An investigation into the effect of content and language intergated learning on EFL learners writing motivation and writing performance at yola a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY --- AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFECT OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING ON EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING MOTIVATION

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

-

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFECT OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING ON EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING MOTIVATION

AND WRITING PERFORMANCE AT YOLA

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (TESOL)

Submitted by HO THI NGOC THUY Bachelor of Arts in English, 2013

Supervisor LUU TRONG TUAN, Doctor of Philosophy

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2016

I have qualified for or ben awarded another degree of diploma

No other person’s work has been used without acknowledgement in the main text of the thesis

This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution

Ho Chi Minh City, 2016

Ho Thi Ngoc Thuy

TABLE OF CONTENT

Statement of authorship i

Acknowledgement ii

Abstract iv

Table of contents vi

List of tables x

List of figures xii

Abbreviations xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of the study 1

1.2 Problem statement 1

1.3 Research aims and research questions 3

1.4 Significance of the study 4

1.5 Organization of the study 5

1.6 Chapter summary 6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) 7

2.1.1 Overview of writing teaching approaches 7

2.1.1.1 The product approach 7

2.1.1.2 The process approach 9

2.1.1.3 The genre-based approach 10

2.1.2 CLIL 11

2.1.2.1 Definition of CLIL 11

2.1.2.2 Characteristics of CLIL 13

2.1.2.3 CLIL frameworks 15

2.1.2.4 CLIL dimensions and outcomes 22

2.1.3 Comparing product approach, process approach, genre-based approach, and CLIL 23

2.2 Motivation 26

2.2.1 Definition of motivation 26

2.2.2 Motivation in writing 27

2.3 Writing 28

2.3.1 Definition of writing and writing performance 28

2.3.2 Writing aspects 30

2.4 The relationships between CLIL, writing motivation, and writing performance 31

2.5 Previous studies 34

2.6 Research gaps 36

2.7 Chapter summary 38

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 39

3.1 Research site 39

3.2 Research design 41

3.3 Data collection 44

3.3.1 Participants 44

3.3.2 Training procedures of EG and CC 46

3.3.3 Data collection instruments 50

3.3.3.1 Learner Motivation Questionnaires (LMQ) 50

3.3.3.2 Writing tests 55

3.3.4 Data collection procedure 57

3.3.5 Data collection analysis 60

3.3.5.2 T-tests 63

3.4 Pilot study 64

3.5 Reliability and validity of tests and LMQ 66

3.5.1 Validity 66

3.5.2 Reliability 67

3.6 Chapter summary 69

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 70

4.1 Results in writing tests 70

4.1.1 Distribution of the scores 71

4.1.2 Comparison of mean scores 73

4.1.2.1 The similarities between pretest score of EG and CG 73

4.1.2.2 The differences between posttest score of EG and CG 81

4.1.2.3 The differences between pretest score and posttest score of EG 88

4.1.2.4 The differences between pretest score and posttest score of CG 92

4.1.2.5 The differences between mean score increase of EG and of CG after the experiment 96

4.2 Results from LMQ 98

4.2.1 Learner motivation to write before the treatment 98

4.2.2 Learner motivation to write after the treatment 99

4.2.3 The differences between learner writing motivation before and after the treatment 101

4.3 Chapter summary 102

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 103

5.1 Findings 103

5.1.1 The effect of CLIL on learner writing motivation 103

5.1.2 The effect of CLIL on learner writing performance 104

5.2 Discussion 106

5.3 Chapter summary 108

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 109

6.1 Summary of findings 109

6.2 Limitations 110

6.3 Implications 111

6.3.1 Theoretical implications 111

6.3.2 Future research implications 113

6.4 Chapter summary 113

REFERENCES 114

APPENDIXES 139

Appendix 01: Pre-Questionnaire (English version) 139

Appendix 02: Pre-Questionnaire (Vietnamese version) 141

Appendix 03: Post-Questionnaire (English version) 143

Appendix 04: Post-Questionnaire (Vietnamese version) 146

Appendix 05: Writing Rubric 147

Appendix 06: The topics of pretest and posttest 149

Appendix 07: Lesson plan of the traditional approach 150

Appendix 08: Lesson plans of the experimental teaching practice 152

Appendix 09: Pretest, posttest, and questionnaire results of pilot study 159

Appendix 10: Pretest and posttest scores of EG (Class 1) & CG (Class 2) 160

Appendix 11: Scores of Pre- and Post-questionnaire 162

Appendix 12: Learners’ essays for pretest of CG 163

Appendix 13: Learners’ essays for pretest of EG 173

Appendix 14: Learners’ essays for posttest of CG 182

Appendix 15: Learners’ essays for posttest of EG 191

Second, I extremely appreciate for what my family do to support and encourage me to complete my paper There was a period of time that I extremely demotivated and desperate to keep conducting the study, but luckily they have been

by my side, and offered me their extreme support The debt of gratitude I owe to them can never truly be reflected in my words here

