The Impact of CLILL Approach to Enhancing University Students’ Speaking and Creative Thinking Skills

Muhammad Guntur; Ririn Martuti; Hasmawaty Hasmawaty; Duwi Purwati; Hengki Wijaya; Zulfah Zulfah

doi:10.35445/alishlah.v15i4.3941

The Impact of CLILL Approach to Enhancing University Students’ Speaking and Creative Thinking Skills

Muhammad Guntur, Ririn Martuti, Hasmawaty Hasmawaty, Duwi Purwati, Hengki Wijaya, Zulfah Zulfah

Abstract

In addition to being proficient in verbal communication, students must also acquire 21st-century competencies, which encompass creative thinking abilities. Content and Integrated Language Learning (CLIL) is a communication methodology that can be employed to concurrently enhance students' language proficiency and foster their creative cognition. This study investigates the influence of the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) strategy on the speaking and creative thinking abilities of students at IAIN Palopo, located in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. This study employed a quantitative methodology with a quasi-experimental design, encompassing 51 first-semester students enrolled in Indonesian language classes. The collection of data involved the utilisation of speaking tests, speaking assessment rubrics, and creative thinking skills examinations. Following data collection, the researchers conducted quantitative analysis using SPSS 25.00. They employed the one-way MANOVA and one-way MANCOVA tests for this purpose. The results showed that the CLIL approach had a significant effect on improving student's speaking skills and creative thinking skills. These results indicate that the CLIL approach can be used as a choice for teachers to develop students' speaking and creative thinking skills.

Keywords

CLILL approach; creative thinking skills; critical thinking skills

Full Text:

PDF

References

Abaunza, G., Martinez-Abad, F., Rodriguez-Conde, M. J., Avalos-Obregon, M. D., & Urena-Lara, D. (2020). The effect of CLIL methodology and web applications in the foreign language class: A comparative case in Colombian schools. Revista Espacios, 41(20), 97–114.

Abedi, J. (2002). A latent-variable modeling approach to assessing reliability and validity of a creativity instrument. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326934CRJ1402_12

Adickalam, E. R., & Yunus, M. M. (2022). The effect of collaborative tasks on the speaking skills of Malaysian adolescents in an ESL classroom. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(2), 1095-1121. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v11-i2/13887

Ahmed, R. Z. (2018). The effect of task based language teaching on improving the writing and speaking skills of Pakistan ESL learners. Universiti Utara Malaysia.

Al-Hosni, S. (2014). Speaking difficulties encountered by young EFL learners. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(9), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i09.10348

Aladini, A., & Jalambo, M. (2021). Dramatizing the CLIL to promote learners’ speaking skills and their self-efficacy. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2021.090105

Ariyanti, A. (2016). Psychological factors affecting EFL students’ speaking performance. Asian TEFL, 1(1), 77–88.

Babiker, A. (2018). Improving speaking skills in EFL classes through collaborative learning. American Scientific Resaerch Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences, 44(1), 137-154.

Badran, I. (2007). Enhancing creativity and innovation in engineering education. European Journal of ENgineering Education, 32(5), 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790701433061

Benalcazar- Bermeo, J., & Ortega-Auquilla, D. (2019). Effects of the CLIL approach in oral production of English students in the second year of the united general baccalaureate at a high school in Cuenca, Ecuador. Revista Boletín Redipe, 8(12), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.36260/rbr.v8i12.878

Brewer, H. (2001). Ten steps to success. Journal of Staff Development, 22(1), 30–31.

British Council. (2020). CLIL: A lesson framework. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/clil-a-lesson-framework

Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Prentice Hall Regents Englewood Cliffs.

Chansri, C., & Wasanasomsithi, P. (2016). Implementing CLIL in higher education in Thailand: The extent to which CLIL improves agricultural students’ writing ability, agricultural content, and cultural knowledge. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 51(1), 15–38.

Chen, S. Y., Lai, C. F., Lai, Y. H., & Su, Y. S. (2019). Effect of project based learning on development of students’ creative thinking. The International Journal of Electrical Engineering and Education, 1, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020720919846808

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.

Cruz, M. (2021). CLIL approach and the fostering of “creactical skills” towards a global sustainable awareness. Mextesol Journal, 45(2), 1–19.

Delliou, A., & Zafiri, M. (2016). Developing the speaking skills of students through CLIL: A case of sixth grade primary school students in Greece. Proceedings of The 5th Electronic International Interdisciplinary Conference, 48–53. https://doi.org/10.18638/eiic.2016.5.1.517

Diéguez, K. I., & Martínez-Adrián, M. (2017). The influence of CLIL on receptive vocabulary: A preliminary study. Journal of English Studies, 15, 107–134. https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.3210

Diezmas, E. N. M. (2016). The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of L2 competences and skills in primary education. International Journal of English Studies, 16(2), 81-101.

Duan, S. (2020). Cultivation of students’ critical thinking ability through CLIL mixed teaching model—A case study of “an introduction to English literature". Advances in Social Sciences, Education and Humanities Research, 385, 665–669. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.191221.159

Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Lingusitics, 30(4), 474–509.

Fazylova, S., & Rusol, I. (2016). Development of creativity in school children through art. Czech-Polish Historical and Pedagogical Journal, 8(2), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.5817/cphpj-2016-0023

Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The Contribution of CLIL to Learners’ International Orientation and EFL Confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1275034

Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2010). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: Analysing and understanding data. Pearson Education.

