• No results found

Time is of the essence

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Time is of the essence"

Copied!
74
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND BUSINESS STUDIES

Department of Humanities

Time is of the essence

A study on the use of CLIL approaches to find time for EFL in

Swedish Primary School years 1-3

Jennifer Webb

2021

Student thesis, Professional degree (advanced), 30 HE English Study Programme in Education for the Primary School

Diploma Work for Teachers F-3 Supervisors: Jessika Nilsson & Iulian Cananau

(2)

Abstract

Denmark and Norway have more explicit syllabuses for English as a Foreign Language and more time allocated to EFL than Sweden. If measures have been taken to improve the syllabus and to increase time for EFL in these countries, do these measures need to be taken in Sweden too? This study aims to explore time allocation and the use of Content and Language Integrated Learning approaches in the primary school years 1-3 in Sweden. 114 teachers participated in this study through a web-based questionnaire. The findings show that teachers experience time constraints associated with EFL, and a third of the respondents state that they compensate for the time constraints associated with EFL through CLIL approaches. However, whether or not CLIL is indeed present in primary school years 1-3 is difficult to decide, due to the lack of a common frame of reference for CLIL in Sweden and in primary schools, as well as the contextual variables that affect and shape EFL and CLIL. Little, if any, research into the effects of CLIL in years 1-3 in Sweden has been carried out, so this study might help to highlight possible areas of interest for future research and prompt further exploration of the field.

(3)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ... 1

1.1 Hypothesis ... 4

1.2 Aim & Research questions ... 4

2. Literature review ... 5

2.1 CLIL: History and the European perspective ... 5

2.2 CLIL in Sweden ... 6

2.3 CLIL in Swedish primary schools... 8

3. Method ... 12 3.1 Quantitative survey ... 12 3.2 Questionnaire construction ... 13 3.3 Participants ... 15 3.3.1 Demographic information ... 17 3.4 Data preparation ... 19

3.5 Validity and Reliability ... 21

3.6 Ethical considerations ... 22

4. Results ... 23

4.1 Time allocation ... 24

4.2 CLIL approaches ... 27

4.3 CLIL and time ... 30

(4)

1

1. Introduction

The presence of English as a mandatory subject in the Swedish primary school curriculum has been long-contested (Lundberg, 2011). The debate has brewed since 1948, when the Swedish school-commission released a statement saying that for good familiarity with a second language to be reached - without encroaching on the mother tongue - the second language education should only start once the mother tongue is fixed. When the 1962 curriculum, Lgr 62, was formed, English was a mandatory subject from year 4. However, not introducing English as a mandatory subject in years 1-3 was a decision made as a result of the lack of trained English teachers for these younger age groups. When the second curriculum was drawn, Lgr 69, English was made mandatory from year 3, but the lack of qualified teachers remained, and great efforts were made to meet the new demands by extramural education for teachers. When the third curriculum, Lgr 80, was drawn, an option to postpone English language studies to year 4 was added, if special requirements were applicable. Following the way this policy was interpreted only 10-15% of the primary schools in Sweden kept English studies in year 3

(Lundberg, 2011). In the early1990s, the decentralization of the Swedish schools began. This shift of obligation from the government to the municipalities meant that each municipality had more freedom and responsibility when it came to the governance of each school. Due to this shift, in the Lpo 94 curriculum, the municipalities were given the autonomy of choosing when to start the English language studies. Today, English is still not as prominent in the curriculum as the other two core subjects,

Swedish and Mathematics, and starting the teaching of English in year 1 is still optional (Lundberg, 2011). In Sweden, the time allocated for English language instruction in primary school years 1-3 is 60 hours (Skolverket, 2018). This allows for a maximum of 30 minutes per week over three years, a school year consisting of 40 weeks. How to allocate these hours over the three years in primary school is not stipulated by the Swedish National Agency for Education, and the knowledge requirements for English are first set in year 6. The core content describes only what the pupils are required to have been exposed to during English language instruction, not what skills or knowledge they should have acquired at the end of year 3 (Skolverket, 2018). Thus, the starting age for English language instruction could differ from municipality to municipality and also from school to school.

(5)

2 the age when pupils start learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in school, and the age when the first knowledge requirements are set, differ from Sweden. In Norway, pupils in years 1-4 (7-10 years old) receive a minimum of 138 hours of English

language instruction over four years, which allows for approximately 52 minutes of English language instruction per week. English is also set as a mandatory subject from year 1, and in year 2, the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training have set clear stipulations of the knowledge requirements for years 1 and 2

(Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2020).In Denmark Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet, the Danish equivalent of the Swedish National Agency for Education, have allocated a total of 120 hours in years 1-3 (7-9 years old) and allocated 30 hours of English language instruction each in years 1 and 2 and another 60 hours of English language instruction for year 3. In years 1 and 2 the pupils will then receive approximately 45 minutes of English language instruction per week and in year 3 approximately 90 minutes per week. English is a mandatory subject from year 1 and the first knowledge requirements are set after year 4 (Børne- og Undervisningsministeriet, 2021).

Both Norway and Denmark have made English mandatory from year 1 whilst in Sweden it is still optional. Both Norway and Denmark have considerably more time allocated to English language instruction compared to Sweden and the knowledge requirements for EFL are brought in earlier in both Denmark and Norway. English is one out of three core subjects in Sweden, alongside Mathematics and Swedish, yet it does not have the same standing as the other subjects and is given only a fraction of the time in the curriculum (Lundberg, 2011).

Between 2007 and 2010 research teams in the Netherlands, Italy, England, Poland, Spain, Croatia and Sweden collaborated in a longitudinal study that aimed to investigate the effectiveness of language teaching in primary schools in Europe, called the ELLiE-project (Early Language Learning in Europe). When inspecting the Swedish contribution to the ELLiE-project with regards to time allocation to EFL in Swedish primary schools, Enever (2014, p. 240) stated that “[i]n the case of the Swedish sample, lesson frequency and duration were surprisingly low”.

In 2017, a series of interviews with teachers in Småland and Östergötland aiming to discern how the teachers support their students’ English language acquisition in primary school were conducted, the content of which is presented in Appendix V. Three themes that emerged from the data and later on prompted this study, were time

(6)

3 the semi-structured interviews, five out of six teachers clearly expressed that they felt the time allocated for EFL was insufficient. One teacher had expressed concerns and then been allowed more time for EFL in the curriculum. Two other teachers revealed that they had simply taken more time for EFL in an attempt to give their students the time they thought they needed to support their English language acquisition, even though, according to their curriculum, no time was set aside for EFL. When asked if they used English during other parts of the day, and in conjunction with other subjects, four out of six answered that they did indeed use English during other parts of the day and incorporate other subjects with the EFL. One teacher in particular voiced a great devotion to using the target FL in conjunction with other subjects and would interlink English with outdoor-activities, maths, sports and drama. This sparked the question: do teachers make time for EFL by finding time during other parts of the school day or do they incorporate English into other subjects, in order to make more time? Interlinking language and content are core concepts in Content and Language Integrated Learning and can be described as follows:

Content and Language Integrated Learning describes a pedagogic approach in which language and subject area content are learnt in combination. The generic term CLIL describes any learning activity where language is used as a tool to develop new learning from a subject area or theme (Coyle et al., 2009, p. 6)

Content and language integrated learning, or CLIL, is commonly used as an umbrella term for learning activities where the vehicular language is taught through, by and with content in the curriculum (Coyle et al., 2009; Eurydice 2006). In this study, CLIL approaches will describe language learning activities where language and content are incorporated and language learning is encompassed in other parts of the school day.

