CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning PDF

CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning  CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning Do Coyle Philip Hood David Marsh University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It further...

CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning  CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning Do Coyle Philip Hood David Marsh University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521130219 © Cambridge University Press 2010 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2010 5th printing 2013 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Coyle, Do, 1952– CLIL : content and language integrated learning / Do Coyle, Philip Hood, David Marsh p. cm. ISBN 978-0-521-11298-7 (hardback) — ISBN 978-0-521-13021-9 (pbk.) 1. Language and languages—Study and teaching—Europe 2. Language arts— Correlation with content subjects—Europe 3. Education, Bilingual—Europe. I. Hood, Philip, 1951– II. Marsh, David, 1956– III. Title. IV. Title: Content and language integrated learning. P57.E9C69 2010 418.0071904—dc22 2009048607 ISBN 978-0-521-11298-7 Hardback ISBN 978-0-521-13021-9 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Information regarding prices, travel timetables, and other factual information given in this work is correct at the time of first printing but Cambridge University Press does not guarantee the accuracy of such information thereafter.  Contents Acknowledgements vii Preface ix 1 A window on CLIL 1 1.1 What is CLIL? 1 1.2 The development of CLIL 2 1.3 What are the driving forces behind CLIL? 6 1.4 Why is CLIL relevant to contemporary education? 9 1.5 Why is CLIL relevant to the teaching profession? 10 References 12 2 Curricular variation in CLIL 14 2.1 Operating factors 14 2.2 Scale 15 2.3 Examples of curricular models 16 References 26 3 CLIL as a theoretical concept 27 3.1 Connecting content learning and language learning 27 3.2 Language learning and language using 32 3.3 From cultural awareness to intercultural understanding 39 3.4 Integrating content and language learning: A holistic view 41 References 45 4 The CLIL Tool Kit: Transforming theory into practice 48 Stage 1: A shared vision for CLIL 49 Stage 2: Analysing and personalizing the CLIL context 52 Stage 3: Planning a unit 53 Stage 4: Preparing the unit 65 Stage 5: Monitoring and evaluating CLIL in action 67 Stage 6: Next steps – Towards inquiry-based professional learning communities 69 References 72 APPENDIX: CREATING A TOOL KIT 74 v vi CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning 5 Evaluating and creating materials and tasks for CLIL classrooms 86 5.1 Factors influencing materials and task evaluation and design 87 5.2 Evaluating, assembling and modifying materials 92 5.3 Creating materials 101 References 109 6 Assessment issues in CLIL 112 6.1 What are the main issues for assessment in CLIL? 114 6.2 Assessment in action: Examples of practice 120 6.3 Peer- and self-assessment 128 6.4 Summary of assessment principles 129 References 131 7 Evaluating the impact of CLIL programmes 133 7.1 The research background: How far is immersion research applicable to CLIL? 133 7.2 A template for evaluations 135 References 149 8 Future directions 153 8.1 Globalization and change 154 8.2 Integrating language across the curriculum 159 8.3 Sustainability and teacher education 161 8.4 Growth of teacher-led learning communities 163 8.5 Expanding evidence-based research 165 References 166 Index 170  Acknowledgements The authors have been working in education for many years. Over this time, our paths have often crossed, and we have found ourselves working together in very different situa- tions. In these situations we have encountered many people from different walks of life, from professionals in education through to children, young people and older learners in classrooms. Early on we came to realize that ‘meetings of minds’ brings about a very special form of synergy which is not only personally rewarding but also professionally enriching. The fact that this has involved people from across the globe living and working in different cultural contexts has also enabled us to work and embrace diversity as a source of creativity and innovation. This publication includes the voices of many of these people, because it is based on our long experience of collaboration and connection. ‘Without bridges we would all be islands’, and we are grateful for the opportunity to work with those many outstanding professionals who have helped us on our own learning curves in under- standing the implications of this educational approach. There are far too many people to thank personally, so we wish to express our gratitude to all those that we have encountered for insight, advice, feedback and friendship. There is now a professional community of CLIL practitioners, researchers and others which is growing in size and scope across the world. We wish to thank many of those people who have developed CLIL at the interface of practice in schools and classrooms, and through the reporting of research and forming of an evidence base for CLIL. The sharing of ideas and insights has been instrumental in forging this community and we are deeply grateful to be a part of the networks within it. There are some field-based experts who have been particularly important in the development of our understanding of the potential and applications of CLIL. Many of the ideas incorporated in these pages have been discussed, applied and otherwise adapted as a direct result of close interaction, and we appreciate you all as individuals for influencing our thinking. In particular, we would like to thank teachers and trainers from Catalonia who have provided many examples in the book, and the trainee teachers ‘BILDers’, who were among the pioneer newly qualified CLIL teachers in Europe to be trained. For many years, CLIL has been an emergent process and because of our close and frequent profes- sional contacts there is inevitably a natural interweaving of ideas, and we express our warmest thanks to all those who have contributed directly or indirectly to this publication. vii viii CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning Our sincerest thanks to the team at Cambridge University Press, who have given considerable support throughout the process, and often shown great patience, especially Anna Linthe, Alyson Maskell and Jane Walsh. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the support of our families, who have so often been neglected whilst we have been working in different countries and juggling the complexities of our own working lives. The authors and publishers acknowledge the following sources of copyright material and are grateful for the permissions granted. While every effort has been made, it has not always been possible to identify the sources of all the material used, or to trace all copyright holders. If any omissions are brought to our notice, we will be happy to include the appropriate acknowledgements on reprinting. p31 the table from A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives by Lorin W. Anderson and David R. Krathwohl (eds), Longman, 2001; Text on p34 reproduced by permission of Bernard Mohan taken from Language and Content: Second Language Professional Library; Text on pp80–83 reproduced with permission by Florià Belinchón Majoral; Text on p91 taken from ‘The art of playing a pinball machine: Characteristics of effective SLA-tasks’, by Gerard Westhoff, published by Babylonia. Reproduced with permission; Text on p99 taken from Teaching Mathematics and Science to English Language Learners by Denise Jarrett, published by Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory; Text on pp102–3, 108–9, 122, 125, 127–8 and 130 was developed with- in the framework of the paid-study-leaves programme of the Department of Education of Catalonia; Text on p113 reproduced from ‘Monitoring language skills in Austrian primary (elementary) schools: A case study’, by Renate Zangl, published by Language Testing, Sage, 2000.  