An exploratory study on teachers’ opinions about math and english integrated teaching and learning program at an education center in hanoi

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES ĐỖ THỊ NHÂM AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON TEACHERS’ OPINIONS ABOUT MATH

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐỖ THỊ NHÂM

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON TEACHERS’ OPINIONS

ABOUT MATH AND ENGLISH INTEGRATED TEACHING AND LEARNING PROGRAM

AT AN EDUCATISON CENTER IN HANOI

(Nghiên cứu thăm dò ý kiến giáo viên về chương trình dạy học

theo đường hướng tích hợp Toán - Tiếng Anh tại một trung tâm giáo dục ở Hà Nội)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐỖ THỊ NHÂM

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON TEACHERS’ OPINIONS

ABOUT MATH AND ENGLISH INTEGRATED TEACHING AND LEARNING PROGRAM

AT AN EDUCATION CENTER IN HANOI

(Nghiên cứu thăm dò ý kiến giáo viên về chương trình dạy học

theo đường hướng tích hợp Toán - Tiếng Anh tại một trung tâm giáo dục ở Hà Nội)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology

Supervisor: Dr Huỳnh Anh Tuấn

Hanoi – 2019

DECLARATION

I hearby certify that the MA thesis entitled ―An exploratory study on teachers’ opinions about Math and English Integrated Teaching and Learning Program at an education center in Hanoi” is a result of my research for Degree

of Master of Arts at University of Language and International studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi The paper has not been submitted for any degree at any other university or tertiary institution

Hanoi, 2019

Đỗ Thị Nhâm

I also dedicate my in-depth appreciation to University of Languages and International Studies, the lecturers, the staff members for their precious lectures and their valuable support helping me to complete my paper

I am also immensely grateful to all the teachers for their enthusiastic participation in my questionnaires and interviews

Last but not least, I owe my thesis complement to my family and my close friends who always stand by me with encouragement and spiritual support throughout conducting the thesis

ABSTRACT

The launching of the National Foreign Languages 2020 Project with the task

of constructing and implementing other teaching and learning programs in English for Mathematics and other subjects could be seen as the starting point of applying CLIL program in Vietnamese education The practice of CLIL in general, Math and English Integrated Learning (MEITL) in particular, since then, has attracted attention from the whole society However, it is worth noticing that research to date

in Vietnamese context has not spend enough concern on teachers‘ opinions – an important in the process of implementing MEITL This stud, therefore, aims at exploring the teachers‘ opinions about MEITL program‘s benefits, challenges in an education center in Hanoi, as well as their suggestions to improve MEITL‘s effectiveness

For this purpose, firstly, 32 – item questionnaires were used to get response from all 21 teachers of the center Semi-structured interviews were then conducted with 6 teachers from different groups: the teachers with more than 5-year experience, the teachers with 1-3 year experice, the teachers graduating from faculty of English Language Teacher Education, the teachers graduating from graduating from faculty of Mathematics Teacher Education The results from two instruments were compared to each other to validate the study

The results of this research indicated the teachers‘ opinions about MEITL programs‘ benefits in terms of Context, Content, Language, Learning, and Culture The research also pointed the challenges faced by teachers when teaching this program in the following factors: Collecting and Adapting materials, Designing tasks, Balancing between Math and English knowledge, Applying the program for primary students and the students with low level of English competence, Teaching and learning complex Math themes, Time allocating and Teaching Grammar and Structures Besides, significant recommendations were also given to help improve

MEITL program

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES viii

LISTS OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Research statement and rationale for the study 1

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study 2

1.3 Research method 3

1.4 Scope of the study 3

1.5 Significance of the study 3

1.6 Structure of the thesis 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1 CLIL 6

2.1.1 Definition 6

2.1.2 Driving forces behind CLIL 8

2.1.3 Framework of CLIL 8

2.2 MEITL 16

2.3 Opinions 16

2.4 Benefits 18

2.5 Challenges 18

2.6 Related studies 19

2.6.1 Related studies worldwwide 19

2.6.2 Related studies in Vietnam 21

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 24

3.1 Context of the study 24

3.2 Research design 26

3.2.1 Research method 26

3.2.2 Participants 27

3.2.3 Data collection 30

3.2.3.1 Instruments 30

3.2.3.2 Procedure 32

3.2.4 Data analysis 33

3.2.4.1 Statistics analysis of the questionnaires 33

3.2.4.2 Content analysis of the interviews 34

CHAPTER 4: MAJOR FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 36

4.1 Overall rating 36

4.2 MEITL program‘s benefits, as perceived by the teachers 36

4.2.1 Context 37

4.2.2 Content (Math) 40

4.2.3 Language (English) 43

4.2.4 Learning 46

4.2.5 Culture 50

4.3 MEITL program‘s challenges as perceived by the teachers 52

4.3.1 Collecting and adapting materials 54

4.3.2 Designing tasks 55

4.3.3 Balancing between teaching Math and teaching English 56

4.3.4 Applying MEITL for primary students 57

4.3.5 Applying MEITL to teach the students with low level of English

competence 57

4.3.6 Teaching and learning complex Math themes in English 58

4.3.7 Time allocating and English grammar and structure teaching 59

4.4 The teachers‘ recommendations to improve MEITL program‘s effectiveness 60

4.4.1 Raising public awareness of CLIL program in general, MEITL in particular 60

4.4.2 Modifying course books 62

4.4.3 Re-organizing classes 63

4.4.4 Using Information and Communication Technology 64

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 66

5.1 Summary 66

5.1.2 The benefits of MEITL program, as perceived by the teachers 66

5.1.2 The challenges of MEITL program, as perceived by the teachers 67

5.1.3 The teachers‘ recommendations concerning improving the MEITL program‘s effectiveness 67

5.2 Implications 67

5.3 Limitations and recommendations for further studies 68

REFERENCES 69 APPENDICES I APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE TEACHERS I APPENDIX 2: GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEWS V APPENDIX 3: RESULTS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRES VII APPENDIX 4: THE INTERVIEWS’ TRANSCRIPTS XIV

