competent and confident communicators There are no panaceas, no quick-fix solutions, but there is a growing bank of evidence that is gaining momentum across Europe and in Britain which suggests that if teachers as well as learners are to be motivated by language learning and language using, then ???one-size fits all??™ provision is outmoded. A choice of routes and experiences to cater for a fast-changing world of work and leisure is more likely to motivate our young people to understand the benefits and relevance of foreign language using as a basic skill. The ???bag of tricks??™ approach to motivating learners through converting tedious activities into fun described by Good and Brophy (1994:212) is unsustainable and instead demands an analysis of the type of experiences offered to learners. This article will explore how one alternative (amongst several) to current mainstream practice ??“ content and language integrated learning (CLIL) – has a role to play in shaping future flexible and multifaceted foreign language experiences in school. Ten years ago in the CILT publication celebrating 30 years of language learning (CILT 1996), Dr Lid King wrote a futures thinking chapter where he envisaged that research on bilingual immersion will have given rise to ???funded bilingual centres in every major town??™. Yet in 2000, the Nuffield Inquiry investigating the crisis in modern language learning in the UK warned that Good opportunities are being wasted. Measures to improve pupils??™ enjoyment and interest in language learning could be taken but overwhelmingly are not. Bilingual teaching ??“ where subjects such as History or Geography are taught in the foreign language ??“ remains a rarity, and no accreditation is available for such courses. [??¦] (Nuffield Foundation, 2000: 46) However more recently, developments have gained momentum leading to an explosion of interest in CLIL- the ???growth industry in educational linguistics??™ (BaetensBeardsmore, 1997). The Eurydice Report on European developments for CLIL (Eurydice 2006: 2)3 states: The CLIL methodological approach seeking to foster integrated learning of languages and other areas of curricular content is a fast developing phenomenon in Europe??¦ Aware of this challenge, national policy makers are taking a greater interest in CLIL and offering a wide variety of initiatives consistent with the different circumstances facing them. So how is CLIL interpreted and acted out in England and Scotland Defining CLIL CLIL is an umbrella term adopted by the European Network of Administrators, Researchers and Practitioners (EUROCLIC)4 in the mid 1990s. It encompasses any activity in which a foreign language is used as a tool in the learning of a nonlanguage subject in which both language and subject have a joint role (Marsh 2002:58). The adoption of a specific term was a move towards defining more clearly the nature of CLIL midst a plethora of related approaches such as content-based instruction, immersion, bilingual education and so on. Whilst CLIL shares certain aspects of learning and teaching with these, in essence it operates along a continuum of the foreign language and the non-language content without specifying the importance of one over another.
movement. It is after all what happens in classrooms and how this motivates both teachers and learners, which is gaining momentum. As Holmes (2005) notes An essential feature of CLIL is that it places both language and the nonlanguage content on a continuum without implying preference or dominance of one over the other [??¦] recognising curriculum development as part of this continuum has allowed us to be inclusive of a variety of approaches, methods and curriculum models adapted to meet needs of the learners and flexible enough to match the readiness of the teaching force to provide appropriate and relevant learning programmes of a sufficiently high quality in both language and the non-language content subject. An analysis of case studies thus far (Hood 2005) indicates that there are four potential models emerging in the UK: a) Surface cross-curricular linking (MFL approach) b) Integrating language and recycling/deepening content c) Integrating language and new content d) Immersion (content approach) Such a range of models suggests a continuum from language focus to content focus with other models in between – all of which integrate the language with the content. Surface cross-curricular linking is linguistic in design and links with other curricular areas to be explored at a cognitive level that matches parallel language work eg the water cycle at essentially the word level of diagram. This could be useful as an introduction to cross-curricular work and a confidence builder. If the water cycle were used for process descriptions and cause/effect, involving more complex language, the model would tend towards integrating language and recycled content yet revisited either for revision purposes or to build on the content in a deeper way. When the water cycle is introduced for the first time so that learners are introduced to the concept of the cycle for the first time, then the model would involve integrating language and new content. The full immersion CLIL model is when learning content matter determines the language to be used and learnt. These examples build on the notion that CLIL is flexible and can be developed in different types of schools and with different learners. As Holmes (2005) underlined, CLIL is responsive to the context in which it is developed. It supports curriculum and professional development by encouraging teachers to experiment according to the demands of their own settings. However, what we do know is that CLIL is not: ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? Replicating models successful in very different environments (eg the Canadian model) but rather a flexible European approach with a range of models responding to situational & contextual demands; ???Backdoor??™ language teaching or additional subject teaching; Favouring languages at the expense of the non-language subjects; A threat to subject specialisms at any level; Teaching what students already know but in a different code (ie the foreign language) ??“ this is an important issue in models a) and b); Teaching what students need to know but exchanging the language of instruction; A fashionable trend – it??™s been around a long time; Aiming to make students ???bilingual??™ in the traditional sense; Elitist and therefore only for more able students; Dependent on ???buying in??™ foreign national teachers.