Preface This book is intended for readers who not only want to widen their understanding of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), but also wish to engage with pedagogic issues, including strategies and techniques for introducing and developing the approach in classrooms and other learning environments. Subject and language teachers across sectors and age groups, teacher trainers, administrators and researchers will all find information on CLIL which supports both awareness raising and building on practice as well as providing access to very specific forms of knowledge and insight. As authors, we have been involved with CLIL since its emergence as a concept in the early 1990s. From then on, each of us has been involved with different aspects of CLIL practice, including teaching, teacher training, transnational research, programme review, development of pedagogies and materials. After some 20 years of being at the cutting edge of this innovation in education, we have come together to produce CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning, the first publication which investigates the theories and practices of CLIL pedagogies in an in-depth way, whilst raising ‘big’ questions – and at times awkward and difficult ones – for key stakeholders. Our aim has been to show why CLIL continues to establish itself as excellent educational practice, and how it can be introduced and developed across very different types of schools and classrooms. Innovation is often messy, because it involves complex processes. If a single blueprint for CLIL were feasible, then plenty of step-by-step guides would have been available years ago. However, the complexities of CLIL, and particularly the importance of the context in which it is situated, demand an understanding of the why and how. We know that CLIL must take account of local and regional needs as well as national and trans- national exigencies which evolve from more generalizable rigorous principles. There has been a steep learning curve for those involved, including ourselves. However, we are now at a stage where it is possible to step back, look at the CLIL approaches which have taken root and flourished, and describe these for those readers who want to see the bigger picture and become part of it. Innovation means changing the status quo. The chapters in this book confront the concerns and downsides which teachers and other decision makers and practitioners face when trying to bring about change in the curriculum. CLIL is not simply another step in language teaching, or a new development in content-subject methodology. We see CLIL as a fusion of subject didactics, leading to an innovation which has emerged as education for modern times. Yet, for CLIL to lead to high-quality learning, a sometimes major rethink of ix x CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning how we teach what we teach is often needed. This book offers a realistic picture of what is involved, along with proven tools for achieving success. The book can be divided into three broad sections: the background to CLIL, classroom practice, and ways of sustaining and critically evaluating CLIL. In the first section, Chapters 1 and 2 provide background to the CLIL ‘movement’ and explore differ- ent curricular models and variations of CLIL involving primary, secondary, tertiary and vocational contexts. Readers are provided with an overview of how CLIL currently operates across different sectors, in order to set the scene for the remainder of the book. The next and largest section focuses on classroom practice. The chapters provide the- ories, principles, ideas, practical suggestions and arguments to inspire readers to reflect, debate and discuss their own practice and that of others and to continue pedagogic dialogue – as we say throughout the book, there are no ‘easy’ answers, but there are plenty of avenues to explore. Chapter 3 lays the theoretical foundation for classroom pedagogies and introduces accessible perspectives on the planning and implementation of CLIL. Chapter 4 provides practical examples for translating this theory into practice through the CLIL Teacher’s Tool Kit. The Tool Kit grew out of work with groups of practitioners in the 1990s and has been evolving ever since, making it a tried and tested teacher resource for use at every stage of a school’s CLIL development. Further materials are given in the appendix to this chapter. Chapter 5 addresses the problem of the lack of available teaching materials by exploring principles for specific materials design and adaptation of existing resources. The complex issue of assessment is addressed in Chapter 6, in which arguments for a range of assessment approaches are illustrated with classroom examples, based on ideas and prac- tice from teachers. The final section returns to a broader view of CLIL which focuses on its sustainability and future development. Chapter 7 suggests ways of reflecting on CLIL programmes and evaluating their impact systematically – a crucial stage in sustaining CLIL and ensuring high-quality experiences for learners. Finally, Chapter 8 looks to the future in terms of social, cultural and economic developments, and positions CLIL as having the potential to play a major role within educational systems across the globe. 1 A window on CLIL 1.1 What is CLIL? Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both con- tent and language. That is, in the teaching and learning process, there is a focus not only on content, and not only on language. Each is interwoven, even if the emphasis is greater on one or the other at a given time. CLIL is not a new form of language education. It is not a new form of subject education. It is an innovative fusion of both. CLIL is closely related to and shares some elements of a range of educational practices. Some of these practices – such as bilingual education and immersion – have been in operation for decades in specific countries and contexts; others, such as content-based language teaching or English as an Additional Language (EAL), may share some basic theories and practice but are not synonymous with CLIL since there are some fundamental differences. CLIL is content-driven, and this is where it both extends the experience of learning a language, and where it becomes different to existing language-teaching approaches. Throughout this book, we will clarify the evolving CLIL phenomenon by exploring core principles which permeate different applications. Whilst CLIL is flexible and can be adapted to different contexts, nonetheless, for the approach to be justifiable and sustainable, its theoretical basis must be rigorous and transparent in practice. The term CLIL is inclusive in that it binds together the essence of good practice found in the different environments where its principles have been adopted. It involves a range of models which can be applied in a variety of ways with diverse types of learner. Good CLIL practice is realized through methods which provide a more holistic educational expe- rience for the learner than may otherwise be commonly achievable. An additional language is often a learner’s ‘foreign language’, but it may also be a second language or some form of heritage or community language. Throughout the book we will use an inclusive term ‘CLIL vehicular language’ to refer to the language(s) used in CLIL settings. The operational success of CLIL has been in transferability, not only across countries and continents, but also across types of school. The educational success of CLIL is in the content- and language-learning outcomes realized in classrooms. CLIL provides pathways 1 2 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning to learning which complement insights now emerging from interdisciplinary research within the neurosciences and education (see, for example, CERI, 2007). Because of its potential, CLIL is gaining momentum and extending as an educational approach across continents (see, for example, Eurydice, 2006, or Graddol, 2006). It is also one of the reasons why this book has been written for a broad readership including subject and language spe- cialists, and those responsible for educational planning and implementation. 