Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)

ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)

Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

33

Development of Critical and Creative Thinking Skills
in CLIL
Dana Hanesov, University of Matej Bel, Slovakia
dana.hanesova@umb.sk

Abstract
CLIL offers such a learning environment where learners get a chance to use their
cognitive skills and to construct their own knowledge. They are intellectually challenged
to transform information, to solve problems, to discover meaning using creative thinking.
For meaning-making learners use especially the following thinking skills: analyzing,
differentiating, organizing, classifying, comparing, matching, synthesizing, guessing,
evaluating and creating. This kind of learning works to develop flexibility in their thinking.
In our study several techniques enabling development of critical thinking skills in the
CLIL context are introduced. Critical thinking skills can be supported and developed
systematically e.g. via an application of the tasks offered by the revised Blooms taxonomy.
Statistically significant increases of critical and creative thinking skills in CLIL can be
achieved using various proven techniques, e.g. via De Bonos six thinking hats,
SCAMMPERR technique, Lotus blossom technique or mind-mapping. These techniques
have proven to be efficient with both younger and older learners via action research at a
higher educational institution and at a primary school. Examples of qualitative data from
the evaluation of this inventive CLIL course are presented.
Key words
CLIL, aims, learners, constructivism, thinking skills, critical thinking, creative thinking,
Blooms taxonomy, SCAMMPERR, Lotus Blossom, De Bono

Introduction
In our study we follow two educational trends that for almost two decades
have resonated in the Slovak educational system and in our response to them we
suggest how their synergy can act to the benefit of the EFL learners.
Firstly, since democracy began in Slovakia, there has been a challenge to
reform the traditional curriculum- and teacher-centred education and turn it into
humanistic education focused on the learners. These reform needs were
described and reflected in several educational studies, e.g. in Zelinas THV
(creative-humanistic) model or KEMSAK (acronym for cognitivisation,
emotionalisation, motivation, socialization, axiologization, creativization) model
(Zelina, 1996, p. 11 - 15). Subsequently they were developed into the Millennium
project and the National programme of education for the next 15 - 20 years in
Slovakia which was authorized by the Ministry of education in 2001. Due to the
gap caused by strong ideological restrictions in Slovakia before 1989 one of the
main emphasises of this yearning after reform has been the development of
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

34
learners thinking skills. Teachers were encouraged to focus more on
development of cognitive and noncognitive functions of students than just on the
results of their learning.
According to Zelinas models the aim of cognitivization is to teach a person to
explore, think and solve problems. Zelina brought to the attention of teachers
several taxonomies of thinking skills, e.g. B. S. Blooms taxonomy, as well as a
group of strategies of cognitivization of students. Especially the heuristic
methods facilitate in developing divergent thinking skills. A certain kind of
cognitive-affective-heuristic model was used in ESP, e.g., at the Faculty of
International Relations and Political Sciences UMB, Slovakia (Kalisk, 2011).
Zelina suggested that all cognitive functions, especially the so-called higher
thinking skills (analysis, evaluation, creativity) should be developed in all school
subjects at all age groups (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2011). This challenge has been
encouraged also by the influence of the constructivist theory of learning into
school practice.
The second trend has been the impetus penetrating from the European
context to implement CLIL methodology into foreign language teaching since
1994. CLIL offers a new type of learning focused on the integration of various
facets of learning. It uses a foreign language as a medium for meaningful
communication of specific content under natural conditions. It has the real
potential to stimulate learning because it refers to authentic situations of
acquiring knowledge from various subjects via foreign language (Gondov,
2011). The students do not learn a language only for the sake of language
learning but to find out new information in the target language and to think in
that language. According to Pokrivkov (2011, p. 29) these are the positive
sides of CLIL, in CLIL the foreign language looses the position of being the
content of learning but it has become a natural medium of communication of new
content (Pokrivkov, 2008, p. 11).
As one principle of CLIL methodology is its learner-centredness, the CLIL
curriculum presents a synergy of the teachers plan with the learners authentic
needs. Thus the aims of CLIL are multiple as it focuses on learning a foreign
language while simultaneously learning specific subject content as well as on
other important life skills all the time respecting the individual learning styles
and intelligences of the learners.
Based on good practice in Hungarian schools, Dalma (2013, p. 62) expressed
her opinion that CLIL should be considered to be a constructivist approach to
learning, where the emphasis is put from the teacher to the learner. Some kind
of cognitive challenge is present in the situation where the active involvement of
the students is necessary.
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