Third, I appreciate my colleagues at YOLA for their great understanding and support to my workload so that I can arrange time to finish my thesis Moreover, I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the students for their voluntary yet enthusiastic contribution, insightful comments, and valuable information It is unfortunate that I cannot acknowledge their willing and kind participation one by one by revealing their names here; However, it must be emphasized that this study

would not have been possible and successful if I had not received their help, cooperation and input

Finally, I would like to thank some friends of mine who are generous to share their reference materials, and my best friend who help me proofread my thesis

Thus, this paper entitled “An investigation into the effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning on EFL learners’ writing motivation and writing performance at YOLA” was conducted with aims to evaluate the effectiveness when

applying a new educational approach, Content and Language Integrated Learning - CLIL, in enhancing YOLA learner motivation to write and their writing performance This study was based on the hypotheses that writing English essays is taught under CLIL, learners’ writing motivation to write would be increased, and writing performance would be enhanced To achieve those aims, there were two research questions that researchers faced with to examine how CLIL influence to learners’ writing motivation and how writing performance is enhanced under CLIL treatment

Data were collected from 40 intermediate-level learners of the two classes at YOLA English language school in Ho Chi Minh City for 12 weeks in the form of experimental teaching with pretest and posttest to measure their performance and questionnaires to find out their motivation on the learning process of writing In this experimental study, data were collected at two stages along with two different IELTS courses: (1) Participants wrote an essay at the beginning of the course as pretest writing samples, and completed pre-questionnaire, (2) At the end of the course, they submitted their writing as posttest writing samples as well as finished post-questionnaire

Keywords: Writing motivation, writing performance, EFL, CLIL

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Summary of the Language Triptych (Coyle, 2007a; Coyle et al., 2010; as

cited in Leung, 2013) 19

Table 2.2: Typical features of four approaches 26

Table 3.1: Levels and Pass/fail criteria of IELTS program at YOLA 42

Table 3.2: True Experiment and Quasi-Experiment 44

Table 3.3: Quasi-experimental design of this study (Source Creswell, 2012) 45

Table 3.4: The homogeneity and distinctions between 2 chosen classes 47

Table 3.5: Treatment for EG and CG 49 Table 3.6: The 5-point Likert scale of this study 56

Table 3.7: The interventional procedure 60

Table 3.8: Timescale of the intervention and assessments 61

Table 4.1: Pretest score of EG 73

Table 4.2: Pretest score of CG 73

Table 4.3: Posttest score of EG 74

Table 4.4: Posttest score of CG 74

Table 4.5: Descriptive Statistics of pretest results 75

Table 4.6: Independent Samples Test of two groups’ pretest results 77

Table 4.7: Group statistics of writing factors of pretest score 79

Table 4.8: Independent Samples Test of writing factors of pretest score 81

Table 4.9: Descriptive Statistics of posttest results 83

Table 4.10: Independent Samples Test of posttest results 84

Table 4.11: Group Statistics of writing factor of posttest results 85

Table 4.12: Independent Samples Test of writing factors of posttest results 87

Table 4.13: Descriptive Statistics of pretest and posttest of the experimental group 90

Table 4.14: Paired-Samples T-test of the experimental group before and after the treatment 91

Table 4.15: Paired Samples Statistics of pretest score and posttest score of EG writing factors 92

Table 4.16: Paired Samples Test of pretest score and posttest score of EG writing factors 93

Table 4.17: Paired Samples Statistics of pretest and posttest of CG 95

Table 4.18: Paired Samples Test of CG pretest and CG posttest 95

Table 4.19: Paired Samples Statistics of CG writing factors 96

Table 4.20: Paired Samples Test of CG writing factors between pretest and posttest 97

Table 4.21: The comparison between mean score increase of EG and of CG 99

Table 4.22: Learners’ assessments of their writing motivation after the treatment 102

Table 4.23: Paired Samples Test of pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire items 103

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: The 4Cs conceptual framework by Do Coyle (2006) 18

