Learners’ Attitude towards the Adaptation of CLIL in Undergraduate English Literature Courses in a Private University Context in Bangladesh

For a lack of competence in the English language, students of BA English programs in private universities in Bangladesh appear to struggle to understand the lessons involving literary content (Alam, 2018). To help students with adequate skills in English, adapting Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), with equal emphasis on subject teaching and language teaching for enhancing both the skills of communicating and transferring content knowledge, appears to be more effective than just lecture-based content teaching of literature. Then again, the success of CLIL in literature classes depends on learners’ positive attitude towards it (Dörneyi, 1990; Dörneyi, 2001; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Heckhausen, 1991). Therefore, this research intends to explore learners’ perceptions about integrating task-oriented literary materials with both content and language teaching to develop students’ comprehension level of literary contents as well as enhance their English language skills. This paper, a fraction of a larger research, will focus on the findings of a questionnaire and interviews to address learners’ perspectives regarding the strengths of using CLIL in undergraduate English literature classes in Bangladesh. A group of first year undergraduate students of English literature courses in a private university participated in this research. The quantitative data from the questionnaire was analyzed using an Excel spreadsheet and the qualitative interview data was analyzed thematically. Based on the analysis of the findings, the research identified that the learners expressed a mixed attitude towards CLIL in literature classes regarding its strengths and weaknesses. The majority of the learners with weaker language skills enjoyed CLIL whereas learners with better language skills preferred lecture-based lessons instead of CLIL.


Introduction
Learners' heterogeneity is a significant catalyst concerning the success of any teaching learning technique. Research reveals that undergraduate English literature courses in Bangladesh are typically composed of heterogeneous learners in terms of linguistic competence and educational background: a portion of them are adept in English language skills while some lack the required language skills for BA in English programs (Shahriar, 2012;Hasan, 2016;Yeasmin, 2011). In the same way, before entering tertiary education some students complete their higher secondary education from English medium institutions located in urban areas and some from Bangla medium institutions located in both urban areas aided by and rural areas deprived of updated and advanced teaching learning facilities. In fact, undergraduate candidates are not apparently prepared with the language skills they would require to study in the English department (Alam, 2018). They find it rather difficult to understand the contents of English literature courses, and, in most cases, the course outcomes become less successful in meeting the objectives and goals of the program. In order to equip these students with the English language skills required to analyze and appreciate literary texts, adopting Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) appears to be more effective than just conducting lecture-based content teaching of the texts as CLIL puts equal emphasis on subject teaching and language teaching with the purpose of both enhancing the skill of communicating as well as gathering and transferring content knowledge (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010). In fact, the success of CLIL in literature classes depends on learners' positive attitude towards it. Therefore, this research intends to explore learners' perceptions about the integration of task-oriented literary materials with both content and language teaching to develop students' comprehension level of literary contents as well as enhance their English language skills. This paper, a fraction of a larger research, will focus only on the findings from a questionnaire and interviews to address learners' perceptions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of using CLIL in English literature classes in Bangladesh.

Literature Review
Scholars have been raising their voices for including literary texts in the second and foreign language curriculum (Cook, 1994;Shanahan, 1997;Hanauer, 2001;Carroli, 2008). Researchers have also alternatively advocated a content-based curriculum that would include literature components (Liddicoat, 2000;Kramsch, 2013). With this connection, CLIL shows an appropriate relevance to English literature classes in Bangladesh. Nevertheless, the success of CLIL basically depends on learners' acceptance and attitude towards this approach. Generally speaking, attitude is an individual's set of beliefs and reactions towards any practice, issue, and phenomena. This attitude of learners is vital for the success of any teaching-learning approach as researchers correspondingly claim that a positive attitude facilitates learning (Dörneyi, 1990;Dörneyi, 2001;Gardner & Lambert, 1972;Heckhausen, 1991). Furthermore, in any situation, attitude is a driving force which is strongly linked to motivation (Katarzyna, 2012), and the formation of motivation among learners depends on the type of effective materials used and the teaching strategies applied. Consequently, it can be alluded and argued that using literature as language teaching resources has linguistic and motivational advantages (Lazar, 1993;Pison, 2000), and CLIL materials are highly motivational in comparison to non-CLIL materials (Doiz, Lasagabaster, & Sierra, 2014).
In fact, the effectiveness of CLIL in literature classes in undergraduate programs in Bangladesh depends on learners' performance outcomes and attitudes regarding the use of language skills and content knowledge. Studies reveal that the appropriate ways of using CLIL are extensively researched in European contexts (Dalton-Puffer & Nikula 2006;Dalton-Puffer & Smit 2007;Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe 2010) and learners' performance in receptive linguistic competence were found to be quite satisfactory (Coonan 2007;Dalton-Puffer 2008) as CLIL enhances learning motivation among the learners (Burston & Kyprianou 2009). In Asia, teachers are still searching for ways to adapt CLIL to different contexts (Lee & Chang 2008;Sasajima et al. 2011) whereas Bangladesh seems to be new to the practice of CLIL in higher education contexts (Kamal, 2021). Therefore, the present study aims at examining a tertiary CLIL education in an existing BA in English program in a private university context in Bangladesh in terms of its learners' acceptance and attitude towards it. This study also aims to bridge the gap in the CLIL research in the context of tertiary education of English studies in Bangladesh.