35
The aim of our study is to offer some suggestions, verified in an action
research, how teachers efforts to respond to both of the above described
challenges can actually work together and support each other. According to
Chamot and OMalley (1994, p. 41, 44), in CLIL due to the integration of academic
content with language, the development of critical thinking skills seems to be
associated with the development of language functions. E.g. the content activities
that require critical and creative thinking skills require also more complex
language and richer vocabulary to be used. So if properly projected while keeping
in mind all the nuances of developmental stages and the principles of cognitive
theories and of constructivism, CLIL can be a potentially fertile context for
reaching both of those aims. On the other hand, CLIL can become a dry
methodology if not focused on learners, their autonomy and their own
construction of new concepts either in natural or social sciences or some kind of
art. Several techniques have been experimented with and the tests proved that
the know-how combining CLIL and the development of critical and creative
thinking skills is feasible.
Note: As the first version of our curriculum focused on the development of
thinking skills in CLIL was prepared in 2001, we adopted the theory of higher
thinking skills according to Blooms taxonomy. Due to the newest scientific
discoveries, brain science has not proved the theory of lower order thinking skills
being simpler than the higher order thinking skills. It is assuming that all of the
thinking skills are relatively independent of each other (Kagan, 2005). So we
have decided to change the concept higher thinking skills and substitute it with
the term critical and creative thinking skills. By critical thinking we mean the
intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing,
applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from,
or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or
communication, as a guide to belief and action (Scriven & Richard

at a
conference in 1987).

CLIL a way of constructing ones own knowledge
Lets start with a statement that the CLIL methodology represents an effective
type of learning context where learners get the chance to use their cognitive
skills and to construct their own knowledge. In order to prove this a glimpse into
the theory of language learning is inevitable.
The process of learning is a kind of mystery, provoking a variety of
disciplines to study it. It seems to consist of a phase of educational input, then
a phase of learning itself in the black box- the mind of the learner - and finally
a phase of educational output. Attempts to explain the connections between input
and output and the process of language learning were accomplished by at least
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

36
three learning theories: behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism (Alvirez,
Romero, Prez & Delmastro, 2010, p. 137).
Behaviorism focused on the relationship between what goes into and comes
out of the learning process, it did not study the black box obviously associated
with consciousness of learning itself. Behaviorists viewed language learning as a
process of diligent training, memorizing and passively repeating some parts of
texts. Though drilling has some value in language learning, the CLIL methodology
with its main focus on the specific content and not on language seems to not
prefer this type of learning.
On the contrary, cognitivist psychologists emphasised the active role of the
language learners in meaningful communication and the processes going on in
the mind during learning. Application of cognitivism in lingvodidactics resulted
in the start of a communicative approach to language learning (Richard & Rogers,
1986). As CLIL originated from focusing on the learners needs, cognitive
categories such as meaning and purpose of all the communication during CLIL
lessons is of prior importance.
Cognitivism has been supported by discoveries in cognitive neuroscience
showing that the brain learns best when challenged to survive socially,
economically, emotionally, and physically (Jensen, 2005; Zull, 2006; Susa, 2006;
Johnson & Taylor, 2006). The key to being more educated is growing more
synaptic connections between brain cells and not losing existing connections.
These connections allow learners to solve problems and figure things out. Jensen
(2005) describes a set of seven preconditions dramatically influencing learning
that is applicable to CLIL learning: a) engagement - getting and sustaining
students attention; b) repetition - priming, reviewing and revising; c) input
quantity - capacity, flow, chunk size; d) coherence - models, relevance, prior
knowledge; e) timing - time of day, interval learning; f) error corrections -
mistakes, feedback, support; and finally g) emotional states - safety, and state of
dependency. Challenge, stimulation, repetition and novelty are absolutely
essential for making sure that students will graduate from CLIL with an
enriched not just baseline brain. CLIL teachers need to trust the process of
learning, supplying learners of all ages with chances for new experiences (Zull,
2006, p. 3-10).
The contribution of constructivism is that it emphasises the process of
language acquisition in learners minds especially due to interaction with other
people. It investigates the learners own construction of a new concept based on
previous knowledge challenged via the provision of a rich learning environment
offering authentic incentives connected to the life of the learner. Learning
happens by considering new information, comparing it with previous
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

37
experience, knowledge and schemes, adapting and transforming them so that
they make sense in terms of what the world already knows.
In constructivism there can be distinguished at least three streams (Prcha,
Walterov, & Mare, 2008, p. 105 106):
a) Cognitive constructivism focusing on the individual learner, on what
happens in his/her brain when addressing problems. The learner should attempt
to find for himself/herself the meaning, rules, schedules, missing information, etc.
Although the moment of discovery of the world is important, it does not totally
exclude reproductive learning. The effectiveness of the process of construction
depends on the degree of autonomy and initiative of students in designing their
own hypothetical meaning of concepts, reviewing and verifying them. The
student is an active subject in the educational process, responding to new
information either by refusing or integrating them. Only he/she can actively
adopt them, sort them, organize them, analyze them and construct his/her own
reply.
b) Social constructivism emphasizes the social dimension of learning, i.e. the
vital role of social interaction and culture in the process of knowledge
construction. According to Vygotskij (1978), social interaction is the precondition
for the development of cognition. Social constructivism confirms the activating
effect of revealing the content in cooperation with other students.
c) Pedagogical constructivism represents a synthesis of the previous two
approaches. It combines their positive features and prepares their educational
application, e.g for CLIL.
The idea of viewing CLIL as a kind of constructivist learning is based on the
assumption that CLIL methodology requires an active construction of ones own
knowledge and personal meanings for the learner (Kovcs & Trentinn Benk,
2011; Wang, 2011). CLIL lessons normally contain situations/tasks with some
kind of cognitive challenges in which the active involvement of students is
necessary. The emphasis is shifted from the teacher to the learners who have to
be active and to think more about the contents. They have to build up knowledge
for themselves. According to Alviarz et al. (2010) constructivism ensures
meaningful learning acquisition especially via reading-in-English as a process.
Learners involvement in constant social interaction is a core feature of CLIL.
Social interaction in CLIL, supporting the construction process, takes the form of
discussions or exchanges of ideas. Obviously, social interactions in pairs or
groups increase the benefits from a CLIL course. The effect of CLIL is reinforced
especially if the teacher considers activating learning through activities reflecting
various learning styles and multiple intelligences of the all learners in the group.
A standard CLIL lesson gives students the privilege of the educational
challenge and novelty. Its input should be enriched by seeing the world with
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