Figure 2.2: The Language Triptych, by Do Coyle (2006) 20

Figure 2.3: The CLIL Pyramid, in accordance with Oliver Meyer (2010) 22

Figure 4.1: Mean score of pre-questionnaire 101

ABBREVIATIONS

CG: Control Group

CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

EG: Experimental Group

IELTS: International English Language Testing System

LMQ: Learner motivation questionnaires

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Throughout up and down cultivations, English has become the most important and most popular language over the world, and spread its’ influences on many different aspects of human lives including economy, politics, and education Therefore, learning and teaching English at non-English speaking countries have turned into be more active than ever Nowadays, there is a new trend in Vietnamese education that is many students pursuing their academic knowledge in English speaking countries (Ho, 2015), which makes writing much more important to master to obtain academic achievements Moreover, Schnee (2010) wrote ‘writing has been identified as a threshold skill for employment and promotion.” However, Olander (2007) acknowledged writing as an enormously complex activity that needs time, efforts, teacher’s instruction, and practice

1.2 Problem statement

In learning English, writing, especially academic writing is one of the four language skills which needs to master (Ho, Nguyen, Le & Chiem, 2011) Maier (2011) proved that be good at writing “make us better persuaders, better story and better thinkers” (as cited in (Ho, Nguyen, Le & Chiem, 2011) Writing will improve our thinking ability, and enhance language use in communication both in written and spoken However, English learners often consider writing skill as “being the last language skill to be acquired … for foreign/ second language learners” (Hamp-

Lyons & Heasly, 2006) since most of them seem not very interested in or eve afraid

of writing (Pell, 2004) which affects leaner writing performance leading to low motivation to write (Lee, 2005)

Meanwhile, “a sense of competency achieved through seeking out and overcoming challenges” is one of three psychological needs to help English learners enhance their motivation (Noels, 2001, as cited in Lo & Hyland, 2007) As a result, low writing scores can lead to low learners’ motivation to write Payne (2012) claimed “students’ motivation to write contributes to their success as writers in college courses” which can be understood that academic writing performance can

be affected by writing motivation Moreover, Pajares (1996) wrote that writing motivation is a significant factor in writing competence (as cited in Payne, 2012) In additionally, Troia et al (2012) showed “motivation plays a prominent role in writing development and performance” Thus, it seems that low writing motivation can affect back to writing performance in a vicious cycle

This is also the problem of YOLA students since many writing teachers at YOLA have commented that most of their students are not motivated to write, which was showed in the result of an annual survey to guarantee the quality control

of writing teaching and learning at YOLA (Source: YOLA school, December 2014) The researchers asked randomly 5 students per each level from 5 levels of IELTS

(International English Language Testing System) courses including IELTS Entry, IELTS Foundation, IELTS 5.5, IELTS 6.5, and IELTS Advanced as well as 7 levels

of TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language Internet-based Test) courses

consisting of TOEFL Entry, TOEFL Foundation, TOEFL 60, TOEFL 70, TOEFL

80, TOEFL 90, and TOEFL 100 The result of the survey showed that most of

YOLA learners are not interested in writing counting to 87 percent of 120 learners surveyed

Moreover, the data analysis of an annual quality control (Source: YOLA School, December 2014) showed that writing performance of YOLA learners is not high in comparison with other language skills The researcher realized that mean score of writing was 4.38, which was much lower than the other three language skills (mean

of Listening = 5.57, mean of reading = 5.76, and mean of speaking = 5.89) Besides assessing the mean score of writing skill at YOLA, teaching writing approach should also be examined Reviewing the training, and guiding materials for teachers, they are encouraged to apply process approach to teaching and learning writing with full of steps of process approach such as brainstorming, organizing ideas into categories, writing the first draft, editing, rewriting, and proofreading

1.3 Research aims and research questions

The study has the two aims:

1 To examine the effect of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

on EFL learners’ writing motivation

2 To unfold the effect of Content and Language Integrated Learning on EFL learners’ writing performance

To achieve the aims mentioned above, the study is therefore guided by the following research questions:

1 How does CLIL influence to EFL learners’ writing motivation through the treatment of CLIL?

2 How does CLIL enhance EFL learners’ writing performance under the treatment of CLIL?

1.4 Significance of the study

This research has a threefold contribution as follows:

First, this research extends English writing performance literature by investigating the effect of CLIL on EFL learners’ writing performance since those previous studies on EFL learners’ writing performance have focused on other writing teaching approaches such as Genre-based Approach (Henry & Roseberry, 1998; Burns, 2001; Byram, 2004; Kim, 2007; Rahman, 2011; Xuan, 2014), Process Approach (Kang, 2006; King, 2008; Bayat, 2014; Alodwan & Ibnian, 2014), Product Approach (Adeyemi, 2008; Tangpermpoom, 2008), Process-Product Approach (Pasand & Haghi, 2013)

