL would naturally increase, but would that influence their beliefs and if so, how?

4 4 In addition to a shortage of research related to CLIL at tertiary level, research into teachers beliefs in the field of bilingual education is similarly underrepresented. A study then of teachers beliefs in the context of the implementation of a CLIL programme at a Spanish university is both timely and relevant. Beliefs exert an important influence on teachers methods, actions and behaviour (see, for example, Pajares 1992). A fuller understanding of these beliefs could provide insights into what is required to give university CLIL programmes a greater chance of success. LITERATURE REVIEW CLIL CLIL is a term first coined by David Marsh in In 2003 in its action plan for promoting language learning and linguistic diversity the European Commission stated that CLIL has a major contribution to make to the Union s language learning goals (2003: 8). It made a commitment to funding transnational projects aimed at developing and disseminating methodologies for teaching subjects through vehicular languages and promised to increase support for schools wishing to implement CLIL. In 2006, Eurydice published a report of information gathered on the availability of CLIL in European education and training systems. The report confirms that only in a minority of European states is there no CLIL provision. In other states provision exists, but varies widely in terms of the subjects taught or the proportion of school timetables in which a CLIL approach is used. Some states have pilot projects, some have incorporated CLIL into mainstream education, others have a blend of both. What is clear is that CLIL provision is increasingly widespread in some form or other throughout the EU and will have an ever greater role to play in the future. Nevertheless, despite its growing ubiquity, the meaning of CLIL and what it implies is not commonly

5 5 understood. In the following pages I will examine what CLIL is and what it is not. I will also look at arguments for why the implementation of a CLIL approach is an appropriate response to changes in educational needs in the 20 th century. What is CLIL? The acronym CLIL stands for Content and Language Integrated Learning. Coyle, Hood & Marsh succinctly define it as a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language (2010: 1). The key word in the acronym is perhaps integrated and the goal of the CLIL approach is that students simultaneously learn a foreign language without neglecting the content in a content lesson. Do Coyle emphasises that Integration is a powerful pedagogic tool which aims to safeguard the subject being taught whilst promoting language as a medium for learning as well as an objective of the learning process itself (2002: 27). In essence, CLIL can be seen as a powerful approach given that, executed well, the learning of content does not suffer and the acquisition of a foreign language in meaningful contexts is successfully achieved. The notion of using a vehicular language to study academic content is far from new, however, and several authors point this out with examples from the Roman Empire and even earlier (Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2010; Ball 2009a; Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008). According to many of its advocates though, the aim of CLIL goes beyond the learning of a language; the language is not only something gained in the process, but also a tool with which cognition can be developed. This is a more recent development. Mehisto et al. (2008) add the CLIL-related goal of developing learning skills to those of subject knowledge and language proficiency, thus moving beyond the idea of a dual-focused to a trial-focused approach. According to Meyer (2010), A holistic methodology is needed that transcends the

6 6 traditional dualism between content and language teaching (2010: 26). CLIL is about more than simply learning language and content simultaneously then. Several authors have devised neat conceptual frameworks that summarise the essential characteristics of good CLIL practice. Perhaps the most well-known of these is Coyle s four Cs framework of key principles. This is useful as a checklist of important CLIL elements for educators in such contexts and is easy to remember. The four Cs are content, communication, cognition and culture (Coyle 2002). CLIL must be content-driven and together with communication and cognition, the first three of the four Cs can be seen as being mutually interdependent. Content and thinking processes (cognition) must be analysed for linguistic demand and complexity in order to avoid placing too heavy a burden on learners in terms of thinking and language at the same time. Here Coyle, Hood & Marsh (2010) use language and communication interchangeably thereby giving importance to authentic and meaningful communication in the vehicular language. Coyle sees that, Language, thinking and culture are inextricably linked (2002: 28). She argues that this makes a fourth C, culture inherent in CLIL and that studying a subject through a foreign language facilitates an understanding of the culture of that language. This opportunity should be exploited because a focus on culture promotes intercultural awareness, which is becoming an increasing necessity in an ever more globalised world. In a variation of Coyle s 4 Cs, Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols use a framework of four guiding principle for successful outcomes in CLIL; cognition, community, content and communication (2008). Culture is exchanged for community here, but shares several of the same considerations such as giving importance to the interests of others and taking into account one s role in both a local and global context. Community seems to emphasise the same need to foster tolerance and understanding in a globalised world as Coyle s culture