38
different glasses offered by the foreign language as well as by its new ways of
expressing reality and discovering previously unknown cultures, by its novel
approach to various school subjects abroad, etc. Students create their knowledge
in interaction with their social environment which also affects them and they in
turn have an impact on their environment.
Teachers aware of constructivist learning processes provide CLIL students of
with strategies that assist their autonomous learning, e.g. by using analogies,
summaries, semantic networks, conceptual maps, portfolios, etc.
Of course, there are several dangers that might prevent CLIL from actually
being an active construction of new knowledge. A bad practice of CLIL might look
like a traditional translation lesson. Another danger is if CLIL teachers focus only
on the intellectual side of language learning. According to vec (2008, p. 55),
constructivism views learning - teaching as a process where learning
comprehension is achieved more effectively through relevant practical
experience. It is filled with more purpose and meaning and more influenced by
social and cultural contexts. It is not purely cognitive, theorizing or speculative, it
is less based on abstract principles and precepts. It means acquiring new
unmediated experiences.
So a good CLIL teacher pays attention to what neurology underlines -
creating a stimulating learning environment enabling positive emotional state of
learners (Jensen, 2005). Emotions can stimulate the learners brain chemically
which will help them to more effective recalling of knowledge. The precondition
of learning happening in CLIL is that CLIL teachers themselves are enthusiastic
about their profession, smile, tell true stories, show off a new CD, read a book, get
students involved in real life matters, music or drama. Novelty and variation in
time, materials, access, expectations, support in the learning process,
instructional strategies, such as the use of computers, field trips, guest speakers,
pair and group work, games, student teaching, journalizing; multi-topic, multi-
status and multi-age projects all of these can contribute to active learning.
Novelty potentially prevents boredom which is more than just annoying also for
CLIL students, it may actually develop their brain connections.
Taylor (2006) offers a whole range of ideas supporting the construction of
knowledge in CLIL lessons including energizers; problem solving techniques;
presentation of meta-cognitive strategies to improve the memory and
information retrieval; visualization(mnemonics, peg words, music, discussion,
pictures, mind-maps, graphic organizers, posters); peer teaching, co-operative
work, interrupted and repeated solution seeking; episodic strategies (changes in
location, circumstances, use of emotions, movement, novel classroom position
(field trips, music, guest speakers, journal writing, projects, peer teaching;
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

39
quizzes, small group presentations, structured timed tests, real life studies);
procedural strategies integrating movement; or reflexive strategies.

Some techniques supporting development of critical/creative thinking
skills in CLIL
As was mentioned above, one core feature of CLIL is that its learners
construct their own learning through using their cognitive skills. They are
intellectually challenged to transform information, to solve problems, to discover
meaning through creative thinking. For meaning-making learners use the
following skills: classifying, comparing, matching, guessing; for analysing:
differentiating, organizing, attributing. This kind of learning can contribute to
linguistic and non-linguistic gains and the flexibility of their thinking.
Flexibility of thinking is the result of educational interconnectedness of
content, topic, variety of skills and learning styles. New types of subjects emerge.
According to Coyle et al. (2010) in order to structure a new subject, teachers of
different disciplines have to climb out of their respective mindsets grounded in
chemistry, economics, geography and physics.
There is whole range of techniques and tools that have the potential to enable
the development of critical and creative thinking skills in the CLIL context.
Problem solving and heuristic educational techniques demand the highest level
of students autonomy. For the purposes of CLIL for teenagers and adults, the
following techniques, tools and ideas we tested have been selected: Blooms
taxonomy (the revised version), brainstorming and brain writing, various
graphic organizers, eg. mind maps, SCAMMPERR Think Tank technique, De
Bonos idea of thinking about thinking, Lotus Blossom method, etc.
Of course the use of these techniques and tools itself does not guarantee the
development of critical and creative thinking skills. Its choice should always be
based on specific learners needs analysis, on their authentic life situations, and
even on considering the variety of students multiple intelligencies and their
different learning styles.
The most important stimulus for the development of authentic interaction in
CLIL lessons stems from using productive questions that develop learners
thinking skills. Our CLIL experiences are consistent with those of Gondov (2012,
p. 23) that questions stimulate the development of divergent thinking and
evaluation skills, based on the serious argument that The existence of various
communicative structures and productive questions open the space for
interaction among pupils and they are one of the decisive factors contributing to
acquiring higher cognitive skills and communicative competence (Gondov,
2011, p. 36). Cameron & McKay (2010, p. 15, 23) in their methodology of creative
teaching also underline the role of problem-solving tasks and open-ended
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

