luận văn thạc sĩ 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​

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

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 Code: 8140231.01

Hanoi – 2019

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 Code: 8140231.01

Supervisor: Dr Huỳnh Anh Tuấn

Hanoi – 2019

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, VietnamNational University, Hanoi The paper has not been submitted for any degree at anyother university or tertiary institution

Hanoi, 2019

Đỗ Thị Nhâm

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

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

Last but not least, I owe my thesis complement to my family and my closefriends who always stand by me with encouragement and spiritual supportthroughout conducting the thesis

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

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

in Vietnamese context has not spend enough concern on teachers‘ opinions – animportant in the process of implementing MEITL This stud, therefore, aims atexploring the teachers‘ opinions about MEITL program‘s benefits, challenges in aneducation center in Hanoi, as well as their suggestions to improve MEITL‘seffectiveness

For this purpose, firstly, 32 – item questionnaires were used to get responsefrom all 21 teachers of the center Semi-structured interviews were then conductedwith 6 teachers from different groups: the teachers with more than 5-yearexperience, the teachers with 1-3 year experice, the teachers graduating from faculty

of English Language Teacher Education, the teachers graduating from graduatingfrom faculty of Mathematics Teacher Education The results from two instrumentswere compared to each other to validate the study

The results of this research indicated the teachers‘ opinions about MEITLprograms‘ benefits in terms of Context, Content, Language, Learning, and Culture.The research also pointed the challenges faced by teachers when teaching thisprogram in the following factors: Collecting and Adapting materials, Designingtasks, Balancing between Math and English knowledge, Applying the program forprimary students and the students with low level of English competence, Teachingand learning complex Math themes, Time allocating and Teaching Grammar andStructures Besides, significant recommendations were also given to help improveMEITL 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

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 LearningSL: Second language

ITMC: International Talent Mathematics Contest

HKIMO: Hong Kong International Mathematical Olympiad

World Time: World Talent Invitational Mathematics ExaminationsT1: 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, itsobjectives and how it can benefit the stakeholders Additionally, the method and thestructure 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 LearningForeign Languages in the National education system, period 2008 – 2020) hasgreatly contributed to enhance teaching and learning foreign languages in Vietnam.Among all the objectives suggested by the Project, the implementation of Contentand Language Integrated Learning has attracted attention from the whole society.The very first step of implementing the CLIL program is to integrate Math andEnglish in the schools and education institutes It is obviously seen that in currentcontext 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 Vietnamrecently The paper by Võ Đoàn Thọ (2015) studied the students at University ofEconomics Ho Chi Minh city and figured out the benefits of CLIL in students‘perpectives and proposed the suggestions to have the effective lessons applyingCLIL approach Nguyễn Thị Thuỳ Linh (2016), in her work, discusssed fourcritiques by the policy actors regarding the significance of CLIL in the Vietnamesecontext, teachers‘ readiness, students‘ readiness and CLIL materials That paper,also provided a general picture of teachers‘ perceptions of CLIL, how theyimplemented CLIL and the difficulties they encountered in practice By examining

the current 6th grade Math curriculum and English curriculum in Vietnam, Vũ ĐìnhPhương and Lê Tuấn Anh (2018) found out three solutions to teach Math andEnglish 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 abovestudies are mostly based on the CLIL‘s theories and the researchers‘ view andobservations Those projects‘ outcomes, thererfore, though have pointed out manyfactors related to the implementation of CLIL, are still quite subjective and and donot provide enough strong ―authentic‖ evidence gathered from the teachers whoactually implement CLIL in their teaching The teachers‘ opinions about MEILTprogram‘s benefits, challenges and their suggestions for the good MEILT lessonsare 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 aneducation center in Hanoi about MEITL‘s benefits, challenges and theirrecommendations to improve MEITL‘s effectiveness To be more specific, theinquiry of the teachers‘ opinions is undertaken by answering three followingresearch 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 theresponses from the all participants in the short time, the questionnaires with 32

