1  
Teaching  Science  in  Multilingual/multinational  Contexts  
 

Nijole  Ciuciulkiene  

Kaunas  University  of  Technology  

International  Studies  Centre  

 
2  
Contact  details:  

Project  Coordinator:  Professor  Peter  van  Marion  

Peter.van.Marion@plu.ntnu.no  

Deputy  coordinator:  Professor  Doris  Jorde  

doris.jorde@ils.uio.no  

Project  Manager:  Dr  Peter  Gray  

graypb@gmail.com  

Project  Administrator:  Hilde  Roysland  

hilde.roysland@svt.ntnu.no  

S-­‐TEAM  website:  www.ntnu.no/s-­‐team  

Postal  address:    

S-­‐TEAM  

Program  for  Teacher  Education  

NTNU  

Dragvoll  Gård  

N-­‐7491  Trondheim  
Norway  

Published  by  NTNU  (Norges  teknisk-­‐naturvitenskapelige  universitet),  Trondheim,Norway    

  S-­‐TEAM  2010    

The  S‐Team  project  has  received  funding  from  the  European  Community's  Seventh  Framework  
Programme  [FP7/2007‐2013]  under  grant  agreement  n°234870    

Published  under  an  open-­‐access  agreement  with  the  European  Commission    

Citation:  

S-­‐TEAM  (Science-­‐Teacher  Education  Advanced  Methods)  (2010)  Teaching  Science  in  

Multilingual/Multinational  Contexts,Trondheim,  S-­‐TEAM/NTNU,  available  at:  http://www.ntnu.no

 
3  
From  the  S-­‐TEAM  Technical  Annex:  
WP5e  (KTU)  will  produce  a  report  and  teaching  package  regarding  the  problems  of  implementing  inquiry-­‐based  
methods  using  additional  languages.  This  is  a  [common]  situation,  which  arises  in  several  EU  countries  where  
minority  languages  are  an  issue  or  where  English  is  extensively  used  as  a  medium  of  instruction  (product  5.6).    
 

Preface  

This  document  provides  a  theoretical  and  empirical  basis  for  a  teacher  professional  development  
programme  for  Inquiry-­‐based  science  teaching  (IBST)  in  multi-­‐lingual  contexts,  which  will  form  part  of  
deliverable  5b  in  Month  24  (April  2011).  Its  importance  in  the  context  of  S-­‐TEAM  lies  in  its  exposition  of  
the  links  between  language,  argumentation  and  problem-­‐based  learning,  all  of  which  play  a  part  in  
effective  IBST.  It  also  points  to  the  possibilities  of  inter-­‐disciplinary  collaboration  in  schools,  where  
science  and  languages  have  traditionally  been  seen  as  separate  disciplines.  It  connects  S-­‐TEAM  to  a  large  
community  of  teachers  and  researchers  working  in  Content  &  Language  Integrated  Learning  (CLIL).  Finally,  
it  provides  a  much-­‐needed  link  between  school-­‐based  research  in  IBST  and  developments  in  higher  
education,  which  is  crucial  in  creating  coherent  career  paths  for  science  and  other  STEM  students.  

October  2010  

 
4  
Table  of  Contents  

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................6  

English  as  academic  lingua  franca  of  the  21st  century. .........................................................................8  

Analysis  of  Lithuanian  gymnasium  and  secondary  school  pupils‘  and  first  year  engineering  students’  
attitudes  towards  English  as  a  lingua  franca  during  their  studies..........................................................9  

Theoretical  background  of  CLIL ............................................................................................................15  

The  Educational  potential  of  combining  Problem  Based  Learning  (PBL)  with  Content  and  Language  
Integrated  Learning  (CLIL) ....................................................................................................................18  

Theoretical  premises  for  the  development  of  the  “Content  and  Language  Integrated  Problem  Based  
Learning  (CLIPBL)”  model:  providing  knowledge  in  science  and  proficient  spoken  communication  in  
English  in  multilingual  contexts............................................................................................................19  

Pilot  research  into  the  CLIPBL  model .......................................................................................................23  

Research  description,  research  data  analysis  and  interpretation ........................................................23  

References  and  links ................................................................................................................................31  

 
5  
Introduction  

Contemporary  Europe  faces  many  challenges,  but  primarily  it  has  to  provide  for  dynamic  development  of  
a  pluralistic  society  that  aims  towards  a  more  competitive  and  dynamic  knowledge-­‐based  economy  with  
more  and  better  jobs  and  social  cohesion.  The  World  Bank,  when  assessing  the  leading  characteristics  of  
European  countries,  identifies  four  pillars  related  to  the  knowledge  economy  -­‐  economic  incentive  and  
institutional  regime,  education  and  human  resources,  the  innovation  system  and  information  and  
communication  technology  (ICT)1.  Thus  education  systems  development  is  one  of  the  fundamental  pillars  
of  modernity.  Integrated  projects  are  an  instrument  to  support  research,  study  and  training  where  the  
prime  objective  is  to  deliver  new  knowledge,  relevant  for  European  competitiveness  or  societal  needs.  
The  Bologna  Declaration  makes  European  research  and  technological  development  policy,  and  education  
policy,  the  keys  to  increasing  the  international  competitiveness  and  openness  of  the  European  system  of  
education.  National  research  policies  and  education  systems  promote  the  European  dimension  in  
education  with  regards  to  institutional  co-­‐operation,  mobility  schemes  and  integrated  programmes  of  
study,  training  and  research.  

Lithuania,  as  a  member  of  the  European  Union,  has  opened  the  door  for  pupils  and  students  from  all  over  
the  world.  More  and  more  secondary  schools  and  universities,  facing  the  main  issues  of  the  21st  century  
such  as  ‘globalization’,  ‘quality  assurance’,  ‘competence  based  studies’,  ‘new  learning/teaching  models,’  
have  to  satisfy  the  educational  needs  of  pupils  and  students  from  different  cultures.  In  order  to  provide  
effective  instruction  during  lessons  and  lectures,  one  of  the  central  educational  challenges  is  
communication  in  ‘a  lingua  franca’.    

According  to  dictionaries,  a  ‘lingua  franca’  means  a  language  that  is  widely  used  by  speakers  of  different  
languages  to  communicate  with  one  another.  The  etymology  of  the  phrase  is  not  complicated  and  
preserves  the  primary  message  that  the  original  lingua  franca  was  Italian  mixed  with  Spanish,  French,  
Greek,  Arabic,  and  Turkish,  spoken  on  the  eastern  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  Sea  in  the  Middle  Ages.  
The  name  refers  to  the  Arabic  custom  of  calling  all  Western  Europeans  "Franks".    

There  are  several  factors  that  can  make  any  language  into  a  “lingua  franca”.  The  most  important  are  
political  power,  cultural  and  religious  influences  and  finally  the  usability  of  the  language  (its  structure,  
phonology,  ect.).  Historical  perspective  suggests  several  examples  demonstrating  the  growth  and  the  
decline  of  the  most  influential  examples  of  a  ‘lingua  franca’.  One  of  them  is  Latin.  

                                                                                                                         

1
 World  Bank  Institute,  http://www.worldbank.org  
 

 
6  
                                Latin  became  an  international  language  throughout  the  Roman  Empire  not  because  the  Romans  
were  more  numerous  than  the  peoples  they  subjugated.  They  were  simply  more  powerful.  When  Roman  
military  power  declined,  Latin  remained  for  a  millennium  as  the  international  language  of  education,  
thanks  to  a  different  sort  of  power  -­‐  the  ecclesiastical  power  of  Roman  Catholicism.  As  the  Catholic  
religion  is  one  of  the  most  influential  social  factors  in  Lithuania,  the  Latin  language  was  a  compulsory  
subject  in  Lithuanian  schools.  It  is  also  possible  to  trace  the  influence  of  French,  Polish,  German  and  
Russian  languages.  There  is  a  substantial  list  of  institutions  that  try  to  challenge  the  historical  dominance  
of  foreign  languages  in  Lithuania  and  in  present-­‐day  curriculum  subjects,  science  amongst  them,  these  
languages  include  English,  German,  French  and  Russian.  The  present  day  global  reality  is  clearly,  however,  
that  English  has  become  a  common  denominator  among  nations,  and  Lithuania  is  no  exception.  
Accordingly,  the  results  of  school  leaving  exams  show  that  the  most  popular  foreign  languages  that  may  
be  qualified  as  ‘lingua  franca’  in  Lithuania  are  English  and  Russian.  The  same  tendencies  become  visible  
when  choosing  studies  at  university,  with  English  being  the  dominant  language  of  instruction.  

  Such  educational  contexts  highlight  the  complexity  of  present  day  secondary  school  and  
higher  education  relationships.  One  thing  is  clear:  secondary  school  has  to  provide  not  only  the  basis  for  
core  competences,  but  it  should  also  enable  students  to  transfer  and  combine  their  competencies  
according  to  the  realities  of  life.    