7 7 does, but approaches this from a slightly different conceptual premise. Mehisto et al. (2008) also argue that cognition is the driving force behind CLIL, again in a slight deviation from the more common idea related to CLIL of being content-driven, which seeks to differentiate it from language-driven approaches. Their assertion is that cognition is the foundation of all strong pedagogy and successful learning, CLIL being no exception. As a more comprehensive framework, Mehisto et al. (2008) also suggest thirty core features of CLIL methodology, which they categorise into six more general groups; multiple focus, safe and enriching learning environment, authenticity, active learning, scaffolding and co-operation. These core features stress, among other ideas, the need for cross-curricular themes and projects, reflection on the learning process, building learner confidence to experiment, making connections between learning and real life, using current multi-media materials, peer and co-operative group work, negotiation of meaning, activating schemata, responding to different learning styles, fostering creative and critical thinking, and involving parents and the local community. All of these features would appear to be desirable and indeed achievable in any educational programme or context and not only CLIL-specific. The authors in fact recognise this, but what is clear is that given the inherent obstacles associated with teaching content in a vehicular language such an attention to these details of good practice becomes essential for CLIL to succeed. Indeed, CLIL demands focus on how subjects are taught whilst working with and through another language rather than in another language (Coyle 2002: 27). A further attempt clearly to define and encapsulate CLIL follows a six-point framework of conceptual sequencing, conceptual fronting, language as vehicle, specific task design, a trinity of conceptual, procedural and language outcome objectives, and activities which enhance peer communication, reading strategies, student production and cognitive

8 8 skills (Ball 2009b). The essence of conceptual sequencing and conceptual fronting is that content is king. Contents are pushed to the fore and sequenced in such a way that is logical, coherent and connected in content subject terms whereas language is subordinate to the needs of the content subject. Language as a vehicle and therefore an integral part of the approach, task design which incorporates scaffolding or textually embedded language, and activity types which both encourage and indeed necessitate peer communication all fit nicely into Coyle s communication as language notion. The weight given to procedural outcomes, reading strategies and cognitive skills all match the importance of cognition as well. A familiar picture or pattern is emerging then of the trial-focused approach mentioned earlier. Prominent advocates and practitioners of CLIL seem to concur that contents or concepts, language and thinking skills are inextricably intertwined and co-exist in a state of mutual interdependence. Coyle s fourth C, culture, is re-imagined as community in the case of Mehisto et al. (2008) and is conspicuous by its absence in Ball s (2009b) definition of CLIL. Otherwise there is a striking consensus despite some semantic differences. A continuing debate does exist, however, as to what CLIL really is; an approach, a methodology or something else. This is not merely a semantic argument. Ball (Ibid.) defines an approach as being similar to a philosophy of teaching whereas a method has features and parameters [which] are instantly identifiable. Coyle et al. concede that CLIL shares many features with other educational practices but assert that it is an innovative fusion of both subject and language education (2010). They argue that CLIL takes elements from influential theoretical perspectives and good educational practice and merge them into something fundamentally innovative: a new approach. More controversial is the notion that CLIL is an umbrella term which covers as many as a dozen educational approaches such as bilingual education, immersion, language showers and enriched language programmes

9 9 (Mehisto et al. 2008). The Eurydice report (2006: 8) calls CLIL a generic term for all types of teaching in which subjects are taught through a second language. These seem too disparate that they might be covered by one all-embracing term however. It feels too flexible, too inclusive, too vague. At the other extreme, Ball (2009a) contests that CLIL is indeed a methodology due to the fact that, in his opinion, certain features and parameters must be present if a class can really be called a CLIL class. This feels too rigid and prescriptive and runs counter to what Coyle et al. (2010) argue is CLIL s strength, that it is theoretically sound and can be rigorously applied to practice whilst retaining the flexibility and adaptability that allows it to be suited to many different educational contexts. What is CLIL not? There seems to be a considerable degree of agreement in terms of the key features of CLIL even if it defies easy and neat definition. The question what is CLIL like? would appear to be easier to respond to satisfactorily than what is CLIL? Clegg observes that, When you talk to people about CLIL, you have to ask them what they mean by it, because otherwise you ll find you re talking about different things (2009: 11). In response to common misconceptions regarding the approach it is also useful to look at what CLIL is not. CLIL is not language at the expense of content. Maljiers et al. (as cited in Van de Craen et al. 2007: 70) compile reflections on CLIL practices by authors from twenty European countries. In response to the question Describe the aims of CLIL it is noteworthy that most authors considered the primary aims of CLIL teaching and learning to be related to the promotion of language learning, of language proficiency, internalisation of the language and the encouragement of linguistic diversity. Van de Craen et al. (2007) suggest that this is an unfortunate side effect of the success of CLIL in Europe and that CLIL is seen as being

