Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A Methodology of Bilingual Teaching
- -
- 100%
- +
ibidem-Press, Stuttgart
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1 Bilingual Children
Vignette “A Family Experiment”
1.1 Dismantling Myths and Legends of Bilingualism
1.2 The Guide for Bilingual Parents
1.3 The Graduate Medical School of Hanover
1.4 The Gap Between Knowing and Doing
1.5 The Dual System Hypothesis
1.6 The Unitary Language System Hypothesis
Chapter 2 Nativist and Cognitive Positions
Vignette “Language is the dress of thought”
2.1 The Research on Second Language Acquisition
2.2 Behaviorism and a Black Box
2.3 The Universal Grammar and Noam Chomsky
2.4 The Minimalist Position of Recursion
2.5 The Input and Output Hypotheses
2.6 Language Learning as a Social Process—The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
Chapter 3 Nature versus Nurture
Vignette “The American Experience”
3.1 The Fundamental Difference Hypothesis
3.2 Linking Nature and Nurture
3.3 Anthropology Sheds a New Light
3.4 The Neuro-biological View
3.5 The Task-based Approach
Chapter 4 Learning (Foreign) Languages in Cultural Contexts—Historic and Current Developments
Vignette “The Dunera Boys”
4.1 Communicative Language Teaching and the Grammar Question
4.2 The Common European Framework for Languages
4.3 Rethinking Foreign Language Teaching
4.4 The Two Tales of CLIL
4.5 CLIL Example—Teaching “Bauhaus” Professor Ingrid Zeller; Northwestern University
Chapter 5 Dimensions and Contexts of Bilingual Teaching
Vignette “Intercultural Encounters in Student Exchanges”
5.1 Scotland
5.2 Canada and the US
5.3 Australia (& Deutsche Schule Melbourne)
5.4 Germany and Europe
5.5 Learning Principles
5.6 Principles of Quality Teaching (Luther College)
5.7 Teaching Design as an Instructional Model (McKinnon Secondary College)
5.8 Linguistic Risk Taking (Ottawa)
Chapter 6 Building Blocks of CLIL
Vignette “Windows in the Foreign Language Classroom”
6.1 Features of Multi-perspective Learning
6.2 Guiding Questions for CLIL Lesson Planning
6.3 The 4 Cs Framework
6.4 Discourse Competences—Bridging BICS and CALP
6.5 The Language Triptych
6.6 The Bilingual Triangle and the Third Space
6.7 Task Design Wheel and Task-verbs
6.8 Primacy of Content
6.9 Scaffolding as a Dual Teaching Strategy
Chapter 7 Literary CLIL
Vignette “Intertextuality”
7.1 Literature as Part of the Bilingual Curriculum
7.2 Literature in the CEF
7.3 Selection Criteria
7.4 Narratives of Literary CLIL
7.5 Literary CLIL as a Theory of Practice
7.6 Study Design for Literary Analysis and Criticism
7.7 Literary Studies in Contexts, Genres and Target Countries
7.8 Intertextuality
Chapter 8 CLIL Tools and Skills
Vignette “Worksheet Compass”
8.1 Scaffolding as a Tool in CLIL
8.2 Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT)
8.3 English Unlimited (blended content-language learning)
8.4 The Visual Turn
8.5 Learnscapes
Chapter 9 CLIL Modules
Vignette “Teaching Units”
9.1 Measuring Your Media (A2)
9.2 Refugees (A2)
9.3 Analysing Political Cartoons (B1)
9.4 Jacobites and Enlightenment (B1)
9.5 Caledonia—Creating a Podcast (B2)
9.6 War and Peace—Calvin and Hobbes (B2)
9.7 Herringbone Technique (B2+)
9.8 Absolutism (B2+)
9.9 Reciprocal Teaching (C1)
9.10 International Relations—Libya (C1)
Chapter 10 CLIL Challenges and Desiderata
Vignette “Venn Diagram”
10.1 CLIL as a Catalyst for Change
10.2 The Innovative Potential
10.3 Competence and Content—a CLIL Example
10.4 Future Directions
Glossary of Teaching Strategies and Learning Skills
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A Methodology of Bilingual Teaching
Have you ever wondered why bilingual education has become increasingly popular with young families and even influences their choice for later and better schooling? And why the expectations of effective and successful language learning are connected with interest in language programs that allow for more focus on authentic topics and intriguing themes rather than on grammar and vocabulary training? The story of acquiring foreign languages at the same time as studying relevant and real-life events and issues sounds, at least at first sight, like trying to square the circle.