Second, this research also expands CLIL research stream as this is placing CLIL in English writing classroom context whereas the prior researches on CLIL has had a tendency to look at CLIL in language teaching education in general (Gil, 2010; Coyle & Marsh, 2010; Dale, Vander & Tanner, 2010; Uemura, 2013) or in Physical teaching (Hansen-Pauly, et al., 2009; Zindler, 2013)

Last, this research can be considered to be among the first to test the effect of CLIL on EFL learners’ writing motivation and writing performance in Vietnamese educational context The results of this study were shown that CLIL affects writing motivation and writing performance positively Meanwhile, other works have focused on CLIL in the contexts of Western (Dalton-Puffer, 2007b; Perez Vidal, 2009; Gil, 2010; Pokrivčáková, 2013; Bozdoğan & Karlıdağ, 2013) and other Asian countries such as Iran, Saudi, Hong Kong and Japan (Jawhar, 2012; Pinner, 2013; Leung, 2013; Yamano, 2013)

1.5 Organization of the study

The study contains 6 main chapters including (1) introduction, (2) literature review, and (3) methodology, (4) data analysis and interpretation (5) findings and discussion, and (6) conclusion The first chapter describes background of the study, problem statement, research gap, research aims and questions, why the researcher needs to conduct this study, and finally its structure The second chapter presents previous studies, research gaps, general background of CLIL, overview of writing teaching approaches, writing motivation, and writing performance as well as analyses the relationship between CLIL and writing motivation and writing performance The third chapter discusses background of the research such as setting, data collection, training procedures of EG and CG, and data analysis in which validity, reliability, pilot study, and T-tests are also described The fourth chapter reports the results of the study, data analysis, and their interpretation Major

chapter, limitations, implications of the study and recommendations for further research related to this topic are also included

1.6 Chapter summary

The first chapter discussed about background of the study, problem that learners deal with when they write, how the previous research studied about to solve this problem, research aims and questions, the significance of this study, and finally organization of the study

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

In all over the world, variety of approaches has been invented and developed

to help language teachers in teaching writing depending on their view of how writing should be taught, in what way learners should do to improve their writing skill, and the crucial features of a piece of writing A new approach to teach writing has been developed from the foundation of the prior approaches CLIL cannot stand itself far from this flow of development; therefore, to have a better understanding of CLIL, the researcher reviews some typical writing approaches that have the most common features with CLIL in this chapter There were also prior studies which were reviewed and the research gaps were also presented

2.1 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

2.1.1 Overview of writing teaching approaches

2.1.1.1 The product approach

A product approach is “a traditional approach in which students are encouraged to mimic a model text, usually is presented and analyzed at an early stage” (Gabrielatos, 2002) A product approach is concerned with the final product

of writing The product approach focuses its study on model texts in order to get students familiarize with the conventions of writing Brown (1994) stated that teachers focus on the final writing paper, and evaluate it against the criteria of vocabulary use, structures of grammar, sentence organization, and rhetorical

product approach is to attempt to make the student familiarized with the conventions of writing through a given model, before assigning a piece of writing, and then return the writing paper for further revision

The product approach engages the teaching writing process through four sequential stages: familiarization, controlled writing, guided writing, and free writing (Steele, 2004) Product Approach Model consists of four stages including (1) Model texts are given to learners, and then the features of the genre are highlighted (2) Tasks of controlled practice of the highlighted features, usually in isolation, are given to learners to be familiar with (3) Organizing ideas is an important task in this stage (4) This is the end result of learning process with product approach In this stage, learners use linguistic knowledge, and skills to produce the product in which is to show their fluency and competent use of language Furthermore, the product approach helps free learners from worries when writing by providing them with knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, and writing structure through a given writing model Moreover, learning conventions of writing through a given model, then practicing it controllably before doing free practice helps to build up learners’ self-confidence, and create an error-free piece of writing

Besides the advantages, this approach has limits itself First, due to writing based on the given model, learners might have no sense of audience and/or purpose

of their writing Nunan (2000) claimed learners form a false assumption that writing

is just for teachers to assess, not an useful skill to master to communicate with

others people Additionally, learners feel much discouraged and lose most interest

in writing when doing the writing tasks without motivation and target audiences in mind Second, the product-based approach prevents learners from creativity in writing Instead of being instructed and given time to practice how to write creatively, learners are taught to reproduce language pattern provided by teachers