40
questions asking Why.. or How... even with young learners. By these
cognitively challenging tasks the learners are stirred up to use more language
and to involve knowledge about other content than just language.
The group of educational tools and techniques that develop thinking skills
represents an open category. Those mentioned in this study were selected based
on recognition by several educational and psychological experts and on the
evidence that they proved to be efficient, appropriate and feasible ways of
supporting critical and creative thinking (e.g. Turek, 2008, p. 268, 279). We
started to use them first in the university in the beginning of the Millenium. Later
on their age-relevant form has been applied also to the primary and lower
secondary level.
There has been also another pragmatic reason for their selection. It is the
evidence of thinking development as well as language learning results they
produce by encouraging learners to produce spoken or written output helping
them to think through ideas, to express them, to share knowledge, to give
feedback, review ideas, to adapt and refine ideas and to negotiate solutions.
(Dale, Van der Es & Tanner, 2011, p. 121).

Here is a brief description of some reliable tools that might be effectively used
in a CLIL course:
1. Both Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
(Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill & Krathwohl, 1956) and later on Anderson &
Krathwohls Revised version of Blooms revised Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives (2001) distinguish though in a slightly different form - the following
six distinctive categories of cognitive objectives:
Remember: Can the students remember the content?
Understand: Can the students explain the acquired content?
Apply: Can the students transfer what they have learned and apply it in a
different situation?
Analyze: Can the students break the acquired information into parts and see
what are the connections among them?
Evaluate: Can the students synthesize the acquired information, create an
opinion about it and argue for their evaluation of it?
Create: Can the students create anything new out of the input given?
Blooms taxonomy sees the human mind as a two-dimensional matter where
on the one hand there are the types or categories of subject matter content, and
on the other hand, processes of what is to be done with or to that content.
Blooms taxonomy not only defines the thinking skills, but thanks to its
elaborated system of questions it directly facilitates their development. It
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

41
supports the development of both overlapping areas of thinking skills and
language skills, and thus it is of high importance for CLIL courses.
Questions used in this taxonomy are a demonstration of the use of language
resources for the development of thinking about the specific contents. This
combination was exactly what our CLIL students benefited most from. The
questions proved to be useful tools in planning CLIL tasks, especially in the phase
of processing the new input.

2. One way of organizing information in a visual way is the use of mind-
maps (concept maps). Mind-maps can function as visual representations and
organizational tools that help learners (re-)organize input by noting down
information (Dale, Van der Es & Tanner, 2011, p. 95, 268). They are considered
to be one sort of graphic organizers facilitating students learning by expressing
the information in a new, visual way. They can function as an input technique,
activating the students and reminding them of their prior knowledge - a visual
representation or note-taking tool helping students to (re)organize their
language and ideas. Of course they can be used as an output of the process of
students thinking or a meaningful way of revising.
Mind-maps function as a necessary visualised scaffolding (structured
support) of students CLIL learning, important especially for young learners
(Cameron & McKay, 2010, p. 15). Once the knowledge is acquired the scaffold
offered by the teacher or teaching material can be removed. Scaffolding
techniques (reception scaffolds, transformation scaffolds, and especially
production scaffolds expecting the learners to produce something new) are
dependent on the use of higher thinking skills. According to our experience,
mind-maps in the phase of educational input and output were useful not only
with teenagers and adult learners, but also with younger learners, e.g. during
teaching/repeating vocabulary.
As mind-maps are quite well covered in many materials, we are not going to
describe them in more details.

3. Lotus blossom - invented by Y. Matsumura, Director of the Clover
Management Research (Michalko, 2003, p. 3) - is another simple graphic
organizer that has proved to be an effective way of stimulating creative thinking
skills for generating problem solving ideas in CLIL. It is a creative method which
name is derived from the analogy of a flower developing its petals. The name is
very fitting because the final result of creative thinking, expressed verbally,
shows a flowery bloom (see the table below). The thinker starts at the center of
the flower by stating their central theme or problem. They continue by finding
eight sub-problems. The ideas are entered in the 3x3 grid / respectively 9x9. The
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

42
next very important stage is choosing each of these 8 sub-problems and
developing each of them into eight more ideas (either more detailed problems or
solutions).

