Content and language integrated learning - Part 2
Benefits of CLIL in Secondary Schools
A number of studies conducted to determine the benefits of CLIL indicate a positive relationship between its usage and improved academic success. This is because the CLIL approach helps to fill the deficiency in student engagement evident in language classrooms. Similar sentiments have also been echoed by Christenson & Wylie (2002) who opine that learner engagement helps to facilitate learning, not to mention that it also acts as a predictor of school success. In this case, the CLIL aids in the learners’ behavioural, emotional, as well as cognition engagement. In their study, Angus et al. (2009) endevoured to compare the learning curve of students characterised by disruptive behavior on the one hand, and those characterized by disengaged behaviour, on the other hand. It emerged from the study results that students with disengaged behavior attempted difficult tasks and were also seen to disengage themselves from collaborative learning or discussions, with the result that their learning outcomes were affected negatively.
Hufton et al. (2002) in their qualitative study in which they interviewed students from such developed countries as the United States and the UK, it seemed that effort was held in high esteem by these students in comparison with ability, while taking into account the reasons behind academic success. Exposure of high school students to the CLIL approach has also been shown to improve their motivation and engagement. Many of such studies have been undertaken in Spain. Here, the CLIL approach has enjoyed extensive application for nearly two decades. These studies manly involve a comparative assessment of the conventional training approaches relative to the CLIL approach and have been interested in examining the engagement and motivations of students. For example, the study by Lasagabaster (2011) indicates that the CLIL approach is associated with positive impact on learners, in terms of language development, as well as their motivation. Elsewhere, Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra (2014) undertook a study whose findings showed that learners in the CLIL setting tended to exhibit a higher level of motivation in comparison with the control group. However, Doiz et al. (2014) have also noted that such other factors as gender and socio-cultural background could also have played an influential role in the reported study findings. On the issue of collaborative work, we have quite a number of studies whose findings point towards a positive impact on language learning. For example, Brooks and Thurston (2010) in their study indicated that learners were highly susceptible to participating in academic activities while taking part in one-on-one instructions as well as when they worked as part of small groups. These aspects of learning are well accommodated by the CLIL approach.
The CLIL approach is such that the topic being taught should be focus. In addition, the learners are also required to learn the vocabulary of the foreign language through the content being taught. Therefore, the CLIL approach endevours to teach complementary subjects simultaneously, as opposed to teaching them in isolation. Consequently, this leads to enhance retention and internalisaiton of the content and vocabulary taught. For example, assuming that the high school students are learning geography terms in a foreign language, in this case, Spanish, the research findings show that such students have a better chance at learning such geography terms due to the supplementary impact of the relevant vocabulary. Moreover, CLIL is also associated with improved level of confidence among learners, although not much research appears to have been dedicated to this area. Nonetheless, Ringbom (2012) in his study report the findings of another study conducted by Pihko (2007), in which it emerged that “while students learning with both traditional ELT and CLIL show generally positive attitudes to the learning of English, CLIL learners were more satisfied with and confident about their English proficiency” (Pihko in Ringbom 2012, p 503).
Role of the Teacher
Teachers play a crucial role in a CLIL setting. Wolff (2007) has identified CLIL teachers as "the innovators of our school systems, the educational reformers of the 21st century" (p. 23). This is due to their crucial role in unlocking the high innovative potential of CLIL, thus putting into perspective the vital role of teachers in the realisation of successful CLIL programmes. However, this can only happen if the CLIL teachers themselves are fully aware of what CLIL means, and are equally cognizant of its significance. Ideally, teacher in a CLIL classroom should demonstrate the qualities of professional development, and subject knowledge, as suggested by Whitty (1996). Additionally, CLIL teachers should manifest in professional values, in addition to demonstrating an acute awareness and understanding of learners, and how they learn. The Eurydice report has also delved into the debate on the role of teachers in a CLIL setting by suggesting that such teachers should be in a position to teach one or several subjects contained in the curriculum. Such teaching should be conducted in a foreign language and teachers should also demonstrate the ability to also teacher that language as well (Eurydice, 2006). Besides, Papaja (2013) has advanced the need for teachers in a CLIL classroom to acknowledge the need for change of conventional practices which could be applied in the native language when teaching the same content in a foreign language.
The role of a teacher in a CLIL classroom setting is no mean feat. This is due to the difficulty involved in determining the specificities of context. CLIL is thus viewed a demanding approach for teachers in that they prior training is necessary, and they are also called upon to develop practice and adjust practice. The daunting task faced by teachers in having to adjust to the CLIL approach is best summarised by Marsh et al. (2010), who contend that such teachers are often called upon to develop various forms of competencies in the content to facilitate an efficiency integration of the CLIL approach into the existing educational system. Additionally, teachers within the CLIL setting are often required to strike a balance between teaching of language and content as well, thus necessitating an integrated approach. This adds to the complexity of implementing the CLIL approach.
