ESCUELA DE POSGRADO

PROGRAMA ACADÉMICO DE MAESTRÍA EN DIDÁCTICA DEL IDIOMA INGLÉS

ACADEMIC REPORT

BILINGUAL TEACHING

AUTORS – GROUP 1

Chuchon Urbina, Jesús (orcid.org/0009-0003-2923-7888)

Golac Tenorio, Pilar (orcid.org/0009-0006-7992-3001)
Huancas Huancas, Sonia Marivel (Orcid.org/0009-0002-1505-6384)

Javes Rojas, Cynthia Evelyn (orcid.org/0009-0000-2500-0232)

Lopez Tarazona, Hilaria (orcid.org/0000-0002-8627-6862)

PROFESSOR

Paredes Cabrera, Nyree

Lima, Peru

2025
 INDEX
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................¡Error! Marcador no definido.

II. PERFORMANCE................................................................................¡Error! Marcador no definido.

III. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................¡Error! Marcador no definido.

IV. REFERENCES.....................................................................................¡Error! Marcador no definido.

INTRODUCTION

Bilingual education has become an essential strategy in today’s teaching practices, especially in
settings where multiple languages are present. Its goal is to help students gain proficiency in a
second language without disregarding their native tongue. García and Wei (2014) emphasize that
bilingual education boosts academic success, encourages flexible thinking, and enhances cultural
understanding. In a similar view, Baker (2021) points out that effective bilingual teaching must blend
subject content with language development, enabling learners to use the language meaningfully in
academic situations.

In higher education, particularly across Latin America, bilingual instruction plays a significant
role in preparing students for careers in an increasingly interconnected world. However, students in
their first year of university often face challenges when learning English. These include limited
vocabulary, difficulties with pronunciation, and low confidence when speaking. Cummins (2021)
argues that learners' past language experiences and their cultural backgrounds have a strong impact
on how they acquire a new language.

The purpose of this analysis is to explore the main difficulties students face when learning
English as a second language. For many, it is their first formal exposure to the language, and they
struggle with comprehension, speaking, and retention. This study aims to identify the key challenges
of bilingual learning, investigate strategies that support the development of English skills, and
suggest teaching approaches that respond to students’ linguistic and academic needs.

The structure of the paper includes a literature review, a description of the case study, and a
section for analysis and discussion.
PERFOMANCE

Literature review

Nowadays, teaching in two languages is becoming increasingly common in many educational

settings, as it allows students not only to acquire a new language but also to strengthen their
knowledge across subjects. Several models exist for implementing bilingual education, with the most
widely recognized being two-way immersion (TWI), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL),
and Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE). Each model fits different student needs and learning
environments.

Two-way immersion classrooms bring together native speakers of both the dominant and
minority languages, aiming to ensure equal learning opportunities in both languages while
encouraging cross-cultural understanding. As Lindholm-Leary (2012) notes, this model enhances
academic success and promotes inclusion by fostering bilingualism and biliteracy.

CLIL, on the other hand, integrates subject matter instruction with language learning.
According to Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010), this approach helps students learn both the subject and
the language simultaneously—an especially effective method in higher education, where academic
content supports language development.

Transitional Bilingual Education focuses on gradually moving students from their native
language to the dominant language of instruction. While it can offer a strong foundation in early
learning, García and Wei (2014) warn that it may undermine bilingualism if continuous support in the
second language is not provided.

Several theoretical contributions help us understand how second languages are learned.
Cummins (2000) emphasized the distinction between everyday conversational skills and the more
complex academic language required in educational settings, a key issue in university contexts.
Likewise, Krashen’s (1985) Input Hypothesis suggests that learners progress best when they are
exposed to language just above their current level—allowing for step-by-step development.

From a sociocultural point of view, Vygotsky emphasized the importance of learning through
interaction. Lantolf and Thorne (2006) explain that working with more capable peers or teachers
helps learners advance their language skills. In the class observed, such collaboration helped bridge
both language and technological gaps.