Hargreaves, H. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society. Teacher College Press.

Helaluddin, H., Nurhayati, N., Nadya, N. L., Ismail, Gunawan, Guntur, M., & Fransori, A. (2023). The use collaborative strategies to improve students' writing ability and self-efficacy: A mixed method study. European Journal of Educational Research, 12(1), 265-280. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.1.265

Hosseini, M, S., Bavali, M., & Rezvani, R. (2020). Wiki-based collaborative writing in EFL classroom: Fluecy and learners' attitudes in focus. Cogent Arts and Education, 7: 1826649. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1826649

Hughes, R. (2002). Teaching and resaerching speaking. Pearson Education.

Ismail, G., & Helaluddin, H. (2022). The effect of genre approach to improve university students' critical thinking skills. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(4), 5829-5848. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i4.2209

Juniardi, Y., Herlina, L., Lubis, A. H., Irmawanty Irmawanty, & Pahamzah, J. (2020). Computer vs. mobile-assisted learning to promote EFL students’ speaking skills: A preliminary classroom-based research. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13329a

Kim, H., Park, C., & Wang, M. (2018). Paired t-test based on robustified statistics. Fall Conference, Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers.

Kim, K. H. (2011). The creativity crisis: the decrease in creative thinking scores on the torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.627805

Kim, S. H., & Song, K. S. (2012). The effects of thinking style based cooperative learning on group creativity. Creative Education, 3, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.38B005

Kimbell, R. (2000). Creativity in crisis. Journal of Design and Technologiy Education, 5(3), 206–211.

Kovacikova, E. (2019). Development of speaking at primary schools through CLIL. XLinguae, 12(2), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.18355/XL.2019.12.02.02

Leal, J. (2016). Assessment in CLIL: Test development at content and language for teaching natural sciences in English as a foreign language. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2016.9.2.3

McDougald, J. S. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes, perceptions and exoeriences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistic Journal, 17(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj. 2015.1.a02

McDougald, J. S., & Pissarello, D. (2020). Content and language integrated learning: In-service teachers’ knowledge and perceptions before and after a professional development program. Ikala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 25(2), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v25n02a03

Murad, T., Yusra Ghadeer, S., & Assadi, J. (2021). The effect of teachers' attitudes towards collaborative instruction on students' writing and speaking skills. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(3), 343-351. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1203.03

Namsaeng, P. (2022). The potential of CLIL for promoting critical thinking skill in Thailand. Humanities & Social Sciences, 39(1), 182–206.

Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (2010). What teachers see as creative incidents in elementary science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 1989–2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903233249

Ostertagova, E., & Ostertag, O. (2013). Methodology and application of one way ANOVA. American Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 1(7), 256–261.

Pengnate, W. (2013). Ways to develop English proficiency of business students: Implementation of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach. International Journal of Education and Research, 1(8), 1–12. www.ijern.com

Pham, V. P. H. (2021). The effects of collaboration writing on students' writing fluency: An efficient framework for collaborative writing. SAGE Open, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244021998363

Puerto, F. G. del, & Lacabex, E. G. (2017). Oral production outcomes in CLIL: An attempt to manage amount of exposure. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2015-0035

Puerto, F. G. D., & Lacabex, E. G. (2016). Oral production outcomes in CLIL: An attempt to manage amount exposure. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2015-0035-31-54

Ritter, S. M., & Mostert, N. (2017). Enhancement of creative thinking skills using a cognitive-based creativity training. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 1, 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-016-0002-3

Salekhova, L., & Yakaeva, T. (2017). Implementation of A CLIL-module"Economics" for English Language Learners in Russia: Results and Challenges. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(4), 816–823.

Salih, F. A., & Abdelameer, Z. (2022). The value of collaborative learning in developing student's speaking skills. Route Educational & Social Science Journal, 9(5), 144-165.

Sarwar, M., Alam, M., Hussain, A., Shah, A. A., & Jabeen, M. (2014). Assessing English speaking skills of perspective teachers at entry and graduation level in teacher education program. Language Testing in Asia: A Springer Journal, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-4-5

Saw, M. T. (2014). Using ANOVA to examine the relationship between safety and security and human development. Jurnal of International Business and Economics, 2(4), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.15640/jibe.v2n4a6

Sawyer, K. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity: A critical review. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.571191

Sayed, M. M. (2005). The effect of using a multiple intelligences-based training program on developing English majors oral communication skills. Assiut University.

Scoot, G., Lerittz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Types of creativitytraining: Approach and their effectiveness. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(3), 149–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549

Torres-Rincon, J. C., & Cuesta-Medina, L. M. (2019). Situated practice in CLIL: Voices from Colombian teachers. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 18(1), 109–141.

Treffinger, D. J. (2009). Myth 5: creativity is too difficult to measure. Gifted Child Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/0077/0016986209346829

Tuan, N. H., & Mai, T. N. (2015). Factors affectting students’ speaking performance at LE Thanh high school. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2).

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press.

Yang, W. (2018). The Deployment of English Learning Strategies in The CLIL Approach: A Comparison Study of Taiwan and Hong Kong Tertiary Level Contexts. ESP Today: Journal of English for Specific Purpose at Tertiary Level, 6(1), 44–64. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2018.6.1.3

Zarobe, Y. R. de. (2013). CLIL implementation: from policy-makers to individual initiatives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 231–243.

Zimmerman, D. W. (1997). A note on interpretation of the paired-samples t-test. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(3), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986022003349

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v15i4.3941