So why should we be making a case for introducing or developing CLIL in our school curricula as a potential motivating, relevant and challenging learning and teaching experience What we know about CLIL potential Sharing successes and practices, working together regionally, nationally and across countries have given rise to teacher-led discourse about CLIL practice. In the words of van Lier (1996:69) ???such awareness-raising work, which turns the classroom from a field of activity into a subject of enquiry, can promote deep and lasting changes in educational practices.??™ What we do know about CLIL has evolved from case studies, pilot initiatives and practitioner research. I shall draw on a range of these reports but in particular the CLIP Report (Wiesemes 2005) to illustrate CLIL potential using participant statements. ??? Raising linguistic competence and confidence Evidence suggests that increasing quality time spent in a foreign language, for example on the topic of environment, where students use the language to learn as well as learn to use the language in a variety of situations, can lead to an increase in linguistic competence. In some schools this is evidenced by early fast track entry to GCSE by one or two years. In other schools, students after one year of learning the foreign language and having CLIL experiences were at least three levels (on a national scale of 8 levels ranging over a 5 years period) in advance of other students of the same age. CLIL Teacher A: where the quality is high and children are involved in using language in different ways than they would in their traditional language lessons, then they??™re getting two for the price of one really. Student 1: It is better than normal French [??¦]; because I think we still learn all the basic things, but we learn geography as well, so [we] learn more. And the lessons all follow our geography lessons, so we learn more about geography as well. CLIL Teacher B: Things like year 9s or year 10s taking GCSE early and getting predominantly A* and As. A mixed ability class of year 7 pupils all being on level 5 or 6 in listening and reading by the end of year 7, every single person in the class. If you want it in levels, that benefits, its clearly there and just an ability to use language in more complex ways, both in speech and in writing. Researcher: Our research findings can be summarised in the following ways: CLIL allows pupils to use language in a range of different ways, CLIL enables pupils to use language in more complex ways, CLIL pupils tend to have significantly higher levels of comprehension skills than traditional MFL learners, CLIL pupils are enabled to deal with complex information given to them in the target language. CLIL pupils??™ strategic foreign language skills are better developed ??“ they deal with larger amounts of information and tend to focus less on word-by-word comprehension of the target language, CLIL pupils tend to develop better speaking skills due to a large extent to the variety of language being presented and used in class, CLIL pupils use the target language more in their classrooms. Student 2: It??™s about the whole world, so you learn about why people learn French and why they speak French [??¦]. You know why that happened and that benefits schoolwork and education.
In terms of a pedagogic framework for CLIL, then classroom-based evidence indicates that there are four building blocks for effective CLIL practice. These four building blocks feature in the CLIP findings and are common across other CLIL research projects (Coyle 2002). Teachers, learners, trainers and researchers are collectively exploring the interrelationship between subject matter (content), the language of and for learning (communication), the thinking integral to high quality learning (cognition) and the global citizenship agenda (culture) – which constitute four Cs. The 4Cs Framework (Coyle 1999) takes account of integrating learning (content and cognition) and language learning (communication and cultures). The 4Cs Framework suggests that it is through progression in knowledge, skills and understanding of the content, engagement in associated cognitive processing, interaction in the communicative context, developing appropriate language knowledge and skills as well as acquiring a deepening intercultural awareness through the positioning of self and ???otherness??™, that effective CLIL takes place. From this perspective, CLIL involves learning to use language appropriately whilst using language to learn effectively. It is built on the following principles: 1. Content matter is not only about acquiring knowledge and skills, it is about the learner creating their own knowledge and understanding and developing skills (personalised learning); 2. Content is related to learning and thinking (cognition). To enable the learner to create their own interpretation of content, it must be analysed for its linguistic demands; 3. Thinking processes (cognition) need to be analysed for their linguistic demands; 4. Language needs to be learned which is related to the learning context, learning through that language, reconstructing the content and its related cognitive processes. This language needs to be transparent and accessible; 5. Interaction in the learning context is fundamental to learning. This has implications when the learning context operates through the medium of a foreign language.
6. The relationship between cultures and languages is complex. Intercultural awareness is fundamental to CLIL. Its rightful place is at the core of CLIL. In the 4Cs Framework, the language and communication are used interchangeably. This is not only a syntactical device for promoting ???c??™ concepts but also a strategy for promoting genuine communication in the foreign language if learning is to take place. It is an attempt to redress the criticism made by Donato (1996) that we ???educate learners towards communicative incompetence rather than competence??™. The framework for a CLIL curriculum design has grown out of classroom practice. Perhaps the most fundamental shift it brings is a rethink of the role played by language learning and using. No longer can the foreign language be parcelled into grammatical progression leaving past tenses and more complex linguistic constructions ???until later??™. Students studying sustainability, for example, will need easy access to expressing ???future??™ whilst those studying the industrial revolution will need to use past tenses. This is in sharp contrast to the linguistic progression upon which foreign language is based. CLIL learners need to discuss, debate, justify and explain using more complex language and different sorts of language than would be practised in the regular foreign language lessons. In turn the language needed is linked closely with literacy issues in the mother tongue ??“ scaffolding language in a different way than in foreign language lessons is required. The use of writing frames and speaking frames is commonplace in CLIL.