But the story of bilingualism is neither new nor spectacular. It has been around since times immemorable and even the Romans had to learn Greek to usurp their neighbor’s culture and rule the Aegean region. Yet acquiring modern languages nowadays is not a question of dominating another culture or ruling other people, but rather learning about their perspectives and ideas in an inter/transcultural way and meeting in a Third Space—to be discovered later in this narrative. So how can we make sure that students will be able to access the necessary information in a language other than their own? How do we support learners to achieve the aims and objectives set to them and help them move forward in their Zone of Proximal Development, which will be outlined further below? And how will they be empowered to develop their own linguistic and critical thinking skills without reneging on the challenges involved? The solution to this puzzle comes from balancing the two bilingual goals in a Content and Language Integrated Learning process. The acronym CLIL gives direction and priority in the interplay between subject matter and discourse function with “language as the dress of thought”—a well-known saying since Dr. Johnson’s 18th century.
Thus, the methodology of CLIL in question here would best be described as a blueprint of integration itself, namely that of content and languages in a combined teaching strategy. The worldwide growth of bilingual programs inside and outside of school contexts has raised different expectations of students and instructors as far as successful and effective language learning is concerned. These reach from more exposure to the target language (and better marks as a result) to deeper content-based studies (generating higher levels of critical thinking). And this is also why an Integrated Methodology needs to cover content-based issues as well as teaching strategies and learning theories, since for the first time such programs endeavor to deal with two teaching objects at the same time, albeit in a well-defined sequence of which may be called “language follows content”. The way to deal with didactic, content-related questions without neglecting methodological procedures involves different perspectives and comprehensive approaches in selecting appropriate topics and related discourse concepts. In other words, the task at hand requires a dual way of organizing the linguistic dimension of teaching subject matters in another than the native language—in our case for social sciences, history and geography. The assumption is that this approach will work for other content subjects (Sachfächer) as well, because the didactic-methodological issues involved are the two sides of the same coin like in content and language.
At the same time, a theory of practice is needed to enable practitioners to decide at which side of the coin they need to look first and after certain stages in the teaching/learning process, the aforementioned Zone of Proximal Development (according to Vygotsky 1962). In the definition of Do Coyle, a long-standing proponent of CLIL from the University of Aberdeen, a theory of practice:
emerges when the teacher begins to articulate his or her implicit knowledge and understanding about teaching and learning. The teacher’s implicit knowledge becomes explicit through this process—that is, the teacher is aware of his or her knowledge (theory of practice) and can begin to actively develop this. The starting point for a theory of practice is the teacher’s own professional beliefs (Coyle 2010: 45).
The multifaceted pathway in this Integrated CLIL Methodology (ICM) will take you from theoretical assumptions and collated knowledge about Second Language Acquisition (SLA) to practiced and proven concepts in Teaching Foreign Languages (TFL) as one of the foundations of bilingual programs. The other side of the same coin will have to be minted by the content subject (Sachfach) core curricula or educational state standards (Common Core), depending on the target country.1 As much as our students profit from the language and content awareness of what they are required to study, best practice in the teaching community can rely on the conscious implementation of the findings in language research and subject matter. But only the combination with effective teaching strategies, as epitomized in functions of scaffolding and direct instruction of Visible Learning will eventuate effective and sustainable learning processes.
Bilingual programs, immersion situations and CLIL itself, however, are foremost concerned with people and the younger, learning generation; therefore, a good starting point for bilingual didactics and methodology is provided by dismantling the myths and legends of bilingualism, especially as they occur in dealing with young children and growing-up adolescents. Various hypotheses have been tried and rejected, enlivened and surpassed, from the black boxes in behaviorism, the famous Universal Grammar right up to constructivist learning theories and the findings of neuro-biological research. In this, surprisingly, the almost old-school sounding controversy between nature versus nurture “won’t go away” (at least according to Steven Pinker), but from all these theories and more or less proven assumptions interesting conclusions can be drawn for applying relevant ideas to the implementation of CLIL programs or modules. Worth noticing are also quite profound discrepancies due to cultural differences in the target countries, but CLIL has emerged as a global pedagogical concept and there is no reason one should not appreciate diverging practices and learn from their advantages and fallacies.