ABBREVIATIONS

CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning

ICT: Information and Communication Technology

FL: Foreign language

GCSE: General Certificate of Secondary Education

IGCSE: International Certificate of Secondary Education

MEITL: Math and English Integrated Teaching and Learning SL: Second language

ITMC: International Talent Mathematics Contest

HKIMO: Hong Kong International Mathematical Olympiad

World Time: World Talent Invitational Mathematics Examinations T1: Teacher 1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Teachers‘ opinions about MEITL‘s benefits for context

Table 2 Teachers‘ opinions about MEITL‘s benefits for content (Math) Table 3 Teachers‘ opinions about MEITL‘s benefits for Language (English) Table 4 Teachers‘ opinions about MEITL‘s benefits for Learning

Table 5 Teachers‘ opinions about MEITL‘s benefits for Culture

Table 6 Teachers‘ opinions about MEITL‘s challenges

LISTS OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Language Triptych by Coyle, Hood, Marsh (2010)

Figure 2: The 4Cs framework by Coyle (2015)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This part aims at explaining the reasons for conducting this thesis, its objectives and how it can benefit the stakeholders Additionally, the method and the structure of the thesis are introduced briefly to illustrate how the study is conducted

and how it is organized

1.1 Research statement and rationale for the study

The issue of the National Foreign Languages 2020 Project by Vietnam‘s Ministry

of Education and Training (Decision No 1400/QĐ-Ttg ―Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in the National education system, period 2008 – 2020) has greatly contributed to enhance teaching and learning foreign languages in Vietnam Among all the objectives suggested by the Project, the implementation of Content and Language Integrated Learning has attracted attention from the whole society The very first step of implementing the CLIL program is to integrate Math and English in the schools and education institutes It is obviously seen that in current context of Vietnam, Math and English integrated teaching and learning program (MEITL) has recieved much public attention and feedback from students, teachers, policy makers and the researchers as well Implicating CLIL in general and MEITL

in particular has become the center problem of a number of studies in Vietnam recently The paper by Võ Đoàn Thọ (2015) studied the students at University of Economics Ho Chi Minh city and figured out the benefits of CLIL in students‘ perpectives and proposed the suggestions to have the effective lessons applying CLIL approach Nguyễn Thị Thuỳ Linh (2016), in her work, discusssed four critiques by the policy actors regarding the significance of CLIL in the Vietnamese context, teachers‘ readiness, students‘ readiness and CLIL materials That paper, also provided a general picture of teachers‘ perceptions of CLIL, how they implemented CLIL and the difficulties they encountered in practice By examining

the current 6th grade Math curriculum and English curriculum in Vietnam, Vũ Đình Phương and Lê Tuấn Anh (2018) found out three solutions to teach Math and English integrated and the 2-step process of preparation for teaching a Math lesson

in English by using CLIL approach It can be seen that the findings of the above studies are mostly based on the CLIL‘s theories and the researchers‘ view and observations Those projects‘ outcomes, thererfore, though have pointed out many factors related to the implementation of CLIL, are still quite subjective and and do not provide enough strong ―authentic‖ evidence gathered from the teachers who actually implement CLIL in their teaching The teachers‘ opinions about MEILT program‘s benefits, challenges and their suggestions for the good MEILT lessons are not spent enough concern although they play an important role in the process of

applying MEILT in the large scale ―What are the teachers’ opinions about

MEITL program’s benefits, challenges as well as their suggestions to improve the MEITL program’s effectiveness, therefore, becomes the guiding question for this

research

1.2 Aims and objectives of the study

The study first and foremost aims at exploring opinions of the teachers at an education center in Hanoi about MEITL‘s benefits, challenges and their recommendations to improve MEITL‘s effectiveness To be more specific, the inquiry of the teachers‘ opinions is undertaken by answering three following research questions:

Question 1: What are the benefits of MEITL program, as perceived by the teachers?

Question 2: What are the challenges of MEITL program, as perceived by the teachers?

Question 3: What are the teachers’ recommendations for improving the MEITL program’s effectiveness?

1.3 Research method

Mixed method with two main instruments – questionnaires and interviews -

was applied to figure out the answers for the three research questions To get the

responses from the all participants in the short time, the questionnaires with 32

―Likert-type‖ with 2 main aspects – MEITL program‘s benefits and challenges - were delivered first The teachers were asked to choose 1 from 5 alternatives ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree for each item Those responses, were then analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics method After the responses were grouped into MEITL program‘s benefits (with 5 categories) and challenges (with 7 categories), semi-structured interviews with 6 teachers were conducted to get explanations and the answer for the third question

1.4 Scope of the study

Among various aspects which are essential to investigate around MEITL

program, this study more specifically aims at examining the teachers’ opinions about Math and English Integrated Teaching and Learning Program at an education center in Hanoi The study is small-scale, the findings, hence are

applied for the context studied but not generalized into broad environment The other aspects are still not researched and need further studies

1.5 Significance of the study

This study benefits the following stakeholders:

Teachers: Based on the research findings, the MEITL teachers at center

studied and other MEITL teachers will have chances to review of benefits, challenges and give suggestions for overcoming challenges Those are fundamental for them to better their practice in class by maximizing the benefits, overcoming the challenges using the recommendations suggested Obviously, this study may contribute to the success of teachers‘ teaching

Students: The findings of this study will help the students understand more

clearly benefits and challenges of MEITL program and they, consequently, will have positive attitude in cooperating with teachers in class

Administrators and education policy makers: Thanks to this paper, school

administrators and education policy makers would know well about advantages, disadvantages of implementing MEITL program, then, they can consider the teachers‘ recommendation to give methods to improve the MEITL program‘s quality This research, consequently, might contribute the sound basis to help enhance effectiveness of adopting MEITL program

Other scholars: This study can be used as reference for other educators in

their work in the future

1.6 Structure of the thesis

There are 5 chapters in the paper: Introduction, Literature Review,

Methodology, Major findings and Discussion, Conclusion

Chapter 1: Introduction - restates the topic concerned, aims and

significance of the study From the current situation of implementing MEITL program in the world and in Vietnam, the necessity of taking MEITL program‘s benefits and challenges in to careful investigation is pointed out The purpose and the range of subjects the study deals with are also clearly stated so that the readers have the general ideas about the whole research One most important component contained in this part is the practical meaning of the research, which benefits

teachers, students, school administrators, education policy makers and scholars

Chapter 2: Literature review - serves as the basic foundation for the study,

provides critical literature review on definition of CLIL, benefit, challenge, theoretical implication of CLIL, CLIL‘s dimensions and framework, reviewing of the studies concerning CLIL, as well as the description of MEITL as a CLIL program at a center in Hanoi By critical analyzing the related research, this chapter builds the study‘ theoretical framework which plays a crucial role not only in

guiding the understanding of research-topic but also in designing the questionnaire

and interviews to solve the research‘s problems

Chapter 3: Methodology - brings the detailed description about data

collection and data analysis methods and procedure, helping readers to understand the process and specific stages carried out to fulfil the research It also explains

logically how the findings in chapter 3 gained from the raw information collected

Chapter 4: Findings and Discussions - presents result from data analysis,

research results and discussions in comparison with other studies in the same area Teachers‘ suggestions to overcome the challenges are also given in this part

Chapter 5: Conclusion – summarize the whole study (including all above

parts) in concise words Recommendations are offered to suggest several solutions for other aspects to conduct further study in this area

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Math and English Integrated Learning is one model of CLIL program in which the content focused is Math and the additional language is English Therefore, it is necessary to have critical review of CLIL to understand about MEITL program This part is defining the key concepts - CLIL, opinions, benefits, challenges, discussing its hidden forces, its framework and reviewing critically the studies around the field of CLIL as well as MEITL

2.1 CLIL

2.1.1 Definition

CLIL was first adopted in 1994 (Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala, 2001) as the good practice achieved in different types of school environment where teaching and learning take place in an additional language Accordingly, the key characteristics

of CLIL is to teach and to learn in another language

―An additional language is often learner‘ foreign language, but it may also be

a second language or some forms of heritage or community language‖ (Coye, Hood, and Marsh, 2010: 1)

According to De Graaff, Jan Koopman, Anikina & Westhoff (2007), CLIL could be considered as an umbrella term adopted widely in educational settings where instruction takes place in FL/SL The CLIL‘s aim was considered to promote the learning of both a FL/SL and other curricular content at the same time (Navés & Muñoz, 2000: 2), or to safeguard the subject being taught whilst promoting language as a medium for learning as well as an objective of the learning process itself‖ (Coyle in Marsh 2002: 37)

Along this line, Eurydice (2006), defined CLIL as ―a special approach to teaching in that the non-language subject, but with and through a FL‖ This definition emphasizes the main focus of the CLIL classroom is not on encouraging

the learners‘ progress in language but on developing the environment in which the learners can ―make use of language and develop their language competence with the non-linguistic content‖ (Coonan, 2007; Pavón Vázquez & Rubio Alcalá , 2010) Language learning, using and overall language competence were put more emphasis here

Coyle (2008) provided more detailed definition of CLIL in which it was considered a lifelong concept embracing all sectors of education from primary to adults, from a few hours per week to intensive modules lasting several months It may involve project work, examination courses, drama, puppets, chemistry practical and mathematical investigations In short, CLIL is flexible and dynamic, where topics and subjects – foreign languages and non-language subjects - are integrated

in some kind of mutually beneficial way so as to provide value-added educational outcomes for the widest possible range of learners It can be seen that Coyle‘s definition (2008) not only confirms CLIL program‘s characteristics – flexible and dynamic but recommends the useful techniques employed in teaching process – project work, drama, puppets, chemistry practical and mathematical investigation

This view was also supported by Coonan‘s (2003: 27) statement: ―CLIL is flexible CLIL models are by no means uniform They are elaborated at a local level

to respond to local conditions and desires Indeed, the characteristics of CLIL development in Europe show a great variety of solutions […] It is the combination

of the choices with respect to the variables that produces a particular CLIL project‖

The Coyle‘s (2005) and Coonan‘s (2003) definitions stated the focus of CLIL program (topics and subjects integrated – foreign languages and non-language subjects integrated) characteristics of CLIL program (flexible and dynamic), CLIL range (all sectors of education from primary to adults), and duration for a CLIL program (from a few hours per week to intensive modules lasting several months) Those explanations cover almost all aspects of CLIL program