10 10 about the promotion, in the great majority of cases, of English. Such a view, whilst being perhaps a natural and common sense one, fails to recognise the wider ranging potential benefits of a CLIL approach. If CLIL were only interested in increasing language proficiency, it would be unjustifiable given that the focus would be taken away from learning science in a CLIL science lesson, for example. In such a scenario surely language proficiency would be achieved to the detriment of the learning of subject matter. A further example of foreign language learning being the primary goal of many CLIL programmes can be seen in the Colegios Bilingües de la Comunidad de Madrid Syllabus document. It is clear from the introduction that the focus has been placed heavily on language aims. It is stated that the fundamental objective of this programme is that the pupil achieve a progressive command of the English language (1). Browsing through the document, it becomes evident that its contents are almost exclusively lists of functional or situational language, grammar and vocabulary. The objectives are all linguistic and focused on the acquisition of these items. Moreover, the vocabulary mentioned seems far removed from the type of vocabulary that would appear in a science, history or geography lesson and more akin to the typical vocabulary found in lower level EFL textbooks. The Comunidad de Madrid Syllabus seems to have decided on the language aims in advance and quite separately from the linguistic needs of the subjects taught in English. This would be typical of a traditional language course, but seems out of place in an integrated bilingual programme. Language appears here to take precedence over content, which is contrary to the CLIL principle, and integration of content and language, much less cognition and culture or community, is not evident. CLIL should not be supplanting content with language by dedicating more timetable space to the attainment of linguistic aims. This is the main characteristic which differentiates CLIL from content-based learning (CBL), where language is the main focus.

11 11 A later document, the Boletín Oficial de la Comunidad de Madrid shows a slight shift in focus in the annex pertaining to guidelines for the primary curriculum in bilingual schools. Amongst the overall objectives are those of acquiring new knowledge through the instrumental use of English and gaining cultural awareness (2011: 41), something conspicuously lacking in the Comunidad de Madrid Syllabus. Nevertheless, the remainder of the guidelines focuses on developing reading, writing, speaking and listening skills in the way that a traditional language course would as opposed to dealing with content teaching through a vehicular language. This seems more akin to CBL than CLIL. CLIL is not just changing the language of instruction. It is much more than simply increasing exposure to a target language by doing the same thing through a different vehicle. The Eurydice report on Content and Language Integrated Learning at School in Europe (2006) reveals a widespread lack of methodological training for teachers across Europe. In most cases, a pre-requisite for teachers being recruited as CLIL teachers is that they have subject knowledge and language proficiency. Some programmes require that teachers have teaching qualifications in both a content subject and a foreign language, others that they have a subject teaching qualification and a certain level of foreign language proficiency. This seems to suggest an underlying assumption that knowing a subject and knowing a foreign language is enough to deliver lessons in which both content and language will be successfully learned. Eurydice (2006: 52) also reports the common complaint amongst CLIL teachers throughout Europe that there are virtually no initial and in-service training programmes devoted to methods used specifically to teach a subject in other than the normal language of instruction. This exemplifies what pre-service CLIL teachers fear and in-service CLIL teachers know from experience, that there is a considerable gap to be spanned between knowing a subject and a foreign language and being prepared and able effectively to teach the

12 12 subject in that language. Education policy makers and administrators, however, appear not always to recognise this. CLIL is not an attempt at assimilation. It does not attempt to usurp the first language. A mere translation of materials and activities carried out in the mother tongue would leave learners floundering. Such an approach would not force the teachers to change their whole methodological approach, or force them to design their own materials, or force the subject teachers to think more carefully about the crucial role of language in their specialist fields (Ball 2009c). If learners are treated as native speakers and left to sink or swim, that is not CLIL. Likewise, if they are required to complete cognitively undemanding tasks such as learning vocabulary lists or labelling diagrams in a content class, even if language and content are present, that is not CLIL. A final point made by Mehisto et al. (2008: 20) is that CLIL is not an approach only for the brightest, most academically gifted students. They cite several countries where CLIL has been implemented across the ability range with success. Why CLIL? CLIL has met with some resistance and parents often have very real concerns about the education that their children involved in CLIL programmes are receiving. In many cases these reservations are based on prevailing misconceptions. One such idea is that devoting less time to studying in L1 will be detrimental to the development of the mother tongue. The fear is that, for example, native Spanish-speaking children learning Science through English will develop the subject-specific language in English, but not in their native Spanish. Another common sense idea is that learning in a foreign language is more difficult than in the mother tongue and therefore contents must be reduced leading to children learning less. There are also many new and practical difficulties for teachers to overcome, so in the face of all this the question has to be, why CLIL?

