Pre-Service CLIL Teachers’ Conceptions on Bilingual Education: Impact of Initial Training on the Development of Their Teaching Skills

Abstract

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been adopted by schools to equip students with the competencies and language skills needed in today’s multilingual and multicultural society. However, teaching content courses through a foreign language requires specific teacher training, both initial and ongoing. This qualitative descriptive study analyses the development of bilingual teaching knowledge in terms of teaching skills among pre-service CLIL teachers (n = 15) at the University of Cádiz in Spain. Two reflective reports written by each pre-service teacher before and after participating in the course CLIL I: Foundations and Curricular Proposals for the Primary School Classroom (2022/23) were analyzed. The responses were categorized using Qualitative Content Analysis. The reflective reports included questions about their conception of bilingual teaching; methods for teaching bilingual courses; and justifications for their teaching methods. In addition, a focus group was conducted with a representative sample of participants. The results reveal a significant development in pre-service teachers’ knowledge of the teaching skills required for bilingual teaching. Particularly, there is an increase in contributions related to justifying their teaching methods. Moreover, the findings highlight pre-service teachers’ recognition of the differences between foreign language and CLIL teachers, as well as their ability to plan CLIL teaching effectively.

1. Introduction

1.1. Social and Academic Setting

Over the past two decades, Content and Language Integrated Learning (henceforth CLIL) has been introduced into primary education classrooms in countries like Spain [1]. This coincides with the growing use of foreign language (henceforth FL) teaching methods based on language acquisition principles [2], as outlined in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (henceforth CEFR) [3]. The widespread adoption of CLIL in Spanish education has led to a significant increase in bilingual schools, according to the Ministry of Education, Vocational Training, and Sports [4]. These bilingual schools apply immersive teaching methods, as documented in research on Instructed Second Language Acquisition (henceforth ISLA) [5]. The emphasis on immersive teaching has grown so much that, unlike many neighbouring countries, some autonomous communities in Spain have introduced the study of a second FL from the very beginning of primary education (ages 6–12) [6]. In response to this trend, some universities in Spain now offer specialized training programmes for future CLIL teachers [7].

Some Spanish universities offer bilingual teaching training as part of postgraduate programmes, particularly through master’s degrees focused on bilingual education. These programmes are often available online, allowing current teachers who want to retrain to participate; for example, Nebrija University and the International University of La Rioja–UNIR. Other universities, such as Pablo de Olavide University, the University of Córdoba, and the European University of Madrid, offer similar master’s programmes but may have different tracks for primary and secondary school teachers. Only a few universities include specific courses on bilingual education within their bachelor’s degree in primary education; for instance, this is the case at the Complutense University of Madrid and the University of Cádiz, where this study was conducted. The popularity and enrolment in these training programmes depend on several factors, including job opportunities for bilingual teachers in various regions of Spain [8]. This, in turn, is influenced by the policies of each autonomous community regarding FL education, including the required training for CLIL teachers and the FL proficiency levels expected [9].

The bilingual education policies in Spain’s autonomous communities vary depending on the linguistic and financial context of each region [10]. Some regions have more than one official language, while others only have Spanish. Additionally, these policies are shaped by the available budget at any given time. The ideological views of the regional educational authorities also play a role in shaping these policies [11]. Most regions aim to promote bilingualism, and progressive governments focus on expanding bilingual education in public schools. This requires addressing organizational challenges and investing in teacher training for foreign language and teaching skills. On the other hand, conservative governments often prioritize other areas of education, leaving the promotion of bilingual education to private or semi-private schools. These schools take advantage of the situation to enhance their reputation by offering high-quality bilingual programmes. Meanwhile, political, media, and commercial factors influence public perception. Many Spanish children attend additional language lessons at private language schools outside regular school hours [12], which further fuels scepticism about the quality of bilingual education in public schools.

The ongoing doubts about the quality of bilingual education in Spain primarily focus on concerns about whether students are meeting the learning objectives for content courses [13]. There are also worries about students’ FL proficiency and whether it is sufficient for learning through activities based on the “learning by doing” approach [14]. Additionally, many question whether teachers are adequately prepared to plan and deliver bilingual lessons effectively [15]. This last concern, about teacher preparation, is something that trainers, such as university teachers, can address. As a result, pre-service teacher training programmes in Spain pay special attention to equipping future teachers for bilingual education. To address these concerns, university training should not only meet the educational needs of pre-service teachers but also help reassure the public, media, and educational authorities that teachers are fully capable of effectively planning and teaching CLIL courses.

In this context, it is important to note that CLIL combines teaching course content and developing a second or FL at the same time [16,17]. A key point to understand is that, in monolingual contexts, the learners’ first language (henceforth L1) is not simply replaced by the additional language they are learning. Instead, both languages are used together in a flexible and varied way. This combination can differ in terms of how much each language is used, how it is applied to the learning process, and the way it is used [18,19]. The success of this approach depends heavily on the teachers’ use of scaffolding strategies [20] and their ability to create an interactive learning environment where both languages are actively used [21].