Research Methodology
For this research, a mixed-methods approach (Fielding & Fielding, 1986;Steckler, McLeroy, Goodman, Bird, & McCormick, 1992) is adopted because this method will provide the researcher with multiple ways to explore the research problem and address it at different levels. A group of first year undergraduate students of English literature courses in a private university participated in this research. The primary data collection processes for this research include a questionnaire (see Appendix 1) administered among 30 CLIL lesson learners within the age range of 18-21 years who were registered for the Contemporary South Asian Writings in English course of the BA in English program. These participants were selected through a convenience sampling method. Then, interview data were collected from interview responses (see Appendix 2) of eight students randomly chosen based on their consent and availability.
Interviews and observations were used to gather qualitative data with open-ended information, which presents the diversity of ideas gathered from learners. On the other hand, the questionnaire was used to collect quantitative data with close-ended information to measure the attitudes and behaviors of the research participants in this study. The quantitative data from the questionnaire was analyzed using an Excel spreadsheet to retrieve the percentage of responses and qualitative interview data was analyzed thematically. Knowing learners' attitudes and behavior was important to find out how CLIL in a literature class influences the learning of literary contents and the English language, and in what ways CLIL may be used for teaching English literature and developing students' linguistic competence in English at the tertiary level of education in Bangladesh. Therefore, the questionnaire was administered to identify learners' perceptions about CLIL and elicit the possible strengths and weaknesses of using CLIL in English literature classes. In addition, it intended to identify learners' opinions about the possible ways to address the weaknesses of using CLIL in literature classes. The interview initially attempted to discover if learners faced any difficulties regarding the required language skills in literature classes. The interview further explored whether their existing English language competency is enough for understanding literary texts or not. It is assumed that some of the participants' lack of language competency (if any) is a barrier for understanding English literature. Therefore, the participants were asked whether they think that without language lessons as a support, comprehension of the literary content is difficult for those who are weak in English.
Apart from the content/syllabus, the participants were probed to share their perceptions about any other differences between the traditional lecture-based classes of other literature courses and the CLIL classes of Contemporary South Asian Wring in English course. Since language lessons on the use of tense, passive form, phrasal verbs, vocabulary, etc. were simultaneously used to scaffold or support the understanding of literary content such as themes, character analysis, generic structures etc., the participants were asked to reflect on whether they found CLIL lessons helpful to improve their knowledge of English grammar and vocabulary. Since CLIL lessons were implemented on existing literature courses with traditional course objectives of developing critical thinking and appreciation skills, learners' opinions were also taken on the following statement: "CLIL in literature class did not hamper the objective of the course which was to improve literary knowledge." It was also investigated whether language lessons, in parallel with content lessons, helped the learners in terms of understanding the literary contents and made the lessons enjoyable. It was also investigated whether the content and language integrated lessons in literature classes are better than lecture-based lessons of literary contents. Further, their opinion was taken on whether language support simultaneous to content lessons for students of BA in English program is unnecessary (useless) or necessary (helpful) for understanding literary content. Learners of literature might get carried away (distracted/diverted) from literary lessons while language lessons are imparted. The learners' perceptions were also retrieved on this issue. Finally, it was asked whether the allotted class/interaction time for simultaneous teaching of content and language lessons was sufficient or not.