Finally, integrating technology into bilingual classrooms can significantly enhance language
learning. However, as Warschauer and Kern (2000) point out, this depends on proper use and equal
access. In the observed case, some students struggled due to limited access or digital literacy, which
highlights the importance of addressing technological inequalities in the classroom.

Case study description

The observed English I class, held at a higher education institution with 25 students between
18 and 25 years old, reflected a standard CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning)
environment. In this context, students came with diverse levels of English proficiency and unequal
access to technology. The instructor followed the four Cs model proposed by Coyle, Hood, and Marsh
—focusing on Content (language structures), Communication (practical language use), Cognition
(critical thinking), and Culture (cultural and personal identity) (Marsh, 1994; Coyle et al., 2010).
English was mainly used for introductions, instructions, and group tasks, while Spanish (L1) was
allowed to clarify complex grammar or help students facing technological or learning barriers. This
semi-immersive approach provided meaningful support for learners with limited or no English skills.

To support inclusivity, the teacher applied sheltered instruction methods, such as visual aids,
peer collaboration, and explicit teaching of vocabulary and grammar. These strategies particularly
benefited students with basic language skills and limited digital tools. Lessons were carefully
designed to integrate both language and subject content, aligning with the CLIL principle of dual
focus. For instance, grammar topics like the past simple were connected to meaningful tasks—such
as describing students’ cultural traditions—using real-world materials like news excerpts, short
videos, and stories. Materials were adapted to the students’ needs with bilingual glossaries, visual
supports, and multimedia resources to ensure equitable learning experiences.

Assessment combined both language development and content mastery. Students completed
storytelling activities evaluated for fluency and vocabulary, and wrote reflections on identity assessed
for accuracy and clarity. Peer and self-assessment tools were also included, with rubrics covering
both linguistic and content-related criteria. This design aligns with research showing that integrated
CLIL approaches foster language acquisition and deeper subject understanding (Satayev et al., 2022;
Hallasi Ancori, 2025).

A key element in the class was the intentional inclusion of students’ cultural identities.
Learners shared family traditions in English and compared them with peers from different
backgrounds. This process, based on translanguaging principles, recognized Spanish as a valid tool for
thinking and planning, especially for students with low technological access. Strategies like co-
teaching, code-switching, collaborative work, and feedback from both peers and teachers supported
equity and engagement in the learning process.
 Despite these strengths, the class faced several challenges. Students' diverse English levels
required differentiated instruction, and some had difficulty using digital resources. In response, the
instructor used a flexible CLIL approach—balancing language-driven and content-driven activities—
along with extra tutoring and simplified readings. However, institutional limitations such as lack of
training and limited pedagogical support highlighted common concerns in CLIL implementation at
the university level. Overall, this case demonstrates how a comprehensive and inclusive CLIL
approach—anchored in clear policies, thoughtful curriculum integration, fair assessment, and
cultural sensitivity—can promote language learning, content understanding, and identity
development in diverse academic settings.

Analysis and Discussion

The observed class revealed a multifaceted learning environment: while some students
possessed a basic foundation in English, others were complete novices. In addition, technological
barriers, learning difficulties, and low motivation levels were present, all of which influenced the
students' ability to acquire the language effectively. Given these circumstances, the Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach emerged as a valuable alternative to enhance both
subject comprehension and English proficiency.

CLIL, defined by Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010), involves teaching curricular subjects through
a foreign language, fostering dual learning outcomes—conceptual understanding and language
development. This method has gained recognition in bilingual settings for its capacity to stimulate
cognitive involvement and communication skills. During the class, topics like cultural identity,
environmental sustainability, and digital literacy were introduced in English, offering students a
meaningful context in which to practice the language. This aligns with Dalton-Puffer’s (2011)
assertion that relevant content strengthens language acquisition.