This approach is based on teaching principles that are not as commonly emphasized in monolingual education. One key framework guiding this is the 4-Cs Framework [16], which focuses on four main areas: 1. Content. It refers to the course matter being taught, which is distinct from the language used to teach it. In CLIL, the language itself becomes a secondary objective alongside the content; 2. Communication. It involves interactive language use in both directions—listening or reading (receptive) and speaking or writing (productive). It also includes the use of different group activities to encourage communication; 3. Cognition. It emphasizes the idea that language is tied to the way humans think and learn, reflecting the constructivist view that language and cognition are interconnected; and 4. Culture. It aims to help students develop intercultural understanding and sociocultural awareness of the target culture, expanding beyond just language skills. This framework guides the planning and delivery of CLIL lessons, ensuring both content learning and language development are integrated.

1.2. Literature Review

Relevant literature highlights numerous studies on the effectiveness of the CLIL approach. However, fewer studies focus on the progress of pre-service CLIL teacher training. As noted, this gap is likely due to the limited availability of undergraduate programs that incorporate theoretical and practical CLIL studies as part of their curriculum. In recent years; however, research addressing initial teacher training has emerged; for example, Pons-Seguí [22] examines the training needs of pre-service primary and secondary FL teachers, along with other educational stakeholders, in the Catalonia context. This study identifies FL proficiency, methodological expertise, and classroom management skills as essential competencies for CLIL educators. Moreover, Estrada-Chichón and Zayas-Martínez [23] report on research conducted at the University of Cádiz, finding that pre-service teachers exhibit a high degree of willingness to communicate, attributed largely to the teaching practice model employed. Finally, the study by Galán-Rodríguez et al. [24] reveals that CLIL courses are more commonly offered to pre-service teachers training as FL educators rather than generalist teachers.

In this study, the foundational concepts and first steps in applying CLIL teaching in primary school classrooms are taught in a course for pre-service CLIL teachers (henceforth student teachers) called CLIL I: Foundations and Curricular Proposals for the Primary School Classroom (henceforth the course). It provides both theoretical and practical training, allowing student teachers to analyze existing CLIL lesson plans created by in-service teachers in bilingual schools in Andalusia and to design their own CLIL ones. During the first two-thirds of the course, student teachers focus on analyzing existing CLIL lesson plans. They use a data analysis tool [25] that guides them through a step-by-step review of the lesson plans at various primary school levels. This tool is adapted from the CIPMA (Cuestionario de Integración de los Principios Metodológicos AICLE) questionnaire [26], which is widely used to assess the quality of CLIL teaching. Each week, student teachers evaluate lesson plans individually using the adapted questionnaire. Their evaluations lead to group discussions, which help clarify the key concepts used as evaluation criteria and develop their understanding of what makes a high-quality CLIL lesson plan. Over time, student teachers become more familiar with complex teaching concepts. Finally, student teachers work together to design their own CLIL lesson plans, using the same criteria they applied when analyzing existing lesson plans (https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/educacion/descargas/recursos/aicle/html/prim.html (accessed on 7 March 2022).

The goal of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the training in re-shaping the student teachers’ self-conception regarding their ability to plan and implement CLIL lessons. To do this, it will be analyzed how student teachers develop their bilingual (Spanish–English) teaching skills in terms of didactics. The initial research question is:

-

To what extent is the training effective in re-shaping the student teachers’ self-conceptions regarding planning and implementing CLIL lessons?

At the start of the course, it is expected that student teachers will have only a vague idea of how to integrate course content and language learning in a CLIL classroom. They may be unsure about how to organize this integration and may initially focus on trying to balance the use of Spanish as L1 and English as FL. However, by the end of the course, student teachers are expected to have a clearer understanding of bilingual teaching. Instead of viewing the process as one with a fixed language-use pattern, they will recognize the need to adapt their teaching strategies to fit each moment of the lesson.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Study Context

The initial teacher training for student teachers at the University of Cádiz is part of the bachelor’s degree in primary education [27], which lasts four academic years, consisting of eight terms and 240 European Credit Transfer System (henceforth ECTS) credits. During the first five terms, students take general courses, totalling 150 ECTS, with 18 ECTS dedicated to in-school placements. The final three terms focus on semi-specialized teaching, totalling 90 ECTS. Here, student teachers can choose courses related to qualifying specializations, such as FL/CLIL, which accounts for 24 ECTS, along with 24 ECTS for additional in-school placements. In this respect, many students choose a bilingual school as part of this practical training (i.e., in-school placement). Although there is no formal FL training requirement, university teachers aim to address this gap by incorporating the target language into courses focused on FL teaching or CLIL. Currently, three FLs—English, French, and German—are offered within the bachelor’s degree programme. This approach not only introduces students to innovative teaching methods but also gives them first-hand experience of the language-learning process they will be expected to implement as teachers after graduation.

