The surveys and interviews of students and teachers in Laurea,
Pirkanmaa and Seinäjoki Universities of Applied
Sciences brought out mainly similar opinions about positive and negative effects and impressions about using CLIL as a teaching method.

In students' opinions studying through English was often seen as a possibility to stand out from the mass of students. Students also considered the CLIL method very effective especially when they were able to study in an authentic environment with exchange students. The possibility to express oneself in a foreign language was also regarded to enhance self-confidence.

The interviewed students also remarked that it’s very important for the teacher to have a good command of the used language, and therefore a native speaker was recommended. If the teacher is a native speaker it also prevents occasional slipping into use of the Finnish language. Regarding the negative effects of CLIL, many students mentioned the difficulty of learning new things when they are taught in a foreign language. Also speaking and answering in a different language was found to be difficult for many because they did not perceive their command in English be good enough for CLIL. In general, the CLIL method was experienced to be quite demanding, but therefore also a very rewarding studying method.

Many of the interviewed teachers pointed out the importance of studying through a foreign language as it would give the students more possibilities in working life. Besides giving the students valuable terminology in another language in their fields of study, using CLIL was also considered to increase the knowledge of intercultural communication and, of course, the language skills. From the teachers’ point of view, the CLIL method helped them to maintain and increase their own language competencies. Also enabling the studies through English was considered to increase the positive image of the Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences.

The teachers who didn't have any experience of CLIL thought their own language competencies too weak for teaching in a foreign language. They often pointed out that in their opinion using CLIL increased the workload and required more advanced preparation compared to normal lectures. In their view, using CLIL would also need a practical experience in teaching abroad.

Also some of the teachers with previous experience on CLIL pointed out that the method is demanding and the teaching through a foreign language requires a lot of preparation and knowledge of specific terminology. For that reason the teacher should have a rich vocabulary and s/he should be able to communicate fluently and in spontaneous situations.

In the teachers’ opinions studying through a foreign language also requires that the students have the necessary language skills. To ensure that the students are able to understand the lectures, there must be more repetition during the lectures. Therefore teaching through a foreign language may limit the amount of information shared during the lectures.

The teachers also questioned the relevance of teaching in English for only Finnish students. A mixed group of exchange and Finnish students was considered much more natural environment. The teachers were also concerned about ensuring the quality of teaching if the subject was taught in a foreign language.

Päivi Ouallen, Laurea

Results of a survey at Laurea University of Applied Sciences (click here)

Students’ and teachers’ reactions to CLIL (click here)