  The  leading  characteristic  of  contemporary  life  is  international  competitiveness,  which  is  a  
real  challenge  for  the  young  people  of  minor  nations.  International  competitiveness  implies  a  level  of  
professional  knowledge  that  is  manifested  in  core  competencies,  communicative  competence  being  the  
leading  one.  The  attainment  of  this  level  of  professional  knowledge  requires  complex  teaching  and  
learning  methods  that  provide  concurrent  development  of  core  competences  whilst  highlighting  the  
progress  of  science  and  communicative  competencies.    

We  argue  that  it  is  possible  to  present  a  model  of  Integrated  Language  and  Content  Problem-­‐based  
Learning  that  helps  to  teach  science  while  developing  communicative  competence  in  a  foreign  language.    

The  model  has  the  following  theoretical  aspects:  

• Definition  of  English  as  a  lingua  franca;  

• Reasoning  on  Content  and  Language  Integrated  Learning  (CLIL);  
• Educational  possibility  of  combining  Problem  Based  Learning  (PBL)  with  Content  and  Language  
Integrated  Learning  (CLIL).  

 
7  
English  as  academic  lingua  franca  of  the  21st  century.  

As  stated  above,  ‘a  lingua  franca’  means  a  language  that  is  widely  used  by  speakers  of  different  languages  
to  communicate  with  one  another.  This  traditional  concept  underlines  the  communicative  importance  of  
a  ‘lingua  franca’.  At  the  same  time  it  arouses  popular  concern,  implying  that  if  a  foreign  language  is  used  
more  often  than  the  local  language,  the  local  language  might  be  threatened.  Here  we  should  draw  a  
distinction  between  a  language  for  identification  and  language  for  communication.  A  language  for  
identification  usually  supports  cultural  and  national  identity,  which  is  so  important  for  people  from  minor  
nations.  The  global  context,  however,  urges  us  to  collaborate  in  numerous  social  spheres,  including  the  
academic  world  of  education.  For  this  reason,  it  is  vital  that  any  language  which  enables  the  sharing  of  
knowledge  is  understandable  to  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  educational  world  and  is  an  effective  
means  of  communication.    

As  Lithuania  has  made  a  decision  to  participate  in  the  Bologna  process,  its  educational  system  has  had  to  
face  the  same  challenges  as  the  rest  of  the  European  Union.  Active  participation  in  the  Bologna  process  
has  led  to  increased  academic  mobility  and  a  number  of  exchange  programmes  for  pupils,  students  and  
teachers.  With  visiting  teachers  and  scholars,  exchange  pupils  and  students,  Lithuanian  secondary  schools,  
gymnasiums  and  universities  are  gradually  becoming  more  diverse  linguistically.  There  are  definite  
advantages  of  using  English  for  instruction  in  secondary  schools  and  higher  education:  mobility,  
employability  and  competitiveness/attractiveness,  which  are  among  the  objectives  of  the  Bologna  
Declaration.  English,  however,  being  both  the  language  of  publication  and  the  language  of  instruction,  
has  gained  a  much  more  powerful  position.  Björkman  (2008)  identifies  two  central  concerns  in  this  
situation:  one  concern,  still  popular  amongst  members  of  higher  education  administrations,    is  that  if  
students  study  in  English  rather  than  in  their  native  language,  they  may  not  be  able  to  learn  as  effectively  
as  they  would  in  their  native  language.  This  short  study  does  not  aim  to  present  arguments  defending  the  
communicative  possibilities  of  the  English  language,  because  the  second  concern,  regarding  the  priority  
of  one  language  over  others,  is  far  more  important.  This  priority  depends  on  different  factors  associated  
with  particular  languages.  The  intention  of  this  study  is  to  provide  research  evidence  about  the  main  
indicators  of  pupil  and  student  attitudes  towards  their  languages.  Pupil  and  student  opinions  about  their  
languages  of  instruction  may  also  provide  teachers  with  new  insights  as  to  how  specific  languages  
influence  their  ambition  to  learn.

 
8  
Analysis  of  Lithuanian  gymnasium  and  secondary  school  pupils‘  and  first  year  engineering  
students’  attitudes  towards  English  as  a  lingua  franca  during  their  studies  

The  study  begins  by  analysing  first  year  engineering  student  attitudes  towards  English  as  a  lingua  franca  
during  their  studies.  The  second  part  deals  with  the  analysis  of  Lithuanian  gymnasium  and  secondary  
school  pupil  attitudes  towards  the  possibility  of  studying  in  English.  

 As  Björkman  (2008)  states,  English  is  the  most  prevalent  language  of  instruction  in  European  schools  and  
universities.  It  is  also  worth  mentioning  the  popularity  of  English  as  lingua  franca  among  European  
engineering  programmes.  As  Wächter  and  Maiworn  point  out,  the  subject  area  in  which  English-­‐taught  
programmes  are  most  frequently  offered  across  Europe  is  engineering  at  27  %  (Wächter  and  Maiworn,  
2008,  p.  12).  Lithuania  is  no  exception.  For  this  reason,  groups  with  English  as  an  instructional  language  
were  chosen  for  this  research  into  first  year  engineering  student  attitudes  towards  English  as  a  lingua  
franca.  

The  research  data  are  interpreted  using  phenomenography.  Our  motivation  for  choosing  the  
phenomenographic  approach  is  its  ability  to  reveal  categories  of  experience.  In  this  particular  case,  it  can  
highlight  the  categories  of  experience  connected  with  studies  where  the  language  for  instruction  is  
English.  As  Baranauskiene  (2009)  explains,  phenomenography  does  not  seek  to  identify  individual  
experience  and  its  delivery  as  correct  or  incorrect.  It  seeks  to  reveal  the  content  of  experience.  For  this  
reason,  a  phenomenographical  research  method  is  suitable  for  the  investigation  and  interpretation  of  
different  student  experiences.  

The  research  was  performed  following  the  research  design  presented  in  Baranauskiene  (2009).  Ten  first  
year  engineering  students  from  Lithuanian  universities  were  chosen  as  the  research  informants.  The  
informants  were  asked  to  comment  upon  their  experience  of  having  been  taught  the  whole  programme  
of  studies,  including  science  subjects,  in  English.  To  be  more  precise,  they  were  asked  to  comment  on  
their  study  experience  while  trying  to  reflect  on  the  question  “What  do  you  think  are  the  main  reasons  
for  studying  in  English?”  Their  comments  were  not  restricted  in  time  or  length  because  the  interviews  
were  organized  as  round  table  discussions.  The  reflections  were  tape-­‐recorded  and  later  transcribed  for  
the  purposes  of  analysis.  Subsequently,  the  empirical  investigation  was  based  on  the  semantic  analysis  of  
the  self-­‐reflections  and  on  the  phenomenographic  analysis,  which  is  dialectical  in  the  sense  that  
meanings  and  categories  are  developed  in  the  process  of  bringing  quotes  together,  comparing  them  and  
arranging  them  into  categories.  The  categories  were  not  defined  beforehand;  they  became  clear  only  in  
the  process  of  semantic  analysis  of  the  transcribed  text  in  English,  where  semantically  related  words  mark  
the  essence  of  the  quotation  and  allow  them  to  be  grouped  in  categories.    

 
9  
The  quotes  of  the  ten  Lithuanian  university  informants  from  different  universities  may  be  grouped  into  
two  major  categories,  which  can  be  defined  as  “Success  of  the  English  language”  and  “Motivation  to  study  
in  English”.  Table  1  (overleaf)  presents  the  manifest  content  analysis  of  the  qualitative  category  “Success  
of  the  English  language”;  Table  2  (below)  presents  the  manifest  content  analysis  of  the  qualitative  
category  “Motivation  to  study  in  English.”  Total  number  of  quotes  presented  is  271.  

Table  1:  Manifestation  of  the  qualitative  category  “Success  of  the  English  language”  

Name  of  the  category   Name  of  the  subcategory   Evidence   No.  of  
quotes  

“Success  of  the  English   1.“Comparatively  easy   “English  language  is   13  

language”   acquisition  of  the  English   comparatively  easy.  Think  
language“   about  Lithuanian”  

  2.Daily  usage  of  English   “One  can  meet  English  in  one’s   16  
daily  life”,  
“You  can  hear  people  talking  
English  in  the  streets”  

  3.English  as  the  means  of   “More  and  more  e-­‐mails  are   20  
Active  Communication   written  in  English”  
“We  use  more  English  on  the  
phone”.  
“We  can  communicate  with  
our  friends  of  studies  from  
different  countries  in  English  
without  problems.  Otherwise  
we  would  not  understand  each  
other.  It  would  take  ages  for  
them  to  learn  Lithuanian“  

  4.  Popularity  of  English  as   “All  literature  that  is  necessary   35  

language  for  publication   for  my  studies  is  in  English”  
among  students    
“The  newest  literature  is  in  
  English”  

  5.Popularity  of  English  as   “Teachers  who  teach  in  English   43  

language  for  instruction   usually  are  very  good  in  their  
among  students     subject  and  in  language“  
“Foreign  professors  usually  
speak  English”  

    Total   127  

 
10  
The  most  numerous  subcategories  reveal  the  basic  motivation  for  Lithuanian  students  of  engineering  
programmes  to  face  the  challenge  of  studying  in  English.  Though  such  core  subjects  like  mathematics,  
physics  and  IT  are  quite  difficult  in  their  own  right,  students  appreciate  the  possibility  of  active  
communication,  the  ability  to  use  fresh  scientific  findings  and  to  consult  visiting  professors.  