The course is a 6-ECTS course, which corresponds to 150 h of total workload, and offers 131 h of training, combining 32 h of theoretical sessions, 16 h of practical sessions, and 83 h of independent work. Conducted during the sixth term, the course meets twice weekly, with each session comprising two 45 min blocks. Theoretical content covers essential CLIL concepts, including curriculum and lesson planning, teacher competencies, and implementation models:

-

Basic concepts and tools specific to CLIL

-

Models, conditions, and contexts for CLIL implementation

-

The bilingual school, focusing on the language project and teacher competencies

-

Curriculum planning for CLIL

-

Lesson planning, which includes analyzing existing CLIL lesson plans

On the other hand, practical sessions provide hands-on experience with CLIL lesson design and analysis. The contents of the course collectively shaped pre-service teachers’ conceptions of CLIL by building their theoretical knowledge, practical skills, and professional confidence, thereby supporting the study’s focus on the training’s impact.

2.2. Participants

The participants in this study were undergraduate students enrolled in the bachelor’s degree in primary education during the academic year 2022/23. There was a total of 19 students, all of whom chose the continuous assessment option, requiring 80% attendance at on-campus sessions. The average age of the student teachers was about 21 years. Approximately 25% of the student teachers attended bilingual schools (Spanish–English) before university, while about 75% came from monolingual (Spanish) schools in the province of Cádiz (Andalusia, Spain). Additionally, all student teachers had officially accredited English as FL proficiency levels between B1 and C1, according to the CEFR, at the start of the course.

In this study, 15 student teachers participated (11 females and 4 males). Four others did not take part because they did not complete the two required reflection reports (see Section 2.3) before and after the course. Although all student teachers performing continuous assessments were expected to submit both reports, these were not graded. In other words, their final grades for the course were not affected by whether they completed this task or not.

Finally, in strict adherence to the Research Ethics Committee Regulations of the University of Cádiz, student teachers’ participation was voluntary, and their written consent was required. The data collected from them were anonymized and securely stored for analysis purposes. Consistent also with the Research Ethics Committee Regulations, student teachers’ academic work generated in didactic activities as part of the curriculum could be utilized for research purposes with their explicit written consent. Furthermore, this study followed a non-interventional approach, prioritizing participant anonymity, as pointed out above, in alignment with the Spanish Organic Law 3/2018, dated December 5th, on Data Protection and Guarantee of Digital Rights.

2.3. Research Instruments and Data Collection Procedure and Analysis

This is a qualitative descriptive study that analyses reflection reports [28] and focus group responses from student teachers. The research used two tools: a reflection report and a focus group. Student teachers (n = 15) completed the report twice—before the course started and at the end. It included three open-ended questions that could be answered at any length within one hour. To ensure no important information was lost, they could respond in their L1 (Spanish). The questions were: Question 1. Your conception of bilingual teaching at the primary education level; Question 2. A description of how you would teach bilingual courses at the primary education level; and Question 3. Justification for why you would teach bilingual courses in that way. The focus group (n = 5) included questions based on comparing the data from the reflection reports, without trying to influence their answers.

The research design and data collection used the same reflective report. This report was given to student teachers just before the course began in February 2023, at the same time as their first school placement started. It was then administered again after the course ended in June 2023, coinciding with the conclusion of their school placement. This in-school placement was not necessarily performed in a bilingual school, as it is the first and generalist placement. However, some students did visit bilingual schools and could observe CLIL lessons, which provided them with a broader perspective on the topic. In total, 16 student teachers completed the first reflective report, while 17 student teachers participated in the second. However, only 15 student teachers completed both reports. There is an increase in the number of words used to answer the three questions from the pre- to the post-report. On average, student teachers used 392 words in the first report and 416 words in the second.

The Qualitative Content Analysis [29] was used to develop a category system (i.e., coding frame); that is, it was used to categorize the information from the reflective reports (the same process was applied to both the pre- and post-report) into measurable items. In this sense, categories were understood as “basic concepts of cognition; they are—generally speaking—a commonality between certain things: a term, a heading, a label that designates something similar under certain aspects” [29]. The data-driven (i.e., inductive) development of categories through the continuous organization and systematization of the formed codes followed these steps [29]:

-

Step 1: Author 2 prepared the data and initiated text work by using tables.

-

Step 2: Authors 2 and 3 formed the main categories corresponding to the questions answered in both pre- and post-reports.

-

Steps 3 and 4: Authors 2 and 3, on one hand, and Author 1, on the other, separately coded data with the main categories, compiling text passages and forming subcategories where needed.

-

Step 5: All authors agreed on category-based analyses and presented results.