13 13 A CLIL approach can be justified, if there is a clear added value to the learning experience. Van de Craen et al. (2007) present six tenets based on a wide range of research that they have considered. The overview of the evidence they present suggests that to varying degrees a CLIL approach positively affects second language development, attitudes and motivation towards language learning, cognitive development and the exploitation of brain plasticity in young learners. They also conclude that there are no negative effects on mother tongue development or subject matter knowledge. One of the principal arguments for implementing CLIL is that it can represent an efficient use of time. The European Commission action plan for promoting language learning and linguistic diversity states that CLIL provides exposure to the language without requiring extra time in the curriculum (2003: 8). Coyle also stresses that CLIL implies a meaningful and economic use of study time (2002: 28). This optimisation of time would seem to be as good a reason as any considering how curricula subjects compete with each other for space on the timetable and any increase in dedication to one normally implies a reduction in another. This is not so with CLIL, which can augment time dedicated to language learning without diminishing time dedicated to other areas of the curriculum. Another argument is that like any innovation or new approach, CLIL requires an increased focus on pedagogical practice. The placing of obstacles in the path of learning brings about the development of measures with which to overcome them. Neither teachers nor learners are likely to have all of the linguistic means they have at their disposal in the L1. A transmission model of teaching is therefore rendered impracticable because teachers have to find ways for learners to understand content. According to Coyle (2002) such a shift brings with it the need to redefine methodologies by taking into account both teacher and learner language and that this inevitably leads to greater engagement and interaction in the

14 14 classroom. This opinion is seconded by Ball (2009b) who points out that teacher talk is reduced and student-student focus is augmented through a greater dependence on skills, group work and collaborative tasks. This is described by Mehisto et al. (2008: 21) as the hands on, participatory nature of the CLIL classroom. The combination of so many elements of good pedagogical practice which is learner-centred and caters for different learning styles is a powerful reason to recommend CLIL. It makes teachers and learners work harder to coconstruct meaning and learning and, as Mehisto (2009: 1) puts it, Our minds are more likely to wander when we are learning through our first language, but CLIL requires heightened attention which may well lead to improved learning. CLIL would also seem to respond to 21 st century needs in that it encourages interculturality. Learners are given the opportunity to raise their awareness of other cultures and to operate in them through their studies due to the fact that it is neither desirable nor possible to divorce language and culture. As Coyle puts it, Studying a subject through the language of a different culture paves the way for understanding and tolerating different perspectives (2002: 28). What could be more important in a modern world in which new economies are rising to prominence, everyday work contexts are both plurilingual and pluricultural, languages are increasingly used as a lingua franca and there is an inexorable interconnectedness and interdependence of economies, businesses and workers in different countries and on different continents? TEACHERS BELIEFS Research interest in teachers beliefs has been growing over the past few decades as evidenced by a significant number of studies and publications since William Perry (1970) first investigated them (cited in Brownlee & Purdie 2001). It has been argued that teachers

15 15 beliefs can be a strong predictor of teachers behaviour (Pajares 1992). Nevertheless, research into teachers beliefs has been hindered somewhat by problems of definition, conceptualisation and differing understanding teachers beliefs (Ibid.). The following pages examine the nature of teachers beliefs, their origins, how they can change and develop, and the difficulties of accessing them. What are teachers beliefs? The concept of teachers beliefs defies easy definition. Pajares (1992) highlights the semantic problem and lack of consensus regarding terminology used found in literature related to the topic. He suggests, however, that the confusion lies fundamentally in the distinction between beliefs and knowledge and that it is difficult to identify exactly where knowledge ends and belief begins (309). An example of the beliefs-knowledge confusion is Bustos Flores (2001: 254) citing various frameworks for effective practices in bilingual teaching (Clark and Pérez 1995; Baker 1997; Dalton 1998) when discussing teachers epistemological beliefs. These include such things as language proficiency, linguistic knowledge, cultural knowledge and teacher competencies in the case of Clark and Pérez; the ability to communicate clear directions, pace lessons, provide immediate feedback, monitor student progress, amongst others in the case of Baker; and joint productive activity, language and literacy development, meaning making, complex thinking and instructional conversation for Dalton. Whilst these are all doubtlessly elements of good teaching practice and not by any means necessarily unique to bilingual teaching, they fall clearly into the realm of knowing how to teach effectively given that they are skills or competences which can be acquired through training, rather than underlying beliefs about teaching or learning. The previous example seems rather clear cut, but the task of distinguishing belief from knowledge is often considerably more problematic. In a wide-ranging review of