In sum, CLIL was firstly defined simply as a ―dual focused‖ educational approach which is applied to teach both content and language at the same time As a flexible and transferable approach, it can be adopted in in different types of schools and with different learners, promoting experimentation on the part of the teachers

on the basis of the demands of their own settings

2.1.2 Driving forces behind CLIL

This part is giving more details of practical implementation for CLIL in real society Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010) critically analyzed two main reasons for the

emergence and the development of CLIL program: reactive reason and proactive

reason

Reactive reason: CLIL program emerges to solve the problems in certain

countries or certain areas This situation happens in the country in which there are many first languages are used and there is a vigorous debate around choosing one of them as the instruction language, then CLIL becomes the solution for those countries (a foreign language is the instruction language to give equal access for all learners)

Proactive reason: CLIL program is to enhance language learning or other

need of education, society, or personal development: the parents want children to be competent at a foreign language, the government want to build the bilingual, plurilingual or multilingual countries, improve language education for socio-economic development, the commission of some areas want to lay foundation for greater inclusion, linguists wish to develop language education through integrating with other subjects

2.1.3 Framework of CLIL

This study adapts the 4Cs framework suggested by Coyle (2005) and the CLIL‘s dimensions by Marsh, Maliers and Hartialas (2001) as the guiding theories since they demonstrate fully the factors contribuiting to effective CLIL practice and

4Cs framework by Coyle (2005) is the most highly accepted theory about

CLIL analyze 4 components of CLIL - Content, Communication, Cognition, and

Culture Those four factors and their close interrelationship prove that CLIL is the

emergent synergy program implying the close interrelation between the Content learning and the Language learning It means that learners of CLIL classes can achieve more than the sum of content and language The four factors are explained clearly as follows:

Content: At the heart of the learning process lie successful content or

thematic learning and the acquisition of knowledge, skills and understanding Content is the subject or the project theme CLIL‘s content is considered much more flexible than selecting a discipline from a curriculum It can be the topics of cross-curricular, therefore, it brings chances for promoting learning, skill acquisition and development

What of content teaching is often pointed out clearly in the CLIL‘s syllabuses while how to deliver it, is not addressed in detail CLIL, as stated before,

is to enhance learning in potential ―synergos‖ Therefore, how CLIL program gets the effective learning in different context becomes the issue for debates of the educators around the world Different teaching and learning approaches are raised

to discuss across the areas where CLIL is concerned The one agreed by most

teachers in Western society is a ―banking model‖ (Freire, 1972) This model

considers teachers as the controllers (teachers deliver knowledge and information to the novice) The other approach which proves the educational effectiveness is

―social constructivist approach” This approach emphasizes learners‘ active role in

language learning Accordingly, the key element in learning is ―interactive, mediated and student-led learning‖ And the learners‘ centrality in learning is only gained when the learners are provided with enough ―scaffolding‖ by someone

―more expert‖ One more important thing to enhance learning effectiveness is to bring ―cognitive challenge‖ because when the students deal with new knowledge, they will have desire to interact with others The teachers‘ mission here is to decide

the ―zone of proximal development” (the term introduced by Vygotsky, 1978 to

describe which kind of knowledge is challenging enough to motive learner‘s interaction) in order to balance between offering cognitive challenge and providing scaffolding for learners

The debate around the appropriate method applied in CLIL drives to the implication that in CLIL program, learners must be cognitively engaged And the role of teachers is to involve learners to think, to articulate their learning through metacognitive skills The activities in class will support students to develop life skills CLIL program not only helps students to enrich the learners‘ knowledge, skills but consider how creative thinking, problem solving and cognitive challenging in their whole life To make learners actively engaged in cognitive process, however, is not an easy task Content learning should be integrated with cognitive process which includes two dimensions (lower order thinking and higher order thinking) The learners, therefore, not only have to develop thinking but to develop language needed to understand the knowledge construction

Communication: Language is a conduit for communication and for learning

The formula learning to use language and using language to learn is applicable here Communication goes beyond the grammar system It involves learners in language using in a way which is different from language learning lesson

In their book, Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) reveals the method employed

in CLIL is communicative language learning‘s principals which can be summarized

as follows:

- Language is a tool for communication

- Diversity is recognized and accepted as a part of language development

- Learner competence is relative in terms of genre, style, and correctness

- Multiple varieties of language are recognized

- Culture is instrumental

- There is no single methodology for language learning and teaching

- The goal of language is using

Although the theories of language learning and teaching are quite clear, there

is still a gap between theories and practices Language practice follows the grammar items rather than making meaning This situation requires form-focus in CLIL in order to ensure the students‘ ability to use language to learn content in authentic interactive environment At this point, another question is raised: how can learners use foreign language if they do not know how to use it? The arguments above finally suggest that in CLIL context the fundamental is to balance both form - focus and meaning - focus

CLIL, as stated before, is not the sum of content and language but it concerns the integrating content and language in every lesson To be successful in CLIL, the educators need to make clear about content‘s objectives, language objectives as well

as the connection between them ―Content obligatory language‖ and ―Content Compatible language‖ were proposed by Snow, Met and Genesee (1989) as useful terms to help teachers and learners easily analyze language needed and identify the close interrelationship between content and language in CLIL This point was also supported by the Language Triptych by Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010):

Figure 1: The Language Triptych by Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010)

Language of learning: an analysis of language needed for learners to access

basic concepts and skills relating to topic

Language for learning: the language needed to work in a foreign language

setting

Language through learning: capturing language is needed by individual

learner during the process

The theories synthesized above clarify that the CLIL is not only the matter of language and content learning but intercultural learning and interrelation between content and language learning

Cognition: For CLIL to be effective, it must challenge learners to think and

review and engage in higher order thinking skills CLIL is not about the transfer of knowledge from an expert to a novice CLIL is about allowing individuals to construct their own understanding and be challenged – whatever their age or ability