The authors agreed on the thematic categories [26]—as already applied to similar studies [30]—based on the responses from each reflective report and, therefore, the categories and specific items within categories were established. The data analysis compared the items by category and quantified them, allowing us to examine differences between the two reflective reports.

Finally, the focus group was held on 22 November 2023. It was carried out by an uninvolved researcher to avoid any potential bias. The session was audio recorded. To help participants see the differences in responses, the authors presented three tables showing the results, highlighting variations in types and numbers of items across the reflective reports. Five student teachers volunteered to participate and answered seven questions: Six were directly related to the three questions in the reflective reports, and one focused on the influence of the schools where they completed their placements. The focus group lasted about ten minutes. The data were then transcribed and analyzed. The answers of the participants were used to shed more light on the differences in (i) the number of items from the pre- to the post- resort; and on (ii) the different categories and items on the pre- and on the post-report. They were asked to reflect on the reasons for these differences and the role of taking the course. The answers were used to better understand the perspective and experiences of the student teachers. Additionally, insights gained from the focus group provided explanations for why student teachers referenced different items in their initial and final reports.

3. Results

The results of the Qualitative Content Analysis of the student teachers’ pre- and post-reports are presented below. Results will be presented by examining each of the three report questions separately. First,

Table 1. Question 1 (Your conception of bilingual teaching at the primary education level).

Pre-Report			Post-Report
Category	Conception	Frequency	Category	Conception	Frequency
Cognition (5)	“Not having two monolingual brains” 1	1	Cognition (2)	“Not having two monolingual brains”	-
	Cognitive skills improvement 2	4		Cognitive skills improvement	-
				Early FL acquisition	1
				Cognitive development	1
Communication (7)	Teaching FL as L1	1	Communication (2)	Teaching FL as L1	-
	Teaching FL through FL	1		Teaching FL through FL	-
	L1/FL use	4		L1/FL use	-
	No translation	1		No translation	-
				Linguistic diversity	1
				L1/FL communication skills improvement	1
Teaching–Learning (4)	FL improvement	1	Teaching–Learning (18)	FL improvement	-
	Automatic FL learning	1		Automatic FL learning	-
	Materials and resources	1		Materials and resources	-
	Other cultures understanding	1		Other cultures understanding	-
				Content teaching through FL	6
				Educational approach integrating two languages	6
				Intercultural/Sociocultural understanding	2
				Fully-integrated learning environment	4
		16			22

¹ In CLIL terms, “not having two monolingual brains” implies a rejection of the fractional view [31], that is, the fact that individuals handle with different conceptualizations for different languages; ² By “Cognitive skills improvement”, students referred to specific cognitive levels (for example, remembering, understanding, applying, etc.) [32] associated with different tasks to be carried out in the CLIL classroom.

shows how the answers to Question 1 were categorized in both the pre- and post-report. Items were classified into three categories: Cognition, Communication, and Teaching–Learning. Notably, the total number of items increased by about 37% from the pre-report (16 items) to the post-report (22 items). Before the training, student teachers primarily connected bilingual education to Cognition and Communication, with only four items linked to Teaching–Learning. After the training, 18 out of the 22 items were related to the student teachers’ ability to manage the teaching–learning process.

3.1. Question 1: Conception of Bilingual Education

Examining each category closely, the following results were found: Communication. In the pre-report, there were six references related to the use of L1 and FL in bilingual education. These included topics such as teaching FL as L1, teaching FL through FL, L1/FL use, and avoiding translation. In the post-report, this number decreased to two references: One on the value of linguistic diversity and another on improving communicative skills in both languages (L1 and FL); Cognition. The pre-report included five references, which were grouped into two items: The idea that bilinguals “do not have two monolingual brains” and the improvement of cognitive skills. In the post-report, there was one mention of early FL acquisition and its impact on cognitive development; and Teaching–Learning. The pre-report had one item related to understanding other cultures. In the post-report, this shifted to two more specific items about intercultural and sociocultural understanding. The item Materials and Resources, was only mentioned once in the pre-test, but this increased to four mentions in the post-test. The post-test even referenced a fully integrated learning environment that combines linguistic and non-linguistic content. Additionally, the pre-report included two mentions related to improving FL skills and automatic FL learning. In contrast, the post-report featured six references to the instrumental use of the FL and ten references to an educational approach that integrates both languages:

3.2. Question 2: How to Teach Bilingual Courses

Table 2. Question 2 (A description of how you would teach bilingual courses at the primary education level).

