Talking CLIL by tognaco

Talking CLIL

Teresa Herdes y Víctor Pavón

Red del Plurilingüismo de Sevilla

VOICES

Talking CLIL a lot to Teresa Gerdes and Víctor Pavón explain why they believe CLIL has settings. offer teachers and students of English in all types of instructional

CONTENT AND LANGUAGE integrated learning (CLIL) is taking English language teaching by storm, but why? Is CLIL the new methodological revolution, comparable to the impact that the communicative approach had on ELT years ago? Or is CLIL simply a new teaching trend that is here today and gone tomorrow? One thing is certain: CLIL has caught the attention of foreign-language educators around the world, and for good reason. CLIL can easily be implemented in private or state-run schools, primary or secondary education, bilingual programmes, multilingual classrooms, monolingual schools with EFL or ESL instruction, and language academies. Teaching content and language CLIL advocates assimilating the academic content of nonlinguistic subjects via a foreign language, which simultaneously promotes the acquisition of content knowledge and the use of the target language. It involves a methodological style that, instead of focusing specifically on the teaching of the language itself, encourages teachers and students to use the language as a means of communication, thus promoting language and content development in the process. In line with the principles that define it, this type of teaching is beneficial and effective because learning a foreign language seems more attractive when learners can use the language to acquire information of interest to them, and because learners see a clear reason for using the target language. An important objective of CLIL is that learners obtain concrete subject knowledge and skills, with special attention given to promoting skills that are developmentally, cognitively and linguistically appropriate. It also focuses on socio-cultural strategies which explicitly foster activities that promote a positive attitude towards the speakers of the foreign language and their culture. Teaching language and content together means that significant changes must be made to traditional teacher

This is a major departure for many foreign language teachers whose main aim has been teaching just the language itself. and student roles. According to Stryker and Leaver (1993), the teacher must (a) change the style of instruction in the classroom, (b) make use of group work and cooperative strategies, (c) identify prior linguistic knowledge and skills, (d) help students to develop strategies for coping with different situations, (e) use suitable techniques for error correction and (f) develop and maintain high levels of selfconﬁdence in the students. A methodological revolution is necessary if students are to be exposed to content in a language in which their level of ﬂuency is lower than that of their mother tongue. Therefore, teachers will have to substitute traditional teaching methods that promote the transmission of information for a new one that promotes the understanding and assimilation of content. The students, for their part, will see a change in their learning habits and general classroom behaviour since this way of teaching will mean an increase and improvement in (a) promoting learner autonomy, (b) using cooperative learning, (c) participating in the selection of themes and activities and (d) committing to a new way of learning. These changes assume that students will participate more in their own learning. They will be expected to help select content and activities according to their ability and skills (linguistic and non-linguistic), and they will be encouraged to give up any passive attitudes they may have. Students must be made aware that this is a different way of learning and that they are expected to take an active part.

The ideal CLIL teacher is someone who has a thorough knowledge of the content subject and a proﬁcient mastery of the foreign language.

Ways of implementing CLIL Teaching subjects through another language Perhaps the most common way of implementing CLIL is by teaching subjects such as natural science, social science, physical education, art, drama, etc., through the target language. In European countries where the target language is not the native language, bilingual and international schools have been involved in this type of instruction for years. In Spain, national and regional governments have recently incremented the number of primary and secondary bilingual and even multilingual schools in order to improve the country’s overall foreign language competency. This initiative has obligated educators to rethink their monolingual curriculum models and expand to a bilingual or even a multilingual curriculum. With an increase in the hours schools are required to teach foreign languages, which could vary from 10 to 15 hours per week in the target language, diversifying instruction in other subjects is a logical choice. Being asked to use the target language as the medium of instruction in content subjects is a major departure for many foreign language teachers whose main aim has been teaching just the language itself. BICS and CALP (Cummins) If we stop to think about the degree of difficulty involved in learning subjects such as natural science, history, art and P.E., intuitively we are inclined to say that natural science is more challenging than P.E., and that history is more challenging than art. Dr. Jim Cummins, professor at the University of Toronto, illustrates this point in his theory of foreign language acquisition (Cummins 2000), in which he argues that the level of difficulty of content subjects or activities depends on whether they are academic or non-academic and whether they are context-embedded or context-reduced. Forming another important part of Cummins’s theory of second language acquisition are basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) (Cummins 1984). BICS can be defined simply as everyday language. It is the lexis that language learners must use in order to hold a basic conversation. Vocabulary related to the weather, family, school and daily life are all examples of BICS. In contrast, CALP is the language that is used in order to communicate about an academic topic. For example, in a primary science lesson about the eating habits of animals, students would be exposed to words such as herbivore, omnivore and carnivore. These words are clear examples of CALP and would normally not find their way into everyday conversation. In essence, one of the cornerstones of CLIL is the importance of the distinction between BICS and CALP. How teachers deal with CALP can determine whether learners are successful in assimilating content and language input.