6 3 7 6 3 7 6 3 7
2 F 4 2 C 4 2 G 4
5 1 8 5 1 8 5 1 8
6 3 7 F C G 6 3 7
2 B 4 B X D 2 D 4
5 1 8 E A H 5 1 8
6 3 7 6 3 7 6 3 7
2 E 4 2 A 4 2 H 4
5 1 8 5 1 8 5 1 8


4. SCAMMPERR is a brainstorming method helping learners to generate
and share new ideas during their process of solving problems/tasks in CLIL
lessons (Turek, 2008, p. 267). It can function as a scaffolding of output
production. It helps learners to use more fluent written or oral expressions.
Normally people might be shy to show their opinions. So that is why techniques
expecting everybody to answer the questions and share their opinions in the
group are important. Of course the simplest way to do it is to ask appropriate cue
questions.
The author of SCAMMPERR, A. F. Osborn (according to Zelina, 1996),
expressed the basic principles of this method in nine points. Later B. Eberle
(2008) formulated them into the English mnemonic list of questions stimulating
the production of new ideas. The first stimulus is the question how to create
a new idea/solution/product based on the expertise that one/a group has. The
learners are prompted to think about the answer by the help of nine activating
questions/instructions:
Substitute: Are there any parts of our solution/idea that can be replaced?
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

43
Combine: Can our solution/product combine with any other ideas to produce
a new idea?
Adapt: Are there any ideas that can be borrowed and applied in our situation?
Magnify /Minimize: Are there parts of our idea/solution/product that can be
magnified or minimized?
Modify: Can anything in our idea be modified?
Put it to some other use: Can we use the idea in another situation/with other
learners?
Eliminate: Should we eliminate any parts of our solution/idea?
Rearrange: Is there any better order/hierarchy for our ideas?
Reverse: Should we consider reversing the order/importance of any
ideas/solutions?
SCAMPPERR enables deeper thinking via seeing the complexity of challenges,
problems or ideas. It was originally intended for executives, economists, today it
is used as a teaching methodology. Its application in discussion and group
problem solving situations used in CLIL resulted in producting a range of new
invented ideas of CLIL students.

5. E. De Bono (1982, 1985) is generally (e.g. by Turek, 2008, p. 78)
considered to be the author of a systematic set of heuristic strategies developing
divergent, even lateral thinking skills, known as CoRT (Cognitive Research Trust)
program of creative thinking. In our CLIL course, we used specifically De Bonos
method of Six Thinking Hats which is especially suitable for searching
alternative solution. In the past it was used successfully in various firms, e.g. in
IBM, Nestle, British Airways etc. It focuses on helping learners to think about
their thinking and distinguish various kinds of thinking:
The white hat thinking represents mere facts, neutral information. This type
of thinking requires an objective and neutral approach.
The red hat thinking legitimizes emotions, feelings, as well as intuition that
should not be judged.
The black hat thinking allows space for negative assessment, judgment,
opinion, why something is not functioning. The learners point out errors in
thinking, method, design, or incorrect assumptions. It is an objective attempt to
point at negative elements of the solution.
The yellow hat thinking is a positive, optimistic and constructive evaluation.
It is the opposite of black negative thinking. It consists of logical and positive
practical considerations, but may involve also dreams, aspirations and hopes. It
aims at trying to logically find the things and events of their cost and benefit. It is
a constructive thinking process coming up with specific ideas, including
operational and implementation plans. Its goal is efficiency. This thinking
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

44
therefore should not be confused with a positive euphoria (red thinking) or
with the creation of totally new ideas (green thinking).
The green hat thinking opens a fertile, creative, emerging, provoking lateral
thinking thoughts flow. It is not based on assessment, but on an effort to move
from the previous thoughts to reach a totally new way. This thinking opens the
door to lateral thinking the kind of thinking where a pattern-switching
happens within a patterning system.
The blue hat thinking represents an ability to think as a guide, manager,
conductor managing the thinking process, thinking about thinking, organization
of thinking. It is responsible for preparing summaries and conclusions from the
discussion.

Research results of teaching CLIL developing critical and creative
thinking
CLIL curriculum focused on development of critical and creative skills has
been tested at the Faculty of Education, University of Matej Bel in Slovakia for
about 14 years by now. In the beginning it existed in the form of ESP (English for
Specific Purposes) and a certain CBI (Content Based Instruction Brinton, 1997)
course. Since its beginnings it has had a double aim, namely the development of
critical/creative thinking skills functioning in the context of the subject content,
and development of foreign language communication skills and specialized
vocabulary. The content was chosen according to authentic needs of the students.
The vocabulary was directly connected with the field of study or profession of the
learners, or even (in some cases) with their personal perception and experiences.
Five methods and tools aimed at development of both language skills and
critical and creative thinking described in the previous part have become the
central building blocks of the ESP/CLIL curriculum at the University of Matej Bel,
Slovakia, since 2001. Recently one more educational method portfolio - has
been added as the umbrella assessment method of students learning results
(Calabrese & Rampone, 2007, p. 5). Mind-mapping was used also in EFL lessons
focused on content with younger learners. The reason of this choice was to
achieve the highest level of authentic learning possible. The authenticity principle
has been consistently followed throughout the CLIL lessons.
To assess the impact and eligibility of this kind of our first CLIL course (in
2003), we decided to apply action research, observation, questionnaires, testing,
diary-notes and feedback. For the first two years, standardized Torrances pre-
tests and post-tests of creativity were used to find out the increase of fluency,
flexibility and originality (Torrance, 1972). As the quantitative and qualitative
analysis of the acquired data showed (Hanesov, 2003), the idea behind this
course was proved to be feasible and effective. There was proved a statistically
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