In this study, by examining whether or not CLIL approaches are used in a

compensatory manner in EFL, efforts will be made to shed light upon the role that time allocation plays in shaping the pedagogy in pre-primary and primary school years 1-3 in Sweden.

(7)

4

1.1 Hypothesis

The teachers' responses to the interviews carried out in 2017 brought the focus of this study into light and shaped the hypothesis: if teachers find that there is not enough time for EFL in Swedish primary school years 1-3, some will try to compensate for this. And if they do compensate, some might compensate by trying to find the time they need for EFL by using content and language integrated learning approaches.

1.2 Aim & Research questions

The aim of this study is two-fold. First, it will determine if teachers experience time constraints associated with EFL in Swedish primary school years 1-3. Second, it will investigate if and how teachers use Content and Language Integrated Learning approaches to compensate for the potential time constraints. To achieve this aim, the following research questions will be answered:

• Do teachers experience time constraints associated with EFL in Swedish primary school years 1-3?

• Do teachers compensate for the time constraints associated with EFL in Swedish primary school years 1-3?

• Do teachers use CLIL approaches in Swedish primary school years 1-3? • Do teachers use CLIL approaches to compensate, and if so, how do they use

(8)

5

2. Literature review

Section 2.1 will firstly discuss the background of CLIL through relevant studies. Secondly, Section 2.2 will instigate the Swedish perspective on CLIL, and lastly, CLIL and the primary school-context will be discussed in Section 2.3.

2.1 CLIL: History and the European perspective

Exploring the history of CLIL, the origin of the method can be traced back to early immersion programmes in Canada. Immersion is a method for language teaching that was created to further English-speaking children’s knowledge of French in Canada in 1956, in an attempt to make the speakers of the majority language, English, fluent in the minority language French (Sylvén, 2010). As the name suggests, the method consists of immersing the learner in the target language, to varying degrees, to facilitate naturalistic language learning stemming from the need to communicate, sometimes brought in and used for teaching as early as kindergarten (Sylvén, 2010; Bouffard & Sarkar, 2008). Immersion teaching programmes have been hugely successful in Canada and two contributing factors to this success are said to be the parental involvement in the

teaching programmes and the support gained from the educational authorities (Eurydice, 2006).

CLIL, which is a derivative of and the European answer to immersion, is commonly used as an umbrella term to describe a method of teaching where the target language, or vehicular language, is used as a medium of instruction (Sylvén, 2010). The content of the curriculum, like maths or civics, are taught in the target language to facilitate learning of both content and language simultaneously (Coyle et al., 2010). CLIL is described as being flexible and inclusive and a method that is easy to develop to suit the needs of the learners (Coyle et al., 2009).

Numerous studies have shown that CLIL-students, for various reasons, often outperform their peers in the areas tested. However, as research in this field has an array of variables to consider, the results that are presented are often two-fold. Although numerous findings are positive, the complexity of language learning often makes attributing the success to one variable or another difficult (Sylvén, 2010; Gene et al., 2015; García Mayo et al., 2015; Artieda et al., 2020).

(9)

6 higher degree than would be possible if the language was learned as a separate subject, dynamic linguistic competencies can develop (Sylvén, 2010; García Mayo et al., 2015).

The first piece of legislation that promoted European cooperation in CLIL was the 1995 Resolution of the Council of Europe. It encouraged new innovative language-teaching methods and proposed the improvement of the quality of training for language teachers across Europe (Eurydice, 2006). In 2002 the Barcelona European Council called for “a sustained effort on the part of the Member States and the European

Commission to ensure teaching of at least two foreign languages from a very early age” (Eurydice, 2006, p. 9). Adhering to this request, the Commission launched an action plan in which CLIL was seen as a major contributor to the furthering of this cause. In 2005 the Luxembourg presidency presented the results of their symposium ‘The

Changing European Classroom: The Potential of Plurilingual Education’ and one of the main conclusions was the requirement to ensure that CLIL like provision was available, at different levels of education, for pupils in Europe. Emphasis was also put on the positive aspects of encouraging teachers to acquire specific CLIL training (Eurydice, 2006).

Across Europe CLIL, and research devoted to the method, have gained

momentum since the early 2000´s (Gene et al., 2015). However, in the Swedish context, research into the effects of CLIL is still scarce (Sylvén, 2010; Toth, 2018).

2.2 CLIL in Sweden

The Swedish history of CLIL starts in 1977 with Tom Åseskog, who started the first pilot project involving CLIL in an upper secondary school technical-programme (Åseskog, 1982). The project involved two groups of students, one control group and one experimental group. The experimental group were taught one of their subjects through the medium of English and the control group continued their studies in Swedish according to their curriculum. The data was collected through questionnaires and an English proficiency test was conducted, and although positive results were found regarding both the students’ overall attitudes toward English and in the English

(10)

7 or on specific immersion days (Falk, 2001). Two more projects were evaluated during the 1980’s, one by Michael Night and one by Lisa Washburn, and both studies showed similar results, namely that improvements had been made to the students’ overall English proficiency, but that the differences between the experimental groups and the control groups were marginal (Falk, 2001).

During the 1990’s, CLIL gained momentum in Sweden, and more upper

secondary schools, as well as some primary and secondary schools now provide CLIL in their curriculum and offer a combination of foreign, regional and/or minority languages as the mode of instruction (Falk, 2001; Eurydice, 2006). According to the report ordered by the European Commission, CLIL is part of the mainstream school education in Sweden. However, the report also states that it is not a widespread method and is only available to a minority of pupils, and in a handful of schools (Eurydice, 2006).

In 1999 John Nixon was tasked with mapping the presence of CLIL provision in Sweden, the report commissioned by the National Agency for Education (1999). CLIL, or SPRINT (Språk- och innehållsintegrerad inlärning och undervisning), which is the acronym for the Swedish translation of the term, was then reportedly available as a method for language learning in 4% of the compulsory schools and in 20% of all upper secondary schools in Sweden (Nixon, 1999). Yoximer Paulsrud (2014, p. 62) also reported on the presence of CLIL in Sweden, and in 2012 CLIL was present, to varying degrees, in 23% of upper secondary schools.

The English language holds no official status in Sweden, but is nonetheless encountered daily through television, internet and radio (Yoximer Paulsrud, 2014). Students and pupils in Sweden are exposed to high amounts of extramural English, sometimes as much as 40 hours a week (Sylvén, 2013). Overall attitudes amongst the Swedish population toward the English language are generally positive (Yoximer Paulsrud, 2014) and students in Sweden are, in general, very motivated to learn English (Olsson, 2016). These facts have a bearing on the aims for using CLIL as a method for language learning in Sweden.