A useful taxonomy to use as a guide for thinking skills is that of Bloom He has created two categories of thinking skills: lower order and higher order Take Bloom‘s taxonomy for a well-defined range of thinking skills It serves as an excellent checklist

Culture: For our pluricultural and plurilingual world to be celebrated and its

potential realized, this demands tolerance and understanding Studying through a foreign language is fundamental to fostering international understanding

‗Otherness‘ is a vital concept and holds the key for discovering self Culture can have wide interpretation – eg through pluricultural citizenship

Coyle (2005) The 4Cs framework above can be demonstrated concisely as in the below figure:

Figure 2: The 4Cs frame work by Coyle (2005)

In its development process, CLIL becomes more completed as it accounts for the integration of content learning (content and cognition), language learning (communication and cultures), and the interrelationship between content (subject), communication (language), cognition (thinking) and culture (Abramo, Costa & D‘Angelo, 2011: 6)

Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala‘s (2001) agured for similar ideas by proposing 5 dimensions that should be covered in CLIL‘s lessons - Context, Content, Language, Learning, and Culture:

Context: CLIL approach prepares for internationalization, access

international certification, enhance school profile

Content: CLIL approach provides opportunities to study content through

different perspectives, access subject-specific target language terminology, prepare for future studies or working life

Language and language competence: CLIL approach improves overall

target language competence, develop oral communication skills, deepen awareness

of both mother tongue and the target language, develop plurilingual interests and attitudes, introduce a target language, allow learners more contact with the target language

The notion of Language Competence has been developed over the years with the contribution of a great number of linguists, sociolinguists and ethnographers, which are brought together by Bachman (1990: 87) who suggests that language competence has several distinctive characteristics as follows:

(Bachman, 1990: 87)

Learning: CLIL approach complements individual learning strategies,

diversifies methods and forms of classroom practice, increases learner motivation and confidence in both the language and the subject being taught

Learning strategies can be defined as specific actions taken by the learners to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situation (Oxford, 1990) He also divides learning strategies into 2 mains categories: Direct learning strategies and Indirect learning strategies

Direct strategies include Memory strategies (creating mental linkages,

applying images and sounds), Cognitive strategies (practicing, receiving and

sending messages, analyzing and reasoning, creating structure for input and output) and Compensation strategies (guessing intelligently, overcoming limitations in speaking and writing)

Indirect strategies include Metacognitive strategies (centering learning,

arranging and planning learning, evaluating your learning), Affective strategies (lowering anxiety, encouraging learners, taking your emotional temperature), Social strategies (asking questions, cooperating with others, empathizing with others)

Cognitive skills are defined as a general mental capability involving reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, complex idea comprehension, and learning from experience (Gottfredson, 1997) It is classified as perception (visual perception, auditory perception), attention (focused attention, sustained attention, divided attention), memory (short term memory, working memory, long term memory, visual memory, auditory memory), and logical reasoning (deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning)

Culture: CLIL approach builds intercultural knowledge and understanding,

developing intercultural communication skills, learning about specific countries,

regions and/or minority groups, introducing the wider cultural context

The views of CLIL approach, its driving forces, its framework synthesised in the literature review part provide the in-depth understanding about the program and they play the role of guiding theory through the whole paper The current study, then uses the 4Cs framework (Coyle, 2005) and CLIL‘s 5 dimensions and framework (Marsh, Maljer & Hartiala, 2001) to design the questionnaires, interviews guiding and the findings are also discussed in comparison with its dimensions and framework

2.2 MEITL

MEITL is one common model of CLIL applied recently The students of the center are the students of primary and secondary schools, therefore, the MEITL models applied are not the same for all students For the primary students, MEITL

is used as the form of ―pre-language teaching primer‖ in which task based learning technique is employed as the preparation for a long-term MEITL program providing words, structurers for learners to access Maths in English and develop thinking skill The assessment is taken in English For the secondary students, learners concentrates more on Math knowledge to gain the goal of getting international certification and national status and recognition The assessment is taken in English, too This program, as a model of CLIL, also has all characteristics of CLIL approach synthesised before The views of CLIL approach, its driving forces, its dimensions and framework synthesised in the literature review part provide the in-depth understanding about the program and they play the role of guiding theory through the whole paper

2.3 Opinions

In their book, Aaron, Bander and Aaron (1992) defined the term opinion as

a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence The authours also noticed that opinions themselves had little power to convince It should go along with the evidence This definition shows the basic understanding and points out the relationship between opinions and evidence: opinions are given based on envidence and opinions are potentially changeable, depending on how the evidence is interpreted

An opinion was once defnined as ―a conclusion reached by someone after looking at the facts Opinions are based on what people believe to be facts This can include probable facts and even probable lies, ―although few people will knowingly give an opinion based on a proven lie‖ (Thenewsmanual.net, 2018) The term

"opinion‖, in this case, is connected to the fact and the thing that a person believes

to be true This definition entails that the opinion should be verified since people might have based their opinions about facts which are themselves untrue or they might have reached the wrong conclusion because of a gap in the logic they used to think it through

There are two types of opinions, namely expert opinion and personal experience:

Expert opinion is a special kind of opinion since experts can give their opinion on an issue, based on their special knowledge of the facts However, even opinion from an impartial expert must be attributed, their opinions can be judged and verified

Personal opinion is the conclusion reached someone reaches based partly on facts and partly on what they already believe Personal opinions, sometimes, are given by people just because they are asked If the personal opinions are based on beliefs or values which a person already has, they are called value judgments