In other words, learners do not take the centered roles in learning process This leads to the result that they lose the ability of self-writing with no prior texts or patterns, which is a big troublesome for language learners to succeed in academic fields

2.1.1.2 The process approach

The process approach is an approach that focuses mainly on the process of writing rather than on the products themselves (Silva & Matsuda, 2001; Onozawa, 2010; Bae, 2011) That means learners produce a final written product based on thinking process (Brown, 2001) According to Steel (2004), the process approach model includes eight stages (i.e., Brainstorming, Planning/structuring, Mind mapping, Writing the first draft, Peer feedback, Editing, Final draft, and Evaluation and teacher’s feedback) The advantages of the process approach can vary in different ways First, the process approach focuses on the process that writers go through in composing texts (Nunan, 1991), and let learners have a chance to think when they write (Brown, 2001) Second, Nunan (1991) also confirmed that the

process approach encourages learners to take part in collaborative group work to enhance their motivation and to develop positive attitudes towards writing

However, the process approach also consists of some limitations itself First,

it pays less attention to linguistic knowledge, and a little significance on a final product (Reid, 2001) Second, the process approach is considered being unrealistic since it emphasizes too much on multiple drafts that may fail students when they are requested to write with a single draft limit (Leki, 1992)

2.1.1.3 The genre-based approach

CLIL not only has the same learning focus on linguistics as the product approach, brainstorming and writing by steps like the process writing, but it also considers writing as social and cultural practice like Genre-based approach (Hasan

& Akhand, 2010) Paltridge (2004) claims that using the Genre-based approach to teach writing emphasizes “the teaching of particular genre students need for later social communicative success” (as cited in Hasan & Akhand, 2010), and focuses more on readers and on the conventions that a piece of writing needs to follow (Munice, 2002) Badger & White (2000) are similarly supportive to Paltridge They wrote that the advantages of Genre-based approach are that it acknowledges that writing occurs in a social situation and is reflection of a particular purpose Furthermore, Kim (2006) the genre approach brings together formal and functional properties of a language in writing instruction, and it acknowledges that there are strong associations between them Actually, it is crucial for both writing teachers

and learners to understand how and why linguistic conventions are used for particular rhetorical effects (Bhatia, 1993, as cited in Kim, 2006)

There are some limitations that can be found in the Genre-based approach First, Swales (2000) mentions that a genre approach over-focuses on the reader while paying less attention to learner expression (as cited in Hasan & Akhand, 2010) Moreover, this approach both places too much focus on conventions and genre features, and is less useful for learners to discover the texts’ true messages; therefore, the second limitation of genre approach is learners’ role which is largely passive as it was stated in the study of Badger & White (2000) They pointed out the negative aspect of genre approach that undervaluing skills needed to produce texts

is limiting learners’ creative thoughts about content, and overlooking natural processes of learning and learners’ creativity

academic research During the process of developing and positioning CLIL

Marsh (2002) defined it as a dual-focused educational innovation in which an additional language is used to teach and learn a non-language subject In addition to definition of Marsh (2002), the most commonly used definition of CLIL has been “a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language” (Maljers, Marsh & Wolff 2007; Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols 2008; Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2010) Additional language which can be varied from different countries can be a target language (L2) or a foreign language (FL) This study will be conducted in the context of an English language center in Vietnam; therefore; additional language in this research will refer

to English Moreover, CLIL is an innovative methodological approach to develop the proficiency of not only language but also non-language subject (cited in Bower, 2013) On other words, CLIL can also be considered as a means of teaching and learning English through study of specialist content (Graddol, 2006) More specifically, “CLIL [ ] is a broad, flexible type of L2 language teaching through non-linguistic content” (cited in Gil, 2010) Moreover, Dalton-Puffer (2007) has stated a new term for CLIL when defining it as referring to “educational settings where a language other than the student’s mother tongue is used as medium of instruction”

2.1.2.2 Characteristics of CLIL

In 2008, Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols wrote that CLIL provides the significant added value for language learning by creating the fusion between language and content and encouraging independent learning while building lifelong development In fact, many researcher have studied CLIL in different fields and educational contexts They have focused on different aspects of CLIL as well as learners’ perspective on the effect of CLIL on learning Gil (2010) wrote “although CLIL programs may be implemented in different ways, there are some features that are considered to be common to all types of CLIL provision”, which include implicit learning, cooperative learning, scaffolding, authenticity, and flexibility Therefore, this study also examines those characteristics to help the researcher have

a deeper understanding of the approach

Implicit learning is an inductive, automatic “process which operates largely

independently of awareness, in order to detect underlying regularities in a rich and unstructured stimulus environment” (Jarvinen, 1999) According to Marsh (2000), young children might have ability to acquire language naturally from the environment; furthermore, in 2006, he wrote that “CLIL is more learning by construction rather than learning by instruction.” It seems that by providing great content to contextualize language as the first priority (Richards & Rogers, 2001), CLIL creates opportunities for naturalistic language learning (Richards & Rogers, 2001; Munioz, 2002a)

