Povzetek
V prispevku predstavljamo rezultate analize stališč učiteljev prvega tujega jezika do poučevanja po pristopu vsebinsko in jezikovno integriranega učenja (v nadaljevanju CLIL). Učitelji naj bi pri pouku prvega tujega jezika (v nadaljevanju TJ 1) uporabljali pristop CLIL, kar je bilo eno od priporočil Resolucije o nacionalnem programu za jezikovno politiko 2014–2018. Stališča smo preverjali s polstrukturiranimi intervjuji in z anketnim vprašalnikom v spletnem okolju. Iz analize dvanajstih intervjujev smo zaznali strinjanje učiteljev glede pomembnosti izobrazbe učitelja TJ 1 v prvem vzgojno-izobraževalnem obdobju (v nadaljevanju 1. VIO), čigar profil naj bi bil razredni učitelj z opravljenim modulom za poučevanje TJ 1 v zgodnjem obdobju. Ugotavljamo, da je večina učiteljev, ki so pristop CLIL pri pouku TJ 1 v 1 VIO uporabljali v prvem letu uvajanja (šolsko leto 2014/2015), v drugem letu uvajanja ohranila le nekatere elemente pristopa CLIL. Ugotavljali so namreč, da se smernic poučevanja po t. i. trdem (»hard«) pristopu CLIL ne morejo več povsem držati, zato so pri poučevanju uporabljali le nekatere elemente ali strategije pristopa CLIL, kar nekateri avtorji imenujejo mehak (»soft«) pristop CLIL. Čeprav so pri izvedbi učitelji navajali nekatere težave, je večina učiteljev pristop CLIL označila kot koristen pristop pri tujejezikovnem pouku.
Abstract
The suitability of foreign language teaching in childhood according to the CLIL approach; the foreign language teachers’ attitudes
This paper presents the results of a research into the foreign teachers’ attitudes towards the fi rst foreign language (FL 1) teaching according to the CLIL approach. The fi rst foreign language teachers (FL 1 teachers) should have carried out their FL 1 lessons according to the guidelines of the Resolution on the national programme on language policy 2014–2018, which specifi cally mentions the CLIL approach as one of the innovative approaches. The results of the twelve interviews: teachers agree upon the importance of the education process of teachers-to-be, for any teacher working at an early level should have completed a BA in class teaching and should have acquired a degree in the methodology of early language teaching. Most teachers who used the CLIL approach in the first year of its introduction (school year 2014–2015), refrained from it in the second year, or only used some elements of the CLIL approach, for they felt that it was impossible to follow the guidelines of the “hard” CLIL. Consequently, they only used some elements or strategies of the CLIL approach, which some authors call “soft” CLIL. Although some teachers claimed to have encountered numerous obstacles in teaching according to CLIL, they nevertheless considered it to be a suitable approach in the FL 1 classroom.