Compared to the officially bilingual Canada, where immersion projects are aimed at raising the status of the minority language French, Sweden has other aims for

(11)

8 entail better job-prospects on the global market and preparing pupils for an international society, and linguistic aims which entail language skills with emphasis on effective communication and motivating pupils by the use of real life, practical purposes. Secondary schools tend to be permeated by the socio-economic aims, whilst linguistic aims are more prominent in primary schools (Eurydice, 2006).

In Sweden, CLIL initiatives have been started by teachers, school officials or local policy makers who have come into contact with the method externally, as no official guidelines for the use of CLIL exist in Sweden (Sylvén, 2010). The intense policy discussions regarding CLIL have become a major issue in general language planning, and the strong emphasis put on English as a vehicular language in CLIL in Sweden has been greatly criticised (Lim Falk, 2015). Without policy documents outlining the aim for the use of CLIL, with the specific interpretations outlined for the common goals, CLIL may take any shape or form at the individual schools (Sylvén, 2013). “Policy documents are the building blocks of any school activity. They provide guidance to schools and teachers involved, and, further, they are a necessary tool to ensure equity in a national school system” (Sylvén, 2013, p. 303).

2.3 CLIL in Swedish primary schools

In 2011 teacher education in Sweden went through a radical change. The previous education programme, initiated in 1999, produced teachers with qualifications to teach in years 1-7 with specialization in two subjects, which the students themselves could choose (Sylvén, 2013). This free choice of subject specialisation fashioned teachers with a motley collection of expertise, some with credentials so diverse, that they were almost impossible to employ and many teachers were forced to teach subjects in which they had no qualifications (Lärarnas riksförbund, 2016; Sylvén, 2013).

According to statistics reported by the Swedish National Agency of Education, 19% of all qualified teachers working in the obligatory school years 1-9 are qualified to teach English (Skolverket, 2021). With the change of the educational programmes for teachers in 2011, English language studies became an obligatory subject for all student teachers who aspire to teach years 1-6 (Sylvén, 2013) ensuring that all teachers in primary schools in Sweden will be qualified to teach English.

(12)

9 most prominent, only 15.5% of all teachers have qualifications to teach English and even fewer will have the qualification, or knowledge to teach both language and content (Skolverket, 2021; Falk, 2001). In primary schools in Sweden, the content teacher, and the language teacher are most commonly the same person, a so-called class-teacher, making CLIL provision easier to provide. There are now 38,050 teachers employed in primary school years 1-3 in Sweden, and 13,074 teachers working in pre-primary school (Skolverket, 2020; Skolverket, 2021), however, the statistics do not reveal whether they are class-teachers or not. Class-teachers teach most of the subjects in the curriculum through approaches frequently encountered in the syllabus and core content, some of which entail using songs, rhymes, games and aesthetical forms of expression

(Skolverket, 2018).

Research conducted on the effects of CLIL in Sweden is scarse (Sylvén, 2013; Falk, 2001) and in the primary school years 1-3, it is non-existent. This might be

attributed to the fact that in Sweden the view, originally reported by the Swedish School Commission in 1948, that second or subsequent language learning should only start once the mother tongue is fixed, has continued to permeate the language learning debate (Yoximer Paulsrud, 2014; Sylvén 2013; Falk, 2001). However, there is nothing to support an argument stating that early exposure to another language is harmful to the development of the first language (Yoximer Paulsrud, 2014) and numerous studies have shown that learning a subsequent language supports the acquisition of the first and-subsequent languages (Cenoz, 2003; ÒLaoire & Singleton, 2009; Hofer & Jessner, 2019; Llinares García, 2007). In fact, metalinguistic awareness, which is more

prominent in multilinguals, increases the knowledge and understanding of the first and second language, and accelerates the acquisition of subsequent languages (ÒLaoire & Singleton, 2009; Hofer & Jessner, 2019).

An increasing number of compulsory schools in Sweden are implementing CLIL programmes, and in one of them,Janette Toth (2018) conducted a study on the effects of English-medium instruction (EMI) in school years 4-6. The study focused on language policies in EMI, stakeholders’ beliefs in EMI and language choices and translanguaging in EMI in Sweden. Toth (2018) found that the English language held a privileged role, whilst minority, mother tongue and modern languages were

(13)

subject-10 specific Swedish, which put pupils less proficient in English at a disadvantage. These pupils became solely reliant on peers who were proficient in English for support. Proficient students were also at an advantage due to the ease with which they could communicate with their non-Swedish speaking teachers. This created an uneven distribution of active participation in the classroom. Stakeholders’ views of the programme were positive, with teachers and pupils expressing that the language acquisition through EMI came “for free”. Pupils reported increased language confidence, gained through interacting with English-speaking teachers, and

communicating in a natural way without considering the added acquisition of the new language. The findings from the study showed that these programmes need to promote multilingual learning as well as content learning. Furthermore, the use of

translanguaging within such programmes must be seen as a resource, in order to

facilitate content and language learning for all pupils. Established frameworks for CLIL are available in parts of Spain, and guidelines for CLIL are mentioned in Finland’s national curriculum’. However, no national educational policy documents in Sweden contain such framework for CLIL (Toth, 2018).

Such a lack of guidelines leaves ample room for a range of implementations, which can also mean that the quality of CLIL or EMI programs may vary substantially. It is therefore necessary that policymakers provide clear guidelines for implementation of such programs, and that school providers offer appropriate training for their teachers to ensure that classroom practices reflect an awareness of the particular requirements of this model (Toth, 2018, p.86).

In many parts of Europe, and in Sweden, CLIL is usually implemented in

(14)

11 more and over the three years of CLIL provision, the gap between the two groups of students did not widen.

On extramural English (EE) and CLIL in upper secondary schools in Sweden, according to Olsson (2016, p. 5) “[f]indings suggest that effects of EE may be greater at lower proficiency levels than at higher”. Younger pupils are then more likely to be affected by high exposure to a language, when their proficiency level in the target language is still low, compared to older pupils with a higher proficiency level in the target language. Furthermore, Olsson (2016, p. 5) stated that: “At upper secondary level, the frequency of EE correlated with productive academic vocabulary only in the first year; for progress over time, high exposure to EE did not predict a more positive development”. This suggests that at some level of proficiency, a large amount of exposure to a language is not enough to enhance the productive academic language but, at a low level of proficiency, perhaps in primary school years 1-3, a high amount of exposure, through EE or even CLIL, could have a great effect on language proficiency. High exposure to the target language is a key factor in immersion and there are three types of immersion programmes: early total immersion (age 5-6 years), early partial immersion (age 8-10) and late immersion (age 11 and onward) (Falk, 2001; Lapkin et al., 1983; Llinares García, 2007). Large amounts of research have been carried out on the effects of immersion and on the whole the results have been very positive. The most effective, however, is the early total immersion where pupils have reached near-native proficiency in receptive skills like listening and reading comprehension (Llinares

García, 2007). Early total immersion pupils outperform their peers, whereas early partial and late immersion students sometimes show inferior results on areas tested, compared with control groups (Sylvén, 2010).

