1. CLIL Research Models Based on CLIL
Research Project in Engineering
Education
Lotta Saarikoski, M.Sc; Lic. Econ. Head of Mechanical and
Production Department (Content Teacher)
Eeva Rauto, Ph.D., senior lecturer (Language Teacher)
VAMK University of Applied Sciences
Vaasa Finland
Presentation at CLIL ReN Workshop 11.6. 2010
University of Jyväskylä
Saarikoski & Rauto

2. Contents
1. CLIL and English-taught programs in
Europe
2. VAMK CLIL Research Project 2006-2009
- Teaching arrangements
- Measurement instruments
- Some research results
3. Proposals for doing future CLIL research
Saarikoski & Rauto

3. Background 1: English Taught Programs
In Europe
Current Trend in Europe: English-Medium Instruction (EMI) is
increasing in universities (of Applied Science)
Finnish situation :
- > 208 EMI DP at 35 universities and UAS’s in Finland in 2007
-> NL (509), DE (214), FI (208),SWE (128) (absolute terms –nr of EMI
programs) Flickr:Walrave
- > NL, FI, CY,SWE,CH,DK,NO (relative terms – rank order) n
Motives for introducing EMI programs:
• to attract international students
• to boost international profile of the university
• to make domestic students fit for global markets
But… what does “fit” mean? Language learning ?
Yet: no language learning goals have been set in these programs

4. Background 2: Spectrum of Content and
Language in Higher Education
Different options
offered for
language learning in higher education
MAINSTREAM
ENLISH-MEDIUM INTEGRATING CONTENT
LANGUAGE
COURSES/DEGREE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING
TEACHING
PRORAMS
. .LSP…
A lot needs to be
done in this area
>(Subject-Inegrtaed
Eeva Curriculum)Saarikoski
Rauto & Lotta

5. Two questions arise
- Is a lot of language learning potential lost
when are there no clear language
learning goals in EMI-degree programs?
-Shouldn’t the language learning process in EMI
programs be subject to serious European-level
research?
-(considering the vast extent of EMI programs –
millions of European students involved)?
Saarikoski & Rauto

6. VAMK’s Contribution in HEI CLIL
Research
– Reserach in non-CLIL EMI-environment
(2003) certain changes towards target
language norms took place
What about learning within shorter space
and in CLIL environment?
- Current CLIL Project 2006 – 2009 started
Saarikoski & Rauto

7. VAMK 2006 - 2009 Project
Teaching Arrangements
Content Teacher
Lotta:
3rd year Mechanical Engineering Strategic Planning
Students course (42 h)
N tot = 49
Only course materials
in English:
’Light ’ CLIL Model
Duration only two
months
1 course
every year Language Teacher Eeva: English Language
Booster (16 h) integrated into Lotta’s course
Saarikoski & Rauto

8. VAMK 2006 - 2009 Project
Implementation Design
Course Corporate Planning Language Support for
In native ( 42 hours) in Corporate Planning
language
degree program . Credit: 3 cp (14 hrs)Credit: 2 cp
Teachers Lotta (subject teacher) Eeva (language teacher)
Students and 3rd year Mechanical eng. 3rd year Mechanical eng.
their
students (BSc), (N 49 tark) students (BSc), (N18)
language level
heterogenous lang. level heterogenous lang. level
(A2) B1 –C1/) (A2) B1-C1)
Responsibili- x
ty for course
materials
Scheduling x x
teaching and
assignments
Teaching area Corporate Planning Language support
and active use of language

9. VAMK 2006 - 2009 Project
Measuring Instruments
1) Language tests (initial and final test)
Targeted to find out about changes in:
Reading comprehension
Vocabulary
Syntax
2) On-line surveys (initial and final survey)
57 Questions? Targeted to find out about eg.....
Saarikoski & Rauto

10. Variables Measured in the Surveys
Variables related to eg. :
– Experience of the course on the emotional level (Q 13-14 and 55)
– Reading comprehension strategies (Q 27-29)
– Motivation and frequency of use (Q 30-40)
– Language learning style (implicit /eksplicit) (Q41-43 and 48-53 and 57)
– Satisfaction with the the course ( Q58, 60, 61, 64-65)
– Development ideas and free comments (Q63 and 66)
– Language development (Q 44-47)
– Linguistic self-esteem (Q20-21, 54)
– Etc. Etc.
https://e-lomake.puv.fi/elomake/lomakkeet/556/lomake.html
Saarikoski& Rauto

11. Results 1: Obtained from Language
Tests
Vocabulary test results of individual learners
Scores 30 before and after FLM course
obtained
25
max 26
20
15
Sarja2 After red
10 Sarja1 Before blue
5
0 Learners
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 4139 41
N = 37
-5
-10
Negatives did not attend the
”after” test
-> There is variation between learners
The same kind of variation found also in syntax and reading comprehension
Saarikoski & Rauto

12. Results 2: Obtained from On-Line
Survey (open-ended answers)
One learned English without noticing
it although it was difficult in the
beginning
”(By using different reading methods) texts which
seemed too difficult to read are now controllable ”
Quite cool, I Iearned English at the same
time
It was nice to notice that
reading English texts presented no difficulties
-> Could these imply that learners` linguistic self-esteem
has been boosted?
Saarikoski & Rauto

