HOW TO TEACH BILINGUAL PROGRAM? : AN APPLICATION OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING ON PRIMARY SCHOOL

Trisna Nugraha - [ http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9316-663X ]
Nurhasanah Nurhasanah
Ulfah Samrotul Fuadah
Palupi Mutiasih

Abstract


In the last decade, education systems around the world have prioritized increasing students’ literacy and numeracy skills. The increasing need for language literacy has resulted in the emergence of a trend bilingual program in primary schools. This research was motivated by the learning problems that occurred in the first year bilingual program. The study aims to see the effectiveness of the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach on the competence of sains curriculum content and students' language skills. The research method used was Classroom Action Research (CAR) with the research subject being the first year students of the bilingual program who were stand on grade 4th primary school (n = 21). Data analysis not only focuses on increasing scores in each cycle, but also obtains new findings about the stability between science content abilities (non-language) and second language skills (english). Initial data explains that only 25% of students meet the learning completeness aspect. Along with the end of the third cycle, the study found that 85% of students could complete learning completeness. The study concluded that the CLIL was able to stably improve content and language skills with certain improvement criteria. The findings from the improvement of this cycle can be used as a reference for developing CLIL research in primary schools especially on bilingual programs.

Keywords


CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), Sains, Primary School, Bilingual Program, Literacy

Full Text:

PDF

References


Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., Mctaggart, R., & Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2002). The concept of action research. The Learning Organization, 9(3), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470210428840

Berry, A., & Kitchen, J. (2020). The Role of Self-study in Times of Radical Change. Studying Teacher Education, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2020.1777763

Cañado, M. L. P. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 9(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.667

Catalán, R. M. J., & De Zarobe, Y. R. (2009). The receptive vocabulary of EFL learners in two instructional contexts: CLIL versus non-CLIL instruction. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe, 81–92.

Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: the same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000922

Combes, B. P. Y. (2005). The united nations decade of education for sustainable development (2005-2014): Learning to live together sustainably. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 4(3), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/15330150591004571

Coral, J., Lleixà, T., & Ventura, C. (2018). Foreign language competence and content and language integrated learning in multilingual schools in Catalonia: an ex post facto study analysing the results of state key competences testing. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1143445

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): current research from Europe. na.

Dalton-Puffer, C., & Nikula, T. (2014). Content and language integrated learning. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.891370

Delors, J. (2013). The treasure within: Learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learning to be. What is the value of that treasure 15 years after its publication? International Review of Education, 59(3), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-013-9350-8

Hanifah, N. (2014). Memahami penelitian tindakan kelas: teori dan aplikasinya. UPI Press.

Hughes, S. P., & Madrid, D. (2020). The effects of CLIL on content knowledge in monolingual contexts. Language Learning Journal, 48(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1671483

Lahuerta Martínez, A. (2017). Analysis of the effect of CLIL programmes on the written competence of secondary education students. Revista de Filología de La Universidad de La Laguna, 35, 169–184.

Massler, U., Stotz, D., & Queisser, C. (2014). Assessment instruments for primary CLIL: The conceptualisation and evaluation of test tasks. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.891371

McTaggart, R., & Kemmis, S. (1988). The action research planner. Deakin university.

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan.

Méndez García, M. del C. (2012). The potential of CLIL for intercultural development: A case study of Andalusian bilingual schools. Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(3), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2012.667417

Ní Chróinín, D., Ní Mhurchú, S., & Ó Ceallaigh, T. J. (2016). Off-balance: the integration of physical education content learning and Irish language learning in English-medium primary schools in Ireland. Education 3-13, 44(5), 566–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2016.1170404

Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2015). Exploring primary school CLIL perceptions in Catalonia: students’, teachers’ and parents’ opinions and expectations. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.874972

Rospigliosi, P. ‘asher.’ (2020). How the coronavirus pandemic may be the discontinuity which makes the difference in the digital transformation of teaching and learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(4), 383–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1766753

Swain, M., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). Immersion education: A category within bilingual education. Immersion Education: International Perspectives, 1–16.

Sylvén, L. K. (2013). CLIL in Sweden - why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777387

Zhao, H., Chen, L., & Panda, S. (2014). Self-regulated learning ability of Chinese distance learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 941–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12118

Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2001). Action Learning and Action Research: Paradigm , Praxis and Programs. Action Research, 1–27. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.464.5871&rep=rep1&type=pdfning_Resources/Articles/-Zuber_Skerrit_2001_ALAR_Paradigm.pdf




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22460/p2m.v7i2p%25p.2000

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 175 times
PDF - 44 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.