(Thenewsmanual.net, 2019)

To summary, ―opinions‖ can be seen as the views, the ideas, or the judgments that people have about something or someone, based on the fact they know or their own belief

The teachers‘ opinions studied in this research are personal opinions which are based on their knowledge of MEITL program and their real teaching experience The undeniable role of teachers‘ opinions in the process of implementing MEITL nowadays can be explained not only by the role of teachers in classroom but by the context of Vietnam this period time Teachers, in the modern education, have different roles:

(1) a planner when planning for teaching and learning

(2) an organizer when asking the learners to do some learning activities (3) as a participant to participate in the activities with the learners

(4) a supervisor to examine the students‘ learning activities

(5) an adviser to assess the students‘ learning result and offer feedback

(6) a source to answer some difficult questions

(7) as a promoter to inspire the students‘ learning interests and performance

(Zheng, 2017) The teachers perform important roles in teaching and learning, their opinions, therefore, become crucial Only when the teachers have correct understanding and hold positive views on MEITL program can they fulfil their roles properly and make MEITL program effective Especially in the period of time, when the integrated learning is not entirely familiar in Vietnam, it is more necessary than ever that the teachers should have correct conclusion about benefits, challenges

of MEITL to fully implement this approach and make the future lessons of MEITL program more beneficial

2.4 Benefits

―Benefit‖, in Merrian Webser dictionary, is ―something that produces good

or helpful results or effects or that promotes well-being‖ (benefit, 2019) The term

―benefit‖ emphasizes the succesful consequences suffered by something Accordingly, investigating benefits of MEITL in the teachers‘ opinions is to figure out the positive effects or significant contributions that MEITL program brings about to the schools, the cirriculum and the learners, as perceived by the teachers

As analyzed in the previous parts, CLIL approach, theoretically, can bring enormous benefits in terms of context, content, language, learning, and culture (Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala, 2001) However, that those benefits are obtained or not and to what extent the benefits are gained in the initiating period of implementation in Vietnam are still a big questions for those who concern The real good effects of MEITL program is revealed clearly by the teachers who carry out the program and witness what really happen in class

2.5 Challenges

In Merrian Webser dictionary, ―challenge‖ is difined as something difficult which requires great effort and determination (challenge, 2019) Challenges,

therefore, require a lot of skills and energy to deal with or achieve, especially when those challenges are something that has not been done before In this study, the challenges that need finding out are the factors obstructing the teachers‘ process of teaching with CLIL approach In the context of Vietnam in which CLIL is a quite strange approach and has just been applied in certain schools, facing challenges is nearly unavoidable The participants, with their own teaching Math and English integrated experience, are asked to express their view on all the difficulties encountered in employing MEITL program.

2.6.1 Related studies worldwwide

Benefits of CLIL to second language acquisition, competence are widely agreed by the researchers through time Bredenbröker (2000), in his study on the development of foreign language competence, examining 195 CLIL and non - CLIL learners over 2 years, drew a conclusion that CLIL positively influenced on foreign language competence in general CLIL‘s contribution to language learning was also supported by a case study of Rumlich (forthcoming) in which the students of CLIL approach performed better in foreign language written test than those in regular program Strong evidence for CLIL‘s benefits in the acquisition of English language competences (reading, writing, listening and spoken production and interaction) was once provided in De Diezmas‘s work (2016) After examining and contrasting test result of writing, oral production and interaction, reading, writing of the 4thgrade students from CLIL classes and traditional classes, the author went a to conclusion that CLIL‘s learners were much better at oral production and interaction

This result has entailed the effectiveness of CLIL approach in developing students‘ language communicative competence

Other researchers also showed great concern for different benefits and have presented important findings through their work It can be listed here effectiveness

in teaching and learning Math and students‘ engagement (Billingsley, 2013); benefits of raising language awareness, strengthening motivation, bringing positive attitude to language learning (Morkötter, 2002) and Fehling (2008); developing intercultural learning (Lamsfuß, 2008 & Kollenrott, 2008)

Besides, numerous studies have been carried out to figure out challenges of CLIL approach Billingsley (2013) pointed out the challenges he faced in trialling the integrated lessons He found it was not easy to keep balance between the two areas integrated Materials and resources also became the obstacles when the researcher shared that he normally searched for hours to find materials for a part of

a lesson Time allocating also challenged the author since the integrated lesson went longer than expected: ―I planned for 40-minute lessons, but the lessons ended up being an hour The time went faster and there was a lot of stress making sure they understood both topics.‖

Fletcher and Santoli (2003); Schoenberger & Liming (2001) made arguments around the MEITL‘s challenge due to the lack of English vocabulary They claim that not understanding English words and expressions was an obstacle for solving Math problems

Other reasons leading to the inability to solve Math problems in English were added in the paper of Roti, Trahey and Zerafa (2000) whose population was multi-age learners in 5th and 6th grade Accordingly, the learners failed to solve problems because of various factors: difficulty in finding out the relationship between the words and the symbols in mathematical problems, the difference between Math language and everyday language, wrong understanding of problem driven by students‘ dependence on cues

Gersten et al (2005) and Van De Walle & Neugebauer (2004) offered the time and opportunities‘ lacking to develop the understanding of both Language and Math This difficulty was clarified through the specific examples taken from the real classes

Along this line, Miqdadi and Al Jamal (2013) used self-reported questionnaires and interviews involving 248 participants to identify the difficulties encountered by learners in MEITL program at the Jordanian University for Science and Technology The paper‘s findings reported the challenges in terms of time, students‘ motivation, students‘ engagement, and language learning time in class