16 16 publications related to beliefs, Pajares (1992) finds four common characteristics associated with beliefs, all of which seem to point towards beliefs being inherently subjective and unreliable. Firstly, the characteristic of existential presumption results in beliefs being formed by chance experiences or successions of events, taken-for-granted and resistant to persuasion or logical counter-argument. Secondly, the characteristic of alternativity is the result of individuals being able to construct a situation based on beliefs that runs contrary to reality. Thirdly, the characteristic of affective and evaluative loading means that beliefs operate independently of the cognition associated with objective knowledge. Finally, the characteristic episodic structure of beliefs means that they are constructed by and stored as a series of snapshots of key episodes or events, whereas knowledge is semantically stored. To completely separate beliefs from knowledge, however, seems impossible. They tread on each other s toes, overlap and intertwine. It seems unsatisfactory to conclude that knowledge is an objective truth wholly independent of belief, which is a subjective, distorted subversion of truth. Binary oppositions are too strong to define two related concepts which are so inextricably linked, but it seems reasonable to suggest that knowledge tends towards being objective and cognitive, beliefs towards being affective and evaluative. Pajares concedes that the educational community has been unable to adopt a specific working definition (1992: 313) to distinguish knowledge from belief, even though it is a common distinction. Rokeach (1968; cited in Pajares 1992) for example sees belief as a kind of knowledge which has both a cognitive and an affective component. Where do teachers beliefs come from? A peculiarity of the teaching profession, in contrast with other careers, is that teachers do not start out as complete novices by virtue of the fact that they have already experienced education as learners, as Pena and Porto (2008) point out. Teachers bring with them ideas

17 17 about teaching and learning the first time that they set foot in a classroom in the role of teacher that they started to formulate, however subconsciously, as children. As a consequence, such ideas may be deep-seated, difficult to change and have a significant effect on how they teach. The same would certainly not be true of surgeons, lawyers or pilots who are unlikely to have ingrained beliefs about how to carry out their work. In line with Vygotskian theories of the construction of knowledge, Bustos Flores (2001: 252) asserts that our quintessential ideas, beliefs, and conceptualisations are formulated from experiences we have had within a sociocultural context. For example, our beliefs about the world are given to us through our familial and educational experiences. The same can be said of an individual s beliefs regarding education. A person s beliefs as far as education is concerned are related to how that person was taught; our perception of education is the one handed down to us by the education we received and the attitudes towards education of the society in question. As Bustos Flores puts it, In essence, the social structure becomes the mechanism for modelling expectations and standards of the norms of a given community or society (Ibid.). Pajares (1992) explains that cultural transmission can be divided into three components; education, schooling and enculturation. Education and schooling can be characterised as deliberate and intentional. The former can be either formal or informal and its intention is to condition behaviour according to the requirements of the given culture. The latter takes place outside the home and is the process of teaching and learning. In contrast, enculturation is incidental and is the result of the assimilation of a society s cultural elements through observation of and participation within that culture. As individuals we are all susceptible to cultural transmission. Teachers and their beliefs are therefore heavily influenced by the process of cultural transmission. Teachers are products of both the