Analysis and Discussion
Learners' perceptions of and attitudes towards any teaching-learning approach can easily be traced by investigating their interests, choices, and enjoyment. Learners' opinions and attitudes regarding the implementation of CLIL approach in undergraduate English literature classes were not entirely positive. They expressed their mixed attitude towards CLIL in English literature classes regarding its strengths and weaknesses. The majority of learners with weaker language skills enjoyed CLIL whereas learners with better language skills preferred lecture-based lessons instead of CLIL. The critical analysis of learners' perceptions and attitudes towards CLIL in English literature classes retrieved through the above inquiries can be presented under the following key themes.

Learners' interest towards CLIL in literature classes: Enjoyable or boring?
Making class lessons interesting is very challenging as well as important as it is one of the vital parameters used to count the success of any class lesson or of any teaching material. Investigation of the learners' interest and comfort in doing CLIL tasks in English literature courses yielded quite a positive response. This response is crucial as positive attitude facilitates learning (Dörneyi, 1990;Dörneyi, 2001;Gardner & Lambert, 1972;Heckhausen, 1991). The most important strength of CLIL lessons is that they are more enjoyable and useful than traditional lecture-based classes (Parsons & Caldwell, 2016). In response to the statement, CLIL lessons in literature classes were enjoyable, a considerable number of respondents were positive. Table 1 gives a comparative picture of the scenario. 63.7% of the participants were in agreement with the statement; among them 36.4% strongly agreed and 27.3% simply claimed that they enjoyed the integration of language lessons in English literature classes.
A total of 16% students either disagreed or strongly disagreed that CLIL lesson in literature class was enjoyable. About 19% of the respondents were neutral. This is a significant number.
It was also found from the investigation that those who believe that the language and content integrated lesson in English literature classes is not enjoyable had good proficiency in all the skills of English language and were quite responsive during class lessons. However, overall, lessons through CLIL appeared to be enjoyable to most of the students.
With a view to determining whether the implementation of CLIL in literature classes was enjoyable or not, interview participants were also asked whether "(they) enjoy the lesson focusing both on literary and language content." One of the respondents was quite positive and responded "Yes ..., I liked the lesson" (Interviewee# 1). The same response was emphasized with further explanation by another respondent saying, "I enjoyed the lesson in literature class where both the language lessons and literary lessons were given" (Interviewee# 2). Regarding perception about CLIL lessons, another interviewee explained the overall situation of class in details: Yes ... I did… I basically liked the way that we first came to know about the content that we will learn. At first, we were confused that why these sorts of questions we were facing beforehand, before the lectures or the topic that the teacher will discuss that day. But when the discussion was over and we again looked at the questions, then we thought that this was easy or that was fun. So, we enjoyed it…That brings the enthusiasm in me that these are the questions I have to look for the answers through the discussion (Interviewee# 4).
Generally speaking, most of the respondents expressed that CLIL was enjoyable as it was interesting: (I)t does not distract, it was actually helpful to the students in a sense, … the way you gave us (the lesson); we had actually content based and also language based. So, we found it interesting and we had our full concentration over there. (Interviewee 1) In fact, the learners liked and were excited to do tasks prepared on literary texts as they worked together in pairs and groups dissecting, analyzing meaning, and interpreting texts. It helped them share their critical thinking on any issues discussed in the text. In fact, language is the vehicle for teaching content in CLIL approach of learning and stimulates the development of higher-order thinking (HOT) skills (Ball, Kelly, & Clegg, 2015), such as critical analysis and appreciation which appear as a common objective of literature courses taught in Bangladesh. Thus, CLIL-based lessons in English literature classes reveal: (1) Language and content integrated lessons were enjoyable, (2) Some students initially could not understand its benefit, but later they realized the significance of the integration.

Comparison and reason of choice between CLIL class and lecture-based class
The students were allowed to compare CLIL lessons with lecture-based lessons which they have attended in other literature courses such as Classical Literature, Modern Drama and Poetry, etc. Hence, students were able to compare the learning benefits and drawbacks of lecture-based literature teaching and CLIL-based literature teaching. To some participants, content and language integrated lessons in literature classes seemed to be better than lecturebased lessons of literary contents as it helped them with the language support to understand the contents. Majority of them were positive about CLIL lesson in literature classes as about 57.6% endorsed that content and language integrated lessons in literature classes are better than lecture-based lessons of literary contents. Nonetheless, 35% of the respondents did not believe that CLIL-based literature class is better than lecture-based literature (Table  1). This negative response of 35% will lead to the scope for further investigation of the question why CLIL is not that helpful or not better than traditional lecture-based classes for a significant number of students in literature class?
In order to understand students' preference between CLIL-based lessons and lecture-based lessons in English literature classes, participants were asked if they think that the integration of both the language teaching and literature teaching is more effective than just lecturebased literature teaching. The participants directed the choice to the instructor saying:

… it is attractive, it (result) actually depends on (the way how) the faculty is handling that (the integration of content and language lessons).
If the content and story, language content and story given in a way, if it is interesting then the student will enjoy that, and it will help the skill also to increase (Interviewee# 1).
Some of them preferred to depend more on teachers' choice regarding the teaching techniques of a literary piece of a literature course. That means they liked the need-based use of CLIL depending on students' needs and teachers' comfort. The interviewees did not unanimously agree with any particular idea of implementing CLIL in English literature classes as their language skills, expectations, perception of, and attitudes towards CLIL varied a lot. The following quote may shed some light on this fact: I think a teacher should decide his/her teaching strategy based on classroom situation. Some courses need student's participation such as recitation, acting and so on but some courses require only lectures and grammatical and language teachings. So, a teacher should decide his teaching strategy based on classroom situation (Interviewee# 2).
Some students preferred task-based CLIL lessons in literature classes to lecture-based classes. One of the respondents' claimed, "I prefer task-based CLIL classes to lecture-based literature classes" (Interviewee 4) because he found CLIL classes rather more engaging. In fact, CLIL learners have been found to produce more and longer utterances, develop constructive abilities in L2 and display a higher language level than non-CLIL learners (Coyle, 2013;Denman, Tanner & Graaff, 2013;Lo, 2014;Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008;Wannagat, 2007). In short, students' preference for CLIL is based mostly on their better linguistic performance. Therefore, the comparison between CLIL-based lessons and lecture-based lessons in English literature classes revealed that the effectiveness of integration depends on how the teacher develops the lessons, handles the classroom situation, and makes CLIL interesting by applying effective teaching strategies.

Language barrier in studying English literature
Investigating learners' opinions about the possible barriers to a successful study of English literature in a class is important as their literary performance such as comprehension, appreciation and critical analysis of texts, and performance in the examinations seem to be unsatisfactory (Hasan, 2016;Shahriar, 2012;Yeasmin, 2011). For a significant number of participants, the lack of language competency appeared to be a crucial barrier for understanding the meaning and critical analysis of any English literary text. Therefore, this lack requires language support as a scaffold. However, the participants who are from English medium secondary and higher secondary education, do not feel or demonstrate the lack of English proficiency required for comprehension of original English literary texts.
Around 64% of the respondents face some barriers in studying English literature in terms of comprehension, and they consider insufficient language competency as a significant barrier. Then again, 18% either disagree or strongly disagree that the lack of language competency is a barrier for understanding English literature. The rest 18% respondents were neutral in their position regarding the lack of language competency as a negative catalyst in learning literary contents (Table 1). It was also found that those who did not endorse the lack of language competency as a barrier had considerably better skills in the English language. Most of the interview respondents even agreed, without any reservation, that language incompetency is a barrier in understanding and responding to the content of English literature. Therefore, the lack of competence in English is one of the most common paucities among learners (Hasan, 2016;Shahriar, 2012;Yeasmin, 2011). In fact, undergraduate candidates are not apparently prepared with the language skills they would require to study in the English department (Alam, 2018). They also believe that without English language support through language lessons, understanding the content of English literature is difficult only for those who have weak English skills.
Hence, without English language support through language lessons, understanding the content of English literature appeared difficult to most of the participants. When the respondents were asked whether without English language support through language lessons, understanding the content of English literature is difficult (Table 1), the response was almost similar to the previous question. 66.7% of the respondents believed that understanding the content of English literary texts became difficult for them unless any language support in terms of vocabulary and contextual grammar lessons was provided (Table 1). Since a majority of the students agreed or strongly agreed that the lack of language competency was an obstacle for students in learning literature and felt that without language support it was difficult for them to overcome the barrier. Due to all these logical reasons, language support simultaneous to literary lessons was deemed necessary by 66.7% of them (Table 1). This data portrays learners' attitude towards the contribution of English skills in learning literary lessons in class.