13. Results 3: Obtained from On-
Line Survey
Language learning preferences
Preferred way
of learning language
Number of students
(2006 survey )
-> this implies that the majority of the students seem to have implicit language
learning style
Saarikoski & Rauto

14. Inductive Thinking
Can the variation in language learning outcome between
individuals (Result 1) be explained with the previously
mentioned variables:
Learners’ linguistic self-esteem (Result 2)
Learners’ cognitive language learning style (Result 3)
If so, what kind of model could explain this ?
Saarikoski & Rauto

15. Research Proposals for further
Research in Language Learning
in FLM/CLIL Environment
MEDIATING VARIABLE MODEL :
(IN GENERAL)
X Y
Z
(MEDIATING
VARIABLE)
X INFLUENCES THE MAGNITUDE OF Z
(BUT NOT VICE VERSA) AND Z INFLUENCES Y
AND X INFLUENCES Y ONLY THROUGH Z
Saarikoski & Rauto

16. MEDIATING VARIABLE MODEL
(IN OUR CASE)
LANGUAGE
FL-MEDIUM LINGUISTIC LEARNING LANGUAGE
INSTRUCTION SELF-ESTEEM MOTIVATION LEARNING
OUTCOME
The effect of FLM instruction on language learning
outcome is not direct but via linguistic self-esteem
and language learning motivation
Saarikoski & Rauto

17. MODERATOR VARIABLE MODEL :
(GENERAL CONTINGENCY MODEL)
Z
(MODERATING
VARIABLE)
X Y
MODERATOR VARIABLE (Z) ONLY
INFLUENCES THE EFFECT OF X ON Y,
AND THE MODERATOR VARIABLE IS
UNCORRELATED TO X AND Y
Saarikoski & Rauto

18. MODERATOR VARIABLE MODEL :
(IN OUR CASE )
COGNITIVE LANGUAGE LEARNING STYLE
LANGUAGE
FL-MEDIUM
LEARNING
INSTRUCTION
OUTCOME
Example: FLM instruction for students with implicit
ll.style will increase their language learning outcome
more than for students with explicit ll.style
Saarikoski & Rauto

19. Summary of Suggested
Research Questions
Does FLM-instruction increase the learners’s linguistic self-
esteem? If so, will the increased self-esteem increase
language learning outcome? Is linguistic self-esteem thus a
mediating variable between FLM-instruction and language
learning? (motivation can also be included)
Does the learners`cognitive language learning style (implicit
vs. explicit) moderate the relation between the FLM-
instruction and learners` language learning outcome? Is
FLM-instruction particularly suitable for the implicit language
learner?
Saarikoski & Rauto

20. The Following Hypotheses
could be tested by researchers :
• H1 Learner’s linguistic self-esteem is a mediating
variable between FLM-teaching and language
learning outcome
• H2 Cognitive language learning style moderates
the relationship between FLM teaching and
language learning outcome
Saarikoski & Rauto

21. Other HEI-CLIL issues which
need attention:
• How to evoke an interest in CLIL in all HEI
language teachers
• Miten saada sisällönopettajat myötämielisksi
yhteistyöhön kielenopettajine kanssa (yliopiston
kielikeskuskurssit…..)
Saarikoski & Rauto

22. THANK YOU !
QUESTIONS ? COMMENTS ?

23. A sad story
about our (IT) Degree student Mr. ”Xxxx Yyyy ”
Input Output
lectures, reading
No direct connection learner’s own language
materials production
Input and Interaction Theory,e.g. Gass (1997), Ellis(2005)
Saarikoski & Rauto

24. Our rationale for Introducing this
Reserach Project
NÄIDEN YHDISTELMÄ FORMAALINEN
INFORMAALINEN
PALVELEE OPPIJA- KIELENOPPIMIS-
KIELENOPPIMIS-
YMPÄRISTÖ KIRJOA YMPÄRISTÖ
TEHOKKAIMMIN
In practice this means CLIL
Saarikoski, Rauto & Koski

25. Explanation: Input and interaction theory
Input Output
learner’s own
lectures, reading language
materials production
Input and Interaction Theory,e.g. Gass (1997), Ellis(2005)
1. Comprehension
the learner understands what he/she is reading/listening
2. Noticing
the learner pays attention to certain feature in the input data
Had Mr. X. Y’s
language
developing
3. Intake
stopped ’linguistic features noticed in input compared with
Here? learner’s mental grammar’: gap (Ellis 1994; 2004
4. Integration
the ”new” features become part of the learner’s
language system
Saarikoski & Rauto

26. Learner in EMI should be given Guidance
and Support (> CLIL) - by whom?
Content
teaher 1. Comprehension
the learner understands what he/she is reading/listening
Language
teacher 2. Noticing
the learner pays attention to certain feature in the input data
3. Intake
’linguistic features noticed in input compared with
learner’s mental grammar’: gap (Ellis 1994; 2004
4. Integration
the ”new” features become part of the learner’s
language system > Competence
Both content
From competence to Performance:
teacher and
Learner Output needs boosting
language
teacher
Saarikoski & Rauto