Table  2:  Manifestation  of  the  qualitative  category  “Motivation  to  study  in  English”  

Name  of  the  category   Name  of  the   Evidence   No.  of  
subcategory   quotes  

Motivation  to  study  in  English   1.  Perspective  for   “I  decided  to  study  in  English,   23  
future  career   because  all  employers  want  
specialists  who  can  speak  English“  
“I  cannot  imagine  my  career  without  
knowing  English”  

  2.  Better  possibility  for   “I  plan  to  participate  in  [the]  Erasmus   26  

mobility  during  studies   programme.  So  it  is  simply  vital  to  
know  English”  
“It  is  easier  to  find  a  European  
programme  in  English”    

  3.  Competence   “Thank  God  I  could  speak  English.  I   41  

development   was  chosen  for  foreign  practice.  Now  
I  have  a  Euro  Pass;“  
“You  have  to  know  English  as  a  
premise  for  being  a  competent  
specialist”  
 

  4.  Better  quality  of  life   “I  cannot  imagine  my  life  without   54  

knowing  English”  
“My  hobby  is  traveling.  What  would  I  
do  without  English?”  

    Total   144  

The  same  question  “What  do  you  think  are  the  main  reasons  for  studying  in  English?”  was  presented  to  
10  pupils  from  Lithuanian  gymnasiums  and  secondary  schools  who  had  the  possibility  to  study  science  
and  some  other  subjects  in  English.  The  research  was  carried  out  following  the  same  procedure.  The  
quotes  of  pupils  from  Lithuanian  gymnasiums  and  secondary  schools  do  not  manifest  clear  categories  
that  demonstrate  the  popularity  of  English.  Still,  the  aspect  of  motivation  to  study  English  is  clearly  

 
11  
expressed  and  evident.  This  category  is  called  “Motivation  to  study  in  English  2”.  The  manifestation  of  the  
qualitative  category  “Motivation  to  study  in  English  2”  is  presented  in  Table  3  (below).  

Table  3.The  manifestation  of  the  qualitative  category  “Motivation  to  study  in  English  2”  

Name  of  the  category   Name  of  the   Evidence   No.  of  
subcategory   quotes  

Motivation   to   study   in   English   1.English  as  a  compulsory   “  If  you  do  not  study  English,  you   17  
2   subject   will  not  be  able  to  get  a  
certificate”  
“English   is   compulsory,   so   why  
not  use  it  for  physics...?”  

  2.Geographical  situation   “  My  parents  think  that  it  is   19  

of    Lithuania   useful  to  know  the  leading  
language  of  Europe”  
“You  may  not  speak,  but  you  
should  know  the  language  of  the  
neighbours…”    

  3  Cultural  and  historical   “We  have  relatives  and  friends  in   23  

traditions   England.  They  can  speak  both  
languages:  Lithuanian  and  
English.  We  are  not  worse.”  

  4.  Perspective  for  future   “Europe  is  big.  Most  people   27  

carrier   speak  English.  If  You  want  to  
study  abroad  or  to  get  a  better  
job,  you  should  speak  English.”  

  5.Competence   “If  You  know  English,  you  are  a   35  

development   user  of  a  global  language.”  

    Total   150  

While  summing  up  the  pilot  study,  it  is  worth  mentioning  that  both  groups  of  informants  highlight  the  
most  important  tendency:  English  is  evaluated  as  the  most  effective  lingua  franca  by  pupils  and  students  
of  a  multicultural  society,  even  where  other  languages  (for  example,  Russian  in  Lithuania)  are  also  treated  
as  popular  lingua  franca.  It  is  evident  that,  because  of  competence  development  aspects,  Lithuanian  
pupils  and  students  evaluated  English  as  a  successful  foreign  language,  which  provides  a  basis  for  
successful  future  studies.  This  premise  allows  us  to  implement  content  and  language  integrated  learning  
(CLIL)  in  science  studies.  

 
12  
Reasoning  on  Content  and  Language  Integrated  Learning  (CLIL)  

The  theoretical  basis  of  the  CLIL  investigation  in  combination  with  PBL  relies  on  the  research  performed  
by  dr.  Vilmante  Liubiniene,  the  associate  professor  of  the  Faculty  of  Humanitarian  sciences,  Kaunas  
University  of  Technology  (see  e.g.  Lenkauskiene  &  Liubiniene,  2004)  

Content  and  Language  Integrated  Learning  (CLIL)  has  become  an  umbrella  term,  describing  both  learning  
another  (content)  subject  such  as  physics  or  geography  through  the  medium  of  a  foreign  language,  and  
learning  a  foreign  language  by  studying  a  content-­‐based  subject.  The  term  CLIL  was  launched  in  1994  by  
some  of  the  Consortium  experts  as  an  educational  solution  for  meeting  certain  challenges  associated  
with  language  learning  in  Europe.  Since  then  it  has  spread  exponentially  across  the  continent.  Since  2000,  
there  has  also  been  uptake  of  CLIL  methodologies  in  Asia,  Africa  and  South  America  to  either  boost  levels  
of  language  learning,  or  solve  problems  associated  with  the  use  of  ‘foreign’  languages  as  the  medium  of  
instruction.  Globally,  educational  systems  always  strive  to  achieve  culturally  and  context-­‐specific  results.  
Global  uptake  of  CLIL  has,  therefore,  resulted  in  a  range  of  different  models  being  designed  and  
implemented.      

Gisella  Lange  points  to  1997  as  the  starting  point  of  CLIL  in  Europe,  the  essence  of  which  was  the  shift  
from  “teaching  a  foreign  language  to  a  foreign  language  as  a  medium  of  instruction”.  The  reasons  behind  
this  shift  were  to  offer  a  new  methodological  approach;  to  improve  quality  in  language  teaching;  to  
increase  exposure  to  language  learning;  to  guarantee  a  European  perspective.    

CLIL  is  a  truly  European  phenomenon,  spanning  the  continent  geographically  from  the  North  (Sweden)  to  
the  South  (Spain).  What  is  true  of  most  educational  issues  also  applies  to  CLIL,  in  that  it  comes  in  a  wide  
range  of  shapes  and  sizes.  There  are  differences  as  regards  the  population  segments,  ranging  from  elite  
to  mainstream,  as  well  as  age  groups,  starting  at  around  year  4  and  expanding  increasingly  towards  
tertiary  level.  The  learner  groups  themselves  vary  from  relatively  monolingual/monocultural  in  the  
dominant  national  language  to  highly  multilingual/multicultural.  Additionally,  the  programmes  come  in  
diverse  specifications  regarding  the  types  of  teachers  involved,  the  relevance  of  content  vs.  language  
learning,  learner  assessment  and,  very  importantly,  the  type  and  amount  of  target  language  usage.  
Finally,  while  English  is  the  by  far  most  popular  target  language,  CLIL  is  also  undertaken  in  other  
languages.      

In  recent  years  and  all  across  Europe,  English  has  become  rapidly  implemented  as  the  medium  of  
instruction  at  secondary  and  tertiary  level.  In  Spain,  the  impact  of  the  CLIL  approach  has  been  enormous,  
especially  in  primary  and  secondary  education.  In  tertiary  education  there  still  seems  to  be  scant  

 
13  
institutional  provision  for  CLIL  and  few  studies  on  the  use  of  English  as  the  language  of  instruction  in  the  
Spanish  university  context  have  been  carried  out2.    

In  Lithuania,  CLIL  was  introduced  in  2002  by  the  Ministry  of  Education  and  Science.  The  subjects  taught  in  
foreign  languages  -­‐  English,  French  and  German  -­‐  include  information  technology,  history,  ethics  and  
geography.  These  are  the  most  frequently  mentioned  subjects.  Other  subjects  include  art,  business  and  
cultural  studies,  music,  biology,  physics,  economics,  healthy  lifestyle  [health  promotion]  and  mathematics.  
The  most  widely  used  model  of  teaching  CLIL  courses  involves  subject  and  language  teachers  working  in  
teams.  CLIL  is  viewed  in  a  positive  light.  The  teachers  perceive  integrated  teaching  as  a  possibility  for  
professional  growth.  Teachers  are  also  motivated  by  the  possibility  of  learning  new  methods  and  
approaches.  By  far  the  largest  advantage,  as  perceived  by  teachers,  is  the  expansion  of  knowledge,  both  
language  and  subject.  It  is  interesting  to  point  out  that  integrated  teaching  is  primarily  seen  as  a  means  of  
developing  language  skills.  ‘Studies  abroad’  are  mentioned  as  the  second  biggest  advantage.  Among  
other  advantages  mentioned  by  the  teachers  we  can  see:  development  of  IT  skills;  co-­‐operation  
possibilities;  career  opportunities;  higher  motivation;  increased  competitiveness.  Some  teachers  also  
mentioned  the  use  of  authentic  materials  and  authentic  tasks  as  one  of  the  biggest  advantages  of  the  
approach.    