Learners' perception regarding CLIL's role to make up for the lack in language skills
In order to understand the contribution of CLIL in filling in the gaps in language skills required to understand literary content, the participants were asked if they think the lack of language competence is somehow a barrier for understanding English literature and CLIL can bridge this gap. One of the interviewees commented that "it depends from student to student; if the student is good enough in the language content that is in the competency of language skills, then it is not an obstacle for him/her" (Interviewee# 1) and consequently there is no need for CLIL. This response projects that the respondent is well aware about her language skills and has quite a clear understanding about the need of language skills. She also claimed: To some extent, she was critical about the need and contribution of CLIL and implied a need-based implementation of CLIL. Another participant specifically pointed to the lack of vocabulary in learning literary content saying, "For me (the) lack of vocabulary is a major problem for understanding any literature text" (Interviewee# 2). Therefore, vocabulary knowledge appears to be an important catalyst in comprehension of literary texts. On the other hand, the following student indirectly ignores the importance of language skills to understand literature, rather focusing on the superficial understanding of the gist of a text saying:

I don't think it's that much complicated actually. If you can actually get the gist about what is happening in the story, then you actually know what is in the story. Then you can write because everything is creative in literature (Interviewee# 3).
Another interviewee who seemed to be a bit positive about CLIL in literature class appreciated with enthusiasm, saying, "Yes Sir. That is obvious" (Lack of language skill is a barrier, we need some language support) (Interviewee# 4). Hence, on the lack of language skills for understanding literary texts, interviewees' responses can be summed up as: • Some students feel that the lack of language skills is a barrier in understanding original literary texts. • Some students feel this barrier sometimes but not all the time. • One of the major problems is the lack of vocabulary. • Understanding the gist is important in literature; no need to understand each and every language use in the text.

CLIL's contribution to developing language skills in literature class
According to the perception of the learners, CLIL's contribution in developing language skills in literature classes appears to be really significant. When asked, "Do you think that CLIL did (or did not) help to improve your English language skill?" the learners were positive and one of the interviewees replied positively endorsing that, "Yes, CLIL helped improve my language skills, especially I learned new vocabulary" (Interviewee# 1). Another interviewee added: We are studying some words now which are totally different from what we studied Therefore, issues regarding CLIL's contribution in developing language skills in literature classes can be listed in the following bullet points: • English language skill is enhanced by improving English vocabulary.
• Other courses had some influence also in developing language skills. All the courses (not literature alone) have some contribution in the development of language skills.

Perception of the role of CLIL to aid or hinder the learning of literature
This issue was addressed in the questions to investigate the learners' view regarding the necessity of integrating language lessons in literature classes. In order to understand participants' ideas about CLIL as a positive or negative catalyst for the improvement of both content knowledge and language skills, an investigation was conducted on the role of CLIL either to aid or hamper the learning of literature. Participants were asked if they think that content and language integrated learning hamper or aid the learning of literary contents. As a response, one of the interviewees retorted that:

It was actually…it depends; the way you balanced it was good enough. But if it is too much content based then some students find it somehow not interesting, but it depends on the balance (Interviewee# 1).
Therefore, the suggestion was also on the proper balance of content and language lessons so that it remains interesting for the students as "the search for the right balance of language and content teaching" (Celce-Murcia, 2002, p. 315) is important for the success of CLIL.
On the other hand, another interviewee took a moderate stand and said, I think it will hamper a little bit but not totally (Interviewee# 3). One of them even suggested adopting the mother tongue in order to make them understand the literary texts written in English:

In such case when the language barrier is working, it often helped them because the teacher was trying to make them understand that this is what is inside the text or what is the writer wanting to convey. Then the students may understand that this is the meaning. So, the teacher can also adopt the native language in such case to make them understand (Interviewee# 4).
His stand regarding native language indirectly suggests that this student finds it difficult to understand the meaning or theme of a literary text written in English. That is the reason why he emphasized the use of the mother tongue which ultimately suggests that the language lesson is a necessary parallel to literary content lessons for the better understanding of it. Therefore, as students of a BA in English program, a significant number of participants with better English language skills feel that for understanding literary contents, language support simultaneous to content lessons seems to be unnecessary. The main points can be summed up as: • Balance between content and language lessons makes it interesting • Too much content makes lessons boring.
• Integration of language lesson hampers the literary lessons a bit • Integration helped but the teacher may also adopt native language for the purpose of making learners understand.