―Likerttype‖ with 2 main aspects – MEITL program‘s benefits and challenges were delivered first The teachers were asked to choose 1 from 5 alternativesranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree for each item Those responses,were then analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics method After theresponses were grouped into MEITL program‘s benefits (with 5 categories) andchallenges (with 7 categories), semi-structured interviews with 6 teachers wereconducted 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 Theother 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 fundamentalfor them to better their practice in class by maximizing the benefits, overcoming thechallenges using the recommendations suggested Obviously, this study maycontribute 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, willhave 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 theteachers‘ recommendation to give methods to improve the MEITL program‘squality This research, consequently, might contribute the sound basis to helpenhance 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 MEITLprogram in the world and in Vietnam, the necessity of taking MEITL program‘sbenefits and challenges in to careful investigation is pointed out The purpose andthe range of subjects the study deals with are also clearly stated so that the readershave the general ideas about the whole research One most important componentcontained in this part is the practical meaning of the research, which benefitsteachers, 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 ofthe studies concerning CLIL, as well as the description of MEITL as a CLILprogram at a center in Hanoi By critical analyzing the related research, this chapterbuilds the study‘ theoretical framework which plays a crucial role not only in

guiding the understanding of research-topic but also in designing the questionnaireand 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 understandthe process and specific stages carried out to fulfil the research It also explainslogically 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 solutionsfor other aspects to conduct further study in this area

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Math and English Integrated Learning is one model of CLIL program inwhich the content focused is Math and the additional language is English.Therefore, it is necessary to have critical review of CLIL to understand aboutMEITL program This part is defining the key concepts - CLIL, opinions, benefits,challenges, discussing its hidden forces, its framework and reviewing critically thestudies 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 thegood practice achieved in different types of school environment where teaching andlearning 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 asecond language or some forms of heritage or community language‖ (Coye,Hood, and Marsh, 2010: 1)

According to De Graaff, Jan Koopman, Anikina & Westhoff (2007), CLILcould be considered as an umbrella term adopted widely in educational settingswhere instruction takes place in FL/SL The CLIL‘s aim was considered to promotethe 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 promotinglanguage as a medium for learning as well as an objective of the learning processitself‖ (Coyle in Marsh 2002: 37)

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

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

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

in some kind of mutually beneficial way so as to provide value-added educationaloutcomes for the widest possible range of learners It can be seen that Coyle‘sdefinition (2008) not only confirms CLIL program‘s characteristics – flexible anddynamic 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 isflexible 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 CLILdevelopment 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 CLILprogram (topics and subjects integrated – foreign languages and non-language subjectsintegrated) characteristics of CLIL program (flexible and dynamic), CLIL range (allsectors of education from primary to adults), and duration for a CLIL program (from afew hours per week to intensive modules lasting several months) Those explanationscover almost all aspects of CLIL program

In sum, CLIL was firstly defined simply as a ―dual focused‖ educationalapproach which is applied to teach both content and language at the same time As aflexible and transferable approach, it can be adopted in in different types of schoolsand 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 realsociety 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 aremany first languages are used and there is a vigorous debate around choosing one ofthem as the instruction language, then CLIL becomes the solution for thosecountries (a foreign language is the instruction language to give equal access for alllearners)

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

need of education, society, or personal development: the parents want children to becompetent 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 forgreater inclusion, linguists wish to develop language education through integratingwith other subjects

2.1.3 Framework of CLIL

This study adapts the 4Cs framework suggested by Coyle (2005) and theCLIL‘s dimensions by Marsh, Maliers and Hartialas (2001) as the guiding theoriessince they demonstrate fully the factors contribuiting to effective CLIL practice andpresent the dimensions which can be benefited from CLIL approach

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 Contentlearning and the Language learning It means that learners of CLIL classes canachieve more than the sum of content and language The four factors are explainedclearly 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 muchmore flexible than selecting a discipline from a curriculum It can be the topics ofcross-curricular, therefore, it brings chances for promoting learning, skillacquisition and development

What of content teaching is often pointed out clearly in the CLIL‘ssyllabuses 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 getsthe effective learning in different context becomes the issue for debates of theeducators 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 tothe 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 onlygained when the learners are provided with enough ―scaffolding‖ by someone

―more expert‖ One more important thing to enhance learning effectiveness is tobring ―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‘sinteraction) in order to balance between offering cognitive challenge and providingscaffolding for learners

The debate around the appropriate method applied in CLIL drives to theimplication that in CLIL program, learners must be cognitively engaged And therole of teachers is to involve learners to think, to articulate their learning throughmetacognitive skills The activities in class will support students to develop lifeskills CLIL program not only helps students to enrich the learners‘ knowledge,skills but consider how creative thinking, problem solving and cognitivechallenging in their whole life To make learners actively engaged in cognitiveprocess, however, is not an easy task Content learning should be integrated withcognitive process which includes two dimensions (lower order thinking and higherorder thinking) The learners, therefore, not only have to develop thinking but todevelop 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 languageusing 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 grammaritems rather than making meaning This situation requires form-focus in CLIL inorder to ensure the students‘ ability to use language to learn content in authenticinteractive environment At this point, another question is raised: how can learnersuse foreign language if they do not know how to use it? The arguments abovefinally suggest that in CLIL context the fundamental is to balance both form - focusand meaning - focus