45
significant increase in both content knowledge and creative thinking skills of our
students (together with regular increase of language skills) in comparison with
the controlled group. Such positive results encouraged us to continue in the
implementation and innovation of this kind of a CLIL course. Since then the
action research and studentsevaluation portfolio by our CLIL students has
always showed us positive results of students authentic thinking (Hobbs &
Keddl, 2010).
As a CLIL course has to be focused on learners, their assessment of individual
methods used in a CLIL course is the most important phenomenon in its
evaluation. Here we present a brief overview of a) students opinions on the
advantages and disadvantages of several thinking tools and techniques used in
CLIL; and of b) problems and some results of students decision making process
via the above-described techniques as they were recorded in our qualitative
research recently (2012/13, 2013/14). (A more precise description of the flow of
this CLIL course and the analysis of the results is going to be published in a
separate publication). As these are quotes written by our students, they are noted
in italics:

Brainstorming of students opinions about the application of Blooms
taxonomy
Pros: Most students expressed a positive attitude toward the use of Blooms
taxonomy. According to them though it is a challenge, it offers a lot of ways how
to learn how to formulate questions and problems, solve problems, analyze them
and categorize them. It was useful for developing creativity, for the evaluation
process, for the real work in schools, and for comparing the levels of education. It is
a good system with a lot of important information with very clear instructions,
gives a good overview about thinking skills and really helps to develop them.
Blooms taxonomy really helps learning, to focus attention, to better understand the
curriculum, to use ones intelligence, to train ones mind. Some students
commented even on the linguistic benefits of using this taxonomy as it develops
professional vocabulary and the skill to work with longer texts in the foreign
language. Least, but not last, some learners described it as a funny inventive idea.
Cons: Basically there were three kinds of comments about negative sides of
working with Blooms taxonomy. Students with lower command of English,
especially not sufficient entrance vocabulary, mentioned that it was very complex
concept, really hard to comprehend it, especially as if we did not know many of
those verbs. A rich vocabulary was needed. About 5% of comments were about the
complex nature of the taxonomy itself. These students had problems with the
levels of thinking and distinguishing among them. They said they were not able to
remember and comprehend it all.
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

46
Brainstorming of students opinions about the application of Lotus
Blossom
Pros: Most students found this method interesting and even entertaining: It is
a simple method which can be used in the case of difficult problems. It helps to
define problems, to analyze them, to find its sub-problems and causes, to look for
a lot of varied solutions. It motivates the learner to search for adequate
information. It leads to many ideas and hopefully to the correct solution. Its graphic
expression makes it really clear, intelligent and it brings transparency into
problems, it creates a system of problems and solutions. It can be applied for solving
problems in school. It is a very interesting, entertaining technique, it can be used as
an after-school activity. Linguistically, it develops learners vocabulary.
Cons: Generally very few notes about disadvantages of this method were
reported. It is a very useful tool for every situation. Some commented on the time
demand, especially in case if they had not had enough previous knowledge about
the central problem. For some students there were too many options for
opinions, too many mini-decision-making processes. There was no clear principle
according to which to choose the solution.

Brainstorming of studentsopinions about the application of DeBonos
Thinking Hats
Pros: This method was praised by all students. It helps to simply understand
the problem, to analyze it and openly discuss it, to see it from six different angles,
even to see it in a good light, to solve it by finding lots of solutions to the problem.
It facilitates learning, being able to summarize ideas, it develops intelligence. It
leads to acquiring new skills and knowledge, new vocabulary, general
communicative skills, listening to English text. Its positive side is that it allows focus
on one type of thinking but also to change the different types. It is funny,
transparent, very interesting. Several students appreciated especially the red
emotional hat, the opportunity to be straight about their thoughts. Others liked
the information about various types of thinking. When used in groups it opens
personality characteristics in different situations. It can become a very big personal
help, but it can support team work too. This method is applicable to many
situations, facilitating in solving various problems, even complicated private and
family situations. It can bring a fast solution. One of the most interesting comment
was: You have to do it with an open head and you have to tell the truth.
Cons: Some students were hesitant in finding solutions as not every opinion
can be the right one for everybody. For them it is a rather complex method,
demanding time and hard thinking. Also for it to be of benefit it requires a group of
people and the ability to listen to their opinions. Linguistically, it requires a rich
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

47
vocabulary as to understand the explanatory text about the method. Several
students struggled with the distinction between several methods.
About a third of students commented it was time consuming. What is very
obvious in most of the responses of the learners is that they confirmed the real
emphasis of De Bonos thinking program his emphasis on time investment in
real thinking: The simple habit of trying to think more slowly can make a big
difference to our effectiveness as thinkers. It is part of the general skill of
thinking (De Bono, 1982, p. 10).