Learning  a  discipline  always  implies  learning  the  language  of  that  discipline,  and  this  is  even  more  
necessary  when  learning  in  a  foreign  language.  This  focus  on  the  specific  linguistic  features  of  the  
discipline  is  precisely  what  is  involved  in  CLIL,  since  here,  both  ‘learning  content’  and  ‘learning  a  foreign  
language’  are  seen  as  goals.  Students  should  employ  the  acquired  skills  of  foreign  languages  in  
combination  with  the  vast  range  of  materials  (content)  in  order  to  reach  the  goals  posed  in  the  
curriculum.  Thus,  foreign  language  and  content  skills  become  integrated.  CLIL  is  a  methodology  which  
could  be  very  useful  for  achieving  educational  goals  in  the  fields  of  both  foreign  languages  and  the  
subjects  of  study.      

Synthesising  is  one  of  many  important  and  complex  skills  required  in  acquiring  the  skills  of  academic  
writing.  Synthesising  involves  combining  ideas  from  a  range  of  sources  in  order  to  group  and  present  
common  ideas  or  arguments.  It  is  a  necessary  skill  used  in  literature  reviews,  research  papers  and  other  
forms  of  academic  writing.  Synthesising  allows  the  combination  of  information  and  ideas  from  multiple  
sources,  the  development  and  strengthening  of  argument(s),  the  demonstration  of  knowledge  about  the  
topic,  and  the  use  and  citation  of  multiple  sources.  In  order  to  synthesize,  one  should  develop  the  whole  
set  of  academic  thinking  skills:  analyzing;  comparing;  categorizing  and  classifying;  identifying  cause  and  

                                                                                                                         
2
 See  e.g.  http://www.ccn-­‐clil.eu/  

 
14  
 effect;  problem  solving;  persuading;  empathizing;  interpreting;  evaluating;  communicating;  applying.  CLIL  
methodology  is  also  a  very  useful  tool  in  acquiring  language  and  content  skills  which  are  necessary  to  
reach  the  final  goals  of  integrating  language  and  subject  skills,  bringing  the  topic  to  higher  levels  of  
discussion  and  attaining  a  deeper  understanding  of  the  problem  under  analysis.    

Theoretical  background  of  CLIL  

A  research  report,  (Marsh  et  al,  2001)  emphasizes  five  dimensions  or  reasons  for  introducing  CLIL  in  
schools  and  universities  in  order  to  strengthen  teaching  and  learning  at  these  institutions.  The  five  
dimensions  of  CLIL  are  based  on  issues  related  to  culture,  environment,  languages,  content  and  learning.  
Each  of  these  includes  a  number  of  focus  points  realized  differently  according  to  three  major  factors:  age-­‐
range  of  learners,  socio-­‐linguistic  environment  and  degree  of  exposure  to  CLIL.    

1. The  first,  the  Culture  Dimension  –  CULTIX,  emphasises  the  importance  of:  
a.  Building  intercultural  knowledge  and  understanding;    
b. Developing  intercultural  communication  skills;    
c. Learning  about  specific  neighbouring  countries/regions  and/or  minority  groups;    
d. Introducing  the  wider  cultural  context.  
2. The  focus  of  the  second,  the  Environment  Dimension  –  ENTIX,  is  to:    
a. Prepare  for  internationalisation,  specifically  EU-­‐integration;    
b. Access  International  Certification;    
c. Enhance  the  school  profile.  
3. The  third,  the  Language  Dimension  –  LANTIX,  seeks  to    
a. Improve  overall  target  language  competence;    
b. Develop  oral  communication  skills;    
c. Develop  multilingual  interests  and  attitudes;    
d. Introduce  a  target  language.  
4. The  fourth,  the  Content  Dimension  –  CONTIX,  aims  at  providing  opportunities  to  study  content  e.g.  
a.  Science  through  different  perspectives;    
b. Subject-­‐specific  target  language  terminology;    
c. Preparation  for  future  studies  and/or  working  life.  
5. And  the  fifth,  no  less  important,  the  Learning  Dimension  –  LEARNTIX,  has  the  goals  of:    
a. Complementing  individual  learning  strategies;    
b. Diversifying  methods  and  forms  of  classroom  practice;    
c. Increasing  learner  motivation.    

 
15  
A  CLIL  teacher  is,  firstly,  expected  to  select  and  tailor  input  material  in  order  to  make  it  challenging  but  
comprehensible  for  learners.  Secondly,  another  goal  for  teachers  is  to  facilitate  meaning-­‐focused  
processing.  A  teacher  can  be  expected  to  stimulate  content-­‐processing  of  oral  or  written  input  by  giving  
special  tasks  that  involve  learners  in  grappling  with  meaning  (trying  to  make  sense  of  whatever  they  hear  
or  read).  The  teacher  should  check  whether  the  meaning  of  the  input  has  been  comprehended  
sufficiently.  If  meaning  is  processed  insufficiently  or  erroneously,  the  teacher  might  give  some  kind  of  
support.  Supplementary  exercising  of  the  related  content  features  of  input  can  be  performed  in  this  
category  as  well.    

Thirdly,  the  teacher  should  facilitate  form-­‐focused  processing.  A  CLIL  teacher  can  employ  activities  aimed  
at  raising  awareness  of  language  form,  thus  making  learners  conscious  of  specific  language  features.  The  
teacher  might  indicate  and  direct  learners’  attention  to  correct  and  incorrect  uses  of  form,  and  give  
examples  of  such  uses,  thus  facilitating  implicit  or  explicit  recognition  of  language  form.  In  giving  
corrective  feedback  the  teacher  might  employ  implicit  techniques  (e.g.  clarification  requests,  recasts)  or  
explicit  techniques  (e.g.  explicit  correction,  metalinguistic  comment,  query,  advice)  for  focusing  on  form,  
as  well  as  nonverbal  reactions.    

Fourthly,  a  teacher  facilitates  opportunities  for  output  production.  In  promoting  output  production  in  the  
target  language,  a  CLIL  teacher  can  encourage  learners  to  react,  and  ask  questions  aimed  at  functional  
output  as  well  as  stimulating  interaction  between  learners  in  the  target  language.  Different  interactive  
formats  (e.g.  group,  pair  work)  might  be  implemented  to  facilitate  meaningful  communication  in  English.  
Corrective  feedback  by  teachers  or  peer-­‐students  might  stimulate  the  use  of  correct  form/meaning  
connections  by  learners.    

Finally,  the  teacher  facilitates  the  use  of  strategies.  A  CLIL  teacher  should  be  able  to  assist  learners  to  
overcome  their  language  and  content  comprehension  and  communication  problems,  by  developing  a  
repertoire  of  receptive  and  productive  compensatory  and  communication  strategies.  In  short,  the  CLIL  
teacher  should  concentrate  on  both  language  awareness  and  content,  including  materials  writing  or  
adaptation.    

Many  competences  and  resources  are  needed,  such  as  first  language  communication,  a  good  knowledge  
of  theory  and  methodology,  good  materials,  a  suitable  learning  environment  and  interdisciplinary  
approaches,  as  well  as  the  creation  of  a  good  assessment  system.  Looking  at  assessment  in  CLIL,  it  
becomes  evident  that  there  are  basically  two  issues  to  be  taken  into  account:  enhancing  the  students’  
language  proficiency  as  defined  by  the  Common  European  Framework  of  Reference  for  Languages  (CEFR),  
and  the  acquisition  of  good  subject  knowledge  by  the  students.    

 
16  
 These  five  assumptions  can  be  considered  as  the  basic  ingredients  for  effective  content  and  language  
learning  and  teaching  activities  and  a  premise  for  succesful  blending  with  problem  based  learning.  

 
17  
The  Educational  potential  of  combining  Problem  Based  Learning  (PBL)  with  Content  and  
Language  Integrated  Learning  (CLIL)  

The  current  research  data  in  Lithuania  show,  that  though  quite  a  number  of  pupils  and  students  
demonstrate  satisfactory  knowledge  of  science  and  maths  and  successful  spoken  communication  in  a  
foreign  language,  the  majority  of  them  experience  barriers  to  communication  and  decision-­‐making  for  
various  social,  psychological  and  linguistic  reasons  (Bankauskiene  et  al,  2002;  Augustiniene  &  Ciuciulkiene,  
2005).  One  of  them  is  the  deeply  rooted  and  indoctrinated  educational  tradition,  where  students,  
speaking  without  mistakes,  were  supposed  to  present  the  exact  answer.  Furthermore,  as  Lithuanian  
pupils  and  students  both  state,  they  still  feel  the  influence  of  the  soviet  educational  inheritance  where  
democracy  and  free  discussion  were  eliminated  for  ideological  reasons.  In  order  to  overcome  these  
difficulties,  educators  have  to  develop  integrated  learning  strategies  based  on  free  English  speaking  
activities.  With  the  help  of  these,  knowledge  of  science  and  maths  might  be  revealed  in  multilingual  
clasrooms.      