CLIL, as stated before, is not the sum of content and language but it concernsthe integrating content and language in every lesson To be successful in CLIL, theeducators need to make clear about content‘s objectives, language objectives as well asthe connection between them ―Content obligatory language‖ and ―ContentCompatible language‖ were proposed by Snow, Met and Genesee (1989) as usefulterms to help teachers and learners easily analyze language needed and identify theclose interrelationship between content and language in CLIL This point was alsosupported 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 oflanguage and content learning but intercultural learning and interrelation betweencontent 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 ofknowledge from an expert to a novice CLIL is about allowing individuals toconstruct 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 hascreated two categories of thinking skills: lower order and higher order TakeBloom‘s taxonomy for a well-defined range of thinking skills It serves as anexcellent checklist

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

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

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

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

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

In its development process, CLIL becomes more completed as it accounts forthe 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 5dimensions 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, preparefor 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 andattitudes, introduce a target language, allow learners more contact with the targetlanguage

The notion of Language Competence has been developed over the years withthe contribution of a great number of linguists, sociolinguists andethnographers, which are brought together by Bachman (1990: 87) whosuggests that language competence has several distinctive characteristics asfollows:

(Bachman, 1990: 87)

Learning: CLIL approach complements individual learning strategies,

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

Learning strategies can be defined as specific actions taken by the learners tomake learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, moreeffective, and more transferable to new situation (Oxford, 1990) He alsodivides learning strategies into 2 mains categories: Direct learning strategiesand 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 andoutput) and Compensation strategies (guessing intelligently, overcominglimitations in speaking and writing).

Indirect strategies include Metacognitive strategies (centering learning,

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

Cognitive skills are defined as a general mental capability involvingreasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, complex ideacomprehension, and learning from experience (Gottfredson, 1997) It isclassified as perception (visual perception, auditory perception), attention(focused attention, sustained attention, divided attention), memory (shortterm memory, working memory, long term memory, visual memory,auditory memory), and logical reasoning (deductive reasoning, inductivereasoning)

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 inthe literature review part provide the in-depth understanding about the program andthey 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 andframework (Marsh, Maljer & Hartiala, 2001) to design the questionnaires,interviews guiding and the findings are also discussed in comparison with itsdimensions and framework

2.2 MEITL

MEITL is one common model of CLIL applied recently The students of thecenter are the students of primary and secondary schools, therefore, the MEITLmodels 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 learningtechnique is employed as the preparation for a long-term MEITL program providingwords, structurers for learners to access Maths in English and develop thinkingskill The assessment is taken in English For the secondary students, learnersconcentrates more on Math knowledge to gain the goal of getting internationalcertification and national status and recognition The assessment is taken in English,too This program, as a model of CLIL, also has all characteristics of CLILapproach synthesised before The views of CLIL approach, its driving forces, itsdimensions and framework synthesised in the literature review part provide the in-depth understanding about the program and they play the role of guiding theorythrough the whole paper

2.3 Opinions

In their book, Aaron, Bander and Aaron (1992) defined the term opinion as ajudgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion fromfactual evidence The authours also noticed that opinions themselves had littlepower to convince It should go along with the evidence This definition shows thebasic 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 afterlooking at the facts Opinions are based on what people believe to be facts This caninclude probable facts and even probable lies, ―although few people will knowinglygive 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 peoplemight have based their opinions about facts which are themselves untrue or theymight have reached the wrong conclusion because of a gap in the logic they used tothink it through.

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

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

Personal opinion is the conclusion reached someone reaches based partly onfacts and partly on what they already believe Personal opinions, sometimes, aregiven by people just because they are asked If the personal opinions are based onbeliefs 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 thejudgments that people have about something or someone, based on the fact theyknow or their own belief

The teachers‘ opinions studied in this research are personal opinions whichare based on their knowledge of MEITL program and their real teaching experience.The undeniable role of teachers‘ opinions in the process of implementing MEITLnowadays can be explained not only by the role of teachers in classroom but by thecontext of Vietnam this period time Teachers, in the modern education, havedifferent 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, theiropinions, therefore, become crucial Only when the teachers have correctunderstanding and hold positive views on MEITL program can they fulfil their rolesproperly and make MEITL program effective Especially in the period of time,when the integrated learning is not entirely familiar in Vietnam, it is more necessarythan ever that the teachers should have correct conclusion about benefits, challenges

of MEITL to fully implement this approach and make the future lessons of MEITLprogram 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 figureout the positive effects or significant contributions that MEITL program bringsabout to the schools, the cirriculum and the learners, as perceived by the teachers