Your new language lab.

The cross-curricular approach Although teaching different subjects is the most common way of implementing CLIL, there are many other ways that teachers can use it, such as the cross-curricular approach. With the creation of a thematic unit, teachers (and often students as well) collect and create their own materials. This personalisation of the target material is a motivational stimulus for both students and teachers. Project work is also a meaningful and memorable way for students to personalise new information that they have learned.

Content-based instruction in North America Content-based instruction (and its many variations) is CLIL’s counterpart in North America and has enjoyed a long life in bilingual and ESL programmes. One very positive outcome of content-based teaching in North America is that limited English proﬁciency (LEP) students who are usually in selfcontained ESL classrooms, are often integrated with their native language peers. This situation tends to accelerate the English language learners’ acquisition process. Naturally, in any situation where there are mixed levels there are multiple pedagogical challenges for the content teacher. Content teachers must understand the language obstacles that English language learners face, and they must make the content input comprehensible through careful scaffolding; at the same time, however, the teachers must challenge the native English language speakers, whose main aim is to acquire content knowledge.

The SIOP model Whereas CLIL is an approach to teaching, sheltered instruction observation protocol (SIOP) is a research-based model

ologically qualified. If the right combination can’t be found, adoption of CLIL must then be implemented with teacher training programmes that focus on linguistic and methodological improvement. Linguistic and methodological training programmes are also necessary for those teachers who are in the process of acquiring CLIL qualifications, not to mention the ongoing training for teachers who are already qualified. Positive results can be achieved if there is a gradual plan to put CLIL into practice. It is understandable that this new role for content teachers may provoke certain fears. The methodology to be applied in class depends on the teacher’s linguistic competence. Some think that if content teachers lack an adequate linguistic level, their teaching will have unsatisfactory results, but we believe there are many solutions to this situation. If content teachers are not linguistically proficient, they can opt to use alternative methodological techniques to keep students using the language as much as possible in the classroom, which is not a problem in the era of the Internet and advanced audiovisual technology. Of course, this is not the ideal situation, but the key issue English exercise.

Some think that if content teachers lack an adequate linguistic level, their teaching will have unsatisfactory results, but we believe there are many solutions to this situation. from the United States that can be used in any type of CLIL situation (Echevarría et al. 2000). The model consists of eight components and is a practical methodological tool for teachers who want to implement CLIL systematically. You can see a model SIOP lesson in natural science for a year 3 primary class at the its-teachers website.

Linguistic considerations: teachers’ linguistic competency One of the main obstacles to implementing CLIL is finding teachers who are competent not only linguistically, but methodologically as well (Bowler 2007). The ideal CLIL teacher is someone who has a thorough knowledge of the content subject and a proficient mastery of the foreign language. However, when CLIL is implemented in a teaching context where the teacher’s level in the foreign language is low, a different approach is required. While some are in favour of using language teachers to teach content subjects, this solution does not seem to take into account the main objective, which is not to teach a foreign language but rather to teach content through a foreign language. A reasonable alternative, then, is to use qualified content experts, provided they possess the necessary linguistic knowledge; that is, they must be competent in the standard version of the foreign language, both in fluency and accuracy, and they must have a working knowledge of didactic resources in order to facilitate the academic content (Hengst et al. 2005). Success in implementing CLIL depends on whether schools have teachers who are linguistically and method-

is to find a balance between the use of ideas, notions and concepts and the use of a type of language which does not inhibit students’ content and linguistic progression. For language teachers, the challenges are also significant, although they are more easily overcome. The role of language teachers in CLIL programmes should not be underestimated, especially in the first stages. Language teachers are instrumental in coordinating the work of content teachers to support the programme. Some might argue that their role is merely auxiliary, although it seems fairly clear that language teachers provide the necessary glue to make content and language really stick, thus helping students smoothly progress in their acquisition of content. The teachers do this by becoming aware of the cognitive load and subsequent difficulty of the content in order to foresee students’ potential linguistic difficulties. Language teachers must help students in CLIL programmes achieve a global communicative capacity at all levels – cognitive, socio-cultural and linguistic – providing them with the basic linguistic resources necessary to handle academic information. Additionally, language teachers should provide ample opportunities to foster students’ self-confidence. Motivation grows when students are given the chance to use the language as much as possible in class.