Dewey  (1931),  Dunne  (1994),  Cohen  (1986)  and  Sharan  (1994)  point  out  that  learning  is  made  especially  
attractive  when  students  face  a  problem  context  and  take  responsibility  for  solving  the  given  problem  
successfully.  PBL,  and  its  related  curriculum,  expands  these  possibilities  (e.g.  Barrows,  1985;  Boud  &  
Felletti,  1991).  Woods  (1985)  emphasizes  the  structural  aspect  of  PBL,  which  stimulates  pupils’  
argumentative  reasoning  and  decision-­‐making  activity.  Savin–Baden  (2000)  characterizes  PBL  models  as  
content  loaded,  emancipating,  reflective  and  revealed  through  purposeful,  flexible  communication.  It  is,  
therefore,  possible  to  state  that  PBL  is  distinguished  by  its  communicative  possibilities,  enabling  subject  
knowledge  formation  and  the  development  of  a  wide  range  of  personal  skills  (critical  thinking,  
communicative,  professional  and  employability  skills).  Such  context  suggests  the  theoretical  possibility  of  
combining  Problem  Based  Learning  (PBL)  with  Content  and  Language  Integrated  Learning  (CLIL).  

 
18  
Theoretical  premises  for  the  development  of  the  “Content  and  Language  Integrated  Problem  
Based  Learning  (CLIPBL)”  model:  providing  knowledge  in  science  and  proficient  spoken  
communication  in  English  in  multilingual  contexts.  

The  concept  of  ‘Emancipation’  has  been  analysed  by  numerous  theorists  (e.g.  Freire,  1973;  Hart,  1990;  
Durie,  1996;  Humphries,  1997;  Barrow,  1999;  Jarvis,  2001)  whose  main  interpretations  vary  from  Roman  
understanding  of  personal  legal  liberation  to  ‘Frankfurt  School’  definitions  of  the  emancipation  concept,  
supported  by  Jurgen  Habermas’  theory  of  communicative  action  (Habermas,  1989)  as  the  means  of  
personal  liberation,  which  should  be  a  moral,  argumentative  process  with  the  implied  priority  of  learning  
and  discussion.  Learning  and  discussion,  in  turn,  should  fulfil  the  principles  of  commitment  to  truth,  
openness  and  rationality.    This  makes  emancipation  a  difficult,  frustrating  process  that  can  be  managed  
only  with  the  help  of  formal  education  (Ciuciulkiene,  2004)  and  emancipatory  methods,  including  PBL  
(Barrows,  1985;  Woods,  1985;  Boud  &  Felletti,  1991;  Savin–Baden  2000).  These  methods  are  generally  
well  structured  and  help  pupils  and  students  with  more  effective  communication,  carrying  out  and  
analysing  interviews  and  surveys;  advice  on  learning  schemes,  etc.  With  the  help  of  spoken  
communication,  students  learn  to  develop  mental  processes  involved  in  the  transmission  of  knowledge  
and  reflection  on  practical  experience.  

Spoken  communication  is  one  of  the  most  widely  discussed  scientific  issues.  The  authors  of  this  study  lay  
a  special  stress  on  Christensen  and  Hensen’s  (1996)  study,  which  reveals  the  quality  of  spoken  
communication  by  pointing  out  that  it  has  three  levels.  The  third  level  defines  communication  as  a  
flexible,  responsible  activity  in  problematic,  true  to  life  situations.  This  definition  may  be  compared  with  
the  definition  provided  by  the  Common  European  Framework  of  Reference  for  Languages:  Self  
assessment  grid,  The  Proficient  User  level,3  which  implies  free  use  of  speech,  which  may  be  figuratively  
qualified  as  ‘emancipated’  spoken  communication.  As  the  European  dimension  stresses  the  importance  
of  spoken  communication  in  a  foreign  tongue,  educators  should  seek  more  effective  means  and  methods  
to  develop  the  proficient  use  of  foreign  languages  (in  this  case  English).  Following  Vygotsky’s  (1978)  
theory  of  interactive  problem  solving  in  collaboration  with  peers,  it  is  very  important  to  stress  the  
function  of  PBL,  which,  being  organized  and  presented  in  a  communicative  way,  could  involve  the  use  of  
English-­‐medium  learning  methods  and  environments,  where  students  can  cooperate  and  interact  in  pairs  
or  larger  groups  that  have  not  been  shaped  by  teacher-­‐centred,  non-­‐collaborative  classrooms.  PBL  also  
stresses  the  idea  that  learners  need  to  become  aware  of,  and  accept  responsibility  for,  not  only  their  own  
learning  processes,  but  also  those  of  their  peers,  making  their  subject  learning  in  English  authentic,  

                                                                                                                         
3
 See:  http://www.linguanet-­‐europa.org/pdfs/self-­‐assessment-­‐grid-­‐en.pdf  

 
19  
meaningful  and  collaborative.  Thus,  PBL  may  be  defined  as  a  process  which  is  student-­‐centred  and  
orientated  towards  the  learner’s  intellect  and  experience,  during  which  the  student,  considering  the  
information  presented,  and  with  the  help  of  spoken  communication,  defines  and  formulates  problems,  
and  looks  for  ways  to  enhance  his/her  harmonious  development  and  higher  quality  of  life.    

The  structural  scheme  of  PBL  (see  Woods,  1994;  Savin-­‐Baden,  2000)  and  the  five  dimensions  of  CLIL  serve  
as  the  main  methodological  premises  for  modelling  CLIPBL  (See  Fig,1).  

The  model  starts  with  the  orientation  towards  learning   revealed  during   interaction  between  the  educator,  
the  pupil/student  and  peers.  It  discloses  the  main  learning  objectives,  the  learning  context,  main  items  of  
science  based  content  and  definition  of  current  terms  and  concepts  in  the  chosen  foreign  language.  It  
also  strives  to  clarify  personal  identities,  qualities  and  character  traits  that  affect  pupils’  and  students’  
collaborative  learning  processes.  Such  activities  are  organized  while  relying  on  the  CLIL  dimensions,  
primarily  CULTIX  (see  p.15,  above),  with  the  emphasis  on  building  intercultural  knowledge  and  
understanding,  developing  intercultural  communication  skills,  learning  about  linguistic  groups  and  
introducing  the  wider  context.  

The  Problem  situation  continues  to  form  the  orientation  to  learning  and  clarifies  the  active  content;  it  
further  develops  the  learning  context,  and  illustrates  the  requirements  of  the  curriculum  and  cognitive  
language  learning  strategies.  Such  new  and  complex  activities  provide  students  with  the  significant  
experiences  characterized  by  the  ‘frustration  barrier’  (Savin-­‐Baden,  2000).  This  frustration  barrier  occurs  
for  several  reasons:  the  first  reason  is  the  new  learning  experience,  which  lays  more  responsibility  on  to  
the  students;  the  second  reason  is  their  lack  of  social  skills,  and  finally  the  most  important  reason  is  their  
lack  of  speaking  skills,  which  blocks  knowledge  sharing  and  information  acquisition.  

Small  group  discussions  clarify  the  perspective  of  learning  activity,  highlight  the  main  learning  methods  
and  enable  the  activation  of  the  cognitive,  communicative  learning  strategies.  The  small  number  of  group  
members  provides  the  possibility  for  every  group  member  to  speak,  to  think  critically  and  to  develop  
their  communicative  skills.  The  students  are  especially  motivated  to  speak  because  of  the  further  learning  
perspectives  provided  by  subject  contents.  The  larger  the  amount  of  the  subject  contents  discussed  and  
clarified  in  the  group,  the  more  effective  are  the  individual  studies.  

Returning  to  the  CLIL  dimensions,  these  PBL  stages  develop  the  Language  Dimension  –  LANTIX,  while  
seeking  to  improve  overall  target  language  competence,  developing  oral  communication  skills  and  
developing  multilingual  interests  and  attitudes.  Individual  studies  facilitate  the  formation  of  deep  
learning  contexts  while  studying  different  sources  of  information.  Individual  studies  also  help  to  form  
informal  learning  environments,  which  present  the  students  with  the  possibility  of  debating  significant  
issues  and  to  get  feedback  in  a  friendly,  informal,  atmosphere,  uncontrolled  by  authority.    

 
20  
  

Figure  1.  Content  and  Language  Integrated  Problem  Based  Learning  (CLIPBL)”  model  providing  
knowledge  in  science  and  proficient  spoken  communication  in  English  in  multilingual  contexts.  

The  final  decision-­‐making  process  in  fig.  1  (above)  empowers  the  experience  of  individual  study,  because  
the  students  repeat  their  learning  experience  with  its  new,  communicative  quality  while  formulating  their  
actual  career  or  project  decisions  characterized  by  decisiveness  and  certainty  throughout  the  process.  It  
also  stresses  the  importance  of  the  fourth  (Content)  Dimension  of  CLIL  (CONTIX)  which  aims  to  provide  
opportunities  to  study  content  (for  example,  science)  through  different  perspectives,  accessing  subject-­‐
specific  target  language  terminology  and  preparing  for  future  studies  and/or  working  life.  It  also  deals  
with  the  fifth,  and  no  less  important,  Learning  Dimension  –  LEARNTIX,  which  has  the  goal  of  
complementing  individual  learning  strategies,  diversifying  methods  and  forms  of  classroom  practice  and  
increasing  learner  motivation.    