1.2 The development of CLIL Links with the past and demands of the present Education in a language which is not the first language of the learner is as old as edu- cation itself. As individuals from different language groups have lived together, some have been educated in an additional language. This is as true of Ancient Rome as it is of the increasingly multilingual societies being created through mobility and globalization in the 21st century. Two thousand years ago, provision of an educational curriculum in an additional lan- guage happened as the Roman Empire expanded and absorbed Greek territory, language and culture. Families in Rome educated their children in Greek to ensure that they would have access to not only the language, but also the social and professional opportunities it would provide for them in their future lives, including living in Greek-speaking education- al communities. This historical experience has been replicated across the world through the centuries, and is now particularly true of the global uptake of English language learning. What is significant here is the way in which language learning, particularly when integrat- ed with content learning or knowledge construction, has now been opened up for a broad range of learners, not only those from privileged or otherwise elite backgrounds. In the distant past, learning content through an additional language was either limited to very specific social groups, or forced upon school populations for whom the language of instruction was a foreign language. The recent growing interest in CLIL can be understood by examining best practice in education which suits the demands of the present day. Globalization and the forces of eco- nomic and social convergence have had a significant impact on who learns which language, at what stage in their development, and in which way. The driving forces for language learn- ing differ according to country and region, but they share the objective of wanting to achieve the best possible results in the shortest time. This need has often dovetailed with the need to adapt content-teaching methodologies so as to raise overall levels of proficien- cy, particularly since the introduction of global comparative measures ranking individual countries through the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This need to be more adaptable and effective has led to attention being given back to cognitive processing and how learning successfully occurs. Discussion started in earnest in the 1950s with the advent of what was termed the ‘cognitive revolution’ (Broadbent,  1 A window on CLIL 3 1958). Although this was largely a response to behaviourism, focus on cognition and com- munication became ever more significant as technologies required insight into the devel- opment of artificial intelligence. Currently, there is increasing recognition that the exploration of learning by cognitive neurosciences provides alternative insights by which to improve overall efficiency. Correspondingly, landmark work by Bruner (b. 1915), Piaget (1896–1980), and Vygotsky (1896–1934) led to the development of socio-cultural, constructivist perspectives on learning. These perspectives have had an immense impact on educational theory and practice. Related areas such as multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), integration (Ackerman, 1996), learner autonomy (Holec, 1981; Gredler, 1997; Wertsch, 1997; Kukla, 2000), language awareness (Hawkins, 1984) and language-learning strategies (Oxford, 1990) all played a key role in examining ways to raise levels of curricular relevance, motivation and involvement of learners in their education. Moreover, the balance between the individ- ual and the social learning environment has led to alternative means by which to teach and learn both content subjects and languages. Since CLIL straddles these two different but complementary aspects of learning, parallels between general learning theories and second language acquisition (SLA) theories have to be harmonized in practice if both content learning and language learning are to be successfully achieved. In addition, over the last few years, education has been reaching new thresholds as a result of the ability not only to study behaviour and performance, but also to see inside the ‘learning brain’ (CERI, 2007). As these different elements of learning come together, a new wave of knowledge is consolidat- ing the position of CLIL as an educational approach in its own right (see, for example, Doidge, 2007; Tokuhama-Espinosa, 2008; Marsh, 2009). Defining Content and Language Integrated Learning The term ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning’ (CLIL) was adopted in 1994 (Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala, 2001) within the European context to describe and further design good practice as achieved in different types of school environment where teaching and learning take place in an additional language. Schools in very different contexts across the world had been finding their own ways to enrich learning, sometimes for many years. CLIL set out to capture and articulate that not only was there a high degree of similarity in educational methodologies, but also an equally high degree of educational success. Identifying this success was one major driver within the education professions; main- streaming the experience for a wider general public was the other. CLIL is an educational approach in which various language-supportive methodolo- gies are used which lead to a dual-focused form of instruction where attention is given both to the language and the content:... [A]chieving this twofold aim calls for the development of a special approach to teach- ing in that the non-language subject is not taught in a foreign language but with and through a foreign language. (Eurydice, 2006: 8) 4 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning This opens up doors on an educational experience which can be very hard to achieve in a language-learning classroom. There are various reasons for this which are explored in Chapter 3. CLIL is an approach which is neither language learning nor subject learning, but an amalgam of both and is linked to the processes of convergence. Convergence involves the fusion of elements which may have been previously fragmented, such as subjects in the curriculum. This is where CLIL breaks new ground. CLIL as a form of convergence To give a parallel example common in recent times, we can take studies on the envi- ronment. In the 1960s, Richard Buckminster Fuller (1895–1983) warned of climate change in the