Content and Language Integrated Learning Implementation Through Team Teaching in Biology Lessons: A Quasi-Experimental Design With University Students

Abstract

Can engaging university students in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) increase their achievement in Biology and English language? The current study explored the effectiveness of team teaching enhanced CLIL on student achievement. Framed in interdisciplinary/cross-curricular teaching, we examined the effect of CLIL strategy on student achievement in a quasi-experimental study with a sample of Biology education students (N = 25) assigned to control and experimental groups. The topic taught through CLIL was the digestive system, and this subject knowledge was used to test the students’ achievement in Biology. Along with t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test a non-parametric ANCOVA was carried out to reveal group differences. We found that engaging in CLIL significantly improved student achievement both in Biology subject knowledge and English language. We highlight the critical role of CLIL in teaching content and language for science subjects such as Biology at university level.

Exploring the role of content and language integrated learning approach in developing transversal skills in university students with respect to the mediating role of emotional intelligence

“…The issue of TSs has gained noticeable attention over the last years because nobody can gain independence in learning if they lack these essential skills ( Stal and Paliwoda-Pękosz, 2019 ; Vadivel et al, 2021 ; Satayev et al, 2022 ). Previously, different terms such as basic skills, key competencies, employability skills, the 21 st -century skills, and transversal competencies have been used interchangeably for TSs (Viska project, 2017; Ghadermarzi and Mohamadi, 2022 ).…”

The effect of CLIL combined with language instruction on language learning and the role of individual and institutional factors in students’ perspectives: Empirical evidence from Kazakhstan

“…The main explanation is that teachers do not receive sufficient CLIL principles and methodology training. Satayev et al (2022) recently studied if engaging university students in CLIL can increase their achievement in biology and English language. In a quasiexperimental study with a sample of 25 students from Almaty, they found that CLIL effectively taught content and language for science subjects.…”

Content and Language Integrated Scientific Modelling: A Novel Approach to Model Learning

“…Such environments are often created through inquiry learning, which combines hands-on activities with experiments and the exploration of a scientific phenomenon (Hampton and Rodriguez, 2001;Campillo-Ferrer and Miralles-Martínez, 2022;Roth et al, 2022). Thereby, students engage in meaningful scientific practice, such as describing observed phenomena, formulating hypotheses, assessing results, and reflecting on findings, which demands the use of a discipline-specific register (Stoddart et al, 2002;Satayev et al, 2022). To foster such practice in science classrooms, Tolbert et al (2019) suggested four dimensions of instruction, including contextualization, scientific reasoning, scientific discourse and scientific literacy.…”

“…To foster such practice in science classrooms, Tolbert et al (2019) suggested four dimensions of instruction, including contextualization, scientific reasoning, scientific discourse and scientific literacy. This way, language is inherently contextualized-no longer a mere catalyst-and helps students to structure and communicate acquired information (Lemke, 1990;Hampton and Rodriguez, 2001;Satayev et al, 2022). A study by Piacentini et al (2022) showed that in addition to science and language learning rewards for students, CLIL also benefitted teachers to recognize pattern among their students that they have been oblivious to previously.…”

“…While the comparably higher mental effort involved in learning scientific content in a foreign language may have influenced overall performance (Rodenhauser and Preisfeld, 2015;Sweller, 2015), the discursive activities-as observed and encouraged by the instructor-involved in the construction and negotiation of an appropriate model may have led to deep-learning (Krell et al, 2015;Ke and Schwarz, 2020; of information relevant to the design of the DNA model. Thus, the combination of hands-on tasks with minds-on activities in CLIL learning (Glynn and Muth, 1994;Satayev et al, 2022) may have conveyed knowledge of "DNA as a model, " while the negotiation of meaning involved in the process of talking about science could have encouraged retention of this knowledge (Evnitskaya and Morton, 2011). That is, the various scaffolding exercises, which had to be solved in group-work, may have encouraged more and deeper discussion of the DNA-related experiments and ensuing construction of a three-dimensional DNA model (Ke and Schwarz, 2020;.…”