In primary schools in Sweden, the language learning focus is on receptive and communicative skills such as oral proficiency, listening and comprehension

(15)

12

3. Method

Firstly, an account of the methodology and why the method was chosen is made in Section 3.1. Secondly, a closer description of the web-based questionnaire that was used for the data collection, and the construction of said questionnaire is described in Section 3.2. This is followed by an account of the procedure and participating sample, sampling method and distribution in Sections 3.3 and 3.3.1. Lastly, the analysis of the data is presented in Section 3.4, which is followed by Sections 3.5 and 3.6, where validity, reliability and research ethics connected to the study are discussed.

3.1 Quantitative survey

The acting method in this study is a survey, which is a methodology that can be

described as asking the same questions to all participants under the same circumstances (Bell & Waters, 2016, p. 27). In this study, quantitative data was collected through a web-based questionnaire, chosen for being cost effective and quick and easy to distribute (Bryman, 2011, p. 228). An additional advantage to the web-based

questionnaire is the large number of individuals one can reach in an easy and fast way and the ease with which one can collect and arrange data (Bryman, 2011, p. 586). Due to the limited timeframe of this study, additional methods that would have contributed to the validity and reliability have not been used (Ejlersson, 2014). If the scope of the study had allowed it, a qualitative research method like semi-structured interviews, and/or unstructured observation, could have been used in addition to the quantitative survey for triangulation, to increase validity and reliability (Bryman, 2011, p. 355). The questionnaire was designed using the web-based tool Google Forms (Google, 2021). This tool was chosen because of its user-friendly design and compatibility with the tools for data analysis.

There are several aspects of this study – for example, explanations

(16)

13

3.2 Questionnaire construction

The questionnaire was constructed of a total of 15 questions. The first page consisted of an information letter for the respondents that explained the aim of the study. The

information letter and the questionnaire were written in Swedish to facilitate

communication (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009), based on the presumption that Swedish is more likely to be the first language of the respondents and that using the respondents’ first language would increase the response rates and the reliability (Bryman, 2011, p. 192).

The information letter stated that the intended respondents should be certified teachers actively teaching in primary schools. The letter had further information about the purpose of the study, information about the University of Gävle and the scope of the study. Furthermore, information on how the results would be presented, how the

collected data would be handled and how respondents could take part of the finished work was included. The respondents were also informed of how the information given would be handled and stored and how they would be able to make complaints or inquiries, would they have any. Lastly, an estimated time for completing the

questionnaire and contact information for the student conducting the survey and the overseeing advisor was included. For further inspection, the letter has been included in Appendix III. The information letter and the questionnaire were sent to the Research Ethics Council at the University of Gävle for inspection and approval before being distributed.

The questions in the questionnaire were carefully phrased, using only the necessary technical language and avoiding unnecessary ambiguity (Bell & Waters, 2016, p. 173), and as recommended by Ejlertsson (2014), they were designed to be as clear as possible. No personal data was collected. The questions were all linked to the aim and research questions and were based on secondary sources relevant to this study. The questionnaire is available in Appendix VI. The questions were close ended, to facilitate analysis of the data and to elicit pinpointed responses, but questions 2-14 had the option “other”, where respondents could elaborate in a short text, to eliminate the risk of the close ended questions being too narrow (Bryman, 2011, p. 245).

(17)

14 if the respondents met the criteria for the target sample of the study, asking if the

respondents were a) qualified teachers, and b) specifically qualified to teach English in primary school. Questions 3 to 5 collected background information about the

respondents’ current teaching situation, specifically whether the teacher taught multiple subjects or not. Questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 were obligatory. Question 6 asked when the respondent’s pupils started learning English as a foreign language to collect data on when primary school pupils start their EFL. Question 7 collected data on time allocation to EFL in primary schools. Question 8 was a multiple-choice question where the respondents were asked to tick the boxes with the answers that best aligned with their views (Bryman, 2011, p. 248). This question contained tree different viewpoints, all followed by an equal counterpart; “I think there should be more time allocated for English language studies” was followed by the counterpart “I think there is enough time allocated for English language studies” and so on. An option to convey that none of the viewpoints aligned with the respondent’s views was included to negate any effect of leading or coercing the respondents (Bryman, 2011, p. 252). This question was designed to investigate if teachers experience time constraints associated with EFL in Swedish primary schools. Questions 9 and 10 asked if the respondents incorporate English into other subjects and if they incorporate other subjects into English, to discern if CLIL approaches are used by primary school teachers. The questions contained multiple choices and listed the different subjects to show if and how the respondents use CLIL approaches. Both questions contained the option “no”.

Question 11 was designed to determine how teachers use CLIL approaches, if they do. The question contained multiple choices of pre-written answers in tick-boxes and the respondent could choose all options that aligned with their use of the

approaches. An option to choose “I do not incorporate English into other subjects” was available. The different options available to the respondents in question 11 were chosen for different reasons. The option “learning content through language” is closely linked to what is described as a core aspect of CLIL (Coyle et. al, 2009; Coyle et. al, 2010). The options:” songs”, “rhymes and jingles”, “games”, “dancing” and “playful activities” are all linked to central elements of the core content of the Syllabus for Swedish

(18)

15 to determine why the teachers choose to use CLIL approaches, and what their motives behind using those approaches might be. The question contained multiple choices that were derived from positive aspects of using CLIL approaches in the EFL classroom (Coyle et al., 2009; Coyle et al., 2010), and an option to choose “I do not incorporate English into other subjects” was available. Question 14 was written in a very direct manner to ensure no ambiguity and asked, “Do you compensate for time constraints associated with English language learning by using content and language integrated learning approaches?”. In this question the respondents could only choose one of the following answers: “yes”, “no”, “I don’t know what that is” and “other”. Lastly, question 15 listed a range of different teaching methods associated with language learning to determine what methods most teachers are familiar with, CLIL being one of the alternatives. This was designed to investigate if respondents might use CLIL-like approaches without necessarily being familiar with the terminology of the specific method.

3.3 Participants

This study aimed to collect data from qualified teachers actively teaching in Swedish pre-primary and primary school years 1-3. The participants in the web-based

questionnaire survey were a sample of convenience (Bryman, 2011; Trost, & Hultåker, 2016) chosen for their availability, out of the entire population.

(19)

16 the survey multiple times would have required the respondents to leave their e-mail address after completing the questionnaire in Google Forms. This would have enabled the mechanism in Google Forms to discard multiple responses linked to the same email address (Google, 2021). This mechanism was not used, however, as safeguarding the anonymity and confidentiality of the respondents took priority over potential loss of validity and reliability by having the same respondent taking the survey multiple times (Bryman, 2011). The questionnaire was live, and available to respondents online for a total of 32 days, from 24.03.2021 to 24.04.2021. No complaints were made by the participants and no one asked to be sent the finished work.