The building blocks of bilingual approaches, shared by an ever-growing bilingual community, are at the center of a common core of CLIL teaching strategies: be it the 4 Cs Framework, bridging BICS to CALP, the Language Triptych, the Bilingual Triangle and the Third Space of inter/transcultural competence or the Task Design Wheel in a taxonomy of cognition. All these features of multi-perspective learning support bilingual lesson planning and scaffold the development of discourse strategies in CLIL programs. In this they also create windows in the traditional foreign language classroom of TFL without necessarily forestalling the inclusion of the students’ native language (L1) additionally to the target language (L2) as the vehicular language of teaching and communication. The precise relationship between L1 and L2 remains open to debate in the light of contradictory research findings and the interpretation of “bi” in bilingual programs.
Apart from honing inter/transcultural skills, a further common ground between TFL and CLIL can be found in literature studies with Literary CLIL as a particular focus of this methodology. Whether conceived as a content subject in its own right (Literaturkurs) or transferred from traditional language teaching as an enrichment of CLIL-content, selection criteria of high “L” or (popular) low “l” are needed and study designs for literary analysis and criticism have to be developed. Different genres are presented to open up this new domain for bilingual teaching and allow for the inclusion of music, poetry as well as the established fields of short stories and novels. Literature remains a concern for CLIL, because—taken content subject curricula word-for-word—its implementation is still exceptional. In this context, the primacy of content might shed a new light on the differences between TFL and CLIL indicating a potential fusion of both approaches without replacing one by the other—a discussion taken up in the desiderata and challenges posed by CLIL.
On the practical side—bearing in mind the theory of practice—the tools and skills of CLIL deserve special emphasis in that they make the concept work, and whether using a worksheet compass or learnscape as advance organizer, focusing on task-based teaching or embracing the Visual Turn they can be studied in their application in ten sample CLIL modules. These and, for that matter, all chapters are presented with a section of “review—reflect—research” that invite further trying out and finding out the essentials of a teaching concept that is not only increasingly popular but also meets the needs of modern language instruction allowing for new and changing perspectives in a contingency of linguistic and content-based version of seeing learning through the eyes of our students—the Visible Learning paradigm. It is hoped the vignettes introducing each of the ten chapters will whet the reader’s appetite and be able to highlight the gist of information and discussion points presented.
Photo © Andrew Krause and McKinnon Secondary College, Department of Education and Training, Victoria, Australia.
“Die Deutsche Schule Melbourne liegt auf dem Land der Wurundjeri ..., und ich möchte sie anerkennen als die traditionellen Besitzer dieses Landes. Ich möchte meinen Respekt aussprechen für ihre Stammesältesten, in Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft, und die Ältesten von anderen Stämmen, die heute hier sein könnten” (Bernice Ressel, Principal).
Helmsman of Chicago. © Photo Bernd Klewitz
1 In some terminology (e.g. the United States) there is a distinction between the Common Core, indicating what students need to know and are able to do, and the curriculum outlining how students will learn it. Pedagogy in Europe formulates along similar lines with didactics delineating the what, methodology the how of learning (for more details see chapter 6, footnote 62).
Chapter 1
Bilingual Children
Vignette “A Family Experiment”
In the South of Germany, a young family has gone bilingual. Four-year-old Ava has already developed a ready understanding in English and, from time to time, expresses herself in words and short phrases in what is going to be her second language (L2). Her brother Paul has just celebrated his first birthday and listens to his father’s English attentively. Peter, who attended a High School in California and passed his IB there, speaks to his children only in English, whereas his wife Sophia uses German in family conversations. Frequently, the grandfather, an English teacher himself, on his visits addresses the children in English as well, in order to “support” the English atmosphere a little. But recently he was taken aback when Ava, with a certain panache, asked him: “Warum sprichst Du Englisch mit mir, Opa?” Obviously, his grandchild had noticed that he every so often switched between languages and did not trust him in his role as a genuine English speaker.
The example raises questions like these: Does bilingualism really work at an early age? How does it develop in the long run? Can it eventually result in a balanced command of two languages? If we take these questions further and to the level of language acquisition and learning in a school context, we would have to scrutinize bilingual programs like immersion and its European counterpart CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning). With regards to terminology, “bilingual” might appear as a misnomer or, at least, ambiguous, because it can either refer to the (pedagogical) aim to enhance a native-like command of two languages or the strategy of using two languages in the process of instruction. In any case, it makes sense to disentangle or even dismantle some myths and legends of bilingualism.