18 18 educational system and the society in which they themselves were raised, with its attitudes towards and expectations of education. Greeno (1989) argued that teachers have implicit epistemological beliefs; that what a teacher thinks about the nature and origin of knowledge and learning influence their view of themselves and others as learners (cited in Bustos Flores 2001). Bustos Flores offers a refinement of Schommer s influential (1990) framework of five dimensions of epistemological beliefs by adding a sixth (cited in Bustos Flores 2000: 2). The certainty of knowledge acquisition is dependent on whether knowledge is seen as from either a duality or a relative perspective. The control of knowledge acquisition is defined as the beliefs of learning as either being perceived from an incremental or an entity perspective. The source of knowledge acquisition is the belief that knowledge is either acquired from experts or is socially constructed. The speed of knowledge acquisition is defined relative to the predetermined amount of time required for learning. Depending on how the structure of knowledge acquisition is perceived, learning is believed to be simple or complex. The interaction of knowledge acquisition can be defined as the individual s beliefs regarding the interaction between language, culture and thought. Clearly a teacher s individual stance on each of these underlying epistemological beliefs will have a profound effect on his or her teaching. It might be said that a teacher s teaching style is the product of a combination of beliefs and knowledge which are fused and put into practice. Bustos Flores (2001: 254) speculates that in all likelihood, beliefs about how learning occurs modulate teachers approaches. Therefore, it is proposed that these epistemological beliefs become translated into observable teaching behaviour or teaching style. To this we can add that we are interested in what teachers beliefs are in relation to not only knowledge and learning, but also to teaching and learners themselves.

19 19 Can teachers beliefs be changed, and, if so, how? A fundamental question then is can teachers beliefs, once crystallised, be subject to change? They are rooted in personal experience, but may be modified over time with exposure to training or to new experiences which serve to challenge them. Richardson (1998) offers anecdotal evidence that a common perception about teachers is that they are highly resistant to change and often get stuck in a rut and proceed as they have always done. She dismisses this idea, however, and argues that certain catalysts and certain conditions can facilitate and bring about both minor and major changes. Richardson argues that voluntary change is more likely to be both effective and sustained than imposed change. Naturally, teachers will feel more inclined to change if it is of their own accord, rather than being dictated by an institution, education authority or ministry. According to Guskey (2002), such voluntary change is likely to be due to teachers desire to become better educators, fight boredom and alienation, increase professional satisfaction, improve pupils results and improve the day-to-day operation of their classrooms. Richardson (1998: 2) concurs and offers the encouraging insight that teachers are generally student-centred in their thinking and undertake change voluntarily, following their sense of what their students need and what is working. They try out new ideas. These changes, while often minor adjustments, can be dramatic. Two contrasting models of teacher development reveal very different results. The first, the training model can be seen in Richardson s (1998) terms as a deficit model. This is likely to have been imposed from above starting from the premise that something is not working, is missing or needs to be updated or improved. The assumption is that there are desired behaviours or techniques and teachers can learn or be trained to replicate them in their classrooms. This model has clear objectives and outcomes. Clearly, if this need is not

20 20 perceived by teachers beforehand, enthusiasm for such staff development may well be low. Meyer (1988) in a study of reading development programmes provides evidence that such staff development has a mere 15% success rate (cited in Richardson 1998). Richardson also cites evidence that momentum is lost in longer term staff development programmes and the implementation of desired behaviours decreases over time. This suggests that teachers tend to revert to doing things the way they did before if it was not they who initiated change. Bustos Flores (2001: 255) suggests that encouraging teachers to examine their beliefs may assist [ ] reflective practices. When teachers engage in critical reflection, they gain insights that may assist their development as effective [teachers] Gallimore and Tharpe (1990) asserted that teachers, like all learners, have their own zone of proximal professional development (ZPD). The second model then is a reflective, collaborative model, which reports a greater probability of achieving lasting change. This is not a deficit model and differs from the training model in that there are no pre-conceived objectives, outcomes or desirable behaviours. Teachers are encouraged to explore their own practices and come to personal decisions on aspects and direction for change. By assessing personal goals, results and beliefs, teachers are involved in an on-going process of development and change and it is hoped that they will continue beyond the timeframe of the original programme. In one such programme Richardson (1998: 6) reported that teachers continued to reflect on their practice and experiment thoughtfully to the point where they had become confident in their decisionmaking abilities and felt empowered to make deliberate and thoughtful changes in their classrooms. A complementary view is offered by Guskey (2002) in that he sees teachers willingness to embrace change as being a prerequisite to change happening and being