When the questionnaire was distributed, the online forums had a sum total of 46,773 members. Efforts were made to determine how many of these members were active members in the group, but facts of that kind could not be found. This would have had a bearing on the sample size. Group one, which was the larger group with 36,304 members, showed an activity of 800 new posts during the last 28 days, and a new-members rate of 93 additional new-members in a week. This suggests a fairly active group with new members continuously adding to their numbers. Group two, a much smaller group, specified for English language teaching in pre-primary and years 1-3, had 10,469 members and less activity - only 32 new posts during the last 28 days and a

new-member rate of an additional 6 new-members in a week. Facts regarding these groups are available in Appendix IV.

Survey Monkey´s web-based tool for calculating sample size was used in this study (SurveyMonkey Inc., 2020). For a population size of 46,773 respondents with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error at 5%, a reasonable sample size was calculated at 382 respondents.

The questionnaire was answered by 118 respondents, of which four were

(20)

17

3.3.1 Demographic information

Following is the demographic information gathered from the participating teachers, through questions 2-5.

Figure 1 presents the number of respondents qualified to teach English in primary school years 1-3. 88.6%, or 101 respondents, state that they are indeed qualified to teach English and 11.4%, or 13 respondents, state that they are not.

Figure 1. Number of qualified teachers.

Most respondents state that they are qualified to teach English. This could be attributed to the fact that the information letter attached to the questionnaire clearly stated that the study aimed at collecting data from qualified teachers, and that it focused on English language learning.

(21)

18 Figure 2. Subject combinations.

As shown in Figure 2, English is most commonly selected by the respondents. Mathematics comes in on a second place which correlates with statistics from the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket, 2018). Music, Craft and Physical Education are the least common subjects, which also correlates with statistics from the Swedish National Agency for Education and can be explained by the fact that the subjects are not part of the mandatory curriculum of teacher education for pre-primary and primary school teachers in Sweden (Skolverket, 2021).

Figure 3 shows the number of respondents working as so-called class-teachers in the primary school years 1-3. 100 respondents, or 87.7 % of all participating teachers respond “yes”, and only 12.3% respond “no”.

(22)

19 Figure 4 below shows in which year the respondents are currently working. Pre-primary is represented by the abbreviation “PP” in Figure 4. 3.5% or 4 participants work in pre-primary, 26.3% or 30 participants work in year 1, 35.1% or 40 participants work in year 2 and 28.1 % or 32 participants work in year 3.

Figure 4. Year of teaching.

8 participants work in classes with mixed ages, with pupils ranging from 6 to 12 years of age and they are presented in categories “Other” PP-3 and “Other” PP-6. As shown in Figure 4, the respondents are fairly evenly spread over the three years of primary school. Only 3.5% of the respondents state that they work in pre-primary, which accounts for about 10% of the figure the Swedish National Agency for Education report on the number of teachers in pre-primary in Sweden (2021 B). All free text responses are presented in Appendix II.

3.4 Data preparation

The data collected from the web-based questionnaire was exported to an Excel spreadsheet for further analysis. The data was configured and categorized and a summary of all the alterations made, in order to enhance presentability and

(23)

20 In question 1, four participants who responded that they were not certified to teach English, were excluded from the study and all their answers were removed. In question 3, one answer was re-categorized from “other” to “Science” and “Civics” as the free-text response included both categories. In question 4, two answers were re-categorized from “other” to “yes”. In question 5, two new categories were created to catalogue the free-text responses. Four free-text responses were re-categorized from “other” to “other: PP-3” and four free-text responses were re-categorized from “other” to “other: PP-6” to facilitate comprehension of Figure 4 and to limit the number or categories. One answer in question 5 was re-categorized from “other” to “Year 1”. In question 6 one response was removed.

In question 7, an error was made when designing the intervals at which the different values were set. According to Bryman a quota-/interval variable value should not overlap (2010, p. 322). In question 7, the pre-set time intervals should have been set without overlapping, however, only three answers needed re-categorization from

“other” to “10-20” and one answer was re-categorized from “other” to “60-80”. The data collected still indicates how time is allocated in primary school, albeit not as accurately as intended.

The free-text answers to question 8 were removed from Figure 8, which is presented in the results. This choice was made because of the length and content of the responses. All participants were able to pick multiple options in this question, so the views of the respondents have been represented none the less. In question 9 one answer was re-categorized from “other” to “Music” as the free-text response said “music”.

In question 10, one answer was re-categorized from “other” to “Art” as the free-text response stated “art”, and one additional answer was re-categorized from “other” to “No” as the free-text response stated “Not in year 1”. Questions 9, 10 and 11 had 22 free-text responses removed due to the fact that the free-text responses contained irrelevant information and/or the responses were too vague to categorize further. All free-text responses are presented in their entirety in Appendix II.

Question 12 and 13 will not be presented in the results, but only in Appendix I. This decision was made due to the limited time frame of the study, as both question 12 and 13 encompassed additional aspects of CLIL, time allocation and why CLIL

(24)

21 In question 14, three answers were re-categorized from “other” and placed in a new category, “Somewhat”, created purposefully to accommodate these specific

answers. One answer was removed due to the content being unclear and not compliable with any pre-set categories which made it impossible to re-categorize. Three

respondents chose not to answer question 14. The entirety of the un-altered results is available in Appendix I.

3.5 Validity and Reliability

Validity shows to what degree the data collected represents the area of investigation and demonstrates whether what should be measured is being measured. Reliability refers to the extent to which a measurement provides consistent, stable results ensuring the repeatability of the study (Taherdoost, 2016).

A weakness with the web-based questionnaire as a survey tool is the lack of help available to the respondents, as opposed to an interview, where the researcher can clarify any misunderstandings. To help negate this effect, the questions were, as recommended by Ejlertsson (2014), carefully written and as clear as possible.

The external validity refers to the generalizability of the results beyond the context of the study (Bryman, 2011, p. 51). Snee (2013) states that risks that are present in online research might be dissimilar to the ones associated with “offline” research. One of these risks, when using web-based tools for data collection, is not knowing whether the data has been provided by a respondent who meets the criteria stipulated by the study or, to put it simply, whether the person really is who they say they are

(Bryman, 2011, p. 595). Thus, to maximize the chances of reaching the target population online, two closed forums dedicated to teachers with a “members only” policy were selected from the social media site Facebook (Facebook, 2021) where all content on the site is linked to teaching. Although this did not guarantee that all respondents met the criteria stipulated by the study – a common pitfall associated with online research (Bryman, 2011; Snee, 2013) – every care was taken to ensure that only the target population was reached online, without jeopardizing the respondent’s

anonymity and confidentiality.

(25)

22 study, changes were made to questions 12, 10 and 9 and the option to choose “yes” was removed to make the questionnaire more comprehensible. The grammar was corrected in question 4 and the option to choose an additional option was added in question 11 to enhance the diversity of options.