doing something which is difficult and doing it well. They suddenly begin to understand that it??™s possible to learn in different ways and I think, depending on how the classrooms are organised, it can help develop social skills and group work skills, talk skills, all of those cooperative learning type skills. But again, that??™s very much getting into the agenda of effective teaching. So what fosters motivation in CLIL classrooms ??? Teacher motivation through collaboration with other colleagues and crosscurricular opportunities; breaking down departmental barriers by engaging in dialogue on pedagogical issues and practices that apply to other subject areas. Teacher sense of involvement in curriculum development at grass-roots level to meet the needs of learners ???Educators think students do not care, while students tell us they do care about learning but are not getting what they need??™ (McCombs and Whisler1997: 38). Flexible non-prescriptive models which encourage context driven changes The CLIL pedagogic framework for guidance that reconceptualises existing practice encourages a sense of ???ownership??™ in terms of developing one??™s professional practice. Motivated teachers ???breed??™ motivated learners: enhancing learners??™ values and attitudes related to the foreign language through ???different??™ approaches; increasing learner expectations; making the content more relevant for learners (in terms of the subject matter and the cognitive level at which learners operate ??“ which is not dependent on linguistic level); such issues are reflected in Dornyei??™s (2001) second phase of motivational teaching practice. Dornyei (2001) also highlights classroom strategies which are needed to maintain motivation- these include making the learning stimulating and enjoyable, presenting tasks in a motivating way and building learners??™ selfesteem and confidence- all of these were reported on by teachers in CLIP.
Perhaps the most powerful consequence witnessed by the teachers and learners is a sense of being part of a learning community ??“ where everyone has a role to play. Building communities of practice is dependent on cooperation, collaboration and partnerships for learning. They involve content and language teachers working together, subject and language trainers sharing their ideas and supporting classroom enquiry, networks of CLIL teachers and their learners working on joint curricular links and a genuine belief that for emerging CLIL pedagogy to guide practitioners, it must be owned by the community, developed through classroom exploration and understood in situ- a theory of practice developed for practice and through practice. CLIL is not THE answer but it offers an alternative to be explored by learners, teachers and trainers. After all, as one student exclaimed: CLIL rocks!
Tile Hill Wood School Tomlinscote School Wolfreton School Bernardette Holmes (CILT) , Rolf Wiesemes, Phiilp Hood and Bill Musk for team work on CLIP Mike Ullmann (Hockerill Anglo European College) for inspiration Katie Lea (Waingels) for brilliant ideas The trainee CLIL teachers (BILD PGCE 2005-6) at the University of Nottingham who provided the lesson plan for their teaching practice work in Humanities through French: Simon Bent, Chris Westman, Emmanuelle Brucker.
Planning using the CLIL Curriculum Framework: A Departmental Checklist Stage One: Decide what YOU mean by CLIL in your own context/school/class Guiding principles ??? Discuss these with other colleagues in your own department and in other departments Looking at Learning ??? Discuss guiding principles for learning, e.g. implications for group work, independent learning, whole class teaching Ethos ??? Define aims and objectives of CLIL teaching programme as well as learning outcomes as they fit in with the whole school vision Stage Two: Starting to use the 4Cs Planning Tool for the Topic/Module Analysing the Teaching Curriculum Carry out curriculum subject audit, i.e. identify the content knowledge, skills and understanding to be taught in the topic/theme/module ??? Carry out a thinking skills or cognitive processing analysis, i.e. relate the content defined in 1 to thinking skills Overview planning ??? Consider the culture/citizenship implications for the ??? Identify the linguistic elements to carry out 1, 2 and 3 topic/theme/ ??? Create a schema or wall chart (with 4 columns ??“ content; Module cognition-thinking skills; citizenship ??“ leave the final column blank at the moment) showing interrelationship and interconnectedness of 1, 2, and 3 ??? Now fill in the final column. Identify the communication (language) needed to carry out the above by the learners ??? You can use this 4Cs document as self evaluation Stage Three: Using CLIL tools: 3As for detailed lessons planning. Preparing the The Matrix for task and materials design Learning Context ??? Use schema above to define tasks ??? Identify appropriate related teaching strategies ??“ how to support learners ??? Identify appropriate related learning strategies ??“ how learners can learn to support their own learning ??? Ensure teaching objectives and learning outcomes are clear and achievable AND that tasks are sequenced to build in progression. Such as: ???By the end of the year/term/week/series of lessons I want my learners to ??¦??™ ??? Prepare appropriate materials ??“ with special attention to those incorporating learning strategies and pedagogical scaffolding ??? Use matrix or similar to analyse the teaching materials and/or tasks ??? ???
Evaluation of teaching and learning process ???