What is CLIL?
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) was incepted in the 1990s and ever since, it has found wide application in various education settings across Europe and the other continents as well. The term CLIL was the culmination of deliberations by language researchers and experts who took part in the multilingual/bilingual education movement that was the brainchild of the European Commission starting from 1994 (European Commission, 2008; Eurydice Network, 2006). The acronym has been in use since 1996 when it was officially launched jointly by the Finland-based University of Jyvaskyla, UNICOM, and the European Platform for Dutch Education. Ever since, the educational approach has enjoyed huge success across the United States, Europe, and indeed the entire globe. Nonetheless, in spite of its widespread acceptance, CLIL is yet to achieve the status of an all-round educational model. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) represents a paradigm shift in language teaching that incorporates innovation in approaches and methodology (Lasagabaster & Doiz, 2017). The educational focus of CLIL is two-fold namely, to promote the development of disciplinary content knowledge and language skills among learners (Dalton-Puffer, 2007). Additionally, CLIL is also focused on the realisation of such other diverse objectives as "... cultural awareness, cognitive advantages, deeper content learning, internalization, self-confidence, motivation, pluriliteracy, learner autonomy, and others." (Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013, p. 547). The overarching goal of the idea of CLIL at its inception was to utilize the universal strategies of learning and teaching that have been proven to be successful and integrate these into the curriculums of European schools. Although some of the teaching strategies of CLIL are also evident in other pedagogical techniques like content based language learning, it nonetheless differ from these in terms of incorporation of culture, cognition, communication, and contextualized content into learning practice and teaching (Coyle, 2002; cited in Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010).
Coyle (2006) has underscored the significance of integration in aiding in our understanding of the CLIL approach, seeing as it “promotes subject or content learning to an equal position to that of offering language learning” (p. 7). However, integration, as applied to CLIL, should not be taken to imply that the subject teacher now has an added responsibility in ensuring that students pay more attention to language; rather, their main focus should be on “the inherent role of the language in teaching and learning” (de Graaff, 2016, p. 15). Since CLIL entails teaching of a language via content, students therefore need not possess a satisfactory level of proficiency in the language of choice. Therefore, CLIL views both subject and language as being of equal importance and there is no desire to replace one language with another to aid in teaching of content or to teach content that has already been taught in a different language. Therefore, integration of content and language demands “an understanding of the characteristics and interplay of both, and the potential aims, processes, and outcomes of the fused context” (Dalton-Puffer et al., 2010, p. 13).
Bentley (2010) has enumerated the various aims of CLIL, with the most important one being the ability to introduce novel concepts to learners via the use of a foreign language as an aid to studying the curriculum. Secondly, CLIL is intended to ensure that leaders are more productive in terms of the curricular subjects being taught. Additionally, Bentley (2010) contends that CLIL results in an improvement in learners’ performance not just in the curricular subjects, but also in the target language. The incorporation of CLIL into teaching methodologies may also be seen as a pathway towards the realisation of the pluralinguism recommendation made by the Council of Europe. In this case, Council of Europe (2007) has recommended that policies adopted in language education ought to be geared towards advancing “the learning of several languages for all individuals in the course of their lives, so that Europeans actually become plurilingual and intercultural citizens, able to interact with other European in all aspects of their lives” (Council of Europe, 2003, p. 7).
Over the past two decades, CLIL has gained immense popularity in various educational settings in all the continents as evidenced by the reported number of CLIL implementations. According to Dalton-Puffer and Smit (2013), the growth in CLIL transnational interaction and activities at the research and professional levels has played a significant role in the attainment of enhanced pedagogical and practical CLIL concerns. Coyle, Hodd and Marsh (2010) are of the view that such dynamic activity networks have acted as a source of inspiration for CLIL practitioners by way of enabling them to forge alliances with researchers and other stakeholders in the education sector while also appealing to them to reflect on their individual teaching practice and experiences. Furthermore, the impediments that CLIL practitioners have encountered along the way, in conjunction with the research findings of case studies based on classroom implementation of CLIL act as an as a priceless source of practical information and knowledge for the CLIL community, and has also been pivotal in enabling them to attain an advanced research agenda (Coyle et al., 2010).
CLIL has also enjoyed European support courtesy of the 1995 European Council Resolution which recognises the value of promoting “the teaching of classes in a foreign language for disciplines other than languages, providing bilingual teaching” (p. 3). According to Coyle et al. (2010), CLIL may be viewed as an innovative technique that is also endowed with the ability to assimilate the different European states, promote intercommunication, while also endevouring to advance global citizenships and enhanced understanding among the various cultures. Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala (2001) have identified five distinct fundamental aspects of the CLIL approach. They entail environment, content, culture, learning, and language. Moreover, all of these five basic dimensions share a high level of inter-connection with CLIL and hence ensure that students stand to benefit from an educational experience that is both comprehensive and well-rounded.