As analyzed in the previous parts, CLIL approach, theoretically, can bringenormous benefits in terms of context, content, language, learning, and culture(Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala, 2001) However, that those benefits are obtained ornot and to what extent the benefits are gained in the initiating period ofimplementation in Vietnam are still a big questions for those who concern The realgood effects of MEITL program is revealed clearly by the teachers who carry outthe program and witness what really happen in class

2.5 Challenges

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

therefore, require a lot of skills and energy to deal with or achieve, especially whenthose challenges are something that has not been done before In this study, thechallenges that need finding out are the factors obstructing the teachers‘ process ofteaching with CLIL approach In the context of Vietnam in which CLIL is a quitestrange approach and has just been applied in certain schools, facing challenges isnearly unavoidable The participants, with their own teaching Math and Englishintegrated experience, are asked to express their view on all the difficultiesencountered 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 2years, drew a conclusion that CLIL positively influenced on foreign languagecompetence in general CLIL‘s contribution to language learning was also supported by

a case study of Rumlich (forthcoming) in which the students of CLIL approachperformed better in foreign language written test than those in regular program Strongevidence 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 4th grade students from CLILclasses and traditional classes, the author went a to conclusion that CLIL‘s learnerswere 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 havepresented 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 positiveattitude to language learning (Morkötter, 2002) and Fehling (2008); developingintercultural learning (Lamsfuß, 2008 & Kollenrott, 2008)

Besides, numerous studies have been carried out to figure out challenges ofCLIL approach Billingsley (2013) pointed out the challenges he faced in triallingthe integrated lessons He found it was not easy to keep balance between the twoareas integrated Materials and resources also became the obstacles when theresearcher 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 wentlonger than expected: ―I planned for 40-minute lessons, but the lessons ended upbeing an hour The time went faster and there was a lot of stress making sure theyunderstood both topics.‖

Fletcher and Santoli (2003); Schoenberger & Liming (2001) made argumentsaround the MEITL‘s challenge due to the lack of English vocabulary They claimthat not understanding English words and expressions was an obstacle for solvingMath problems

Other reasons leading to the inability to solve Math problems in Englishwere added in the paper of Roti, Trahey and Zerafa (2000) whose population wasmulti-age learners in 5th and 6th grade Accordingly, the learners failed to solveproblems because of various factors: difficulty in finding out the relationshipbetween the words and the symbols in mathematical problems, the differencebetween Math language and everyday language, wrong understanding of problemdriven by students‘ dependence on cues

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

Along this line, Miqdadi and Al Jamal (2013) used self-reportedquestionnaires and interviews involving 248 participants to identify the difficultiesencountered by learners in MEITL program at the Jordanian University for Scienceand 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 contentknowledge, preparation, and decision-making in which she had practiced for a year.She realized those challenges through her own teaching, then she portrayed andinterviewed 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 publicattention since the Decision No 1400/QĐ-Ttg ―Teaching and Learning ForeignLanguages in the National education system with aims of improving the foreignlanguage competence of Vietnam people A large number of studies on CLIL havebeen 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 ChiMinh city who studied most of subjects in English and reported the benefits ofCLIL program and suggested the recommendations to apply CLIL effectively Hefirstly summarized three main benefits of CLIL: (1) CLIL students were typicallymore engaged, (2) they could academically cover the same curriculum content asthose 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 interculturalcompetence and sensitivity, including more positive attitudes towards othercultures Recommendations in 4 factors were also given to make CLIL approachbenefitial: (1) choosing appropriate materials; (2) Using Information andCommunication 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-SecondarySchool for Gifted Students in Hue City, Thua Thien Hue Province to investigate theteachers‘ perception of CLIL and the difficuties they faced applying CLIL Mostteachers in this case study showed acceptance, support and certain understanding ofthe significance of CLIL They aslo claimed a number of difficulties in CLILincluding language ability, lack of training and lack of materials

More recently, Vũ Đình Phương & Lê Tuấn Anh (2018) undertook the researchinto the program of Teaching Math in English to Vietnamese 6th grade students byusing Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach and figured out theadvantages, disadvantages of this approach, proposed solutions to use CLIL approach

to teach those contents effectively, and suggested the process of preparation forteaching a Mathematics lesson in English by using CLIL approach The teachers in thisstudy had advantages in terms of the teaching context since the issue of the NationalForeign 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 somesolutions for teaching Math in English to Vietnamese 6th grade students by using CLILapproach: using Soft CLIL model (Language - led) to teach some topics from Math as apart of English subject at the beginning of grade 6; using Subject - led model to teachsome Math lessons in English; and using Hard CLIL model (Language - led, partialimmersion) to teach some mathematical topics

in English The most considerable result of this study was the 2-step process ofpreparation 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 discussingwith teachers of English to ask them to introduce those terms and structures inEnglish lessons 4 weeks before teaching target Math lesson