publication Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth (1963), and through his work on what was then called ‘synergetics’. As a visionary and author, his articulated rationale and concerns only entered the public consciousness very much later. Some 50 years on, world opinion on climate change remained divided, often because of socio-economic reasons. However, in some countries, recognition that human activity was leading to a degradation of the environment led to a need to educate young people in schools so as to both inform and, perhaps more crucially, influence behaviour. Topics relat- ing to the environment could already be found in chemistry, economics, geography, physics, and even psychology. Yet, as climate change became increasingly worrying, educa- tion responded to the need to influence change. This happened during the 1980s and 1990s through the introduction of a new subject, or set of modules, which focused on the environment. ‘Environmental studies’ is an exam- ple of a newly emerged ‘integrated’ subject which can be found in schools throughout the world. In order to structure this new subject, teachers of different disciplines would have needed to climb out of their respective mindsets grounded in physics, chemistry, geogra- phy, psychology and so on, to explore ways of building an integrated curriculum, and to develop alternative methodologies by which to implement it. Such a process involves developing professional interconnectedness so as to activate forms of innovation. Pooling skills and knowledge to change existing practice can lead to alternative approaches. Climate change is a global and local phenomenon, so the increasing availability in some countries of information and communication technolo- gies during the 1990s provided tools by which to make some of these methodologies oper- ational. If we return to languages and CLIL, we have a similar situation. The late 1990s meant that educational insight was firmly set on achieving a high degree of language awareness. Appropriate methodologies were to be used to attain the best possible results in a way which accommodated diverse learning styles. The impact of globalization, like climate change, was being increasingly felt in some parts of the world, especially in Europe during the period of rapid integration from 1990 to 2007. This impact highlighted the need for better language and communication educational outcomes. In order to respond, it was necessary to examine how more appropriate language teaching and learning could be achieved, and which approach might be most suitable for  1 A window on CLIL 5 respective age groups. For instance, the view that the hours allocated for language teaching within the curriculum were often insufficient to produce satisfactory outcomes was one issue under frequent discussion. Interest in looking at how some language teaching could be done whilst students were learning other subjects, thus providing more exposure to the language overall, was then considered. But this was only one of the issues. Others con- cerned the need for better linguistic and communicative competence, more relevant methodologies, and higher levels of authenticity to increase learner motivation. This atten- tion given to the need for improved learning results was also found in other subject areas within the curriculum. CLIL in the Knowledge Age As with Fuller’s vision and the development of environmental sciences, CLIL devel- oped as an innovative form of education in response to the demands and expectations of the modern age. Input from different academic fields has contributed to the recognition of this approach to educational practice. In an age characterized by ‘quick fix’ solutions, how- ever, which may or may not lead to any form of sustainable outcomes, it is important to contextualise CLIL historically. CLIL is not merely a convenient response to the challenges posed by rapid globalization; rather, it is a solution which is timely, which is in harmony with broader social perspectives, and which has proved effective. Fragmentation was very much a characteristic of the Industrial Age. Power blocks such as countries, societies and even educational systems operated according to territory, borders and boundaries. The Industrial Age was marked by strategies of position and phys- ically based resources. But globalization and the emergence of the new technologies have moved us into a new era, the Knowledge Age. This has resulted in sweeping changes in how societies, and the educational systems that serve them, operate. In the Knowledge Age, the two main strategies are of movement and unlimited resources, because of the significance of ideas, creativity and intelligence. It is hardly surprising that such a seismic change in global culture pressurizes change within educational systems. Integration, convergence and participative learning are three key characteristics of Knowledge Age organizations which are influencing decisions on what, and how, we teach young people. The key performance drivers of the Knowledge Age society are commonly cited as the ‘Knowledge Triangle’ (EURAB, 2007). This triangle integrates education, research and innovation, which are the core features for managing successful change and adaptation. These are also core issues influencing how we can reshape the ways in which we teach lan- guages. When Graddol (2006: 86) describes CLIL as the ‘ultimate communicative method- ology’, he points to one of the major differences between the communicative language teaching movement in the 1980s and the emergence of CLIL in the 1990s. Communicative language teaching was one step towards providing a more holistic way of teaching and learning languages, but for various reasons, especially relating to authenticity, has been insufficient in realizing the high level of authenticity of purpose which can be achieved through CLIL. Much CLIL classroom practice involves the learners being active partici- pants in developing their potential for acquiring knowledge and skills (education) through 6 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning a process of inquiry (research) and by using complex cognitive processes and means for problem solving (innovation). When the teacher pulls back from being the donor of knowl- edge and becomes the facilitator, as is often found in CLIL practice, forces are unleashed which empower learners to acquire knowledge whilst actively engaging their own and peer- group powers of perception, communication and reasoning. As CLIL practice often preceded research (although some fundamentally important research was available through the 1980s and 1990s, drawing on the experience of Canadian immersion) it was some time before scientific validation of the approach could be made. But as research results became available (see Chapter 7), those involved with forms of CLIL increasingly came to the view that variants of this approach could be seen as providing edu- cation which goes beyond language learning. So, whereas in one situation the language may be the dominant focus, in another it may be the content, but in each there is a fusion result- ing from the methodologies which can lead to positive educational outcomes. What sepa- rates CLIL from some established approaches such as content-based language learning, or forms of bilingual education, is the planned pedagogic integration of contextualized con- tent, cognition, communication and culture into teaching and learning practice (Coyle, 2002: 45). This is explored in detail in Chapters 3 and 4. 