Theoretical Framework
Marsh (2002) has defined CLIL as an educational approach that involves teaching of subjects "through a foreign language with dual-focused aims, namely the learning of content, and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language" (p. 2). Elsewhere, Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008) have described CLIL as a "dual-focused approach"(p. 9) that views content and language as being of the same level of importance in teaching. Based on these definitions, it becomes abundantly clear that CLIL is not only a CMI (Content Based Instruction) approach, but it also underscores the significance of language while undertaking such a task. In other words, there is need for educators to put into consideration the fact that since content is being taught courtesy of a foreign language, it is important therefore that student possess background knowledge and instruction in such a language. Consequently, educators are called upon to plan content lessons in such a manner as to entail a specific target language objective. By taking into account the dual focus of CLIL mentioned previously, it emerges that CLIL is indeed an umbrella term that encompasses "learning through any language that is not the first language of the learner" (2006). Therefore, educators ought to be cognizant of the fact that teaching content via a foreign language aids in language learning because structures, pragmatics, vocabulary, along with other linguistic components are embedded in the content under study. According to Marsh (2003), CLIL may also encompass procedure, on condition that it has been implemented correctly. For example, while teaching students such a subject as history in a foreign language, such a language becomes the tool for learning. Therefore, educators besides planning on how to incorporate language and content in their teaching approach must also integrate procedures to ensure delivery of content to all learners and ensure proficient, regardless of their level of proficiency.
As noted in the previous section, CLIL approach acts as 'a powerful pedagogic tool which aims to safeguard the subject being taught whilst promoting language as a medium for learning as well as an objective of the learning process itself" (Coyle in March, 2002, p. 37).. Therefore, CLIL entails examining the inter-link between content, cognition, communication, and culture. These are collectively described as the 4Cs of the CLIL framework as proposed by Coyle (1999), and which are also the focus of this paper.
Content
According to Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2005), content as an aspect of the CLIL theme should be thought of as an advancement of novel skills, understanding and knowledge with a view to enabling learners to acquire knowledge. Holmes (2005) has identified a crucial component of CLIL namely, the ability to accommodate both non-language and language content without an indication for dominance or preference of either of these dimensions. Since CLIL approach renders itself to practical applications, this in turn promotes steady and consequential contextualization of content, thereby aiding in language use and learning. Consequently, this facilitates professional development among teachers via experimentation, and on the basis of existing demand for CLIL approach in their individual settings. Therefore, learning content acts as a meaningful contextualizes activity in that educators expect their students to both reason and speak about content via a non-native language. The overarching objective of this aspect is to improve students' cognitive skills while also enhancing their interest not just in the content taught, but also in the language in which such content is presented.
Communication
This constitutes the second component of the CLIL framework. Content dictates the language required in CLIL and as such, language acts as a medium not just for communication, but also learning (Coyle et al. 2010). As such, to determine the language of choice in the implementation of the CLIL approach at the classroom setting, it is important first to identify language under three separate stages. The importance of target language in CLIL approach stems from the fact that learners require a medium though which they can express their thoughts, opinions, and facts regarding the subject content. Through communication, students are in a position to interact in addition to also constructing knowledge through the foreign language. Bentley (2010) opines that student need to engage in various communicative activities, including articulating variances or concurrence, describing processes, articulating cause and effects, defining concept, as well as providing solutions, In this way, learners are better able to progress in their learning and more importantly, develop novel linguistic skills.
Language of learning involves ascertaining that learners are in a position to access the fundamental skills and concepts. Language for learning refers to language that promotes discourse among individuals, make inferences and develop strategies. On the other hand, language through learning refers to the kind of language usually acquires on account of its active usage in thinking and learning. The CLIL approach focuses on language use and language form with the meaningful perspective as availed by learners enabling educators to view not just language, but also communication (Coyle et al., 2010).
Cognition
This is the third component of the 4Cs framework. Bentley (2010) has identified cognition as an important component of the framework which is usually the result of the other two components of the framework namely, content and communication. In this case, cognition could be thought of as a stage in which learners get to internalise the activities of content and combine this with what they gained via communication in order to develop thinking skills. The CLIL approach demands that students transcend both subject content as well as linguistic competence so that they may commence on a learning process that entails reflection on the target language. Marsh (2008) has singled out the cognition aspect as being vital for the CLIL approach in the sense that it trains learners how to "think" via a foreign language, which in turn is instrumental in conceptualization and advancement of their mental processes. Such training is also essential in that is allows learners to slowly adopt various learning strategies, including social and cognitive learning strategies, which are essential in promoting their ability to consolidate and internalize knowledge and information already acquired, while also creating room for the acquisition of new knowledge.