Regarding support of CLIL in understanding literature and success of dual objectives
If a learner's language skills are not up to the mark of understanding the English literary language, it will be difficult to comprehend and appreciate the literary texts. Hence, students' attitudes towards the integration of CLIL in literature classes as a support for understanding literary texts was crucial. With all these logical reasons, 75.8% of them agreed or strongly agreed ( Table 1) that language lessons parallel to content lessons helped the learners in terms of understanding the literary contents. This portion of learners demonstrates lesser language skills.
If a course has dual objectives to achieve it might be difficult and challenging for the learners with lesser language skills to achieve these dual goals. Therefore, it is important to know the learners' attitudes before conjoining dual goals in a single course. Since improving literary knowledge was the primary goal of a literature course, the researcher was rightly probed to look into the fact that whether the Content and Language Integrated Learning … (anyhow) hampers the objective of the course which was to improve literary knowledge. The investigation into this issue revealed that around 60% of the respondents agreed that the CLIL did not hamper the learning of literary knowledge (Table 1).

Hindrance to and distraction from content lesson
Dual goals may hamper the literary content lessons and distract the attention of the learners. Therefore, investigating learners' experiences on this issue appears to be significant to determine the efficacy of CLIL-based literature lessons in English literature classes. For the majority of them, content and language integrated learning did not hamper the learning of literary contents, but a significant number of students did not enjoy the integration of language lessons in literature classes (Table 1). It is also claimed that content and language integrated learning did not hamper the objective of the literature courses which was to improve literary knowledge.
But contradicting the previous response regarding the achievement of dual goals, around 52% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that during CLIL lessons in literature classes, the learners are distracted or diverted from literary lessons while language lessons are imparted. (Table 1). This contradiction of data demands further investigation into the reasons of this anomaly. However, bearing the same tone as the previous issue, 42% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Content and language integrated learning hampered the learning of literary contents. 24% of them remained neutral which gives a significant signal that CLIL in literature class does not carry any significant importance in literature class (Table 1). Table 1 presents significant data regarding the role of CLIL, if any, to hamper the flow of learning of literary contents in a literature class.
It was also found that the majority of the learners are not carried away or distracted or diverted from literary lessons while language lessons are imparted along with the literary lessons. One of the interview respondents claimed that integration of content and language lessons does not anyhow distract the student focus from literature: it … it does not distract, it was actually helpful to the students in a sense, but some students who are too much expert they think that this is not much interesting but the way you gave us that we actually content based and also language based. So, we found it interesting and we had our full concentration over there. (Interviewee# 1) The concentration on language lessons does not divert students' focus, meaning the intention of learning literature. Nevertheless, one of the respondents claimed that "sometimes it becomes boring for those who enjoy critical discussion through lectures" (Interviewee# 4). Another interviewee promptly responded in favor of CLIL adding the special benefit of vocabulary building: Learners' attitude to CLIL as an approach to improving vocabulary and grammar The efficacy of CLIL in building students' vocabulary will be determined by the learners' attitude towards it. Even though there were mixed feelings among the respondents regarding contact hours of CLIL literature class, CLIL in literature helped to improve (students' ) English vocabulary. It is seen in the survey that significantly around 82% of the respondents agreed that CLIL helped improve the vocabulary of the learners (Table 1). Along with the improvement in the vocabulary strength, CLIL helped to improve (students') grammar. Table  1 clearly demonstrates that more than 70% of the respondents were in agreement.

No. I don't think so. A teacher is teaching vocabulary and grammar taking a line from text and along with that a teacher is teaching the literary terms such as theme
Therefore, though more than half of the participants (51.5%) believe that CLIL hampers the smooth flow of literary discussion in the class and distracts their attention from the literary contents (Table 1), it helped to develop learners' grammar and vocabulary. This is the area where the situation turned critical in terms of the respondents' improvement of grammar and literary knowledge. After further investigation of the prior language skills of learners, it was revealed that the respondents who were critical about the implementation of CLIL lessons in English literature classes had better language skills. The respondents reacted oddly because of their heterogenous linguistic background and capacities. On average, the CLIL approach applied in literature in English classes helped to improve the majority of the learners' English vocabulary, grammar, and overall English language skills. Though to some students CLIL did not help to improve their knowledge of literature, the majority of the learners who had weaker language skills liked the idea of integrating language lessons in literature classes.

