Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Instruction Models in Chinese STEM Program: a Comparative Study
Keywords:
learning outcome; student engagement; blended learning; CLIL framework; flipped learning; pedagogyAbstract
The English language is a challenge for Chinese students to understand the language of science in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) cooperative educational programs in China. Previous general academic English courses in these programs are often criticized for form-focused instruction and language skills training, rather than developing cognitive skills and social awareness. The integration of sustainable development knowledge, for example, benefits STEM students both individually and in society. Therefore, effective course implementation is worth reconsideration. This comparative study investigated the effects of different instructional models (face-to-face, blended learning and flipped learning) on students’ learning outcomes and engagement levels when multiple learning aims of language improvement and social knowledge are considered in STEM cooperative educational programs. It collected data from three groups of 100 Chinese STEM-major undergraduate students each, with a quasi-experimental design and student engagement questionnaires. The Kruskal-Wallis test and an analysis of variance revealed a significant difference between experimental group 2 and the other two groups, while no significant differences were found between the first two groups. Findings also show that flipped blended learning, with modified teaching strategies and activities, improved the participants’ learning results and engagement levels. Simply adding technology seems insufficient to significantly affect learning outcomes and engagement in STEM programs. This research provides pedagogical implications for university teachers and other related stakeholders that effective technology enhanced CLIL must be ensured by adequate pedagogical support.
References
Adas, D. B., Ayda. (2013). Writing difficulties and new solutions: Blended learning as an approach to improve writing abilities International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(9), pp.254-266.
Al‐Qahtani, A. A., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Effects of traditional, blended and e‐learning on students' achievement in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 220-234.
Andujar, A., & Nadif, F. Z. (2020). Evaluating an inclusive blended learning environment in EFL: a flipped approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-30.
Arrosagaray, M., González-Peiteado, M., Pino-Juste, M., & Rodríguez-López, B. (2019). A comparative study of Spanish adult students’ attitudes to ICT in classroom, blended and distance language learning modes. Computers & Education, 134, 31-40.
Ashour, S. (2020). How technology has shaped university students’ perceptions and expectations around higher education: an exploratory study of the United Arab Emirates. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2513-2525.
Azamat Akbarov, A. G., K. & Aydogan,H. (2018). Students’ attitudes towards blended learning in EFL context. Acta DIdactica Napocensia, 11(1), pp.61-68. https://doi.org/10.24193/adn.11.1.5.
Bakeer, A. M. (2018). Students’ Attitudes towards Implementing Blended Learning in Teaching English in Higher Education Institutions:A Case of Al-Quds Open University. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 8(6), pp.131-139.
Banditvilai, C. (2016). Enhancing students’ language skills through blended learning The Electronic Journal of e-learning 14(3), pp.220-229. www.ejel.org
Baranova, T., Khalyapina, L., Kobicheva, A. & Tokareva, E. . (2019). Evaluation of students’ engagement in integrated learning model in a blended environment. Educatoin Sciences 9(138), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020138
Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International society for technology in education.
Birbal, R., Ramdass, M. & Harripaul,C. . (2018). Student teachers’ attitudes towards blended learning Journal of Education and Human Development, 7(2), pp.9-26. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v7n2a2
Bozdoğan, D. (2015). 13 Technology-enhanced CLIL classrooms. CLIL, 164.
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523-532.
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why… and why not. System, 41(3), 587-597.
Ceylan, V. K., & Kesici, A. E. (2017). Effect of blended learning to academic achievement. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(1), 308-320.
Chen, Y. (2013). The Feasibility Analysis of CLIL Teaching Method in College English Teaching in Independent Colleges. Journal of Central China Normal University(Humanities and Social Sciences)(S4), 164-164.
Cho, M.-H., Park, S. W., & Lee, S.-e. (2021). Student characteristics and learning and teaching factors predicting affective and motivational outcomes in flipped college classrooms. Studies in Higher Education, 46(3), 509-522.
Clark, R. M., Kaw, A., & Besterfield-Sacre, M. (2016). Comparing the effectiveness of blended, semi-flipped, and flipped formats in an engineering numerical methods course. Advances in Engineering Education, 5(3), n3.
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, 10(5), 543-562.
Coyle, Y., & de Larios, J. R. (2020). Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 95, 102374.
de Zarobe, Y. R., & Lasagabaster, D. (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ebron Jr, G. P., & Mabuan, R. A. Flipped Learning Approach in Teaching Writing in a University Setting: Students’ Experiences, Preferences, and Perspectives. TESOL International Journal, 161.
Esser, F., & Vliegenthart, R. (2017). Comparative research methods. The international encyclopedia of communication research methods, 1-22.
Fisher, R., Perényi, Á., & Birdthistle, N. (2018). The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1469787418801702.
Fredricks, J. A. M., W. . (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instrument. Springer US.
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105.
Halverson, L. R. G., C.R. . (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning 23(2), pp.145-178. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1481
He, J. (2020). Research and practice of flipped classroom teaching mode based on guidance case. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 2337-2352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10137-z
Henrie, C. R., Halverson,L.R. & Graham,C.R. . (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning:A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36-53.
Hou, J. (2010). College English Teaching Practice and Research Based on Blended Learning. E-Education Research(5), 108-111.
Imsa-ard, P. (2021). Choices of teaching practices: Does the English national examination cause Thai EFL Teachers to teach to the test. TESOL International Journal, 16(5), 56-86.