Another valuable study on teachers‘ challenges is the one of Lampert (2001) which categorized the difficulties of administering CLIL into the complex content knowledge, preparation, and decision-making in which she had practiced for a year She realized those challenges through her own teaching, then she portrayed and interviewed individual student to find the causes to the problems

2.6.2 Related studies in Vietnam

As stated before, in Vietnamese context, CLIL has attracted much public attention since the Decision No 1400/QĐ-Ttg ―Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in the National education system with aims of improving the foreign language competence of Vietnam people A large number of studies on CLIL have been undertaken in Vietnam since 2010 and proposed noticable findings

The study by Võ Đoàn Thọ (2015) is one of the pioneering work in the field

of CLIL in which he examined the students at University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh city who studied most of subjects in English and reported the benefits of CLIL program and suggested the recommendations to apply CLIL effectively He firstly summarized three main benefits of CLIL: (1) CLIL students were typically more engaged, (2) they could academically cover the same curriculum content as those in a corresponding monolingual program, with a focus on grade-equivalent / age-correspondent knowledge, skills, and concepts, rather than ‗dumbed-down‘

units of work, and (3) CLIL students demonstrated higher levels of intercultural competence and sensitivity, including more positive attitudes towards other cultures Recommendations in 4 factors were also given to make CLIL approach benefitial: (1) choosing appropriate materials; (2) Using Information and Communication Technology (ICT); (3) Conveying culture through CLIL (cross-curricular content); and (4) Creating a safe and natural environment

Nguyễn Thị Thuỳ Linh (2016) conducted a case study with the participation

of 9 teachers using CLIL approach in their teaching at Quoc Hoc Upper-Secondary School for Gifted Students in Hue City, Thua Thien Hue Province to investigate the teachers‘ perception of CLIL and the difficuties they faced applying CLIL Most teachers in this case study showed acceptance, support and certain understanding of the significance of CLIL They aslo claimed a number of difficulties in CLIL including language ability, lack of training and lack of materials

More recently, Vũ Đình Phương & Lê Tuấn Anh (2018) undertook the research into the program of Teaching Math in English to Vietnamese 6th grade students by using Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach and figured out the advantages, disadvantages of this approach, proposed solutions to use CLIL approach to teach those contents effectively, and suggested the process of preparation for teaching a Mathematics lesson in English by using CLIL approach The teachers in this study had advantages in terms of the teaching context since the issue of the National Foreign Language project, the students‘ fairly good level of English, diverse materials in teaching Math and English At the same time, they faced several difficulties: allocating time in class, not being entirely familiar with this approach, the students‘ different level of English proficiency in a class The two researchers proposed some solutions for teaching Math in English to Vietnamese 6th grade students by using CLIL approach: using Soft CLIL model (Language - led) to teach some topics from Math as a part of English subject at the beginning of grade 6; using Subject - led model to teach some Math lessons in English; and using Hard CLIL model (Language - led, partial immersion) to teach some mathematical topics

in English The most considerable result of this study was the 2-step process of preparation for teaching a Math lesson in English by using CLIL approach - studying the Math lesson carefully to determine mathematical terms and structures

in English that students need to acquire for learning Math in English and discussing with teachers of English to ask them to introduce those terms and structures in English lessons 4 weeks before teaching target Math lesson

In sum, the above studies, both in wordwide and in Vietnam, have presented the significant findings of CLIL regarding diverse aspects such as CLIL‘s benefits, challenges, reasons causing challenges, and several suggestions to apply CLIL approach effectively However, most of those studies do not cover all components

of the CLIL when discussing the benefits, difficulties, and discussing the recommendations This study fills in that gap by using the 4Cs framework (Coyle, 2005) and the 5 dimensions (Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala, 2001) as the ―backbone‖ when desiging the questionnaires, the guidings of interviews and discussing the findings The current study‘s findings, besides, would also be compared with those from the previous studies in order to see the similarities and differences between the MEITL‘s implementation in this case and others then improve benefits of the

program

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter is firstly to provide the context that the study is conducted The current situations of Vietnamese education and the context of the center are explained clearly The description of the research design regarding the participants, data collection instruments and procedure, data analysis methods and procedure is also given in details so that the whole picture and process of carrying out the thesis

is clear for the readers

3.1 Context of the study

Vietnam, a developing country, always shows great interest in education in general, in learning and teaching foreign language in particular The important role

of English as a foreign language in Vietnam has received the greater care than ever since 1400/QĐ-TTg ―Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in the National Education System, Period 2008 to 2020‖ was issued in 2008 by the Prime Minister approving Project 2020 To fulfil the project‘s objectives of renovating thoroughly the tasks of teaching and learning foreign language within national education system, implementing a new program on teaching and learning foreign language at every school levels and training degrees, eight essential and challenging tasks were proposed Among the all tasks, constructing and implementing other teaching and learning programs in English for Mathematics and other subjects could be considered as the most considerable innovating change in Vietnamese language policy leading to the appearing and developing of Math and English integrated learning program all over the country (Nguyễn Thị Thuỳ Linh, 2016) In the period

2011 – 2015, within Project 2020, it was planned to use English as a medium of instruction in Math in about 30% of upper- secondary schools in five big cities, then expand to 15–20% of schools in five other provinces and with other subjects (MOET 2008) Step by step, according to Decision No 959/QĐ-TTg – ―Developing the Gifted Upper-Secondary School System, Period 2010 to 2020‖, this policy first

piloted in gifted schools only As a result, from academic year 2011–12, five subjects, namely mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and information technology were taught in English in piloted gifted schools (Trần Thị Thuý Nhàn 2013); the remaining schools will implement by 2020 (MOET 2010) However, it was admitted by the Prime Minister that the objectives of the National Project would not have been fully achieved by 2020 due to the limit of time, preparation ("Bộ trưởng Giáo dục thừa nhận Đề án Ngoại ngữ 2020 thất bại", 2016)