CLIL as a barrier for a smooth literary lesson
Some learners may feel that the integration of language lessons is a barrier to the smooth progression of literary lessons in class. Therefore, students are supposed to share their adverse experiences of using CLIL lessons in English literature classes. Consequently, it is also found that around 18% of the research participants agreed or strongly agreed that CLIL did not help to improve (their) knowledge of literature. This data is very crucially significant if we want to assess the success and effectiveness of implementing CLIL in tertiary level literature classes. The above data suggest that almost a quarter of the students in a literature class enjoy lecture-based classes and did not entertain the interference of language lessons to understand the literary content as they are already well equipped with the necessary skills of language needed to comprehend authentic English literary texts. That is why, an almost similar percentage of participants responded with almost the same answer when they were asked whether CLIL did not help improve their literary knowledge.

Learners' reservation for CLIL used in literature class
No teaching approach has unmixed blessings. There were some learners in the literature class who did not prefer the integration as "some students who are too much expert … think that this is not much interesting" (Interviewee# 1). Though one of the respondents admitted that learning of language cannot be separated from learning literature, which means that literature and language learning go hand in hand, he still felt that some students get distracted from the content of the lessons: In general, we can't separate language from literature. Literature is mostly combined with language. But in such case, some students get distracted because if they concentrate more on the structure or the language which is not also a native language of the students. So, they felt the struggle to understand the content of the write-up or the text or the literary support what the teacher is trying to give. So, it often hampered the learning of literature (Interviewee# 4).
Therefore, for some students, language learning in tandem with literature lessons appears to be quite distracting and it often hampers the smooth learning of literature. Additionally, through the interview, it was found that a significant number of participants were not positive about the CLIL lessons in English literature classes. After investigating the background of those respondents' English skills, it was found that most of them had much better skills than the others who were more positive about the use of CLIL in literature classes.
Though most of the students believe that CLIL lessons in literature helped to improve their English vocabulary and grammar, the lessons themselves seemed a bit dry for them. Therefore, CLIL was not very enjoyable for them. Moreover, they do not think that language lessons alongside content lessons helped the learners in terms of understanding the literary content, and that content and language integrated lessons in literature classes are better than lecture-based lessons of literary contents. Some of the students thought that for understanding the literary content, language support simultaneous to content lessons for students of BA in English program is unnecessary and useless. And as a reason for their stance, they cited that a) content and language integrated learning hampered the learning of literary contents, b) learners are carried away (distracted/diverted) from literary lessons while language lessons are imparted, c) though CLIL helped to improve English language skills, it did not help to improve the knowledge of literature. In a nutshell, the issue of the negative impact of CLIL in literature classes can be summarized by the following: • Through the learners' views, some negative impacts of CLIL were traced in literature classes in terms of creating boredom and bringing disappointment to the appreciators of literature who enjoy lectures and analysis. • For some learners with good language skills, integration of language and literature was not interesting. • Some of them believe that CLIL hampers the objective of the course which was to improve literary knowledge.