According to Bentley (2010), learners require time to reflect on content taught and also to process linguistic items and novel concepts prior to responding to questions posed by their teachers. As such, the CLIL approach is not only essential in the realisation of linguistic competence, but it also promotes the acquisition of other forms of competencies and skills. However, despite these enviable capabilities of the CLIL approach, educators expect that their learners will still be in a position to engage in lower-order and higher-order understanding and thinking, accept challenges, solve problems and also reflect on such experiences (Coyle et al., 2010). In this way, the aspect of cognition as it relates to the CLIL approach should be thought of an entailing construction, as opposed to instructing as it does not demand transfer of concepts.
Coyle et al. (2010) have underscored the need to examine the link between content (knowledge acquisition) and learning (cognitive processing). Towards this end, various taxonomies have been proposed but for purposes of this paper, we shall restrict ourselves to Bloom's Taxonomy. This taxonomy categorises cognitive objectives into various classes in order of complexity, starting with the most basic ones and ending with the most challenging ones. Bloom's Taxonomy ranks such knowledge aspects as recalling factors and terms at the lowest level, whereas evaluation is ranked at the highest level. In this case, evaluation entails assessing the significance of things or ideas. Consequently, Coyle et al. (2010) have recommended the use of Bloom's Taxonomy as an essential tool in terms of planning on how to address cognitive challenge.
Culture
Culture is the fourth essential element of CLIL. This is in recognition of the fact that the modern classroom setting entails students from diverse cultural settings, thereby bringing into play differences in cultural and social backgrounds. Study findings indicate that students attending contend-based courses tend to have considerably higher levels of positive attitude towards the foreign language chosen for teaching content (usually English). This is because such courses afford such learners intense exposure, in addition to also providing them with better opportunities to apply the target language. Moreover, one of the main objectives of CLIL is to enable learners attain competency in two languages in addition to also inculcating in them a positive attitude towards learning a foreign language.
Therefore, the language of choice in the CLIL setting act as a springboard on which learner gain additional interest in learning other cultures and languages. Consequently, the CLIL setting allows learners to explore their individual cultures and the cultures of other students from other regions. This acts as a conduit through which students get to experience other cultures and behaviours. Thus teachers in the CLIL context help to advance the global citizenship function among students (Coyle et al., 2009). Additionally, the CLIL approach promotes intercultural awareness and understanding which Bentley (2010) identifies as being pivotal for learners in terms of developing positive values and attitudes.
References
Andrews, B.W., 1999. Side by side: Evaluating a partnership program in arts teacher education. In: International Electronic Journal of Leadership, 3 (16).
Angus, M., McDonald, T., Ormond, C, Rybarcyk, R., Taylor, A., & Winterton, A. 2009.
Trajectories for classroom behaviour and academic progress. Perth: Edith Cowan
University.
Bentley, K. 2010. The TKT Teaching Knowledge Test Course CLIL Model. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowler, B. 2007. The Rise and Rise of CLIL. New Standpoints, 7-9
Brooks, K., & Thurston, L. 2010.English language learner academic engagement and
instructional grouping configurations. American Secondary Education, 39 (1), pp. 45
60.
Coonan, C. 2013. The role of CLIL teachers. GLO CLIL 2. Bari.
Coyle, D. 2006. Developing CLIL: Towards a Theory of Practice. In APAC Monographs,6 (Eds.). CLIL in Catalonia, from Theory to Practice (1st ed., pp.5-29). Anglès (Girona): Impremta Pagès.
Coyle, D., Holmes, B. & King, L. 2009. Towards an integrated curriculum: CLIL national statements and guidelines. London: The Languages Company
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. 2010. CLIL: content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. 2007. Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Smit, U. 2013. Content and language integrated learning: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46, pp, 545-55.
de Graaff, R. 2016. Integrating content and language in education: best of both worlds?
Foreword. In Dafouz ,E; Moore, P; Nikula, T & Smit, U. (Eds.),Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. xiii-xvi) (4 p.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Deller, S, & Price, C 2007. Teaching Other Subjects Through English (CLIL). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. 2014. CLIL and motivation: the effect of individual and contextual variables. Language Learning Journal, 42 (2), pp. 209-224.
European Commission 2003. Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An
Action Plan 2004 – 2006. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee of the Regions, COM(2003) 449. [Online].
Ratings