 The  decision-­‐making  process  itself  is  ongoing,  often  nonlinear  and  may  comprise  one  or  more  of  the  
following  actions:  taking  stock;  developing  criteria;  making  on-­‐board  adjustments;  connecting  to  
 
21  
opportunities;  narrowing  options;  making  decisions.  The  CLIPBL  model,  which  provides  development  of  
science  knowledge  and  proficient  spoken  English  communication  in  multilingual  contexts,  has  three  basic  
characteristics:  curriculum  characteristics,  activity  characteristics  and  the  characteristics  of  final  results  
with  their  own  criteria  (Boud  &  Felletti,  1997;  Savin-­‐Baden,  2000)  which  serve  as  the  main  
methodological  basis  for  the  pilot  model  research.    

 
22  
Pilot  research  into  the  CLIPBL  model  

As  the  theoretical  basis  of  the  CLIPBL  model  is  the  structure  of  PBL,  the  main  pilot  research  is  designed  
according  to  established  research  practices  in  PBL.  For  this  reason,  the  CLIPBL  model  will  be  researched  
with  the  help  of  qualitative  research  methods,  including  case  studies.  The  research  is  based  on  the  
following  methodological  considerations:  

• Anderson’s  (1994),  Yin’s  (2002)  and  Stake  (1995)  ideas  on  the  priorities  of  case-­‐based  studies  in  the  
observation  of  PBL  in  its  natural  environment;  
• Walliman’s  (2005)  recommendations  concerning  coding  systems;  
• Svensson‘s  (1997)  theoretical  foundations  of  phenomenography.  

The  pilot  case-­‐based  study  was  performed  at  Kaunas  University  of  Technology,  International  Studies  
Centre,  Lithuania  (ISC).  This  institution  was  chosen  according  to  three  main  criteria:    

• The  majority  of  first  year  students  are  acquainted  with  CLIL;  
• The  first  year  curriculum  includes  main  science  modules  which  are  taught  in  a  foreign  language,  
mainly  English,  due  to  the  presence  of  International  students;  
• The  institution  applies  PBL  in  teaching  certain  modules.  

The  case-­‐based  study  consists  of  three  phases:  observation,  open  questions  to  students  and  the  content  
analysis  of  their  opinions.  Case-­‐based  study  phases  may  be  divided  into  ten  stages  (see  Figure  2,  above).  

Research  description,  research  data  analysis  and  interpretation  

During  the  observation  and  informal  interviews  the  majority  of  students  expressed  their  willingness  to  
share  their  experiences  gained  from  the  CLIPBL  process.  For  this  reason  they  were  asked  to  write  
anonymous  reflections  on  their  science  and  language  learning.    

To  begin  with,  the  written  reflections  were  coded  with  an  identifying  index  demonstrating  their  
connection  to  KTU.  Later  the  reflections  were  grouped  into  meaningful  blocks  and  again  coded  according  
to  curriculum  characteristics,  activity  characteristics  and  the  characteristics  of  final  results.  Finally,  
following  the  criteria  of  the  characteristics  (see  table  4)  the  data  were  categorized,  following  the  
guidelines  of  Marton’s  (1986)  and  Svenson’s  (1997)  phenomenographic  analysis.    

After  detailed  categorization  of  the  reflections,  there  appeared  to  be  five  qualitative  categories,  which  
express  students’  attitude  towards  their  integrated  English  and  science  learning  experience:    

1. Frustration;    

 
23  
 2. The  realization  of  learning  dimensions;    
3. Development  of  skills  and  abilities;    
4. Learning  how  to  learn:  the  mastering  of  learning  methods;    
5. The  results  received.    

According  the  guidelines  of  qualitative  content  analysis  the  categories  were  split  into  subcategories  (see  
table  4)  

The  curriculum  characteristics  comprise  specific  areas  of  the  curriculum  organized  into  real  life  problem  
situations  connected  with  the  particular  science  subject,  which  mainly  influence  the  introductory  and  the  
analytical  parts  of  the  PBL  process.  As  the  problem  situation  does  not  present  direct  answers  and  contain  
obscure  terminological  language,  it  is  usually  connected  with  primary  negative  emotions.  

Figure  2.  The  stages  of  the  case-­‐based  study  

Decision-­‐making   in   turn   is   also   connected   with   stress.   Negative   emotions   and   stress   form   the  
frustrative  barriers.  Thus,  the  main  criterion  of  curriculum  characteristics  is  the  primary  emotional  state  

 
24  
while  striving  to  break  the  frustration  barrier.  In  the  flow  of  the  CLIPBL  process  this  criterion  explicated  by  
the  category  of  frustration,  which  is  pointed  out  by  Savin-­‐Baden  (2000).    

Table  4.  Qualitative  manifestation  of  relationship  between  characteristics,  criteria,  categories  and  
subcategories  

No.   Characteristics   Criteria   Category   Subcategory  

1.     Curriculum   Emotional   1.  Frustration   1.1.  Difference  between  traditional  and  interpretative  pedagogy  
characteristics     state  
inspired  by   1.2.  Ambiguous  problem  situation,  terms  not  clear    

new  way  of  

1.3.  Lack  of  experience  
learning  

1.4.  Lack  of  self-­‐confidence  

1.5.   Complicated   relations   among   group   members,   often  

because  of  language  

1.6.  Lack  of  public  speaking  skills  

2.   Speaking   New   2.  The   2.1.  Learning  according  modules  

activity   requirements   realization  of  
characteristics   for  speaking   the  learning   2.2.  Learning  based  on  sharing  learning  experience  

English,   dimensions  
2.3.  Learning  directed  towards  gaining  new  competencies  
inspired  by  
the  necessity  
2.4.  Learning  based  on  active  communicative  action  
to  use  
specific   2.5.  Cooperative  and  collaborative  learning    
vocabulary    
while   3.   3.1.  Development  of  cooperative  skills  

manifesting   Development  
of  interactive   3.2.  Development  of  critical  thinking  skills    
decision-­‐
making  skills   skills  and  
3.3.  Development  of  communicative  skills  
abilities  
revealing  the  
3.4.  Taking  Stock  
decision-­‐
making   3.5.Emerging  Criteria  for  Decision-­‐Making  
process  
3.6.  Making  On-­‐Board  Adjustments  

 
25  
         3.7.  Getting  Connected  to  Opportunities  

4.  Learning   4.1.  Traditional  learning  methods  

how  to  learn:  
mastering  of   4.2.  Active  learning  methods  

learning  
methods  

3.   Characteristics   Emancipated   5.  Obtained   5.1.  Experience  of  the  transdisciplinarity  of  learning  
of  final  results     language   results  
usage   5.2.  Experience  of  the  group  work  

revealing  the  
5.3.  Experience  of  information  management  
decision-­‐
making  
5.4.  Experience  of  the  participation  in  the  discussion  

5.5.  Acquisition  of  public  speaking  skills  

5.6.  Narrowing  Options  and  Making  a  Decision  

The  speaking  activity  characteristic  deals  with  small  group  discussion,  individual  studies  and  problem  
solving  parts  of  the  CLIPBL  process.  As  it  is  characterized  by  new  learning  activity,  expressed  as  active  
speaking,  the  main  criterion  for  it  is  the  new  requirements  for  the  quality  of  spoken  English  inspired  by  
the  new  learning  experience  and  the  main  target  -­‐  decision-­‐making  in  science.  In  the  PBL  process  it  is  
expressed  by  qualitative  categories  such  as  naming  of  new  learning  features,  the  development  of  
speaking  and  thinking  skills  and  ensuring  mastery  of  active  learning  methods,  all  of  which  are  connected  
with  science  based  active  interaction.  

The  qualitative  categories  “The  development  of  necessary  speaking  skills”  and  “Mastery  of  active  learning  
methods”  contain  subcategories  revealing  decision-­‐making  processes:  they  are  Taking  Stock,  Emerging  
Criteria  for  Decision-­‐making,  Making  On-­‐Board  Adjustments,  and  Getting  Connected  to  Opportunities:  

Taking  stock  –  students  take  stock  by  reflecting  on  previous  experiences  and  identifying  salient  themes  
and  patterns;  by  the  role  of  priorities,  both  conscious  and  unconscious;  by  looking  into  the  past  or  at  
possible  futures;  alone  or  engaged  with  others.    

Emerging  Criteria  for  Decision-­‐Making  can  be  characterized  by  their  feasibility,  such  as  finding  particular  
solution  opportunities.    

Making  On-­‐Board  Adjustments  -­‐  the  search  itself  often  helped  clarify  the  types  of  experiences  that  
students  found  more  compelling  -­‐  obtaining  more  helpful  information,  rethinking  initial  ideas.  