Conclusion
To conclude, learners' language skills with specific concentration on grammar items such as tense, parallel structure, comparatives, use of phrasal verbs and sentence structures were developed through the use of CLIL in undergraduate English literature classes. Therefore, initially, the learners' demonstrated a positive attitude towards the implementation of CLIL in English literature classes. Also, they recognized the impact of CLIL on the development of their vocabulary knowledge. CLIL also influenced the development of literary content knowledge in terms of understanding themes, context, character, etc., and developing critical appreciation. Hence, students appreciated the integration of content and language lessons in literature classes. Learners' appreciation and interest in CLIL in literature classes made the implementation of CLIL successful. However, some learners showed reservations towards this approach of teaching literature and language together as they believed that CLIL hampers the learning of literary contents, makes literature classes boring, distracts the learners' attention, and destroys the pleasure of reading literature. This group of students also claimed that as their vocabulary is developed, they do not need language lessons in literature classes. Therefore, according to the learners' perceptions, CLIL demonstrates both positive and negative impacts as its strengths and weaknesses in undergraduate English literature classes in private university contexts in Bangladesh. To make CLIL effective in literature classes, learners' suggestions for need-based adaptation of CLIL lessons can be recommended instead of a uniform practice for all learners. In some cases, the adoption of native language as the medium of instruction for making students understand the literary contents better was also suggested by some students as the original literary contents created fear in learners who lacked appropriate language skills. Therefore, learners' attitudes and perspectives towards the implementation of CLIL are not univocal in the context of undergraduate literature classes in Bangladesh. Parsons, M., & Caldwell, M. (2016). Student attitudes to CLIL lessons utilising a problem-based approach to English language education at university in Japan. Hannan Ronshu, 51 (2), 31-47. Sasajima, S., Ikeda, M., Hemme, C., & Reiley, T. (2011, August 31-September 2). Current practice and future perspectives of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Japan. Paper presented at the JACET 50th Commemorative International Convention, Tokyo, Japan. Shanahan, D. (1997). Articulating the relationship between language, literature and culture: toward a new agenda for foreign language teaching and research. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (2) a. the interrelationship between texts, especially works of literature; the way that similar or related texts influence, reflect, or differ from each other b. a figure of speech sometimes represented by exclamation "O". A writer or a speaker, using an apostrophe, detaches him/herself from the reality and addresses an imaginary character in his speech. c. belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, social, or economic life d. leadership or dominance, especially by one country or social group over others. e. lower in rank; subordinate f. a lyric poem typically of elaborate or irregular metrical form and expressive of exalted or enthusiastic emotion g. in linguistics, a variety of a language used for a particular purpose or in a particular social setting. h. a new and modern policy or practice of a wealthy or powerful nation in extending its influence into a less developed one, especially in exploiting that nation's resources.

Activity 4
Read the following extracts from "Ode on the Lungi" and match

Suez Canel
Glossary "if only because" means "there's no good reason, but if there is any at all, it would be because..."?
Relating to the making of clothes, usually men's clothes, or to a way of dressing No, I'm not complaining about the jacket and tie required in certain places -that, like fancy dress parties, is in the spirit of a game 1. Discuss in pairs what do you think is meant by the following lines: "All clothes have equal rights...some obviously are more equal than others".
2. Do you find any allusion or inter-textual reference? If yes, explain what references are used here and why did the poet use it?

Activity 5
Read the following extract and match underlined word(s) with the concepts/explanations/pictures given beside.
I'm talking of something more fundamental Hundreds of millions from East Africa to Indonesia wear the lungi, also known variously as the sarong, munda, htamain, saaram, ma'awaiis, kitenge. kanga. kaiki They wear it day in day out, indoors and out Just thinkat any one moment there are more people in lungis than the population of the USA  Read the following extract and match underlined word(s) with the concepts/explanations/pictures given beside.

Is it a clash of civilisations?
The sheer illogicality of itthe kilt is with "us" but the lungi is with "them!" Think too of neo-imperialism and sartorial hegemony, how brown and yellow sahibs in natty suits crinkle their noses a person who has been given a very high honour because of their ability in a subject of study Think Samuel P. Huntington a skirt with many folds, made from tartan cloth and traditionally worn by Scottish men and boys the position of being the strongest and most powerful and therefore able to control others wrinkled, or wavy, e.g. by crushing or pressing it stylish and tidy in every detail at compatriots (even relations) in modest lungis, exceptions only proving the rule: Sri Lanka, where designer lungis are party wear, or Myanmar where political honchos queue up in lungis to receive visiting dignitaries But then, Myanmar dozes behind a cane curtain, a half pariah among nations Wait till it's globalised: Savile Row will acquire a fresh crop of patrons a person who comes from the same country. / (US) a friend or someone you work with The next time someone insinuates that I live in an Ivory Tower I'll proudly proclaim I AM A LUNGI ACTIVIST! Friends and fellow lungi lovers, let us organise lungi parties and lungi parades, let us lobby Hallmark and Archies to introduce an international Lungi Day when the UN Chief will wear a lungi and address the world 1. What does the poet mean by "I am a lungi activist"?

Activity 8
Read the following extract and match underlined word(s) with the concepts/explanations/pictures given beside. The term originates in the Biblical Song of Solomon, is a symbol for noble purity.
A disparaging term that refers to elitist detachment from, and especially criticism of the everyday world, or of common sense and beliefs. announce publicly Beau Brummell: was an iconic figure in Regency England, the arbiter of men's fashion, and a friend of the Prince Regent, the future King George IV. He established the mode of dress for men that rejected overly ornate fashions for one of understated, but perfectly fitted and tailored clothing.