Student outcomes and classroom engagement were key indicators of CLIL’s effectiveness.
Progress records reflected improvement in both receptive and productive abilities, with noticeable
growth in listening and speaking. Students gradually incorporated more academic terms and
exhibited greater ease when expressing themselves in English. These findings resonate with
Lasagabaster and Sierra (2010), who observed similar progress in bilingual settings, especially in
initial stages of higher education.

Nonetheless, applying CLIL in a context marked by unequal access to technology and varied
language backgrounds posed significant challenges. One such difficulty involved achieving an
appropriate balance in language use; while some students adapted well, others struggled due to
limited prior knowledge of English. This observation echoes the concerns of Mehisto, Marsh, and
Frigols (2008), who stress the importance of scaffolding and differentiated strategies in CLIL-based
instruction. Additionally, teacher preparedness emerged as a critical concern. A lack of training in
both subject matter and language pedagogy can hinder lesson delivery, reinforcing Pérez-Cañado’s
(2012) emphasis on ongoing professional development for educators implementing CLIL.

Limited access to resources also impacted student participation. Economic factors restricted
some learners’ ability to engage with digital tools and CLIL materials. This highlights the need for
institutional investment and equitable distribution of educational resources, as discussed by Escobar
Urmeneta (2013).

Cultural identity played an enriching role in the bilingual learning experience. By exploring
both local and global cultural themes, students deepened their understanding of their heritage while
also building intercultural skills. This supports Byram’s (2008) argument that language education
should include intercultural awareness as a core element. Learners expressed increased interest in
worldwide issues and a stronger appreciation for cultural diversity, reflecting CLIL’s holistic benefits.

When these findings are compared to existing literature on bilingual education, they align with
broader conclusions. Genesee (2008) notes that programs like CLIL not only improve language
abilities but also enhance academic performance and metalinguistic awareness. At the same time,
the case highlights persistent obstacles in Latin America, including gaps in teacher training and
limited infrastructure.

In sum, CLIL shows considerable promise in promoting integrated learning, improving language
confidence, and nurturing critical thinking. It helps students link classroom knowledge with real-
world applications, which fosters motivation and engagement. However, the success of CLIL depends
on well-trained educators, adequate institutional support, and appropriate scaffolding. Without
these elements, the approach risks deepening educational inequalities.
Conclusions

1. CLIL Promotes Dual Development in Language and Academic Content, the Content and
Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach effectively facilitates the concurrent growth of
subject knowledge and English language skills. Students showed progress in both
understanding and producing language, affirming CLIL as a robust instructional strategy in
bilingual university environments.

2. Resource Gaps and Language Diversity Pose Challenges

Variations in students' English proficiency and unequal access to digital tools presented
notable challenges. These inequities emphasize the importance of tailored teaching
strategies and institutional support to address technological and linguistic disparities,
particularly in settings with limited resources.
3. Cultural Identity Enhances the Bilingual Learning Process
Acknowledging and incorporating students’ cultural identities boosted participation,
motivation, and intercultural understanding. Activities involving translanguaging and self-
identity helped connect different languages and promoted inclusive, relevant learning
experiences.

Recommendations

1. Enhance Teacher Preparation in CLIL Techniques

Educational institutions should prioritize continuous training that equips teachers with both
linguistic and subject-specific expertise. Emphasizing scaffolding methods and inclusive
approaches is crucial to effectively address the varying needs of learners.
2. Expand Availability of Digital and Learning Resources
Tackling technological disparities is essential. Higher education institutions must ensure
consistent access to devices, internet services, and multimedia materials to support bilingual
education and foster equal learning opportunities.
3. Encourage Inclusive and Culturally Aware Teaching
Curricula should integrate translanguaging and content that reflects students’ cultural
backgrounds. Designing activities that honor learners’ identities and native languages fosters
engagement and strengthens language acquisition, particularly in diverse learning
environments.