 
26  
 Getting  Connected  to  Opportunities  -­‐  throughout  the  process  students  sought  opportunities  that  seemed  
worth  pursuing.  Some  students  actively  looked  for  ways  to  increase  their  options;  some  were  connected  
to  opportunities  very  passively  and  let  opportunities  come  to  them.    

‘Characteristics  of  obtained  results’  comprise  the  last  part  of  the  CLIPBL.Tthe  main  criterion  of  the  latter  
characteristics  is  the  proficient  (emancipated)  usage  of  spoken  communication,  which  in  the  process  of  
CLIPBL  is  defined  by  the  category  of  final  results,  where  special  attention  is  paid  to  the  quality  of  the  
command  of  spoken  English,  expressed  by  the  European  language  competence  portfolio  levels.  
Knowledge  in  science  can  be  manifested  by  the  quality  of  solutions  to  presented  problems.  Students  
might  come  to  a  particular  decision  through  self-­‐assessment,  reflecting  on  options,  synthesizing  multiple  
perspectives,  and  consideration  of  consequences  (Brown,  2004).    

Further,  in  order  to  reveal  the  main  tendencies,  the  quantitative  analysis  of  qualitative  categories  is  
presented  starting  with  the  general  distribution  of  the  samples  and  continuing  with  the  each  category  
separately.  

Table  5.  General  results  from  the  presented  opinion  samples  

ISC  of  KTU    

No.  of    category   Name  of  category  
total  

1.   Frustration   65  

2.   The  realization  of  the  learning  dimensions   46  

3.   Development  of  interactive  skills  and  abilities  revealing  the  decision-­‐ 88  

making  process  

4.   Learning  how  to  learn:  mastering  of  learning  methods   52  

5.   Obtained  results   81  

As  can  be  seen  from  the  analysis  samples,  the  major  categories  are:  development  of  necessary  skills,  
results  obtained  and  frustration.  They  represent  the  main  tendencies  of  the  students’  opinions  and  point  
to  the  most  important  themes.  

“Frustration”   is   the   third   largest   category,   which   demonstrates   how   the   non-­‐traditional   CLIPBL  
curriculum  influences  students’  learning  experience  (table  6).    
 
27  
  

Table  6.  Manifestation  of  the  qualitative  category  “Frustration”  

Subcategory   Examples  of  quotations  from  CIS  at  KTU   The  total  

1.1.   Differences   between   traditional   and   From  the  very  beginning  it  was  nonsense   15  
interpretative  pedagogy  

1.2.  The  ambiguous  problem  situation   It  was  impossible  to  understand  what  to  do   14  

1.3.  Lack  of  self  –  confidence   I  always  doubt  if  I  am  speaking  the  right  thing   12  

1.4.  Complicated  relations  among  group  members   People  say  that  I  am  very  timid   10  

1.5.  Lack  of  discussing  skills   I  tried  to  say  what  I  think,  but  soon  I  became  the  object  of   8  
constant  criticism  

1.6.  Lack  of  abilities  for  public  speaking   My  English  is  not  so  brilliant,  that  I  could  go  on  debating   6  

  Total   65  

The  criterion  of  the  primary  emotional  state  while  striving  to  break  the  ‘frustration  barrier’  is  revealed  
through  the  subcategories,  pointing  out  the  main  reasons  for  frustration.    

It  is  clear  from  the  data  that  the  main  reason  for  the  ‘frustration  barrier’  and  dissatisfaction  is  the  total  
change  from  a  lecture  based  study  process.  Students  are  not  used  to  being  responsible  for  the  quality  of  
their  studies,  for  the  planning  of  classroom  activities  and  public  delivery  of  the  results  of  their  individual  
learning.  They  define  such  learning  as  ‘nonsense’.  

The  attitude  shift  is  already  noticeable  in  the  biggest  category,  representing  the  development  of  
necessary  skills.  

 
28  
  

Table  7.  Manifestation  of  the  category  “Development  of  skills  and  abilities”  

Subcategory   Examples  of  quotations  CIS  of  KTU   The  total  

Emerging  Criteria  for  Decision-­‐Making   This  time  I  knew  my  decision  criteria   27  

Making  On-­‐Board  Adjustments   It  was  interesting  to  rethink  the  initial  ideas   29  

Getting  Connected  to  Opportunities   I  enjoyed  waiting  for  something  clever  to  be  said   31  

  Total   87  

Students  of  both  institutions  mention  their  major  progress  in  the  development  of  skills  necessary  for  
successful  discussion.  Another  meaningful  position  (3.4)  demonstrates  that  students  engage  with  the  
opinion  forming  process,  which  is  vitally  important  for  coaching  career  decision  skills.  

The  final  category  “results  received”  (see  table  8,  below)  displays  the  final  results  of  the  PBL  process  .In  
order  to  evaluate  their  validity  in  the  development  of  the  proficient  usage  of  spoken  communication  in  
English,  it  is  worth  to  compare  the  initial  stage  of  frustration  and  the  final  results.    

Table  8.  Manifestation  of  the  category  “results  received”  

Subcategory   Examples  of  quotations  CIS  at  KTU   total  

Experience  of  the  transdisciplinary  of  learning   We  can  integrate  our  knowledge   14  

Experience  of  group  work   Our  group  became  cooperate…   15  

Experience  of  information  management   I  know  how  to  form  arguments…   9  

Experience  of  participation  in  the  discussion   We  usually  try  to  evaluate  our  impact  on  decision.   23  

The  acquisition  of  public  speaking  skills.   We   think   about   interesting   interpretation   of   the   17  
topic  

Narrowing  Options  and  Making  a  Decision   We   know   how   to   make   a   decision   through   self   6  
assessment.  

  Total   81  

 
29  
  

While  comparing  the  two  categories  revealing  the  learning  experience  of  the  initial  and  final  stages,  it  is  
possible  to  draw  the  following  parallel.  The  main  reasons  for  frustration  –  the  new  experience  of  
interpretative  pedagogy  and  the  ambiguous  problem  situation  –  may  be  juxtaposed  with  the  acquired  
experience  of  interdisciplinary  and  transdisciplinary  learning.  The  most  valuable  element  of  this  
experience  is  the  ability  to  integrate  knowledge  of  different  subjects.  This  element  supports  the  
development  of  critical  thinking,  leading  the  student  personality  towards  argumentative  rationality.  The  
second  subcategory  of  “frustration”,  revealing  complicated  relations  between  group  members,  is  
opposed  by  the  subcategory  of  the  new  quality  of  group  work,  which  as  students  pointed  out,  became  
collaborative  and  cooperative.  This  new  quality  of  group  work,  supplemented  by  the  previously  
mentioned  development  of  critical  thinking,  leads  the  group  towards  the  commitment  to  share,  be  
receptive  to  arguments  and  reach  common  understandings.  The  barrier  created  by  lack  of  self-­‐confidence  
is  overcome  by  having  a  good  command  of  how  to  work  with  information.  Finally,  lack  of  ability  to  speak  
in  public  is  replaced  by  the  experience  of  participation  in  discussion  and  the  acquisition  of  public  speaking  
skills.  In  order  to  participate  fluently  in  discussion  and  to  present  solutions,  the  student  has  to  
demonstrate  well  organized  filing  skills,  make  commentaries,  answer  questions,  and  respond  to  the  
points  raised.  Such  communicative  activity  demonstrates  students’  new  competences  and  more  
proficient  usage  of  the  English  language.  

In  summing  up  the  pilot  research  results,  we  can  say  that  one  of  the  significant  results,  as  stated  by  the  
students,  is  their  acquired  proficiency  in  the  English  language  and  development  of  decision-­‐making  skills  
in  science  based  modules.  The  students  state  that  developing  the  ability  to  learn  through  CLIPBL  is  an  
attractive,  effective  and  emancipating  process.  CLIPBL  is  a  student-­‐centred,  interactive  educational  
process,  based  on  students’  intellect  and  experience,  during  which  she/he  considers  received  information,  
reveals  it  with  the  help  of  proficient  spoken  communication,  defines  and  solves  problems  and  considers  
decisions  influencing  not  only  the  quality  of  his/her  competence,  but  also  the  future  of  his/her  personal  
development.  

The  pilot  empirical  research  of  the  PBL  model,  especially  the  comparison  of  the  categories  “Frustration”  
and  “Received  results”  allows  us  to  conclude  that  the  CLIPBL  model,  consisting  of  educator/student  
interaction,  analysis  of  problem  situations,  small  group  discussion,  individual  studies,  problem  solving  
processes  and  science  based  decision-­‐making,    provides  the  right  conditions  for  the  development  of  
proficient  English  language  usage  and  decision-­‐making.  