Cooperative learning which is “the structured, systematic instructional

technique in which small groups work together to achieve a common goal” (Slavin,

1991, cited in Adams, 2013; Siegel, 2005) is to carry out a range of tasks with peer group support and peer instruction (Grabe & Stoller, 1997; cited in Gil, 2010) to help learners decrease anxiety, increase motivation, encourage learners’ interaction (Fontecha, 2008), and increase learners’ self-management skills (Good & Brophy, 2000; cited in Bayat, 2004)

CLIL aims to acquire learners’ autonomy, and support other learners through cooperative learning techniques (Richards & Rogers, 2001) Moreover, Gil (2010) stated “CLIL is influenced by constructivist postulates”, which emphasizes promoting cooperative learning (Muñoz & Navés, 2007; Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, 2008) According to Gil (2010), “cooperation is a core feature of CLIL not only from the learners’ view, since it includes CLIL and non-CLIL teachers working together in planning courses, lessons, or themes.”

“Scaffolding is the process developed during interaction in which a learner is

guided by his/her interlocutor” (Foley, 1994, cited in Gil, 2010) According to Belinchón (2009), and Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols (2008), scaffolding in CLIL is to develop learners’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, interests, as well as previous experience, and challenge them to move forward It also helps learners understand the content and language of any given material since it reduces the cognitive and

linguistic load of the content (Meyer, 2010) As CLIL goals to support language production; so, scaffolding is a crucial portion of CLIL (Belinchón, 2009)

Authenticity is one central issue in language lesson in CLIL Authenticity is

related to learning that takes place in connection with real-life situations (Fontecha, 2008) Authenticity is also related to both content and interaction Therefore, Richards & Rodgers (20010, and Fontecha (2008) suggested that authentic, and real materials should be applied in CLIL classrooms Richards & Rodgers (2001) emphasized that to enrich the context, CLIL classes should involve an intensive use

of materials designed for educational purposes (cited in Gil, 2010)

Gil (2010) wrote flexibility which is one of main features of CLIL can be

implemented in many ways such as socio-educational contexts, content subjects, schools’ characteristics, teachers, and teaching approaches (Fontecha et al., 2005; Fontecha, 2008) Meanwhile, Marsh (2002) summarized flexibility in CLIL when describing CLIL as an education teaching approach that “suits the time, needs, and aspirations” of EFL learners

2.1.2.3 CLIL frameworks

García (2013) stated that CLIL is flexible, and has many different models depending on a range of contextual factors that depend on the learning focus and the outcomes This part of the study presents projected frameworks (i.e (1) The 4Cs conceptual framework by Do Coyle (2006), (2) The Language Triptych by Do

teaching a successful lesson, specifically writing, in which focuses on content and language In addition, the presentation of those models is useful for the researcher to decide which model should be chosen to plan and evaluate the CLIL lesson plan models as well as keep them in right tracks when applying the CLIL approach to teaching IELTS writing in the experimental study

(1) The 4Cs conceptual framework by Do Coyle (2006)

The 4Cs framework for CLIL starts with content (i.e subject matter, themes, cross-curricular approaches) and focuses on the interrelationship between content (subject matter), communication (language), cognition (thinking) and culture (awareness of self and ‘otherness’) to build on the synergies of integrating learning (content and cognition) and language learning (communication and cultures) (Coyle, 2006)

In this present study, the researcher focus on the 4Cs-Framework offered by

Do Coyle (2006), which offers a theoretical and methodological foundation for planning CLIL lessons and constructing materials because of its integrative nature The 4Cs-Framework is built on the following principles:

(1) Content: It is not only about acquiring knowledge and skills, but it is also

about the learners creating their own knowledge, understanding and developing skills (personalized learning) (Vygotsky, 1978; Lantolf, 2000; as cited in Coyle, 2008)

(2) Cognition: Content is related to learning and thinking To enable the

learners to create their own interpretation of content, it must be analyzed for its linguistic demands (Met, 1998; as cited in Coyle, 2008) In other words, thinking processes need to be analyzed in terms of their linguistic demands (Bloom, 1984; McGuiness, 1999; as cited in Coyle, 2008)