Pre-Report			Post-Report
Category	Conception	Frequency	Category	Conception	Frequency
Classroom management (14)	Materials and resources	6	Classroom management (8)	Materials and resources	5
	Group work	4		Group work	-
	Individual instruction	2		Individual instruction	1
	Innovative activities	1		Innovative activities	-
	Immersive methodology	1		Immersive methodology	-
				Objectives identification	1
				Interactive teaching	1
Teacher (15)	CLIL teacher as FL teacher	13	Teacher (34)	CLIL teacher as FL teacher	-
	Example providing	1		Example providing	-
	Basic concepts teaching	1		Basic concepts teaching	-
				Lesson planning	13
				CLIL	9
				Scaffolding	6
				Teacher collaboration	3
				Teacher’s values	1
				Incidental teaching	1
				FL-Content(s) assessment	1
Learner (6)	Dynamic approach	3	Learner (3)	Dynamic approach	-
	Active learning	1		Active learning	-
	Creativity	1		Creativity	-
	Meaningful learning	1		Meaningful learning	-
				Bilingual students	1
				Cooperative learning	2
L1/L2 (11)	FL instrumental use	9	L1/L2 (6)	FL instrumental use	5
	Casual L1 use	2		Casual L1 use	-
				Oral language	1
			Cognition (3)	Thinking skills	3
		46			54

shows the categorization of answers to Question 2 in the pre- and post-reports. Both reports include discussions on classroom management, the roles and attitudes of teachers and learners, and the use of L1 and FL. A new topic that emerged in the post-report is the category of Cognition. Overall, the number of items increased by about 13% from the pre-report to the post-report. However, there was a decrease in the number of items in the categories of Classroom Management, Learner, and L1/FL. In contrast, the category Teacher counts with more than double the items in the post-report.

In the category of Classroom Management, concepts such as group work, innovative activities, and immersive methodology were replaced by a focus on identifying objectives and interactive teaching. In the Teacher category, the understanding of CLIL teachers as FL teachers changed to a combination of two elements: CLIL and scaffolding. Additionally, broader interventions like providing examples and teaching basic concepts evolved into more specific actions that teachers can take, including lesson planning, collaboration, upholding teaching values, incidental teaching, and assessing FL content. For the Learner category, the four items mentioned in the pre-report (dynamic approach, active learning, creativity, and meaningful learning) were reduced to two: Bilingual students and cooperative learning. In the L1/FL category, while the number of items remained the same, the frequency of references decreased. The item on instrumental use of FL dropped from nine mentions to five, and the item on casual L1 use changed to oral language. Lastly, the new category Cognition includes the item thinking skills, which was mentioned three times.

3.3. Question 3: Justification

Table 3. Question 3 (Justification for why you would teach bilingual courses in that way).

Pre-Report			Post-Report
Category	Conception	Frequency	Category	Conception	Frequency
Pedagogy (4)	“Build-up a base”	1	Pedagogy (0)	‘Build-up a base’	-
	How to work with others	1		How to work with others	-
	Long-term memory	1		Long-term memory	-
	Motivation	1		Motivation	-
FL (4)	Language skills	1	FL (16)	Language skills	-
	Eliminate the fear of using FL	2		Eliminate the fear of using FL	-
	Future work	1		Future work	-
				FL acquisition	12
				FL use for authentic purposes	4
CLIL (2)	Integration	2	CLIL (18)	Integration	-
				Interculturality	9
				Knowledge development	4
				Personal growth	4
				Multiples areas learning	1
			Teacher (3)	Teacher as lesson planner	2
				FL proficient teachers	1
			Cognition (10)	Meaningful learning	4
				Cognitive skills improvement	3
				Motivation	2
				Intellectual flexibility	1
		10			47

shows the categorization of answers to Question 3 in the pre- and post-reports. Two categories are present in both reports: FL and CLIL. The number of times items in the FL category are mentioned increased fourfold, while mentions in the CLIL category increased ninefold in the post-report. The category Pedagogy, which appeared in the pre-test, was not mentioned in the post-test. Instead, two new categories emerged: Teacher and Cognition. Overall, the number of items in the post-test is nearly five times greater than in the pre-test.

Considering each category independently, in Pedagogy, students allude to four ideas: “Build-up a base,” how to work with others, long-term memory, and motivation, arguments that do not arise in the post-report. In the case of the category FL, four mentions to language skills, eliminate the fear of using FL, and future work, shift into 16 references to FL acquisition and FL for authentic purposes. In the category CLIL, in the pre-report, two student teachers indicate the importance of integration, while in the post-report, they touch upon four topics: Interculturality, knowledge development, personal growth, and multiple areas learning. Finally, regarding the two new categories, Teacher counts with three mentions to two items: Teacher as lesson planner and FL proficient teachers. In the category Cognition, there are four topics that emerge: Meaningful learning, cognitive skills improvement, motivation, and intellectual flexibility.