CLIL in Andalusia Whatever term is used (immersion, bilingualism, multilingualism, cross-curricular, etc.), all the different models of CLIL propose to teach content subjects through a foreign

language in one way or another. Particularly in Spain it is widely used by regional educational policies to promote bilingualism or multilingualism. The multilingual model proposed by the European Union (called plurilingualism) is being applied in Spain’s Andalusia region, with a long-term project underway that is attracting the attention of scholars and educationalists throughout Spain. Success of any one of the CLIL models, or a combination of some of them, depends entirely on the characteristics of the educational context where it is implemented. In the case of Andalusia, local authorities have tried to thwart potential problems, keeping in mind the schools’ particular educational context. For example, among the main concerns in Andalusia were having a certain amount of ﬂexibility in selecting the subjects to teach in the foreign language, and progressively increasing the time devoted to this instruction – two decisions that, at least in the initial stages of the project, were taken based on the characteristics of both teachers and students. Teaching and learning content through a foreign language implies a closer tie between curriculum and methodology, so that curricular contents can be addressed in a systematic and organised way in class, and taught and learnt by means of effective methodologies (Pavón 2007). Didactic procedures, then, are subjected to content characteristics, cognitive demands and the linguistic load. Very often teachers experience anxiety about getting quick results, thus leading to CLIL models with a readyto-start plan, which translates to simply changing the language of instruction in class, from mother tongue to foreign language. Unfortunately, this situation results in a lack of “foreign language culture”, and students who are not linguistically proﬁcient are doomed to academic failure when using the target language. It seems far more reasonable that this type of context demands other structural measures, as are being taken by the Plan to Promote Plurilingualism in Andalusia (Plan de Fomento del Plurilingüismo), with an increase of the schools involved every year, and with a sensible selection of the subjects to be taught and learnt through a foreign language. What is most interesting in this Plan, however, is the tailoring of each particular educational context, which has led to a gradual application, allowing for linguistic and methodological training for teachers to be taken into account. Thus, the time devoted to putting CLIL into practice increases gradually, year after year, giving teachers and students time to grow and adapt to new educational requirements.

Conclusion At present we ﬁnd ourselves in a situation that demands change in academic policies, change that could bring about improvement in how foreign languages are learnt and acquired. There is a clear need for change; the question is whether CLIL can change the way languages are being taught in today’s classroom. According to research and experiences from around the world, the answer is that it can. If CLIL is to be put into practice, curriculum change is necessary. Teaching staffs must also adapt their linguistic competency and methodology to the needs at hand. Finally, there has to be a major shift in teacher and student

attitudes towards how foreign languages are taught and learnt. CLIL could shake the foundations of English language teaching methodology and provide the results that we want and need so much. •

Víctor Pavón is a professor in the department of English and German at the University of Cordoba. He lectures on “English Teaching Methodology” and “Speciﬁc Methodology: English” in the methodology adaptation course (Spanish C.A.P.) in the English faculty. He also frequently collaborates with various private and public organisations involved in training language teachers. He is a member of the Committee for the Planning of an Integrated Curriculum, and a member of the Advisory Committee for Linguistic Policies within the framework of the Government of Andalusia’s Plan to Promote Multilingualism. Teresa Gerdes is originally from the United States and holds a degree in bilingual education/ESL. She has taught in several primary bilingual schools both in the United States and in Spain. She currently teaches in the new bilingual education programme (Graduado en Educación Infantil y Primaria) at the Universidad Pontiﬁcia Comillas in Madrid. She is the CLIL consultant for Vicens Vives’s natural and social science primary coursebook, World 1-6. She is also a teacher trainer and the author of the adult language coursebook series, Go Ahead 1 and 2, published by Stanley.

Resources Bowler, B. “The Rise and Rise of CLIL.” New Standpoints Sept./Oct. 2007, p. 8. Cummins, J. Bilingualism and Special Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1984. Cummins, J. Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossﬁre. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2000. Echevarría, J., M.E. Vogt, D.J. Short. Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model. London: Pearson Education, 2000. Hengst, H., C. Hernández, F. Lorenzo, V. Pavón. Borrador para la Elaboración del Currículo Integrado. Plan de Fomento del Plurilingüismo, Junta de Andalucía. 2005. (In Spanish.) Available online at: http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/averroes/ plurilinguismo/curriculo/borradorcil.pdf. (See speciﬁc suggestions with respect to content teachers.) Pavon, V. “La Implantacion de la Enseñanza Plurilingüe en Andalucía: Hacia una Nueva Propuesta Metodológica y Curricular.” Perspectiva CEP, No. 13, June 2007, pp. 45-60. (In Spanish.) “Plan to Promote Plurilingualism” by the Consejería de Educación, Junta de Andalucía. (In Spanish.) Available online at: http://www.juntadeandalucia. es/averroes/impe/web/portadaEntidad?pag=/contenidos/B/ InnovacionEInvestigacion/ProyectosInnovadores/Plurilinguismo/ Stryker, S., B. Leaver. Content-Based Instruction in Foreign Language Education. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1993, p. 293.