 
30  
References  and  links  

Andriulienė,  L;  Kelly,  K.;  Krištaponis,  A.;  Vilkancienė,  L.  (eds.)  (2006)  Integruotas  dalyko  ir  užsienio  kalbos  
mokymas,  Vilnius,  ŠMM,  Švietimo  aprūpinimo  centras.    
Baranauskienė  R.  (2003),  Emancipacinių  kokybinių  tyrimų  realizavimas  edukacinės  paradigmos  virsmo  
kontekste,  Šiauliai.  
Baranauskiene,R  (2009),  The  Phenomenographical  analysis  of  a  consecutively  interpreted  text.  Filologija  
2009/14,  ISSN  1392-­‐561X.  
Barrow,  Mark.  “Higher  education:  Subjection  or  emancipation”.  (July  1999).  Paper  presented  at  the  
Herdsa  Annual  International  Conference,  Melbourne.  Available  On  line  
http://www.herdsa.org.au/branches/vic/Cornerstones/pdf/Barrow.PDF    
Barrows,  Howard  S.  (1985),  How  to  Design  a  Problem-­‐based  Curriculum  for  Pre-­‐clinical  Years.  New  York:  
Springer  Publishing  Co.  
Björkman,  B.  (2008),  'So  where  we  are':  Spoken  lingua  franca  English  at  a  Swedish  technical  university.  
English  Today,  24/2,  pp.  11-­‐17.  
Boud,  David  and  Feletti,  Grahame.  (Eds.).  (1997)  The  Challenge  of  Problem  Based  Learning,  Second  ed.  
London,  Kogan  Page.  
Boud,  David  and  Keogh,  Rosemary,  &  Walker,  David.  (Eds.).  Reflection:  Turning  Experience  into  Learning.  London:  
Kogan  Page,  1985.  
Barnes,  Louis  B,  Christensen,  Carl  Roland  &  Hensen  Abby  J.  (1994)  Teaching  and  the  Case  Method:  3rd  Ed.  
Boston,  Harvard  Business  School  Publishing.  
Christensen,  Carl  Roland  &  Hensen  Abby  J.  (1996)  Note:  this  reference  is  to  be  confirmed:  please  contact:  
nijole.ciuciulkiene@centras.lt  
Ciuciulkiene,  Nijole  (2004),  Probleminis  mokymasis  –  verbalinę  komunikaciją  anglų  kalba  emancipuojantis  
procesas  (Problem-­‐based  learning  as  an  educational  process  emancipating  verbal  communication  
in  English)  Ph.D.  diss.,  Kaunas  University  of  Technology.    
CLIL  Consortium,  http://www.  clilconsortium.  jyu.fi/  
Darn,  S.  (2006),  Content  and  Language  Integrated  Learning,  available  at:  http://www.teachingenglish.  
org.uk  /think/methodology/clil.shtml    
De  Graaff,  R.;  Koopman,  G.J.;  Westhoff,  G.  et  al.,  (2007)  An  Observation  Tool  for  Effective  L2  Pedagogy  in  
Content  and  Language  Integrated  Learning  (CLIL),  International  Journal  of  Bilingual  Education  and  
Bilingualism  10/5,  pp.  603-­‐624.    
Durie,  Jane,  (1996):  “Emancipatory  Education  and  classroom  Practice:  A  Feminist  Post  –  Structuralist  
Perspective”,  Studies  in  Continuing  Education  18,  pp.  35–146.  
EC  (European  Commission)  (2006)  Main  indicators  of  economic  and  social  development:Modernisation  of  
the  Education  and  Training  Systems  towards  the  2010  common  goals  of  the  EU;  Progress  towards  
the  Lisbon  objectives  in  education  and  training:  Report  based  on  indicators  and  benchmarks,  
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/progressreport06.pdf    
Education  condition  survey  2003  (in  Lithuanian),  http://www.smm.lt    
EUROSTAT,  http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/    
Freire,  Paulo,  (1973),  Education:  The  Practice  of  Freedom.  London,  Writers  and  Readers.  
Global  Competitiveness  Report,  2006-­‐2007.  http://www.weforum.org  (2006).    
Habermas,  Jurgen  (1989)  The  Theory  of  Communicative  Action,  Vol.  2.  Cambridge:  Polity  Press.  
 
31  
Hart,  Mechthild  (1990).  “Critical  Theory  and  Beyond:  Further  Perspectives  on  Emancipatory  Education”.  
Adult  Education  Quarterly  3/40,  pp.  125–138.  
Humphries,  Beth  (1997).  “From  Critical  Thought  To  Emancipatory  Action:  Contradictory  Research  Goals?”  
Sociological  Research  Online  2/1  available  at:    
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/1/3.html.  
Jarvis,  Peter  (2001),  Learning  in  Later  Life,  London:  Kogan  Page,    
Krashen,  S.  and  Terrell,  T.D.  (1988),  The  Natural  Approach.  Oxford:  Pergamon.  
Lenkauskiene,  Rota  &  Liubiniene,  Vilmante  (2004)  Cultural  Awareness  in  Language  Studies.  Culture,  
Language  and  Representation,  1,  pp.  127-­‐136    
Llinares,  A.;  Whittaker,  R.  (2006)  Linguistic  analysis  of  secondary  school  students'  oral  and  written  
production  in  CLIL  contexts:  studying  social  science  in  English,  in  Dalton-­‐Puffer    C.  &  Nikula,  T.  
(eds.),  Views,  Vienna  English  Working  Papers,  Current  Research  on  CLIL,  15/3.    
Marsh,  D.,  Maljers,  A.  and  Hartiala,  A-­‐K.  (2001)  Profiling  European  CLIL  Classrooms,  Languages  Open  
Doors  ,  at;  www.clilcompencium.com  
Marsh,  D.;  Wolff,  D.  (eds.)  (2007),  Diverse  Contexts  –  Converging  Goals,  CLIL  in  Europe  ,  Frankfurt,  Peter  
Lang  
Marton,  Ference  (1986),  Phenomenography:  A  research  approach  to  investigating  different  
understandings  of  reality,  Journal  of  Thought,  21/3,  pp.  28-­‐49.  
Mauranen,  Anna.  (2003),  “The  Corpus  of  English  as  Lingua  Franca  in  Academic  Settings”,    TESOL  Quarterly  
37/3,  pp.  513  -­‐  527.  
Molle  W.,  (2006),  The  Economics  of  European  integration.  Farnham,  Surrey,  Ashgate.    
Perucha,  B.N.&  Milne,  E.D.  (2007),  Lecturing  Through  the  Foreign  Language  in  a  CLIL  University  Context:  
Linguistic  and  Pragmatic  Implications  in  Smit,  U.&  Dalton-­‐Puffer,  C.  (eds)  Views,  Vienna  English  
Working  Papers,  Current  Research  on  CLIL  2,  16/3.    
Provisions  of  State  Education  Strategies  for  2003-­‐2012  (in  Lithuanian),  http://www.lrs.lt      
Rodrigues  M.J.,  (2003),  European  Policies  For  a  Knowledge  Economy,  Cheltenham,  Edward  Elgar  
Publishing.    
Sapir,  A.  et  al.,  (2003),  An  Agenda  for  a  growing  Europe,  Brussels,  European  commission.  Available  at:  
http://www.euractiv.com/ndbtext/innovation/sapirreport.pdf  
Savin-­‐Baden,  Maggi  (2000),  Problem-­‐Based  Learning  in  Higher  Education:  Untold  Stories.  Buckingham,  
The  Society  for  Research  into  Higher  Education  &  Open  University  Press.  
Science  and  studies  in  Lithuania.  Information  volume,  Krastotvarka,  Vilnius,  14-­‐19  (2002).    
Smit,  U.;  Dalton-­‐Puffer,  C.  (eds),  (2007)  Views,  Vienna  English  Working  Papers,  Current  Research  on  CLIL  2,  
16/3.    
Snieska,  V.  (2008).  Research  into  international  competitiveness  in  2000–2008.  Inzinerine  ekonomika  –
[Engineering  economics],  4/59,  pp.  29-­‐41.    
Stake,  Robert  (1995),  The  art  of  Case  Study  Research,  Newbury  Park,  CA,  Sage  Publications.  
Svensson,  Lennart  (1997),  Theoretical  Foundations  of  Phenomenography,    Higher  Education  Research  &  
Development,  16/2,  pp.  159-­‐171.  
Vygotsky,  Lev  M.  (1978),  Mind  and  Society:  The  Development  of  Higher  Psychological  Processes,  
Cambridge,  Massachusetts:  Harvard  University  Press.  

 
32  
Wächter,  Bernd  &  Maiworm,  Friedhelm  (2008),  English-­‐taught  Programmes  in  European  Higher  
Education,  Bonn,  Lemmens.  
Walliman,  Nicholas  (2005),  Your  Research  Project.  Sage  Publications,  2005.    
Willis,  J.  A  Framework  for  Task-­‐Based  Learning.  Harlow:  Longman  (1996).    
Woods,  Donald  R.  (1994),  Problem-­‐Based  Learning:  How  to  Gain  the  most  from  PBL.  Ontario:  Waterdown.  
Wood,  D.  (1985).  Problem-­‐based  learning  and  problem  solving,  in  Boud,  D.  (Ed.)  Problem-­‐based  learning  
in  education  for  the  professions,  HERDSA:  Sydney.  
Yin,  Robert  K.  (2002),  Case  Study  Research,  Design  and  Methods.  3rd  ed.,  Thousand  Oaks,  CA:  Sage  
Publications.  
 
 
 

End  of  document  

 
33  
  

F  
 

 
34