4. Discussion

The main goal of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the training in enabling student teachers to plan and implement a dual-method approach (combining content and FL) in primary education classrooms, despite other factors that might also contribute to their knowledge growth or skill improvement. As mentioned in the Introduction, the research question was to determine to what extent student teachers understood the aim of the training. However, it was expected that as they progressed, their grasp of the foundational principles of the CLIL approach—detailed in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3—would gradually improve. An initial analysis of the results between the pre- and post-report reveals a clear evolution of the self-conception of student teachers regarding their practical application of CLIL foundational concepts. This indicates that the course helped them apply the theoretical foundations of the CLIL approach. One key indicator of this can also be seen in how the authors categorized the student teachers’ contributions. At first, for Question 1 (Your conception of bilingual teaching at the primary education level), the authors linked the responses to two main concepts from Coyle’s 4-Cs Framework [16]: communication and cognition. This connection was likely because the theoretical nature of the question (i.e., “your conception”) encouraged a focus on general knowledge. However, Question 2 (A description of how you would teach bilingual courses at the primary education level) and Question 3 (Justification for why you would teach bilingual courses in that way) were less theoretical and required a more personal take on bilingual teaching. While these questions were less abstract than Question 1, the student teachers continued to draw on the CLIL principles from the 4-Cs Framework, but in a more practical and concrete way.

While categorizing the student teachers’ responses, the authors noted a higher level of precision. However, instead of finding clear references to “content” as expected, the student teachers often mentioned other aspects, such as the role of the teacher and the role of learners, types of resources, and classroom management. A similar pattern was observed with the concept of “culture,” which was reflected in categories, like Pedagogy, which include items related to motivation, how to work with others, CLIL as a training modality, etc., that also involve items such as interculturality, integration, and even knowledge development. These items could have been grouped under a broader “content category”. Thus, the pre-report gave insight into the student teachers’ initial knowledge and attitudes toward CLIL, capturing their developing “teaching identity” [19]. The post-report allowed the authors to track changes in the student teachers’ responses and examine how these evolved. The following sections will systematically compare these changes to guide the discussion.

The same approach used earlier to analyze the number of categories and items before and after the course helps highlight some key findings. It seems that student teachers already had a solid understanding of bilingual education and how they would apply it in practice from the start. This is shown by the relatively small increase in the number of arguments in these areas: From 16 to 22 for Question 1 and from 46 to 54 for Question 2. However, for Question 3, there was a significant rise in the number of responses, jumping from 10 to 47. This indicates that, for the first time, student teachers were not only able to plan bilingual lessons but also clearly explain their reasons for doing so.

4.1. Bilingual Teaching in Primary Education

In analyzing the results for Question 1, it is clear that the main improvement in the student teachers’ understanding of teaching skills occurred in the Teaching–Learning category (this is one of the most significant training needs of student teachers, as Pons-Seguí [22] reveals, within what she calls “methodological expertise”). The number of responses in this category grew from four in the pre-report to eighteen in the post-report. This growth came alongside a noticeable decline in the other two categories: Cognition, which dropped from five to two items, and Communication, which also decreased from seven to two items. At the start of the course, the student teachers’ responses about bilingual education were spread evenly across three categories. However, by the end of the course, over 80% of their responses focused on aspects they could directly control in the classroom, particularly the teaching–learning process [15]. This shift aligns with the ISLA perspective, where teachers are encouraged to actively manage the learning process, including the conditions that support it, to help students learn languages more effectively [5,33].

In the pre-report, the four items in the Teaching–Learning category reflect common, surface-level ideas about bilingual education. These ideas align with popular views, such as the belief that bilingual education primarily improves FL skills and exposes students to other cultures [34]. It is also seen as requiring specific materials and resources [35] and facilitating unconscious language learning [36]. However, by the end of the course, the student teachers’ responses shift to a deeper understanding of bilingual education. Instead of focusing on the benefits or functional aspects, 12 of the 18 responses emphasize the core principle of CLIL: it combines language learning with course content, or involves teaching content in a language other than the student’s L1 [16,17]. This shift suggests that, by the end of the course, student teachers developed a more foundational understanding of bilingual education, or they approached it with greater care and precision.

The twelve items, which make up over 50% of the total responses in the post-report, were already known to the student teachers before the course began. The acronym AICLE (Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenido y Lengua Extranjera) in Spanish is as clear as its English equivalent, that is, CLIL. From the start, all student teachers understood that bilingual education involves using two languages (typically the learners’ L1 and a FL) to teach non-language courses. Initially, they did not focus much on this basic concept, assuming it was obvious. Instead, they emphasized the potential benefits, like improving FL skills and using specific teaching resources, as noted earlier. However, by the end of the course, the student teachers’ understanding of bilingual education became more careful, thoughtful, and centred on its essential principles.

In this area, student teachers expressed particular concern about finding a balanced way to use both languages involved (L1 and the FL). This issue does not arise in more immersive teaching models, where only one language—the additional language—is used, regardless of the teaching methods. In contrast, CLIL allows for flexibility in how much of the curriculum is taught in each language. This results in “soft” or “hard” versions of CLIL, depending on the level of language immersion [18]. Student teacher. Student teachers are concerned about managing this balance, but it can be regulated by education authorities. For example, in Andalusia, it is required that the FL be used for 30% to 50% of the course [37]. Their worry is not about how much content should be taught in each language but rather the wide range of options this creates [34,38]. These options include decisions like whether to dedicate entire lessons to one language, alternate languages by week or phase of instruction (for example, introduce concepts in one language and reinforce them in another), or switch languages within the same class session.