The questions in the questionnaire were based on secondary sources relevant to the study, and aligned with the aim and research questions to ensure further increase of internal validity, which refers to the accordance between what is obtained and the theoretical ideas formed from the gathered data (Bryman, 2011, p. 352). Eight questions in the questionnaire were mandatory, to ensure that as much conclusive data as possible could be collected. However, the questions of a more probing nature included in the latter part of the questionnaire were optional, rather than mandatory, to ensure that no dishonest, fictional or forced answers were submitted (Bryman, 2011). Combining both mandatory and optional questions in the questionnaire can ensure that the responses provided by the respondents, particularly regarding the optional questions, are accurate and correct.

Construct validity, which refers to how accurately a concept, behaviour or idea has been translated or transformed, has been taken into account in this study

(Taherdoost, 2016). Efforts were made to explore aspects of CLIL and time allocation through multiple questions and from different angles to ensure that concepts and features were described thoroughly.

The web-based questionnaire was available from 24.03.2021 to 24.04.2021. This was done to ensure that as many responses as possible were collected, even though this could create time constraints in other areas of the study.

3.6 Ethical considerations

(26)

23 The information letter and the questionnaire were sent for inspection, together with a formal request to the Research Ethics Council at the University of Gävle. This was done to ensure the ethical standards of the institution were upheld. The information letter and the questionnaire were approved by the Council before commencing

distribution online. The information letter that was included in the questionnaire described the aim of the study and desired participants, and used only necessary technical terms to lower the risk of misunderstandings and thus increasing the internal validity of the study (Bryman, 2011, p. 352)

Regarding internet research, Snee (2013) states that, while research conducted on the internet may not be riskier, the risks that are present might be dissimilar to the ones associated with “offline” research, and thus difficult to assess through academic

precedents or by the reactions of the participants. Furthermore, Snee (2013) states that core ethical standards need to be applied to research conducted online, but that these standards need to be tailored to each specific research context. One measure taken, to ensure that core ethical standards were upheld throughout this study, was to follow the rules and recommendations stipulated by the Research Ethics Council by making the formal request and sending the information letter and questionnaire for inspection.

Google Forms was used to design and distribute the questionnaire through links posted in the chosen online forums. On data collection and data protection Google state:

If European Union (EU) or United Kingdom (UK) data protection law applies to the processing of your information, we provide the controls described in this policy so you can exercise your right to request access to, update, remove, and restrict the processing of your information. You also have the right to object to the processing of your information or export your information to another service (Google 2021).

The data that was collected through Google Forms was deleted from the web-based service as soon as the survey was completed and no personal information, email addresses or names were gathered through this study.

4. Results

(27)

24 figures below and all questions, apart from questions 11 and 14, were answered by all 114 respondents.

4.1 Time allocation

Below, three questions regarding time allocation will be presented. These questions were designed to answer the research question: Do teachers experience time constraints associated with EFL in Swedish primary schools?

Figure 5 displays age of onset in the respondents’ pupils. 68 respondents, which accounts for 60.2% stated that their pupils began learning English as a foreign language in year 1. 24 respondents, a total of 21.2% state that their pupils began in pre-primary. 19 respondents, equivalent to 16.8%, stated that their pupils began in year 2, and 2 respondents, 1.8% stated that their pupils began their English language studies in year 3. A majority of pupils do indeed start their English language studies in year 1, but the starting age differs significantly.

Figure 5. Age of onset.

(28)

25 Figure 6. Time allocated to EFL.

Figure 7 below is a combination of Figure 5 and Figure 6. Figure 5 provided the data regarding what age the pupils started their EFL and Figure 6 provided the data that presents how many minutes of EFL the pupils receive per week.

Figure 7. Time allocation and age of onset.

(29)

26 stated that their pupils started their EFL in year 3. One stated that their pupils receive 60-80 minutes of EFL per week, and the other respondent stated that their pupils receive 120 + minutes of EFL per week. These two figures were excluded to enhance the

overview of Figure 7.

Question 8 asked the respondents to select the statements that aligned with their views. The data is presented below in Figure 8. Three main statements were presented, and all had an equal counterpart. The option: “I want more time for EFL in year 1-3” was followed by a counter statement: “I think there is enough time for EFL in year 1-3” and so on. Figure 8 has been modified to facilitate understanding of the data, and only one statement is presented, without its counterpart. The participants´ responses have been represented by “I agree” and “I disagree” to make Figure 8 more coherent. An unaltered version of the entire results, with all statements and additional written responses is presented in Appendix I and II.

Figure 8. Statements.

This question was aimed at answering the research question: Do teachers experience time constraints associated with EFL in Swedish primary schools?

(30)

27 respondents believe that their views align with the statements above. 51.6% concur with the statement “I want more time for EFL, 29.8% disagree with said statement. 52.6% concur with the statement “I want English to be obligatory in year 1”, and 14%

disagree. 37.7% of the participants concur with the statement “I want clearer directives regarding time allocation” and 13% disagree. Two respondents stated that none of the statements align with their views, as presented in Appendix I.

4.2 CLIL approaches

Questions regarding CLIL approaches will be presented below. These questions were designed to answer the research questions:

• Do teachers use CLIL approaches in Swedish primary schools?

• Do teachers use CLIL approaches to compensate, and if so, how do they use these approaches?

The latter of the research questions will only be answered in part in this section. Here, the focus will be on the “how”, whilst in the next section, efforts will be made to present the results of the answer to the question in its entirety.

(31)

28 Figure 9. Content into English.

(32)

29 Figure 10. English into content.

Figure 11, which is presented below, show how the participants use CLIL approaches, if indeed they do. Most respondents claim they combine language and content through songs, films and videos. Comparing phrases and learning through rhymes and jingles, games, playful activities and drawing and painting are all options that come in at the middle of the table. Learning language through outdoor activities is as common as not combining language and content at all, and learning content through language, which is in essence a CLIL approach, is the least common activity of all. This question was answered by 100 respondents.

(33)

30 Figure 12 below presents data collected through question 9 and 10, and was included to display the contrast between incorporating English into content, and content into English.

Figure 12. English into content and content into English.

4.3 CLIL and time

Previous questions have investigated if and how CLIL approaches are used by teachers in primary schools in Sweden and if teachers experience time constraints associated with their EFL. In this section, questions designed to determine if teachers indeed use CLIL approaches as a mean to compensate for time constraints, will be presented.

The prior questions in the questionnaire had gathered data regarding aspects of CLIL, time allocation and time restraints, which question 14 was designed to

(34)

31 Figure 13. Compensating through CLIL.

The final question of the questionnaire was aimed at discerning if the respondents had knowledge of any of the following teaching methods and could choose any or all of the following: Content and language integrated learning (CLIL), Cross-curricular teaching, Immersion and Content-based language teaching (CBTL).

Figure 14. Methods.

(35)

32 that they are familiar with immersion. A vast majority of the respondents, 57%, state that they are not familiar with any of the above-mentioned teaching methods.