CLIL teachers are expected to acknowledge the importance of changing entrenched habits which are likely to find application in L1 at a time when the same content is being taught in L2. Therefore, a professional teacher should be in a position to acknowledge that the CLIL setting demands that he or she be linguistically competent and to also make sure that his or her students also attain linguistic competence (Dalton-Puffer, 2007).. This is indicative of the methodological shift in teaching in which the teacher-centered approach is discarded in favour of the learner-centered approach. Additionally, the CLIL teacher possess methodological competence that enables them to identify the linguistic difficulties being faced by learners, and hence and assist them accordingly. This can be done through the use of such strategies as echoing and repetition as a means of modellling or correcting language use. Indeed possession of second language competence remains a core competence for the CLIL teacher. According to Andrews (1999), explicit and implicit knowledge of language allows the CLIL teacher to communicate effectively. This, coupled with ability to reflect on ability and knowledge that the CLIL teacher can be of assistance to learners in terms of ensuring that they "receive maximally useful input for learning (Andrews, 1999, p. 163).
CLIL teachers are also expected to be language promoters and users. According to Coonan (2013), the CLIL teacher ought to be fully acquainted with the language as the overarching goal of the learning process but more importantly, as the medium of communication. Therefore, by planning language objectives, materials and strategies, they are in a position to assist learner develop language learning skills. This can be realised in a CLIL classroom if the CLIL teachers learn how to balance the communication and promotion of receptive and productive skills. Moreover, CLIL teacher ought to promote and scaffold language, in addition to also offering learners sufficient language tools with which they can in turn work on content.
CLIL materials tend to be authentic, in the sense that they have been developed to specifically aid in language teaching (Moore & Lorenzo, 2007). According to Mehisto (2012), CLIL teachers are adviced to use authentic teaching materials as this has been shown to enhance their motivation and by extension, that of the learners. While adoption of authentic materials is quite widespread among CLIL teachers, others deem it necessary to develop their own CLIL materials. According to Morton (2013), this allows the CLIL teachers to modify language and content of such materials to suit the needs of their learners, cultural, and curricula context for which the study materials are intended.
CLIL teachers are also instrumental in promoting extended learner output in the classroom setting. This is often realised by developing and applying teaching strategies that promote enhanced discourse, in addition to also encouraging higher-order thinking (Coyle, Holmes & King, 2009). Moreover, since the CLIL approach is learner-centered, the CLIL teachers help to promote high learner interest by offering them opportunities to speak and participate in the learning activities. The CLIL teacher also reinforces student’s expectations in a CLIL classroom setting on aspects of language, content, and learning skills.
The CLIL teacher also attends to the various students needs in the classroom. This is because the approach enables teachers to consider various learning strategies which are essential in enabling learners develop their learning skills (Woolf, 2012). Also, the CLIL teacher observes and records learners' opinions, wishes and interests and this helps to align the content to learners' needs, thus enhancing their motivation to learn.
Furthermore, the CLIL teacher is committed to continuous improvement and growth in learner accuracy. This is often realised by way of creating an opportunity that facilitates in the assessment of language and content learning in each lesson (Pavón & Rubio, 2010). Also, the CLIL teacher applies various effective feedback methodologies to facilitate continuous learner growth, and also deals with errors in written and oral languages.
Teacher education remains a fundamental aspect of the future sustainability and capacity building of the CLIL approach (Woolf, 2007). Coyle is also of a similar view to that of Wolff, and further opines that CLIL on its own, may not aid in the realisation of sustainable improvements and changes in learner outcomes and experiences. Accordingly, the quality of the CLIL approach is largely determined by the professional development and supply of teachers (Woolf, 2012). Additionally, such teachers should be fully competent in terms of executing the innovative strategies of CLIL in the classroom setting.
A fundamental question regarding the implementation of a CLIL approach is who ought to take charge of teaching content through a foreign language and the manner in which this should be conducted. It is important to note that CLIL programmes could assume different forms. In case the CLIL programme is more inclined towards content-based instruction, what this means is that language teachers are charged with the responsibility of teaching contents to pupils in class. On the other hand, CLIL Programmes could be of the language-sensitive kind, in which case content teachers have the responsibility of teaching content to their pupils (Pavón, 2010).
However, teachers are not the only responsible parties in ensuring the success of a CLIL programme. Additionally, it is important also to undertake a detailed assessment of context, in addition to also examining the needs and resources at your disposal. Consequently, Coyle, Holmes and King (2009) indicate that prior to the implementation of a CLIL programme, it needs to first be fully understood by the various stakeholders, who would then go on to opt for it and own it. However, Mehisto (2009) opines that in most cases, the content teacher is called upon to assume responsibility in the implementation of CLIL programmes. Sadly, as Pavón and Rubio (2010) have observed, many content teachers lack the competency required to implement the CLIL approach in the classroom setting as they are deficient in the methodological transformations necessary in such settings, or due to variations in the contents of such methods with their training on language teaching.