This issue could be addressed by each school’s Language Project (Proyecto Lingüístico de Centro, or PLC), which outlines how languages are used, the role of language assistants, coordination methods, and the specific CLIL model being implemented [39]. The PLC should clearly define these elements. It is expected that some of the student teachers’ uncertainties will be resolved during the next term, once they participate in specialized placements in bilingual schools focused on FL and CLIL teaching. However, in many Spanish schools, the PLC is often treated as an administrative requirement necessary for the school’s official bilingual status and associated resources [40]. As a result, teaching staff may not give much attention to defining the specific CLIL model. Instead, the version of CLIL used in each school often depends on the FL skills and teaching methods of the individual teacher in charge.

In the focus group, student teachers attributed these changes to different reasons. First, they claim not to have really known what bilingual education was before starting the course (for example, [student 1] “learning the theoretical bases and fundamentals of bilingual education led us to be able to answer with more criteria, theories and concepts”). Second, they consider that not only did coursing the course broaden their knowledge and hence, the number of items in the post-report could grow, but also the time they spent in their in-school placements as student teachers. This time allowed them to see how all those theories were put into practice in the classroom, and they could experience what bilingual education meant.

4.2. Implementing CLIL in Primary Education Classrooms

The results for Question 2 show a more advanced and technical understanding. The student teachers’ arguments related to the role of the learner, the balanced use of languages, and classroom management became simpler and more focused. In contrast, their arguments about the teacher’s role doubled in number, reflecting a growing awareness of their importance as designers, organizers, and managers of the teaching process. One key change is the shift from focusing on group work (mentioned in the pre-report under Classroom Management) to emphasizing interactive teaching in the post-report. This means that, while the student teachers still refer to many of their initial ideas on how to teach bilingual courses, they now express them in a more refined way. Previously, they highlighted group work to promote cooperation. Now, they focus on interaction, whether it involves cooperation, competition, or something else entirely.

The most notable finding in Question 2, aside from the doubling of items related to the Teacher category, is how student teachers perceive their role. In this respect, it is worth noting that the study by Galán-Rodríguez et al. [24] reveals that CLIL courses are more often offered to pre-service teachers as if they were FL educators rather than generalist teachers. In the pre-report, 13 of the 15 items in this category described the CLIL teacher primarily as a FL teacher. This is a well-defined issue in the Spanish school system, where the roles of FL teachers and CLIL teachers are separate [37]. In most Andalusian primary schools, FL teachers are specialists who teach FL classes to different groups at each grade level. CLIL teachers; however, are typically course-area teachers (not language specialists) who, in addition to their teaching qualifications, have a FL proficiency level of B2 or higher according to the CEFR [3].

At the beginning of the CLIL course, student teachers initially viewed their role primarily as FL teachers, as if the main goal of CLIL was to teach the FL and content was just a tool for doing so [41]. This perception changed significantly during the course, and once it was over, it had disappeared from their thinking, with no similar references in the post-report. By the end of the course, their focus shifted to three key areas: didactic planning, integration of language and content, and scaffolding. These areas relate to designing lessons, carefully choosing content, considering learners’ FL limitations, and anticipating communication challenges. Instead of describing their role as FL specialists, the student teachers became more concerned with the planning and preparation that comes before teaching. They became more cautious and forward-thinking in their approach. In the focus group, student teachers acknowledged that learning new concepts like scaffolding during the course gave them a different perspective on the CLIL teacher’s role. One student explained, “when we finished the course, we had more tools […]. We learned about scaffolding, which is our Bible. We need to always keep it in mind”.

The student teachers also become more confident in organizing the balanced use of each language for specific functions or teaching phases. Notably, their initial references to occasionally using the L1 to facilitate communication disappear [42]. By the end of the course, they realize that such strategies undermine the fundamental purpose of interactions in FL teaching and learning. Additionally, they understand that their plans for using each language throughout the teaching process must take into account the specific thinking skills linked to each language use [43]. Together, these insights indicate that they are developing a more active teaching approach that emphasizes thoughtful design and responsible action.

In the focus group student teachers reflect on the reality of teaching CLIL: “Sometimes bilingual education is more on the paper. Some teachers do not have a good level of English, with the new law the contents are different and publishing houses do not know how to approach it, so textbooks are just translating from Spanish into English. It does not make sense in comparison to what we have learned in this course”.