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

of the CLIL when discussing the benefits, difficulties, and discussing therecommendations 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 thefindings The current study‘s findings, besides, would also be compared with thosefrom the previous studies in order to see the similarities and differences between theMEITL‘s implementation in this case and others then improve benefits of theprogram

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter is firstly to provide the context that the study is conducted Thecurrent situations of Vietnamese education and the context of the center areexplained clearly The description of the research design regarding the participants,data collection instruments and procedure, data analysis methods and procedure isalso 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 ingeneral, in learning and teaching foreign language in particular The important role ofEnglish as a foreign language in Vietnam has received the greater care than ever since1400/QĐ-TTg ―Teaching and Learning Foreign Languages in the National EducationSystem, Period 2008 to 2020‖ was issued in 2008 by the Prime Minister approvingProject 2020 To fulfil the project‘s objectives of renovating thoroughly the tasks ofteaching and learning foreign language within national education system, implementing

a new program on teaching and learning foreign language at every school levels andtraining degrees, eight essential and challenging tasks were proposed Among the alltasks, constructing and implementing other teaching and learning programs in Englishfor Mathematics and other subjects could be considered as the most considerableinnovating change in Vietnamese language policy leading to the appearing anddeveloping 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 wasplanned 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 otherprovinces 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, fivesubjects, namely mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and informationtechnology were taught in English in piloted gifted schools (Trần Thị Thuý Nhàn2013); the remaining schools will implement by 2020 (MOET 2010) However, itwas admitted by the Prime Minister that the objectives of the National Projectwould 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 inthe National Education System, Period 2017 to 2025‖ was issued in 2018 by theMinister of Education and Training as the legal foundation of MEITL program,allowing the schools and education institues to continue implementing MEITL incurrent time

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

Double-degree program is the program administered in several schools inVietnam currently Joinng this program, learners can study in 2 educationsystems and get two degrees after completing the course For the high schoolstudents, the two education systems include one system by Vietnam‘sMinistry 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 programinvolves the program by MOET and GCSE (General Certificate ofSecondary Education) – designed by Cambridge University for students atthe age of 14-15 all over the world or IGCSE (International GCSE)-designedbased 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 providestudents with both Math and English knowledge so that the learners are able to notonly solve the Math problems but also use English accurately and fluently At themoment, the center‘s MEITL program is implemented in partnership with nearly 40primary 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 universitiessuch as Hanoi National University of Education, New Castle University, University

of Education, Vietnam National University Hanoi, is designed based on VietnameseMath curriculum and the Math curriculum of Singapore, America One learningcoure for one grade is divided into 2 semesters with 16 topics and 2 paper testseach About 70% of the topics are in common with Vietnamese Math curriculumand the other topics are chosen from Math curriculum of Singapore and America tomake 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 theprogram are the coursebook ―Let‘s learn Math‖ published by Hanoi publisher, theweekly extra exercise worksheets and monthly tests online (optional) designed bythe teachers of the center The teachers themselves collect materials and design thetasks in weekly extra exercise worksheets for their students to practice more Thetests 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 theothông tư số 30/2014/TT-BGDĐT ngày 28 tháng 8 năm 2014 của bộ trưởng bộ giáodục 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 areinvestigated 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 fordetailed explanation from the participants, and raising validity of the study bycomparing quantitative results and qualitative findings The quantitative methodwas employed first to seek for the teacher‘ opinions about advantages andchallenges of MEITL Data collected from quantitative methods, however, justrevealed a surface of problems The qualitative, adopting active, intensive, semi-structured interview and content analysis as an instrument was followed to figureout deeper understanding of the teachers

Grade 3 to

3 Teacher 3 Teaching B2 (CEFR) 1 year

grade 9Methodology

Mathematics

Grade 3 to

4 Teacher 4 Teaching B2 (CEFR) 1 year

grade 9Methodology

Mathematics

Grade 3 to

5 Teacher 5 Teaching B2 (CEFR) 3 years

grade 9Methodology

Mathematics

Grade 3 to

6 Teacher 6 Teaching B2 (CEFR) 3 years

grade 9Methodology

Mathematics

Grade 3 to

7 Teacher 7 Teaching B2 (CEFR) 2 years

grade 9Methodology

8 Teacher 8 Mathematics B2 (CEFR) 1 year Grade 3 to

Methodology

Methodology