The online survey was answered by 70 teachers both in Portugal and in Spain, in English and in Portuguese. All teachers previously involved in CLIL pilots in Portugal were asked to answer the online survey, and so were teachers that had been students at the IPCB in in-service training for Teaching English to Young Learners (Complementos de Formação de Ensino de Inglês no 1º
CEB). The English teachers association in Portugal (API) was also contacted to forward invitation to teachers of English to answer the online survey.
Teachers in Spain were contacted through existing networking and they are involved in teaching English though CLIL. They come from frontier areas with Portugal and are potential stakeholders of C4C training courses.
2.2.1 CONTENT (SUBJECTS TAUGHT THROUGH CLIL)
The subjects taught through CLIL are mainly Science (24) Geography (14) and History (14). Arts is also referred by 12 participants and the other subject areas, such as: mathematics, sports, music, citizenship (and other) are not relevant (under 10 responses). The number of hours spent in CLIL activities on a weekly basis was mostly one and a half hour (3), followed by one, two, three and six hours (2). This is in accordance to the programs described in chapter 1, which describe the CLIL landscape in Portugal as reduced to a couple of pilots.
2.2.2 LEVEL OF INTEGRATION
As to the type of schools, 57 State schools were mentioned and 13 private ones, in the answers about the level of integration. The data collected regarding the grade where CLIL is taught, answered by all participants, shows a majority of answers falling on the 3rd grade: 40 out of 70, followed by the 4th grade (39 respondents), the 1st and the 2nd (30 answers), the 6h (28) and the 5th (25). A preparatory year was also referred in 18 questionnaires.
Regarding the typologies of teaching CLIL, teachers think the in tandem model the most appropriate, since (16) respondents answer with a content teacher and (8) with foreign language teacher. (12) teachers refer to ‘individually. However, only 16 people answered this questionnaire item.
2.2.3 TYPE OF MATERIALS USED
As to whether they used authentic materials, 26 participants answered yes and 3 answered no.
Most of them (41), however, did not answer. In what concerns materials adaptation, both in
language and content, again a low number of replies was registered: (29); 27 participants answered yes and 2 answered no.
2.2.4 FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING PRINCIPLES /TECHNIQUES USED
Task based learning seems to be the technique most adhered to (25 responses), followed by communicative activities which are referred to by 20 participants and total physical response by 14. One questionnaire mentioned project methodology.
2.2.5 CONTENT SUBJECT TEACHING PRINCIPLES/TECHNIQUES USED
As to the type of content subject teaching techniques, scaffolding and action oriented learning were mentioned by 24 questionnaires, discovery learning by 22 and cooperative learning by 20.
2.2.6 TEACHER EDUCATION
In what concerns positive aspects of the CLIL experience, teachers refer to children`s positive attitude in first place (27), followed by children`s improvement of language competence (26), enrichment of classroom materials and resources (23), children`s improvement of subject competence (22), parents` positive attitude (11), teachers` improvement of language competence (10) and finally administration`s positive attitude (6).
For critical aspects of CLIL experience, the data collected shows that teachers elect the lack of CLIL designed materials as the main critical aspect (23). Other aspects such as: lack of teacher`s autonomy regarding syllabus design was mentioned by eleven (11) teachers, inflexible school schedules by nine (9), the lack of teachers` language competence by seven (7), the not positive attitude of administration by five (5) and the lack of teacher`s knowledge of subject matter by four (4).
All participants answered the question about teachers’ specialization. Being a foreign language teacher was mentioned by 59, a teacher of non-linguistic area by 8; only one (1) answered that both were relevant and two (2) referred to AEC (enriching extra-curricular activities).
Considering the experience of teachers, most of them have more than 10 years of experience (52), ten (10) have between 6 and 10 years, five (5) between 3 and 5 and there are only three (3) with no prior experience.
When asked about their level of English fluency according to the European Common Framework, the data collected highlights that only 26 claim to have a C2 level and 12 teachers a C1 level, which is the level expected of teachers of English for young learners in Portugal.
15 teachers claimed to have a A1 level; and 8 an A2 level, which is a very low level to teach English for primary.
There were 3 further teachers who claimed to have a B1 level.
When inquired on the type of training they had had (if any): In-service or initial full or partial programme and its features; face-to-face, content, language issues, methods), 45 respondents claimed they had had some training, against 22 who answered they had not (3 did not answer).
Among the training received it was mainly state pre-service training courses (10), followed by state in-service training courses and European project training courses (4), private training course and on-line training course two ( 2 ) and master /British Council courses , three (3).
Respondents refer to the following types of training courses: general foreign language courses (44), CLIL (13) and both (7). 43 respondents claimed to have attended CLIL seminars or workshops. These were organized by national organizations, such as APPI (The Portuguese English Teachers Association), the British Council, The Ministry of Education through its Directorate General for Education (DGE/ME) and the Faculty of Letters of the University of Porto. Some international organizations are also referred to as providers of CLIL courses, both face to face, online and blended, such as the Norwich Institute of Language Education and Cambridge schools. The hours for these courses vary between 25 hours and 15 days. There is the model 3 times 25 hour – course + 50 hour workshops; 60 hours, 50 hours, 20 hours, 25 hours.
The need for CLIL training courses is evident through the 54 positive responses, while the 14 respondents that did not answer may also be interpreted as not understanding the advantages
of CLIL training. Only 2 respondents claimed they did not need or were not interested in CLIL training. When inquired on their preferences, respondents claim to prefer workshops and using online course and resource materials (36 answers each), followed by watching classroom videos (13). Lectures are the least preferred, with only 5 answers.