(3) Communication: Language needs to be learned in relation to the learning

context, learning through that language, reconstructing the content and its related cognitive processes (Swain, 2000; as cited in Coyle, 2008) Interaction in the learning context is fundamental to learning, which has implications when the learning context operates through the medium of a target language that is a conduit for communication and for learning which can be described as learning to use language and using language to learn

(4) Culture: Studying through a different language offers a means of gaining

a deeper understanding of other cultures (Miyamoto, 2011), or of fostering international understanding (Coyle, 2006) If learners understand the concept of

‘otherness’ then this is likely to lead to a deeper understanding of ‘self ’ (Byram, 2008) This aspect includes intercultural elements in project planning: setting the context of the content in different cultures

Figure 2.1: The 4Cs conceptual framework by Do Coyle (2006)

(2) The Language Triptych by Do Coyle (2006)

The Language Triptych (Coyle, 2006) which is a systematic analytical is, thus, proposed to analyze students’ linguistics needs when they learn subject matter (content) in a comprehensible manner The three inter-related perspectives of the model are summarized in Table 2.1 and in Figure 2.2 below

Table 2.1: Summary of the Language Triptych (Coyle, 2007a; Coyle et al., 2010; as

2) Language for learning

How: Metacognition

- Language required to operate (i.e interact and participate in tasks) in a FL environment (van Lier, 1996; as cited in Leung, 2013)

3) Language through learning

Why: Cognition

- Language needed to scaffold and advance learners’ cognitive skills and thinking processes

- An active involvement of language and thinking (Vygotsky, 1978;

as cited in Leung, 2013)

This reconceptualization shifts the emphasis from content knowledge (linguistic form and grammatical progression) to a more ‘language using’, taking into consideration the functional imperatives (Coyle, 2007a)

Figure 2.2: The Language Triptych, by Do Coyle (2006)

(3) CLIL Pyramid by Oliver Meyer (2010)

According to the above principles of Coyle (2006), Meyer (2010) designed the CLIL Pyramid to visually represent the idea that quality CLIL based on the principles of the 4Cs-Framework can only be achieved when all of the four Cs are considered in lesson planning and materials construction, illustrated in the figure 2.3 below Examining the figure, it is suggested that a systematic sequence to gain a successful lesson starts with topic selection and ends with a review of key content

and language used to complete tasks The CLIL Pyramid composes through four stages as follows:

(1) Content selection: This stage focuses on the specific needs of the content

subject which is the keystone of CLIL lessons

(2) Choice of media: At this stage, the study skill needed to be practiced is

chosen Then multimodal input which facilitates the development of new literacies

is provided to accommodate different learning styles

(3) Task-design: The tasks need to be designed that can trigger not only

higher order thinking skills but also authentic communication among students in different interactive formats (i.e pairwork, groupwork)

(4) CLIL output: How much and what kind of output-scaffolding is

determined by the nature of desired output

This model has brought itself a series of benefits which includes: (1) Enables multifocal lesson planning, (2) higher order thinking skills as an integral part of CLIL, (3) be flexible regarding various models of interaction, and (4) intercultural communications being taken seriously

Figure 2.3: The CLIL Pyramid, in accordance with Oliver Meyer (2010)

2.1.2.4 CLIL dimensions and outcomes

Marsh, Maljers, & Hartiala (2001) propose five main dimensions and focuses

on CLIL, which Perez-Vidal (2009) summarizes in three in the subsequent way:

(1) Social-cultural dimension: This dimension is related to the general vision and the sharing of values which are accomplished through the exchange of cultural elements and the learning of languages

(2) Educational dimension: This dimension focuses on how knowledge is presented and introduced in the CLIL classroom as Coyle (2000) proposes

the 4Cs curriculum (i.e Culture, Content, Cognition, and Communication) which explain that successful learning will take place in the CLIL context if these four elements are combined

(3) Psycholinguistic and Language Acquisition dimension: This emphasizes on the linguistic acquisition that learners gain when they attend a CLIL class more than other previous approaches

Marshal et al (2001, as cited in Gerakopoulou, 2011) states that the general outcomes of the establishment of CLIL may be reached from a pedagogical, linguistic, and social perspective Furthermore, CLIL learners obtain content, and develop their capacity of cognition (Dalton-Puffer, 2008)

2.1.3 Comparing product approach, process approach, and genre-based

approach

There are many approaches that YOLA teachers use to help learners improve their writing skills; however, in this study, the researcher would like to discuss about the three most popular approaches using in YOLA teaching writing context including product approach, process approach and genre-based approach with the experimental writing approach, CLIL