1.1 Dismantling Myths and Legends of Bilingualism
Following a wider definition of the term bilingualism as “the use of more than one language in daily life” (Meisel 2019: 2), it is far more common than practicing one language only, so we can safely say that “the majority of the world’s population is bilingual” (ibid.: 3). But apart from a certain ambiguity the term bilingualism1 refers to a variety of contexts and diverse situations where the exposure to more than one language is inevitable—including labor migration as well as minority languages in multi-ethnic societies, but also deliberate parent-decisions to foster language learning. As a result, simultaneous or successive bilingualism will eventuate, depending on existing motivation and societal conditions or pressures. In predominantly monolingual environments parents might consider bilingualism as an advantage for their children and encourage the use of more than one language in their families.
The latter is the case in the aforementioned family from Southern Germany where according to the parents “to go bilingual” was a process-driven decision due to their previous stays abroad in Anglophone countries for a longer period of time. Peter, in particular, refers to his experience that addressing his children in English allows him to communicate with them in a more reflective manner. In other words, in situations where he would normally have reacted more emotionally or even sternly he would take a moment to consider what to say as a kind of inner translation, sometimes even looking for the right expression. Reflecting first what he was going to say would create some space for consideration, if only just for a couple of seconds. As he was, in part, brought up in English speaking countries and attended schools there, he also developed a very emotional relationship with the English language. He thought this might help him to better express his feelings and convey emotions in a more authentic manner to his children.
What started as an experiment four years ago developed into a way to create a special relationship within his family, hoping that his love of another language would take root in his children and allowing for intimate communication without excluding other family members. Also, and not the least part of his motivation, was the chance to pass on a perspective of daily life and routines that would open another door to the world. Ava and Paul, hopefully developing simultaneous bilingualism, could be given better opportunities to travel the world and work in different countries later on. And last but not least, Peter enjoys this language experience thus creating an intrinsic motivation to continue speaking English to his children.
In reflecting this ongoing process from his children’s point of view, the feedback he gets from his older daughter Ava is overall positive in that she can safely differentiate between the two languages, accept that there is one person, one language (later on to be referred as the OPOL principle, see 1.6) and that her comprehension of two languages is getting on very well. She enjoys, for instance, listening to English children’s books read to her and nursery rhymes and already knows a number of English songs by heart. Opening windows into another culture are thought by both parents to be a tremendous advantage.
1.2 The Guide for Bilingual Parents
The conviction that bilingualism is right for his family and even intensifies their relations in a special way is shared by longstanding scientific research on bilingualism in early childhood presented in a most recent Guide for Bilingual Parents by Professor Jürgen M. Meisel. The former Chair of the Research Center on Bilingualism at the University of Hamburg has been counselling parents for more than 35 years in both Germany and Canada (University of Calgary), and expertly confronts the advantages and—in his own words—“mostly mythical drawbacks of raising children with a command of two or more languages” (Meisel 2019: cover). A closer look at risks and benefits will become useful for an integrative bilingual methodology which aims at successive bilingualism in the long run.
Discussing so-called risks of early childhood bilingualism, Meisel’s parental guide draws upon the following “rumors” first, namely
whether two languages can be kept apart,
how to avoid a “macaronic language mix” (Meisel: 8; 58),
that balanced bilingualism is not possible and puts excessive strain on mental capacity,
that fusion of two languages affects cognitive development and would lead to semi-linguals with children torn between two languages and cultures, thus unable to develop their own personalities (cf. ibid.: 7 ff).
There seems to be sufficient evidence, however, that children can distinguish between different languages at an early stage already and Ava’s reaction to her grandfather is a case in point (see case vignette above). Various, even opposing theories of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) support the view that the mental grammars of bilinguals develop independently, whether one follows a generative SLA with Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (UG), the so-called Human Language Making Capacity (LMC; supported by Meisel: 35), its radical version of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis (FDH, Bley-Vroman 2010) or more recent approaches in cognitive theory, constructivism and the findings of neuro-science. The alleged “macaronic language mix” turns out as code-switching and the sign of a conscious choice as “the ability to select languages according to interlocutor, situational context, topic of conversation etc.” (Meisel: 72). All these paradigms do not only refer to childhood simultaneous bilingualism but also pertain high relevance for successive bilingualism in CLIL programs and are therefore discussed in the following juxtaposition between a nativist and a cognitive position (see chapter 2). Code-switching itself becomes part of CLIL-tools and as “translanguaging” works together with other linguistic skills such as mediation, visual representations and digital implements in the context of interactive methods, instructional strategies and scenario techniques (see 8.2-8.5).