From the foregoing deliberations, it becomes abundantly clear that the role of CLIL teachers entails a wholesome transformation of the pedagogical strategy adopted in the classroom setting, and this may at times prove too hard to realise. This may necessitate the shift form instructional classes to creating a participative class environment. In other words, CLIL teachers should endevour to teach content in such a way as to enable their learners gain better comprehension of content via its manipulation and application. Additionally, CLIL lessons should be geared towards the realisation of teacher-student interaction but more importantly, there is a dire need to encourage cooperation and collaboration amongst learners. Moreover, the inclusion of BICS (basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills) as well as CALP (cognitive academic language proficiency) should also be integrated in the CLIL programme in order to enhance students' achievement.
Collaboration between language teachers and content teachers is also vital in enabling the CLIL teacher enhance his or her competence in the subject content and foreign language as well. This is because such collaboration helps in the generation of appropriate activities, rich materials and suitable techniques to assist students consolidate learning. Proper training of teachers is therefore essential in enhancing their teaching strategies, spoken skills and reviving their knowledge regarding the culture of the target language of teaching. Towards this end, the 1995 European Council Resolution recommends that teachers who are undergoing training should ideally spend part of their study period in the country whose language has been identified as the facilitator for teaching CLIL.
Nevertheless, teaching language remains a key component of CLIL. As such, teachers are required to see to it that this takes place. To do so, Bentley advices that teachers should endevour to focus on the important vocabulary. Additionally, they should also assist learners to become aware of problematic and pertinent language structures, in addition to also explaining their meanings. Another essential role of the CLIL teacher is to create a learning environment conducive for learning the target language in a relaxed manner. Moreover, teachers have a role in correcting the mistakes of their students, over and above giving constructive feedback while learners are performing tasks, and following the completion of such tasks. Bentley (2010) further opines that teacher should set aside time to enable learners ask questions regarding the subject content to tasks, in addition to also encourage learners to engage in self-reflection and assess their approach to tasks and the progress made thus far. Furthermore, teachers should adequately prepare for content teaching by identifying the aims of each lesson in advance, learning outcomes for their students, and activities to undertake as the class comes to an end.
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].
Eurydice, 2006. Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice European Unit
García, O. 2009. Bilingual Education for the 21st Century. A Global Perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lasagabaster, D. 2011. English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5 (1), pp. 3-18.
Lasagabaster, D., & Doiz, A. 2017. A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on affective factors. Applied Linguistics, 38, pp. 688-712.
Marsh, D. 2000. An Introduction to CLIL for parents and young people, in Marsh, D. Lange, G (eds.) (2000) Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols, M.J. 2010. The European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.
Mehisto, P, Frigols, M-J and Marsh, D 2008. Uncovering CLIL. Macmillan.
Mehisto, P. 2009. Managing multilingual education: structuring stakeholder dialogue and collaboration. In V. Pavón; F.J. Ávila (Eds.), Aplicaciones didácticas para la enseñanza integrada de lengua y contenidos (AICLE/CLICL/ÉMILE). Sevilla: Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Andalucía-Universidad de Córdoba, 9-27.
Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for Producing CLIL Learning Material. Encuentro 21, 15–33
Moore, P., & Lorenzo, F. (2007). Adapting authentic materials for CLIL classrooms: An empirical study. In U. Smit, & C. Dalton-Puffer (eds.) Current research on CLIL 2, VIEWS: Vienna English Working Papers 16(3), 28–35.
Morton, T. (2013). Critically Evaluating Materials for CLIL: Practitioners’ Practices and Perspectives. Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials, 111–136.
Papaja, K. 2013. The role of a teacher in a CLIL classroom. [Online].
Pavón, V. 2014. Enhancing the quality of CLIL: making the best of the collaboration between language teachers and content teachers. Encuentro, 23, pp.115-pp.127.
Pavón, V. & Rubio, F. 2010. Teachers’ concerns about the introduction of CLIL programmes. Porta Linguarum, 14, pp. 45-58
Ringbom, H., 2012. Review of recent applied linguistics research in Finland
And Sweden, with specific reference to foreign language learning and teaching.
Language Teaching, 45 (4), pp. 490-514.
Whitty, G., 1996. Creating Quasi-Markets in Education: A review of recent research on Parental choice and school autonomy in three countries. Review of Research in Education, 22, 89–95.
Wolff, Dieter (2007). “CLIL: Bridging the Gap Between School and Working Life”. Marsh, David; Wolff, Dieter (eds.), Diverse Contexts – Converging Goals: CLIL in Europe. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 15-25
Wolff, D. 2012. The European framework of CLIL teacher education. Synergies, 8, 105-116.
Zehra, G., & Ailincai, R. 2015. Content and Language Integrated Learning: In Search of a Coherent Conceptual Framework. The International Academic Forum (IAFOR). The European Conference on Language Learning (ECLL) 2015, Jul 2015, Brighton, United Kingdom. pp.311-324.
Ratings