4.3. CLIL Foundational Principles or Concepts

Question 3, as mentioned earlier in this section, shows the biggest increase in the number of arguments made by student teachers in their post-report. It makes sense that after spending a term analyzing and discussing bilingual teaching methods each week, student teachers would feel more confident using key ideas about bilingual education and bilingualism. What is exciting is that they are now using these core concepts to support their own CLIL teaching approaches. Additionally, the student teachers in the focus group noted that their time as trainees in primary schools had a big impact on them, changing how they saw themselves as teachers [19]. One student said: “We did not have the best experiences watching how the foreign language was taught, which helped us see what did not work. We learned what we did not want to do and thought about how we wanted to teach”.

The disappearance of teaching-related arguments is quite surprising. In the pre-report, the Pedagogy category included four out of the ten arguments, covering ideas like motivation and the development of long-term memory. However, in the post-report, these points are gone, and the entire category has been replaced by others that were not originally considered. Some of these new categories bring up similar ideas to the ones that were dropped; for example, the Cognition category, which was not mentioned by student teachers at the start, now achieves a lot of focus. In this category, they discuss meaningful learning, motivation, and thinking skills.

The biggest change between the pre-report and post-report is in the arguments for Question 3 related to CLIL. At the start, student teachers only mentioned the idea of combining language and content [16] to support their proposal. By the end of the course, their understanding of CLIL had expanded a lot. Now, they not only talk about interculturality but also discuss knowledge development, cross-curricular learning, and personal growth, among other ideas.

5. Conclusions

This study gathered feedback from student teachers at the University of Cádiz about their views on bilingual education in primary schools, both before and after taking the course. By analyzing their reflection reports and focus group comments, the study confirmed its importance. The results show that the course helped improve their teaching skills and knowledge for bilingual courses. In particular, they gained a better understanding of the theory and practice of the CLIL approach. Two key points emerged: First, student teachers now understand that the roles of FL and CLIL teachers are different. Second, they see that planning CLIL lessons is different from planning other courses taught in the L1. However, these results should be viewed carefully due to the study’s limitations, which are explained later. Still, the findings suggest future research should explore how to improve training for new CLIL teachers.

The study has three main limitations related to how it was performed. First, the sample size might not fully represent the group being studied. Although about 80% of the student teachers were included, the study could have been more complete by also including those studying French and German bilingual teaching, as these courses are similar to the English one. Second, the research tool may have some flaws. Third, there may be issues with how the results were interpreted. If student teachers from French and German courses had been included, differences in teaching styles between university teachers, that is, trainers, could have affected the results.

As for the possible imperfections of the research tool, the Qualitative Content Analysis starts with participants’ verbal responses about a topic. In this study, student teachers were asked to freely share their views on certain teaching issues, which allowed them to focus more on some parts and less on others. The three questions asked were not always clear or easy to separate, so some participants might have included their reasons for using a certain technique (Question 2) in their answers, making their responses to Question 3 less detailed. Because the Qualitative Content Analysis method allows for free expression, some participants might mix their personal ideas about bilingual teaching with their reasons for teaching in a certain way. This makes organizing the data harder. The problem could be reduced by sorting each student teachers’ answers according to the three questions, but doing this would make the analysis more complicated than necessary and could change the results. Moreover, self-reported data, such as initial and final reports, can be the result of biases, social desirability effects, and the limited ability of student teachers to accurately assess their own knowledge and skills. In this sense, without any observations or assessments of the student teachers’ actual classroom teaching practises, there is no objective evidence to support that they are able to apply the CLIL approach.

Finally, in qualitative research, interpretation plays a key role. In our study, this meant gathering and grouping the items mentioned by student teachers, then sorting them into categories. This process can be tricky when some items do not fit perfectly into one category. For example, it is not always clear if “Interactive teaching” should go in the Teaching–Learning category, where the focus is on the teacher planning the interaction, or in the Communication category, where the interaction itself is valued, regardless of the teacher’s role. Because of this, defining and categorizing items, even after careful analysis and discussions, can still leave room for some uncertainty. Together with this, and considering potential future lines of research, some methodological measures could be taken into account: first, incorporating data, such as classroom observations or evaluations, to assess the student teachers’ actual implementation of the CLIL approach in real classroom settings; and second, triangulating the self-reported data with other forms of evidence, such as lesson plans or student teachers’ work samples, for instance.

In a nutshell, this study, from the authors’ perspective, effectively assessed the impact of the course on changing the student teachers’ conceptions of their CLIL teaching skills. It also provided the pre-service teachers with an opportunity to connect their beliefs about teaching to the theoretical concepts of the CLIL approach, as they typically have limited chances to reflect on their previous beliefs in a rational way. In fact, the authors believe that this is what truly helps pre-service teachers make a sincere commitment to innovation in teaching. Thus, within the field of social sciences, qualitative research holds significant relevance. In this context, the present work should be understood as a case study, and its value lies in its informative and experimental nature, although it may be difficult to replicate in other settings.