1.3 What are the driving forces behind CLIL? There are two major reasons which underpin the interest in CLIL within a specific country or region. These involve reactive (responding to situations) and proactive (creat- ing situations) responses to challenges or problems. Reactive reasons There are countries in the world where the language of instruction is foreign to the majority of the learners in schools and colleges. An official language may be adopted as the medium of instruction for some part of schooling, often at secondary level, which acts as a language of national unity. This is typical in some countries in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, Mozambique, which has some 20 distinct first languages, has adopted Portuguese, as has Angola. Tanzania and Ethiopia, likewise having a mosaic of languages amongst their populations, have adopted English. In the past, both South Africa and Namibia adopted Afrikaans, before widely switching to English. Even though there are some 2,000 languages in Africa, three languages are commonplace as medium of instruction: English, French and Portuguese. In Mozambique, about six per cent of citizens view Portuguese as their first language, and it is estimated that some 27 per cent can speak or otherwise understand the language (Benson, 2002). Figures like these invite the question of how children and young people manage in their school years when the language of instruction may be far removed from their life experience. An educational language policy, as found in Mozambique, may be one reason why school wastage is sometimes huge. In South Africa alone it is estimated that  1 A window on CLIL 7 some 75 per cent of children fail school (Heugh, 2000), and part of the reason for this is widely attributed to language issues and not adapting classroom methodologies to the demands of learning through an additional language. Considering that human competence-building is critical for the social and economic development of any country, such figures make alarming reading. In terms of language policy, the issue is whether the medium of instruction is instrumental in weakening educa- tional development. Language policy needs to be implemented with language pragmatism and CLIL emerges as one solution for achieving this in different countries. Language problems are by no means exclusive to some continents. The sub-Saharan cases here are extreme examples, but there are many challenges found elsewhere in relation to nurturing minority or threatened languages, or accommodating the needs of migrant children who have low fluency in the major language of instruction. Recent changes in European classroom demographics resulting from migration is one example. If a country is to convert a language problem into language potential then solutions have to be identified which are workable in the classroom. Regardless of policy decisions, it is the social microcosm of the classroom, and learning practice, which reflect the successes or failures of the community as a whole. CLIL plays a role in providing a pragmatic response towards overcoming linguistic shortcomings, and in promoting equal access to education for all school-aged students, including those with additional support needs. In the reactive scenario, the problem of medium of instruction is recognised, and followed by methodological and curricula adjust- ment. Methodologies, sometimes called language-supportive, or language-sensitive, can be introduced for the teaching of subjects across the curriculum. This means that all teachers need to take responsibility for language development through a dual focus when teaching other subjects. The type of approach may differ, but any language burden on children or students can be alleviated if CLIL methodologies are embedded in teaching and learning. Proactive reasons Proactively identifying solutions by which to enhance language learning, or some other aspect of educational, social or personal development, is the other major reason why attention is given to forms of CLIL. For example, French immersion in Canada was developed to strengthen bilingualism in the country. Accounts differ as to why it became so popular so quickly, but it is reasonable to assume that this was due to a simultaneous grassroots and top-down pressure. At the grass- roots, there was frustration at the failure of traditional French language teaching, which led parents to support the 1965 introduction of immersion in a school (St Lambert) in Quebec. However, at a higher socio-political level, Canadian society was experiencing pressure for change. In July 1967, Charles de Gaulle made his infamous statement ‘Vive le Québec libre’, which resulted in heated political debate throughout the country. This was followed, in 1968, by the appointment of Pierre Trudeau as Prime Minister. He sought to preserve national unity, especially between French and English speakers. This led to the Official Languages Act which resulted in Canada having two official languages and the right for 8 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning anyone to use either of these languages anywhere in the country. One single overarching reason that immersion received so much support and attention was a proactive need to strengthen national unity. Thus immersion in schools served as a pragmatic response to a linguistic and cultural problem. By 2006, the number of young people undertaking immer- sion education in Canada was in excess of 300,000. Another example is Europe, where discussion on economic unity during the 1950s included focus on language policies, and the need for greater levels of multilingualism. In 1958, a European Economic Community regulation (EEC, 1958) determined which lan- guages would be official within the newly forming union of separate countries. From this point it was clear that the new Europe would be a plurilingual entity, and that educational systems would need to make greater efforts to provide language education for more young people. In 1976, the European Education Council (EC, 1976) listed language-learning objec- tives and argued for the promotion of language teaching outside the traditional school sys- tems. Then, in 1978, the European Commission made a proposal to the member states (EC, 1978) that encouraged teaching in schools through the medium of more than one language. This was a landmark point which acted as a catalyst for the development of CLIL across the continent. In 1984, the European Parliament questioned weaknesses in languages education, and this was followed in the same year by the Education Council, which accepted that there was a need to give greater impetus to the teaching and learning of foreign languages (EP, 1984). From that year on, there were a range of declarations and statements made about the need to explore alternative paths in languages education. In addition, as with Canadian immer- sion, finance was invested in projects which led to the development of practical education- al solutions such as CLIL. From 1990 onwards, CLIL became increasingly prioritised within the European Union as a major educational initiative (Eurydice, 2006), culminating in the 2005 European Council recommendations that CLIL should be adopted throughout the entire European Union (EC, 2005). In 2006, the first statistical study on where and how CLIL was being implemented in Europe was published (Eurydice, 2006). It was now clear that, since the launch of the term in 1994, there had been exponential uptake of CLIL across countries. This was due to four simultaneous major proactive forces: families wanting their children to have some compe- tence in at least one foreign language; governments wanting to improve languages educa- tion for socio-economic advantage; at