5. Discussion

In this section, a result discussion and a method discussion will be presented. The focus of 5.1 will be on interpreting the results in comparison to previous studies and

secondary sources, with an effort made to answer the research questions. The focus of 5.2 will be on the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen method, on how the

methodology could be improved and what additional factors could have enhanced the results and the study as a whole.

5.1 Result Discussion

The aim of this study was two-fold. Firstly, it intended to determine if teachers

experience time constraints associated with EFL in Swedish primary school years 1-3. As previously mentioned, Sweden has less time allocated to EFL compared to

neighbouring countries Denmark and Norway. Time allocation is not the only difference however, when it comes to EFL. Norway and Denmark are two countries with more explicit syllabi regarding EFL, compared with Sweden (Børne- og

Undervisningsministeriet, 2021; Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2020; Skolverket, 2018) which suggest that there are grounds for exploring if teachers in primary school years 1-3 in Sweden find that the measures taken to improve EFL in Norway and Denmark through policy development, are implementations that are needed in Sweden as well.

To determine if teachers indeed experience time constraints, question 7 gathered information regarding time allocation in primary school and question 6 collected data on age of onset, when the pupils first received EFL tuition, to establish a basic

understanding of the circumstances associated with EFL in primary school years 1-3. Figure 5 shows that 60.2% of all the respondents’ pupils start their EFL in year 1, which correlates with the respondents’ views in Figure 8, were 60 participating teachers

concurred with the statement that English should be an obligatory subject in year 1. However, whether EFL was started in year 1 as a result of teachers promoting an early start for EFL, due to regulations stipulated by the principal or municipality, or other factors, is unclear. The figures do suggest that there are grounds for exploring if teachers find that measures need to be taken to improve EFL through policy

(36)

33 shows that the age of onset for EFL differs greatly in primary school years 1-3, which in turn again, underlines the need for more policy development in primary school EFL in Sweden. As seen in Figure 7, which is derived from Figure 5 and Figure 6, some pupils who started their EFL in pre-primary have the same amount of time set aside for EFL every week, as pupils who started their EFL in year 1, and some pupils that started their EFL in pre-primary receive more time for EFL per week than pupils who started in year 1. Although a tendency for the EFL sessions to increase when age of onset is late can be seen, the even spread of the values, regardless of age of onset is visible. These figures suggest that there are great discrepancies when it comes to how much time for EFL each pupil will be given. Furthermore, without clear directives regarding time allocation, extra pressure is put on the respective teachers, who might, in some cases be solely responsible for making sure there is enough time, or enough room in the curriculum for high amounts of EFL due to late onset. This in turn could exacerbate the difficulties with time allocation for EFL and create time constraints. As stated by Sylvén (2013), policy documents are integral parts of any school-activity and fundamental in ensuring equity in national school systems.

In Figure 8, one of the statements presented to the respondents was “I want more time for EFL” and 51.7%of the respondents chose to concur with this statement- however, 29.8% of the respondents disagreed. 52.6% of the respondents also felt that their views aligned with the statement: I think English should be an obligatory subject from year 1, and only 14% state that the decision should remain with the municipalities and organizers. A total of 37.7% want clearer directives regarding time allocation in primary school year 1-3, yet 13% regard the directions on time allocation as clear enough. A majority of the responding teachers do feel that EFL would benefit from clearer directives and a common framework to facilitate structuring and time allocation in EFL, and that the time allocated for English is insufficient. High exposure to a target language, specifically at lower proficiency levels, is beneficial for language acquisition (Falk, 2001; Sylvén, 2010; Olsson, 2016) and if there is not enough time allocated to EFL in primary school years 1-3, the circumstances surrounding pupils’ language acquisition is not optimal.

Secondly, this study investigated if and how teachers use Content and Language Integrated Learning approaches to compensate for the potential time constraints,

(37)

34 Figure 9 and 10 show if the respondents incorporate other subjects into the

English language learning and if they incorporate English into other subjects. These questions were both asked to pinpoint the difference between incorporating content into language, and language into content in order to discern if CLIL approaches are present in the respondents’ classrooms or not. Using songs, rhymes, games and aesthetical forms of expression are endorsed pedagogical approaches frequently encountered in the Syllabus and Core-content stipulated by the Swedish National Agency of Education (Skolverket, 2018). Using songs to create a safe environment or using games as a

motivational tool in the EFL classroom is not synonymous with using CLIL approaches. However, choosing to name the colours in English during an art-class could be seen as intentionally incorporating English language learning into other subjects, and therefore using CLIL approaches to learn content through language (Coyle et. al, 2010).

Naturally, all subjects are not equally suited to be used in CLIL approaches in primary school years 1-3. According to Eurydice, in primary schools in Sweden, any of the subjects available in the curriculum may and are used in CLIL. However, in upper secondary schools in Sweden the subjects most commonly used in CLIL is a

combination of Science and Civics with Art and/or Physical Education (2006). When inspecting Figure 13, one can see that the subjects Art and Music are clearly favoured by the respondents when incorporating language and content, and vice versa, and keeping the recommendations regarding appropriate pedagogy as stipulated by the Swedish National Agency of Education in mind, choosing to incorporate Art and Music into EFL seems reasonable and expectable, and 57.8% state that they incorporate art into EFL. However, when asked if they incorporate EFL into Art, only 31% of the respondents’ state that they do. Music is incorporated into EFL by 74.5% of the

(38)

35 specific contexts (2014). Asking both of these questions were of great importance to this study as, due to the lack of a common definition of CLIL, knowing when CLIL approaches are and are not present in primary school years 1-3, has proven trying to decide.

Figure 11 shows how CLIL approaches are used in primary school years 1-3, and what methods the respondents use to combine language and content in their classrooms. As mentioned, in regards to Figure 9 and 10, using songs or films and videos as learning approaches is not synonymous with using CLIL approaches, however, when designing appropriate CLIL activities in primary school 1-3, singing, playing and learning through various forms of media, ought to be a part of the pedagogy (Skolverket, 2018). When inspecting the data presented in Figure 11, it is notable that a fair amount of diverse learning approaches is being used by the respondents in different combinations and to various degrees. Out of the 100 responses presented in Figure 11, 18 respondents stated that they do not combine language and content, however, the other 82 respondents suggest that they do incorporate language and content by selecting one or multiple of the activities listed in question 11. Yet again, the difficulty lies in defining if said activities indeed include CLIL approaches, or not. One option in question 11 was derived straight from definitions of what CLIL encompasses, as defined by Coyle et al., (2009) and Coyle et al., (2010). The activity was described as: learning content through language, and summarizes many aspects of the definition of CLIL. This option was chosen by a total of 10 respondents, which accounts for 8.7% of the participating teachers. Furthermore, this option was the least favoured by the respondents out of all suggested content and language encompassing activities. This suggests that, even though CLIL approaches may be perceived as being present in primary school years 1-3 at first glance, when one delves a little deeper, deciding what is CLIL, and what is not, is made difficult without a common frame of reference.