21 21 sustained. The argument is that professional development leaders labour under the misconception that a change in teachers beliefs precedes a change in their classroom behaviours and practice. In typical teacher development scenarios, externally imposed programmes, or at least programmes initiated from above by management, are designed to sell to teachers a new belief that, when taken on board, will lead to a change in practice. Guskey argues that in reality, the inverse is true and that the process moves from stages of teacher cynicism to teacher scepticism and only if new practices are deemed by the teacher to be valid based on their own experience will a change in belief be brought about. Guskey shares Richardson s positive view that teachers are motivated and convinced by an improvement in their students learning when it comes to making changes. In this context the notion of improvement is essentially unquantifiable and there is no set threshold which must be met before new practice can be considered successful so that learning outcomes include whatever kinds of evidence teachers use to judge the effectiveness of their teaching (Guskey 2002: 384). This could mean an upswing in class test results or external, standardized examinations, more regular attendance, a perceived increase in motivation, participation in class, or even better behaviour. Guskey is convinced that experienced teachers seldom become committed to a new instructional approach or innovation until they have seen it work in their classroom with their students (Ibid.). A change in teacher beliefs is possible then, but certain favourable conditions need to be in place if that change is likely first to happen and second to be lasting. Teachers need a certain level of self-motivation for change, time for that motivation to be fostered and the opportunity to experiment and see what they perceive as tangible and valuable results. They need to be encouraged and enabled to continue an on-going process of reflection and questioning of beliefs and practice. Of course, a balance of autonomy and community must also be struck because they also need guidance and support due to the danger of teachers

22 22 arriving at new, unwarranted assumptions based on erroneous perceptions, as Richardson (1998) warns. A final caveat worth mentioning is that of difficulties in ascertaining what beliefs teachers actually hold. There are three associated obstacles in relation to this. First of all, it cannot be disregarded that teachers beliefs may in many cases by latent and at least to some degree subconscious or unconscious. Furthermore, beliefs may well be more difficult to verbalise than knowledge and it may be assumed that there is a gap between teachers beliefs and how they may be expressed. These two factors potentially render teachers beliefs less than completely accessible. In addition, Woods (1996: 27) makes the pertinent point that teachers may, in responding to questions about generalized beliefs, answer according to what they would like to believe, or would like to show they believe. Even if we were to have a working definition of teachers beliefs, ideas about where they originate from, the notion that they are observable through behaviour and an understanding of how they can be modified through teacher development programmes, the challenge of how to gain access to those beliefs with a high degree of confidence remains. THE STUDY The focus of this study is university lecturers responsible for teaching their students through a foreign language, in this case English. An understanding of the circumstances in which they work is key to making sense of the study and placing it in the wider context of bilingual education. They are the main protagonists, but the educational institution itself and the students who are studying for their degrees also form an important part of the overall

23 23 picture. What follows is an overview of the institution, the students, the lecturers and the training they have received to prepare them to meet the challenge of teaching through English in bilingual degree programmes. The Institution The Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros was founded in 1973 in the city of Alcalá de Henares in the Autonomous Community of Madrid. It is a private tertiary college affiliated with the public institution of the Universidad de Alcalá and offers teacher training degrees with specialities in Infant Education, Primary Education and Social Education. Since the academic year , students have the possibility of studying for a degree in Infant or Primary Education in a bilingual programme. The Escuela currently has some two thousand students studying for their degrees either in the traditional mode or through distance learning, and approximately seventy teaching staff. As a consequence, there exists a sense of a closeknit and familiar learning community in which students find staff both approachable and available to guide them in their studies. The Students Students at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros are typically in their late teens and early twenties, although there are some more mature students who have decided, after some years work in another field, to change career path and work towards a teacher training degree. Distance learning students are often graduates in one speciality of education, and perhaps even currently employed as teachers, who are working towards a second degree in another speciality. Those who have opted to study their degree in the bilingual programme first had to complete an initial level test aimed at ascertaining their level of English. A B1 level according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) was established as the desired minimum. Indeed, the majority of students entered with an

24 24 average B1 or B2 level, although there are a few exceptions at both extremes with some students having a consolidated A2 level and others as high as a C2 level. The Participants Lecturers at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros tend either already to hold a Ph.D. in their area of expertise or to be in the process of gaining their Ph.D. The college is broadly divided into two departments, those of Education Science and Specific Didactics. Lecturers belonging to the former department are typically pedagogues and psychologists, whereas those in the latter department are subject area specialists in humanities, natural sciences, music, art, physical education and so on. There are currently fifteen lecturers involved in the bilingual project to some degree or in some capacity. They come from both departments and have somewhere between two and thirty years of teaching experience. At the time of writing (May 2012) five of the lecturers have started teaching their subjects in English. Due to the way the degrees are organised and the timing of subjects, others will not do so until the next academic year. Eight of the lecturers have been involved in the bilingual project since its inception and have received all of the training provided. It is on five of those lecturers that this study will focus, two of whom have started teaching in English, three who are yet to do so. An overview of the training given to lecturers will be given later, but what follows below is a brief profile of each of those on whom this study focuses. They have been called lecturer one, lecturer two and so on in the interests of anonymity. Lecturer one (L1) Lecturer one is working towards his Ph.D. in Education. He has worked in education at all levels for thirty years and as a lecturer in Special Educational Needs at the Escuela