Brainstorming of studentssolving problems processes (mainly via Lotus
Blossom)
In Lotus Blossom students could choose the central problems for themselves.
Here are some examples of their decisions: the quality of Slovak university
education system, its teaching, few presentation and practical experiences, bad
cooperation among student, few excursions, few interesting activities, weak
motivation of students, bad technical equipment, bad organization of the school
timetable.
Some students decided to answer the question: What would I change at the
universities? Here are their suggestions: teaching process (less time spent at school
in the afternoon, more practice, good real aims, good rules, more selection of
subjects, more interesting subjects, recreation and fun), more sport activities for
students, better equipment in the classrooms, higher quality of the canteen services,
changes in university teachers (sensible, effective, patient, fair, qualified,
communicative, friendly) and their capability (flexibility, readiness,
communicability, practice, teaching, experiences, feedback, illustrations), better
communication (between professors and students, between our professors and
foreign professors, between schools, about countries, more English courses, between
our students and foreign students), more emphasis on feedback (student student,
student teacher, realistic opinions, open communication, experience of life,
teacher students, positive energy), more hope for the future of students after
graduation.
An interesting question was What causes bad study results of students?
Answers ranged from bad motivation (because of parents, no reason why to learn,
drugs, social environment, no hope for the future, lack of interest in school,
spending free time in other interest) to bad education system, social crisis, no
motivation, not enough money and not enough materials.
For example, the students dealt with the problem/subproblem of how to raise
the motivation of the students. In the result of their brainstorming a lot of good
ideas are listed: to provide choices, enlarge the challenge, allow to experience
success, give tasks that are easy but also challenging, make some practical exercises
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

48
make it real, help students feel that they are wanted, ensure opportunities for
students, help students to find personal meaning and value in the material, give
frequent positive feedback, create open and positive atmosphere, use a variety of
assessment not only tests, avoid stereotypes, create space for exhibitions, apply new
concepts of teaching, offer opportunities for foreign mobility, foreign lecturers,
interesting projects, benefits for the students, new educational tools, practical
internships abroad, more practice and less theory, more electives and more
humour.
Other questions/problems suggested by the students themselves were:
Schools should be creative, Why are our students so isolated so few international
relations? How to improve the financing of schools? Schools do not educate for real
life, We need more professional teachers to teach us more practice than theory, It is
necessary to change the methodological approach to teacher education, Students
would like to have a trendy school.

Conclusions
Our study was based on the assumption that CLIL courses may be a good
opportunity for schools to implement effective, efficient, activating ways of
learning, aiming for the development of both critical and creative thinking skills
in the context of a specific subject as well as of communicative language skills.
CLIL has the potential to allow the development of learners autonomy via the
construction of their own knowledge.
The tools and techniques applied in CLIL and described in this study and
evaluated via both our older quantitative and recent qualitative research helped
not only to develop the learners thinking skills but also enabled an
individualized approach towards them as well as gaining a team-building
experience. There was space created where the students could determine, define
and even openly communicate issues that really mattered to them. Some of them
appreciated the support of their schoolmates.
Via the example of our CLIL courses focused on multifold aims involving the
development of critical and creative thinking we showed that they could be
adequate to meet learners needs. Not only according to statistical results, but
mainly according to the university studentsown evaluatione of these CLIL
courses they had a positive contribution to learners thinking skills as well as
their linguistic ones. Thus the aims of the CLIL courses were achieved to
a reasonable level. It means that the idea of CLIL methodology focused on
learners, integrating content knowledge and skills as well as on language skills is
not an illusion but a feasible option for schools.


Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

49
Acknowledgement
The research presented in this study was supported by the project Mobility - enhancing
research, science and education at the Matej Bel University, ITMS code: 26110230082,
under the Operational Program Education cofinanced by the European Social Fund. In
activity 4, three Slovak experts under the supervision of an international expert Judit
Kovcs from Hungary focused on projecting a CLIL course for teachers of young learners.