the supranational level, the European Commission wanting to lay the foundation for greater inclusion and economic strength; and finally, at the educational level, language experts seeing the potential of further integrating languages education with that of other subjects. Looking beyond Europe, changes in the world economy mean that several large countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) have encountered rapid growth as their economies have become interconnected with others around the world. This is one aspect of globalization which results in a reconfiguration of territory so that enterprises become increasingly networked and dependent on others which may be physically distant. These major countries and their increasingly borderless economic global dependency means  1 A window on CLIL 9 that communication and the ability to use a lingua franca is becoming a prerequisite for individual success. There are also other countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, which are in the outer economic circles of substantial change, but which also wish to attract various forms of work which is outsourced and which often requires an English-language-proficient workforce. Whilst it must be stressed that CLIL is not synonymous with English language learn- ing and teaching, the potentially huge global demand for learning English means that it is a popular vehicular language in non-Anglophone areas. Projections are that some one- third of the world’s population will be actively learning the language by 2010 (Graddol, 2006: 101). This correspondingly means considerable interest in ‘learning content subjects through English’ being shown in those countries where it is a vehicular language. It is like- ly, but not yet sufficiently documented, that such countries will explore which methodolo- gies best suit education where children learn through English as a foreign or second language. Thus CLIL may be increasingly adopted as a proactive means by which to maxi- mize the potential for success. However, whilst for many countries English is the targeted medium, there are other countries, including Anglophone countries, where the vehicular language is not English. Obvious examples include the Canadian immersion movement in French, Basque trilingual programmes involving a heritage language, and CLIL in the UK, where French, German and Spanish are promoted. 1.4 Why is CLIL relevant to contemporary education? The forces of global change, converging technologies and adaptability to the subse- quent Knowledge Age present challenges for education. And within education as a whole, they present challenges for the teaching and learning of additional languages. This is true for the learning of English globally, and for the learning of regional, minority and heritage languages in different parts of the world. As we have previously pointed out, CLIL is not exclusive to the promotion of English as a world language but is embedded in the socio-economic, political and cultural traditions of different nations. For example, some parts of the world such as Australia promote LOTE (Languages Other Than English), where CLIL vehicular languages include Asian, European and heritage lan- guages. In border areas such as between France and Germany, the CLIL language might focus on mutual sharing of both languages. However, we believe that CLIL as a promot- er of LOTE has yet to reach its potential in the global arena and may not do so until after the ‘saturation’ of English as the CLIL medium. Pioneering work using a wide range of languages is gaining momentum and making a crucial contribution to developing CLIL pedagogies – especially in Anglophone countries (Chapter 7 presents one such example). One change brought about by the new technologies and lifestyle change concerns the learners’ mindset. Generation Y (1980–1995) and Generation C (also known as Generation Z, 1995–2015) have been and are being increasingly exposed to advanced technology at a very young age in the form of game consoles, mobile communication and entertainment devices, personal computers, the Internet and so on. Such technology may be harder for 10 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning older generations to adapt to, they having been brought up with different thinking conven- tions; but young people growing up with this technology are prone to developing a mind- set to which educators need to respond. This has been described as a desire to ‘learn as you use, use as you learn’ and differs from the older experience of ‘learn now for use later’. Much education is still locked into the second of these adages, which may well con- tinue to be necessary in certain respects. But educational practice always needs to adapt to the cultural demands of those involved – learners, teachers and communities. Integration has become a key concept in the modern age, alongside immediacy of purpose. Both of these reflect the experience of increasing numbers of young people, and are accommodat- ed within the CLIL educational approach. Socio-economic change is happening now at a faster pace overall than may have been experienced in the past. Although some countries have undergone very rapid change because of forms of specific pressure, new technologies are also bringing about transforma- tions throughout the world. This means that educational systems also need to adapt even more swiftly than they have done in the past. Some would argue that education tends to adapt slowly, and that, for instance, to change educational practice in the classroom can take some 15–20 years to achieve. If we put this into the context of technological and sub- sequent lifestyle change, we can see how this is too long a period in a world undergoing rapid transition. It took 40 years for the radio to reach an audience of 50 million, 20 years for the fax machine to reach some ten million customers, under ten years for the mobile phone, and some five years for the Internet. The acceleration of new technologies is having an impact on the lives and aspirations of many people now on an unprecedented scale. ‘Globalisation is not incidental to our lives today. It is a shift in our very life circumstances’ (Giddens, 1999), and this means that better access to language learning, and learning meth- ods for accelerating performance, are now crucial in many communities. 1.5 Why is CLIL relevant to the teaching profession? Putting aside the often-cited advantages which a CLIL approach offers – such as enabling learners to access subject-specific vehicular language terminology, or otherwise preparing them for future studies and/or working life – there is the issue of advancing a learner’s cognitive development. The ability to think in different languages, even if to a modest extent, can have a positive impact on content learning (Marsh, 2009). The need to regenerate content teaching so that it closely fits the requirements of the modern age has been closely linked to the ‘learning brain’ (CERI, 2007). To achieve this, the content teacher will need to adapt subject-specific methods so as to accommodate the additional language focus. This does not mean adopting the role of a language teacher. What it does is to open doors on alternative ways of using methodologies which can be rewarding for both the teacher and learners. From this perspective, CLIL not only promotes linguistic competence, it also serves to stimulate cognitive flexibility. Different thinking horizons and pathways which result from CLIL, and the effective constructivist educational practice it promotes, can also have an  1 A window on CLIL 11 impact on conceptualization (literally, how