It is clearly to be seen the differences and similarities of the three approaches when they are considered their pedagogies on writing and the development of writing on the teaching and learning writing process In the product approach, writing is regarded as mainly concerned with knowledge about the language

structure as well as the development of writing as mostly the results of the imitation

of modeling texts provided by the instructors (Pincas, 1982, as cited in Badger & White, 2000; Gabrielatos, 2002) In the process approach, writing is linked to classroom activities (Onozawa, 2010) and theme and text types (Steel, 2004) In the genre approach, writing seems to be more considered as a social and cultural practice (Hasan & Akhand, 2010) This is supported by Munice (2002) in his study, which stated that genre approach emphasized on the conventions that a piece of writing needs to follow in order to be successfully accepted by its readership

Besides, it can be said that the three approaches are different in terms of final overall focus, and the important of writing process, but the three approaches extent and cooperate the formers’ features in an attempt to help learners produce good pieces of writing with a meaningful written communication purpose Speaking of final overall focus, the product approach aims to focus on an error-free piece of writing by emphasizing on the form of a given text (Nunan, 1999, as cited in Pasand

& Haghi, 2013) The process approach tends to focus more on varied classroom activities which promote the development of language use (i.e., brainstorming, group discussion and rewriting) rather than the final product In accordance with the process approach, writing is considered as a creative process (Hasan & Akhand, 2010) The genre approach considers the content to express social purposes, and emphasize on communicating with readers, and teaching the linguistic conventions

of the genre explicitly (Luu, 2011)

The approaches used for learning and teaching writing have definitely different focus on how to conduct a writing lesson According to Steele (2004) the product approach comprises of four stages (i.e., Examining given model texts, Controlled practice, Organizing ideas, and Producing a parallel text) Learning writing with the process approach, leaners need to go through eight steps (i.e., Brainstorming, Planning/Structuring, Mind mapping, Writing the first draft, Peer feedback, Editing, Final draft, and Evaluation and teachers’ feedback (Steele, 2004) The genre-based approach has three phrases (i.e., Modeling to build up text functions, joint negotiation with vocabulary, language patterns, and the genre, and independent construction of text) (Elashri, 2013) Besides that, the three approaches also have other typical features of their own which are summarized in Table 2.2 (Hyland, 2003; Steel, 2004)

Table 2.2: Typical features of four approaches

Main idea - Imitated given text

- Concerned with linguistic knowledge

Teaching focus - Focus on the accuracy

in use of lexis, syntax, cohesion, and coherence

- Focus on creative writer, and how to produce and link ideas

- Focus on reader expectations and product

- Knowledge of the social context where writing occurs

- Knowledge about

different genres of writing

Advantages - Able to produce

error-free writings

- Makes processes of writing transparent

- Able to express social purposes effectively

- Makes textual conventions

Disadvantages

- Eliminates the writing’s process

- Ignores the social context of the texts

- Assume the first language (L1) and the second language (L2) similar, and all writing uses the same processes (Hyland, 2003)

- Needs rhetorical understanding of texts

- Attends written products too much -Undervalues necessary skills for text producing

to achieve the goal of learning the language [ ] To learn second language is seen

as referring to the extent to which the individual works or strives to learn the

language because of the desire to do so, and the satisfaction experienced in this activity” (Gardner, 1985, cited in Alshahrani, 2011) Most researcher would agree that motivation concerns “how people make decision to do something” as well “as how long they are willing to keep doing it, and how committed they are while doing it” (Alshahrani, 2011) Meanwhile, Cumming et al (2007) emphasized that theories

of motivation about language learning have been produced that “focus on issues such as willingness-to-communicate, language anxiety, or distinctions between instrumental and integrative orientations to language learning issues” Labor (2015) wrote “motivation is the will or the energy that drives an individual to accomplish a desired goal.” Moreover, Gardner (2010) assessed motivation in terms of three components including language learning desire, attitudes toward L2 learning, and motivation intensity

2.2.2 Motivation in writing

Although over the past three decades motivational research has greatly developed, studies on the motivational aspects of writing are relatively recent (Bruning & Horn, 2000; Boscolo & Hidi, 2007) The key issues affecting the development of the motivation to write were examined (Bruning & Horn, 2000), and it was claimed enhancing student beliefs in, and confidence about the nature and potential of the writing process should be done as a need (Alashahrani, 2011), which includes the sense of one’s writing’s power, and its value as a social tool and

“for the development of a more realistic understanding of the difficulty in