Khader, N. S. K. (2016). The Effectiveness of Blended Learning in Improving Students' Achievement in Third Grade's Science in Bani Kenana. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(35), 109-116.
Kunjie, L. (2021). Design and Practice on EFL Course for Ideological and Political Education Based on Sino-Foreign Cooperative Education. . Journal of Yellow River Conservancy Technical Institute 33(2), 85-90.
Li, D., & Zhang, L. (2020). Exploring teacher scaffolding in a CLIL-framed EFL intensive reading class: A classroom discourse analysis approach. Language Teaching Research, 1362168820903340.
Li, Z., & Yan, D. (2020). Effect of Pigai. org on English Majors’ Writing Self-efficacy and Writing Performance. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
Lombardini, C., Lakkala, M., & Muukkonen, H. (2018). The impact of the flipped classroom in a principles of microeconomics course: evidence from a quasi-experiment with two flipped classroom designs. International Review of Economics Education, 29, 14-28.
Mahmud, M. M. (2018). Technology and language–what works and what does not: A meta-analysis of blended learning research. Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(2), 365.
Malik, M. N., Khan, H. H., Chofreh, A. G., Goni, F. A., Klemeš, J. J., & Alotaibi, Y. (2019). Investigating students’ sustainability awareness and the curriculum of technology education in Pakistan. Sustainability, 11(9), 2651.
Manwaring, K. C., Larsen, R., Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Halverson, L. R. (2017). Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings using experience sampling and structural equation modeling. The Internet and Higher Education, 35, 21-33.
Mayo, M. d. P. G., & de los Angeles Hidalgo, M. (2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132-145.
Morton, C. E., Saleh, S. N., Smith, S. F., Hemani, A., Ameen, A., Bennie, T. D., & Toro-Troconis, M. (2016). Blended learning: how can we optimise undergraduate student engagement? BMC medical education, 16(1), 1-8.
Murillo-Zamorano, L. R., Sánchez, J. Á. L., & Godoy-Caballero, A. L. (2019). How the flipped classroom affects knowledge, skills, and engagement in higher education: Effects on students' satisfaction. Computers & Education, 141, 103608.
O’Dowd, R. (2018). Innovations and challenges in using online communication technologies in CLIL. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 232-240.
Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C.D. & Graham,C.R. (2013). Blended Learning: Research Perspectives, Volume 2 (Vol. 2). Routledge.
Pilotti, M. A., S. ; Hardy, P,; Murphy, P. & Vincent, P. (2017). Factors related to cognitive, emotional and behavioral engagement in the online asychronous classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), pp.145-153.
Pinto-Llorente, A. M., Sánchez-Gómez, M. C., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Casillas-Martín, S. (2017). Students’ perceptions and attitudes towards asynchronous technological tools in blended-learning training to improve grammatical competence in English as a second language. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 632-643.
Rose, H., Curle, S., Aizawa, I., & Thompson, G. (2020). What drives success in English medium taught courses? The interplay between language proficiency, academic skills, and motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2149-2161.
Ross, H., Cen, Y., & Shi, J. (2014). Engaging students in China. In Engaging university students (pp. 93-107). Springer.
Sahin-Kizil, A. (2014). Blended instruction for EFL learners: Engagement, learning and course satisfaction. Jaltcalljournal 10(3), pp.175-188.
Serrano, D. R., Dea‐Ayuela, M. A., Gonzalez‐Burgos, E., Serrano‐Gil, A., & Lalatsa, A. (2019). Technology‐enhanced learning in higher education: How to enhance student engagement through blended learning. European Journal of Education, 54(2), 273-286.
Sharma, B., Nand, R., Naseem, M., & Reddy, E. V. (2020). Effectiveness of online presence in a blended higher learning environment in the Pacific. Studies in Higher Education, 45(8), 1547-1565.
Shen, K. (2019). Study on Cultivating Students’ Capacity of Creation and Innovation— Reform and Effect Based on CLIL. Journal of Shanghai University of International Business and Economics(3), 99-108.
Tachie, S. A. (2019). Challenges and opportunities regarding usage of computers in the teaching and learning of Mathematics. South African Journal of Education, 39(1).
Tagnin, L., & Ní Ríordáin, M. (2021). Building science through questions in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00293-0
Talan, T., & Gulsecen, S. (2019). The effect of a flipped classroom on students’ achievements, academic engagement and satisfaction levels. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 31-60.
Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2017). The impact of a flipped classroom design on learning performance in higher education: Looking for the best “blend” of lectures and guiding questions with feedback. Computers & Education, 107, 113-126.
Wang, F. H. (2019). On the relationships between behaviors and achievement in technology-mediated flipped classrooms: A two-phase online behavioral PLS-SEM model. Computers & Education, 142, 103653.
Wang, N., Chen, J., Tai, M., & Zhang, J. (2019). Blended learning for Chinese university EFL learners: Learning environment and learner perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-27.
Wen, Q., & Sun, M. (2015). On Key Issues about Critical Thinking Development in College EFL Classroom. Foreign Language Teaching (3), 6-12.
Yapici, İ. Ü. (2016). Effectiveness of Blended Cooperative Learning Environment in Biology Teaching: Classroom Community Sense, Academic Achievement and Satisfaction. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(4), 269-280.
Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2020). Types, purposes, and effectiveness of state-of-the-art technologies for second and foreign language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-47.
Zou, D., Xie, H., Wang, F. L., & Kwan, R. (2020). Flipped learning with Wikipedia in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45(5), 1026-1045.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 International TESOL & Technology Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