Decision 2658/QĐ-BGDĐT ―Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in the National Education System, Period 2017 to 2025‖ was issued in 2018 by the Minister of Education and Training as the legal foundation of MEITL program, allowing the schools and education institues to continue implementing MEITL in current time

Teaching and learning Math and integrated learning has attracted much more concern when the double – degree - program was approved and applied not only high schools but in 7 secondary schools in Hanoi

Double-degree program is the program administered in several schools in Vietnam currently Joinng this program, learners can study in 2 education systems and get two degrees after completing the course For the high school students, the two education systems include one system by Vietnam‘s Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) and the A-level program by the

UK (with 5 subjects learnt in English which are Math, Physics, Chemical, Economics, and Academic English For the secondary students, the program involves the program by MOET and GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) – designed by Cambridge University for students at the age of 14-15 all over the world or IGCSE (International GCSE)-designed based on GCSE but more adaptable

The center studied here is one of the pioneers in Vietnam adopting MEITL program for students in primary schools and secondary schools MEITL program

by this center, approved by Hanoi Department Education and Training, is to provide students with both Math and English knowledge so that the learners are able to not only solve the Math problems but also use English accurately and fluently At the moment, the center‘s MEITL program is implemented in partnership with nearly 40 primary and secondary schools, both private and public The teachers are assigned

to teach in several schools co-operating with the center

The program, consulted by lecturerers from highly prestigous universities such as Hanoi National University of Education, New Castle University, University

of Education, Vietnam National University Hanoi, is designed based on Vietnamese Math curriculum and the Math curriculum of Singapore, America One learning coure for one grade is divided into 2 semesters with 16 topics and 2 paper tests each About 70% of the topics are in common with Vietnamese Math curriculum and the other topics are chosen from Math curriculum of Singapore and America to make learners familiar with Math content internationlly

Students have 1 of 2 sections per week learning Math and English integrated

in their school depending on the school‘s policy The learning materials used in the program are the coursebook ―Let‘s learn Math‖ published by Hanoi publisher, the weekly extra exercise worksheets and monthly tests online (optional) designed by the teachers of the center The teachers themselves collect materials and design the tasks in weekly extra exercise worksheets for their students to practice more The tests are designed and taken based on the Circular 22/2016/TT-BGDĐT ―Sửa đổi,

bổ sung một số điều của quy định đánh giá học sinh tiểu học ban hành kèm theo thông tư số 30/2014/TT-BGDĐT ngày 28 tháng 8 năm 2014 của bộ trưởng bộ giáo dục và đào tạo‖ and the format of the Cambridge test

3.2 Research design

3.2.1 Research method

As presented in introduction part, the teachers‘ opinions about MEITL are investigated through seeking the answers for three following questions:

Question 1: What are the benefits of MELT program, as perceived by the teachers? Question 2: What are the challenges of MELT program, as perceived by the teachers?

Question 3: What are the teachers’ recommendations for improving the MEITL program’s effectiveness?

As mentioned before, the mixed method with two instruments, namely quantitative and qualitative research methods, was used to figure out the answers

for the three above questions due to its convenience for collecting quite rich, comprehensive data of the individual teachers‘ opinions in the short time, asking for detailed explanation from the participants, and raising validity of the study by comparing quantitative results and qualitative findings The quantitative method was employed first to seek for the teacher‘ opinions about advantages and challenges of MEITL Data collected from quantitative methods, however, just revealed a surface of problems The qualitative, adopting active, intensive, semi-structured interview and content analysis as an instrument was followed to figure out deeper understanding of the teachers

certificate grades

1 Teacher 1

English Teaching Methodology

6.0 Ielts 5 years Grade 1, 2, 3

2 Teacher 2

English Teaching Methodology

C1 (CEFR) 4 years

Grade 1, 2, 3

3 Teacher 3

Mathematics Teaching Methodology

B2 (CEFR) 1 year Grade 3 to

grade 9

4 Teacher 4

Mathematics Teaching Methodology

B2 (CEFR) 1 year Grade 3 to

grade 9

5 Teacher 5

Mathematics Teaching Methodology

B2 (CEFR) 3 years Grade 3 to

grade 9

6 Teacher 6

Mathematics Teaching Methodology

B2 (CEFR) 3 years Grade 3 to

grade 9

7 Teacher 7

Mathematics Teaching Methodology

B2 (CEFR) 2 years Grade 3 to

Methodology

9 Teacher 9

Mathematics Teaching Methodology

B2 (CEFR) 1 year Grade 3 to

grade 9

10 Teacher

10

Mathematics Teaching Methodology

C1 (CEFR) 1 year Grade 3 to

grade 9

11 Teacher

11

Mathematics Teaching Methodology

B2 (CEFR) 2 years Grade 3 to

grade 9

12 Teacher

12

Mathematics Teaching Methodology

B2 (CEFR) 2 years Grade 3 to

grade 9

13 Teacher

13

Mathematics Teaching Methodology

B2 (CEFR) 2 years Grade 3 to

grade 9

14 Teacher

14

English Teaching Methodology

C1 (CEFR) 3 years Grade 1, 2, 3

15 Teacher

15

English Teaching Methodology

B2 (CEFR) 3 years Grade 1, 2, 3

16 Teacher

16

English Teaching

B2 (CEFR) 3 years Grade 1, 2, 3