References
ALVIREZ, L., ROMERO, L., PREZ, M., DELMASTRO, & A. L. (2010). Constructivism in Esp
Teaching at LUZ. In Opcin, fdvol. 63/No. 26, 135 147.
ANDERSON, L. W., & KRATHWOHL, D. (eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:
Longman.
BLOOM, B., ENGLEHART, M. FURST, E., HILL, W., & KRATHWOHL, D. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive
domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.
BRINTON, D. M., MASTER, P. (eds.) (1997) New Ways in Content-Based Instruction.
Alexandria: VA TESOL.
CALABRESE, I., RAMPONE, S. (2007). Cross-Curricular Resources for Young Learners.
Oxford: OUP.
CAMERON, L, MCKAY, P. (2010). Bringing creative teaching into the young learner
classrrom. Oxford: OUP.
CHAMOT, A. Z., OMALLEY, J. M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook : Implementing the Cognitive
Academic Language Learning Approach. New York: Addison-Wesley Publ.C..
COYLE, D., HOOD, P. MARSH, D. (2010) CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DALE, L., VAN DER ES, W., TANNER, R. (2011). CLIL Skills. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.
DALMA, J. (2013). Team-teaching a type of cooperation between native and non-native
teachers in Hungarian Primary CLIL programmes. In rva, V., Mrkus, . (eds)
Education and/und Forschung II. Budapest: ELTE TK Tudomnyos Kzlemnyek
XXXV, 6077.
DE BONO, E. (1982). De Bonos Thinking Course. New York: Fact on File Inc.
DE BONO, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats: An Essential Approach to Business Management.
Little: Brown, & Company.
EBERLE, B. (2008). Scamper on: More Creative Games and Activities for Imagination
Development.Waco: Prufrock Press.
GONDOV, D. (2012). CLIL oami iakov. In Krov, Z. (ed.) CLIL nov vzva. st nad
Labem: UJEP, 7 37.
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

50
GONDOV, D. (2011). Princpy vyuovania v CLILe. In Aplikcia metdy CLIL vo vyuovan
na zkladnej kole. Martin: EvZS, 34 40.
HANESOV, D. (2003). Odborn anglitina na pedagogickch fakultch. Bansk Bystrica:
Trian.
HOBBS, M., KEDDLE, J. S. (2010). For REAL elementary Students Book and Workbook.
Hebling Languages. Harlow: Longman.
JENSEN, E. (2005). Teaching with Brain in Mind. Alexandria: ASCD.
KAGAN, S. (2005). Rethinking Thinking Does Blooms Taxonomy Align with Brain
Science? San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing, Kagan Online Magazine.
KALICK, J. (2011). Monosti a efektvnos problmovho vyuovania ako altgernatvnej
formy vo vube cudzieho jazyka na vysokch kolch nefilologickho zamerania. In
Dekov, V., UPTK, M. (eds.) Cudzie odborn jazyky v kontexte univerzitnho tdia
nefilolofickho zamerania. Zvolen: CJ TU vo Zvolene, 48-54.
MICHALKO, M. Lotus Blossom. (2003). In Focus : Bimonthly Newsletter of American
Creativity Association, 16/6, 3-5.
POKRIVKOV, S. (2011). CLIL na Slovensku (2005 2010). In Aplikcia metdy CLIL vo
vyuovan na zkladnej kole. Martin: EvZS, 40 47.
POKRIVKOV, S., LAUKOV, D. (2008). o je CLIL? In Pokrivkov, S., Laukov, D. CLIL,
plurilingvizmus a bilingvlne vzdelvanie. Nitra: ASPA, 7 26.
PRCHA, J., WALTEROV, E., MARE, J. (2008). Pedagogick slovnk. 4. vyd. Praha: Portl.
RICHARDS, J., RODGERS, T. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: CUP.
SCRIVEN, M. & RICHARD, P. (1987). What is Critical thinking - a lecture given at the 8th
Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer
1987. Available on https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-
thinking/766.
SOUSA, A. (2006). How the Brain Learns (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
VEC, . (2008). Anglicko-slovensk lexikn pedagogiky a andragogiky. Bratislava: IRIS.
TAYLOR, K. (2006). Brain Function and Adult Learning: Implications for Practice. In
Johnson, S., TAYLOR, K. (eds.) The Neuroscience of Adult Learning. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 71 86.
TORRANCE, E. P. (1972). How can we teach children to think creatively? Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the AARA, Chicago.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED061544.pdf
TUREK, I. (2008). Didaktika. Bratislava: Iura Edition.
VYGOTSKIJ, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society : The development of higher psychological
processes. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2)
ISSN 1339-4045 (print), ISSN 1339-4584 (online)
Copyright 2014 SlovakEdu

51
WANG, P. (2011). Constructivism and Learner Autonomy in Foreign Language Teaching
and Learning: To what Extent does Theory Inform Practice? In Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3, 273-277.
ZELINA, M. (1996). Stratgie a metdy rozvoja osobnosti dieaa. Bratislava: Iris.
ZULL, J. E. (2006). Key Aspects of How the Brain Learns. In Johnson, S. & Taylor, K. eds. The
Neuroscience of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 3 10.


Contact
Assoc. Professor Dana Hanesov, PhD.
Faculty of Education, University of Matej Bel
Ruov 13, Bansk Bystrica, Slovakia
dana.hanesova@umb.sk