Abstract:
This is the study of the results from applying CLIL approach for History of Arts and
Design Courses in one of the bi-lingual programs of Burapha University. Objectives of study
are 1) to compare the content learning achievement between the control groups and the
experimental group, 2) to compare the level of English language proficiency among the
control groups before and after studying with CLIL approach, and 3) to study the level of
the experimental groups satisfaction after with CLIL approach. Population in this study
included the first-year students from the Faculty of Fine and Applied Arts, Burapha
University. There were two control groups; 1) 21 students who registered in the History of
Product Design course during academic year 2563, and 2) 28 students who registered in the
History of Western Art course during academic year 2564. The control group included 24
students who registered in the History of Western Art and the History of Product Design
course during academic year 2562.
Data for the 1st objective was collected from the content examinations in the History
of Product Design course and the History of Western Art course. While data for the 2nd
objective was collected by a language accuracy test developed by the researcher and the
fluency analysis using a language rubric adapted from Cambridge Language Assessment. Data
for the 3rd objective was collected by Burapha Universitys online satisfaction assessment
system.
The results revealed that learners in the CLIL classes were highly satisfied.
However, the language competency level of the CLIL learners in this study did not improve
significantly, as the increased part is the fluency rather than the accuracy. Meanwhile it
cannot yet be confirmed if the learning achievement of CLIL learners will be different from
learners in the mother-language class. Therefore, the CLIL approach might be usable with
students in History of Arts and Design. However, if the significant level of language
competency is required before entering the EMI (English as Medium of Instruction) classes in
the higher level, there should be the provision of intensive course, which is taught by
specialist in language teaching, for the learners as suggested by Galloway (2017). But if the
budget is limited, at least the content lecturer who is required to teach language should be
trained in language teaching, or at least provided with time for extra study which should be
counted as workload as Kewara (2017) stated that professional development takes time and
budget.