25 25 Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros since He has yet to start teaching in English at the college, but will do so during the academic year His level of English is currently CEFR B2. Lecturer two (L2) Lecturer two has a Ph.D. in Fine Arts, and an M.A. in Aesthetics and the Theory of Art. He has been working as a lecturer in art teacher training at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros for twenty-three years. He has yet to start teaching in English at the college, but will do so during the academic year He has, however, given several seminars and workshops in English on MEC courses for primary teachers. He is also involved in research projects related to bilingual education. His level of English is currently CEFR C1. Lecturer three (L3) Lecturer three is working towards her Ph.D. in Psychology. She has worked as a lecturer at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros as a lecturer in Psychology for five years. She is now teaching classes in English for the second academic year. She has taught the subject Pedagogical Diagnosis to first year students of the Infant Education speciality in and 2012, Attention to Diversity to second year students of the Infant and Primary specialities in , and Early Intervention to second year students of Infant Education, a total of five courses. Her level of English is CEFR C2. Lecturer four (L4) Lecturer four has a Ph.D. in Psychopedagogy. She has worked as a lecturer of Education at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros for eight years. She is now teaching classes in English for the second academic year and has taught the subject Didactics to first

26 26 year students of both the Infant and Primary Education specialities, a total of four courses. She is also involved in research projects related to bilingual education. Her level of English is currently CEFR C1. Lecturer five (L5) Lecturer five has a Ph.D. in Art History and has an M.A. in Cultural Management. He has worked as a lecturer of History, Geography and Social Sciences at the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros since He has yet to start teaching in English at the college, but in December 2010 he gave classes in English at Duksung Women s University in Seoul, South Korea. He has also given several seminars and workshops in English on MEC courses for primary teachers. He is also involved in research projects related to bilingual education. His level of English is currently CEFR C1. The Bilingual Project The Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros Bilingual Project was started in The first bilingual Teacher Training degrees were offered and implemented in the academic year In that programme a minimum of thirty per cent of the total number of credits, 72 of 240 European credit transfer system credits (ECTS), are taught in English. Teaching through English in the bilingual programme follows a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach. The Bilingual Project website ( states as an objective the improvement of methodological knowledge and awareness with regards to bilingual education. A further stated aim is the development of language proficiency in English of students during their degrees. Success in reaching these goals would prepare future teachers for the demands of the bilingual schools in many of Spain s autonomous regions.

27 27 Beyond the teaching of subjects in English using a CLIL approach, however, several other initiatives have been implemented to aid and support students progress. These include on-site, extra-curricular language classes provided by the British Council and workshops given by guest speakers related to bilingual education, known as Bilingual Open Workshops (BOW). In addition, lecturers involved in the project organise and participate in an annual Bilingual Campus, a week-long, practical course aimed at teachers currently teaching in bilingual primary schools. Not all participants have this profile, however, as several places are also awarded in the form of grants to students of the Escuela Universitaria Cardenal Cisneros. Furthermore, several lecturers involved in the project are also conducting research into various areas of bilingual education. Lecturers involved in the project initially volunteered to take part. They have received language training with a view to developing their language proficiency in the form of on-site classes provided by the British Council. These classes take place twice per week and are two hours in length. Lecturers have also received short intensive courses in the summer, again onsite, and some have taken advantage of partial funding on the part of the college to do intensive summer language courses at other institutions. Methodological training has been extensive and ongoing. In total, lecturers have participated in more than two hundred hours of CLIL training on seven courses over a period of more than two years between October 2009 and January These have varied in length and in focus and a brief outline of each in chronological order is given below. Introduction to Bilingual Education: A 40-hour online course dealing with cognitive theories of bilingualism, models of bilingual education and the challenges of teaching through a foreign language delivered by the Universidad de Alcalá.