Toth’s (2018) study is the closest comparison to this study conducted in Sweden. The study involved pupils in years 4-6, which are the earliest school years to have been examined with regard to content and language integrated learning approaches. Findings from that study also highlighted the need for formulating national language and policy documents to define what CLIL, and methods similar to it, can and need to be, in the different contexts of obligatory school in Sweden.

(39)

36 that they do indeed. However, the vast majority state that they do not. Whilst examining the data to analyse the answer, another question was highlighted: What have the

respondents essentially answered in that question? Do they compensate for lack of time? Do they compensate for lack of time through CLIL approaches? To have a

detailed answer, that question should conceivably have been broken down into multiple questions. However, one might have gathered the same data if one had asked the

question in parts, because the problem lies not in the question alone, but in the lack of a common frame of reference. What is CLIL in the Swedish primary school context in years 1-3? To be able to draw any clear conclusions to the question, if CLIL approaches are used in Swedish primary school years 1-3, one must first define what CLIL is, and what form the method needs to take in this context. However, without studies being conducted into the effects of CLIL in the primary school context in years 1-3 in Sweden, the common reference frame of CLIL in this context is unobtainable.

5.2 Method Discussion

When examining the success rate of the chosen method, the web-based questionnaire, some aspects of the method warrant discussion. The estimated sample size, calculated to achieve a high confidence level and a low margin of error, was set to 382 participants. The survey achieved a sample size of 114 respondents, which calculated in reverse attains a confidence level of 95% but a margin of error at 9.2%, which, in regard to the scope of this study, is an acceptable sample size. A majority of the answers were given over the first four days of half term, which coincided with the distribution of the

questionnaire. The increase in responses over that period could be explained by the fact that teachers generally work the first few days of half-term without actively teaching. To increase the answer rate additional online-forums could have been used as a mode of distribution, as the overall success rate of using online-forums as a channel of

distribution was high, the target population was reached and the number of errors, technical or otherwise, were very low. The amount of time the questionnaire was

available online has affected the response rate in a positive way. Due to the scope of this study and its limited time frame, collecting responses for 32 days can create time

(40)

37 Examining the construction of the questionnaire and the questions, some

ambiguity in the questions is evident. Although only one respondent remarked on one question being unclear, parts of the data collected through the survey is somewhat contradictory, which could be attributed to a weakness in the online-survey as a method, the fact that the respondent are denied support in form of explanations regarding

problematic questions from the researcher. To help negate this fact, and to bring additional understanding, complexity and variety to the responses, semi-structured interviews would have increased the validity and reliability of the study. Furthermore, if additional work were carried out on this study, the addition of interviews and

observations would be of great value to the continued exploration of the field. When analysing the nature of the questions it is evident that, although all

questions entailed pre-set categories and options, the amount of “soft” data is high and although the survey is a quantitative method, the responses collected leave room for interpretations in a way that “hard”, numerical data usually does not. This fact may have affected the validity and reliability of the study, as an example of quantitative research. However, exploring qualitative aspects, namely: how CLIL is used, experiences

regarding time allocation and respondents’ views produce data common in qualitative research, instead of numerical data which is typical for quantitative methods like surveys. These aspects, which explored personal views and experiences, were essential when attempting to answer this study’s aim and research questions, and proved to collect invaluable data.

Eight questions in the questionnaire were mandatory, to ensure that as much conclusive data as possible could be collected. However, the questions of a more

probing nature included in the latter part of the questionnaire were not, to ensure that no dishonest, fictional or forced answers were submitted. Combining both mandatory and optional questions in the questionnaire suggests that the responses provided by the respondents, particularly regarding the optional questions, were accurate and correct.

The information letter proved successful in recruiting participants from the target population and only 3.3% of the initial participants did not meet the criterions stipulated and were thus removed from the study. Furthermore, no participants have expressed any dissatisfaction regarding any aspects of the study, and no complaints have been made.

If this specific study were to be replicated, certain alterations could be

(41)

38 been removed. Questions 2 and 4 collected demographic data on the participating

teachers, consisting of interesting and descriptive data, albeit, not crucial to the study, hence, these questions could have been disregarded in order to slim the questionnaire. Question 13, which is also presented in Appendix I only, provided interesting responses on an engaging part of CLIL. Unfortunately, the scope of the study did not allow for yet another aspect to be analysed- however, if studies are to be conducted regarding CLIL in primary school, why teachers choose to use CLIL approaches, which was the core concept of question 13, would be an excellent place to start.

6. Conclusion

Information provided by teachers participating in this study suggests that aspects of CLIL are certainly evident in particular activities and, in a number of cases, in primary school years 1-3. However, to what degree CLIL is used, and to what degree

appropriate primary school pedagogy is used instead, is hard to pinpoint. Figure 11 highlights the fact that defining what is CLIL, and knowing when CLIL approaches are intentionally and thoughtfully being implemented in primary school education is difficult for researchers, and evidently teachers alike. Furthermore, certain aspects of CLIL may be very useful language learning approaches, well suited to the primary school context in years 1-3 but, without a collective frame of reference, it may not develop or reach its potential. Furthermore, without research into CLIL and what CLIL is perceived to be by the collective “us”, it is difficult to decide how much CLIL is used in primary school years 1-3. The answer to the question if teachers use CLIL

approaches to compensate for time constraints in Swedish primary school years 1-3 is complex: 30.9% of the respondents’ state that they do indeed, but a vast majority, 60.9% state that they do not.

(42)

39 time allocation in EFL, and that the time allocated for English is insufficient. Do

teachers then use CLIL approaches to compensate for time constraints in EFL in

primary school years 1-3 in Sweden? Due to the limited scope of this study, no decisive conclusions can be drawn. However, findings do suggest that if CLIL approaches are - or will be - implemented in primary school years 1-3, defining CLIL in this context will be valuable.

References

Related documents

Stöden omfattar statliga lån och kreditgarantier; anstånd med skatter och avgifter; tillfälligt sänkta arbetsgivaravgifter under pandemins första fas; ökat statligt ansvar

46 Konkreta exempel skulle kunna vara främjandeinsatser för affärsänglar/affärsängelnätverk, skapa arenor där aktörer från utbuds- och efterfrågesidan kan mötas eller

Generally, a transition from primary raw materials to recycled materials, along with a change to renewable energy, are the most important actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

För att uppskatta den totala effekten av reformerna måste dock hänsyn tas till såväl samt- liga priseffekter som sammansättningseffekter, till följd av ökad försäljningsandel

Generella styrmedel kan ha varit mindre verksamma än man har trott De generella styrmedlen, till skillnad från de specifika styrmedlen, har kommit att användas i större

Närmare 90 procent av de statliga medlen (intäkter och utgifter) för näringslivets klimatomställning går till generella styrmedel, det vill säga styrmedel som påverkar

Industrial Emissions Directive, supplemented by horizontal legislation (e.g., Framework Directives on Waste and Water, Emissions Trading System, etc) and guidance on operating

We leave the calibrated deep parameters unchanged and ask how well our model accounts for the allocation of time in France if we feed in the French initial and terminal capital