we think), enriching the understanding of con- cepts, and broadening conceptual mapping resources. This enables better association of different concepts and helps the learner advance towards a more sophisticated level of learning in general. Motivation is also an issue. If a learner participates voluntarily in learning through the medium of an additional language, it can enhance overall motivation towards the subject itself. There are many reasons why this might occur in a specific context, but it is clear that there are benefits, both cognitive and motivational, which can enhance content learning, and the position of the content teacher. We have already highlighted the importance of authenticity and relevance as key to successful learning. It is challenging for language teachers to achieve appropriate levels of authenticity in the classroom. For example, even if ‘authentic’ texts are used, and the sub- ject matter is highly relevant to the lives of the learners, the predominant reason for these texts being in the lesson remains language learning. And when this is measured by tests which assess the learner often according to grammatical correctness, then the real focus of the lesson will be language itself. If this type of learning takes place alongside forms of CLIL, then the learner is exposed to two complementary experiences, one of which involves primarily language learning, and the other, language acquisition. Issues such as these are explored further in Chapters 5 and 6. There is now greater understanding of the differences between ‘acquiring’ and ‘learning’ languages. Interest in early language learning has been influenced by the view that children adapt well to learning languages if it is integrated into other types of learn- ing and carried out in a ‘naturalistic’ environment. This is typical of much good practice at primary level. But in our education systems, older children and adults are often taught languages in language-learning classrooms through the use of a textbook (although dig- ital technology is increasingly being used to supplement this). The amount of time dedi- cated to language learning is often constrained because of pressure from other subjects within a curriculum. Successful language learning can be achieved when people have the opportunity to receive instruction, and at the same time experience real-life situations in which they can acquire the language more naturalistically. Learning, for example, a topic from geography through the vehicular language, in a cognitively supported way, can help achieve a comparable sense of greater authenticity. The idea of successfully learning con- tent in an additional language may appear counter-intuitive to parents and young people themselves, and greater understanding depends on recognizing the subtle overlap between language learning (intentional) and language acquisition (incidental). The language classroom is essential for the learner to understand the ‘nuts and bolts’ of language – the grammar, vocabulary and so on. But there is rarely enough time in the classroom for the language teacher to go beyond this essential part of the learning process. Learners need time to build things with these ‘nuts and bolts’ – to put into practice the things which they see in theory on paper. CLIL can offer learners of any age a natural situation for language development which builds on other forms of learning. This natural use of language can boost a learner’s 12 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning motivation towards, and hunger for, learning languages: ‘It is this naturalness which appears to be one of the major platforms for CLIL’s importance and success in relation to both language and other subject learning’ (Marsh 2000: 5). A new age has dawned in additional language teaching methodology which directly reflects wider changes in the world. In the corresponding sea-change in educational philos- ophy, CLIL presents an opportunity and a threat to accepted language teaching practice. As with immersion, formal language instruction remains integral to most CLIL models. But for this to be synchronous to subject teaching through an additional language, curricular and methodological adjustment is often required. The extra exposure to the language, methods used, and attitudes of learners towards the language, can enhance language teach- ing and learning for the benefit of all. This offers an opportunity for language teachers to regenerate their profession. This chapter has explored the broader landscapes which have led to the development of CLIL. We have seen that there are many factors which led to its introduction, and also that, because it involves the integration of content and language, it is not solely a form of language learning. It is an educational approach which is content-driven, and this is a fun- damental reason why it has emerged as an educational phenomenon which complements both content and language learning, and is within the domain of each. CLIL is not simply education in an additional language; it is education through an additional language based on connected pedagogies and using contextual methodologies which we will explore fur- ther throughout this book. References Ackerman, E. (1996) ‘Perspective-taking and object construction: Two keys to learning’, in Kafai, Y. and Resnick, M. (eds.) (1996) Constructionism in Practice: Designing Thinking and Learning in a Digital World, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp25–32. Benson, C. (2002) PASE, Assessment in the Primary School in Mozambique: Looking Back, Looking Forward, Maputo: INDE. Broadbent, D. E. (1958) Perception and Communication, Oxford: Pergamon. Buckminster Fuller, R. (1963) Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, Santa Barbara: Buckminster Fuller Institute. CERI (2007) Understanding the Brain: The Birth of a Learning Science, Paris: OECD. Coyle, D. (2002) ‘Against all odds: Lessons from Content and Language Integrated Learning in English secondary schools’, in Daniel, W. C. and Jones, G. M. (eds.) (2002) Education and Society in Plurilingual Contexts, Brussels: Brussels University Press, pp37–55. Doidge, N. (2007) The Brain that Changes Itself, London: Penguin. EC (1976) Education Council Resolution 9 February, Brussels: EC. EC (1978) European Commission Proposal June, Brussels: EC. EC (2005) European Council of the European Union, EDUC 69 Resolution, Brussels: EC. EEC (1958) European Economic Community Regulation 1 June, Brussels: EC. EP (1984) Resolution April, Brussels: EP.  1 A window on CLIL 13 EURAB (2007) Energising Europe’s Knowledge Triangle of Research, Education and Innovation through the Structural Funds. EURAB 07.010, Brussels: EC. Eurydice (2006) Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe, Brussels: Eurydice. Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, New York: Basic Books. Giddens, A. (1999) Globalisation. Reith Lecture 1, London: BBC. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next, London: British Council. Gredler, M. E. (1997) Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hawkins, E. (1984) Awareness of Language: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heugh, K. (2000) The Case against Bilingual Education and Multilingual Education in South Africa, Cape Town: PRAESA. Holec, H. (1981) Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning, Oxford: Pergamon. Kukla, A. (2000) Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science, London: Routledge. Marsh, D. (2000) ‘An introduction to CLIL for parents and young people’, in Marsh, D. and Langé, G. (eds.) (2000) Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Marsh, D. (ed.) (2009) Report by the Core Scientific Research Team, Study on the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity, EACEA/2007/3995/2, Brussels: European Commission. Marsh, D., Maljers, A. and Hartiala, A-K. (2001) Profiling European CLIL Classrooms, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Oxford, R. L. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know, New York: Harper and Row / Newbury House. PISA, OECD, [Online]. Available at: www.pisa.oecd.org [Accessed 18 March 2009]. Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2008) Living Languages: Multilingualism Across the Lifespan, Westport: Praeger. Wertsch, J. V. (1997) Sociocultural Studies of Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2 Curricular variation in CLIL In Chapter 1 we looked at why and how CLIL has emerged, and the diverse reasons why it is implemented. In Chapter 2 we examine a range of curricular models which have been developed in different contexts. These models have been used to achieve one or more of CLIL’s main educational objectives embedded in and responding to contextual variables. We would wish to point out that, whilst there are lessons to be learned, ideas to be borrowed and developed based on existing CLIL models, one size does not fit all – there is no one model for CLIL. We have seen a range of types which depend largely on the reasons for wishing to intro- duce the approach and the capacity to implement CLIL which is available within an educa- tional setting. These are now explored. It may be useful to start by summarizing two of the key issues which schools need to consider before developing any particular model: the oper- ating factors – such as teacher availability and learner assessment – and the scale of the CLIL programme. 2.1 Operating factors Teacher availability is crucial because it is usually the starting point for design- ing a model. How the teachers work together – whether individually or through teamwork – influences both planning and implementation. The levels of teacher and student target CLIL-language fluency determine the teacher’s input and role in the classroom. The amount of time available is fundamental in setting objectives. Issues such as when the CLIL teaching is to be scheduled within the curriculum, and over what period of time, influence the choice of a CLIL model. The ways in which content and language are integrated influence decision- making on how each is handled within the model. For example, this may be through language-learning preparation before the CLIL course, language learn- ing embedded in the CLIL course, or language learning parallel to the CLIL course. Linking the CLIL course to an out-of-school or extra-curricular dimension, enabling task-based communication with learners in other schools/countries and networking with teachers/visitors from outside the school/country, all impact on the scale and scope of the model. 14  2 Curricular variation in CLIL 15 Finally, there are issues relating to assessment processes – formative or sum- mative, focused on content only, content and language, or language only – which influence model design (see Chapter 6 for a discussion of assessment in CLIL). 2.2 Scale Extensive instruction through the vehicular language In this model, the vehicular language is used almost exclusively to introduce, summa- rize and revise topics, with very limited switches into the first language to explain specific language aspects of the subject or vocabulary items. There is a clear triple focus on content, language and cognition. Content is taught using methods which support language learning and understanding to a greater or lesser extent in lessons. This supported – or scaffolded – approach is used to introduce new vocabulary and concepts, grammatical usage and so on, in conjunction with the content. This may be done by a single content teacher, through cooperation with a language teacher – especially where certain linguistic structures are pre- taught – or language may be taught parallel to the content learning in separate language classes. Content-relevant language may also be taught by a language teacher who takes responsibility for teaching the content area. Extensive instruction in the vehicular language requires that the curriculum be purpose-designed with objectives that not only lead to high levels of content mastery but also linguistic proficiency. In some cases, 50 per cent or more of the curriculum may be taught in this way. The content taught through CLIL may be drawn from any set of sub- jects, depending on the school’s individual context. Teachers work together so that generic study skills, and the language to successfully implement these, are given shared significance in the different lessons. For context-based reasons (for example, an international stream within the school which may include learners who have little proficiency in the school’s first language) it may be the case that the CLIL language is used very extensively so as to create an even playing field for all students. Partial instruction through the vehicular language In models which involve partial instruction through the vehicular language, specific content, drawn from one or more subjects, is taught through CLIL according to limited implementation periods – possibly less than five per cent of the whole curriculum will be taught through CLIL. In this case a project-based modular approach is often used and the responsibility for teaching may rest with the content or language teachers, or both. As with models where the instruction through the CLIL language is extensive, there is again a clear triple focus on content, language and cognition. Quite often partial instruction through the vehicular language is manifested in bilingual blended instruction involving code-switching between languages. Here the 16 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning lessons involve systematic use of both the CLIL language and the first language. For example, sometimes one language might be used for outlining and summarizing the main points, and the other for the remaining lesson functions. Alternatively, the two different languages may be used for specific types of activity. This is a type of code- switching which has been termed translanguaging and which leads to a dynamic form of bilingualism in the classroom. The systematic switch between languages is based on a planned development of content, language and cognition – for example, some learners may use a textbook in the first language when doing homework in order to build confi- dence and check comprehension; other learners may ask for explanations from the teacher in a particular language; beginner CLIL learners may use their L1 to speak to the teacher when problem solving, but the CLIL teacher will answer questions and support learners in the vehicular language. Translanguaging refers to a systematic shift from one language to another for specific reasons. One concern of some teachers has been whether learning through an additional lan- guage can result in learners not understanding key terms in the first language. Translanguaging may be used to overcome this concern; for example, by using first-language materials (vocabulary and concept checklists and so on) to support teaching in the CLIL vehicular language. 2.3 Examples of curricular models We now go on to examine models of CLIL at pre-school level and in primary, sec- ondary and tertiary education, including examples of models at the school-level stages. These models have developed from a variety of contextual variables which are summa- rized in Table 1 under the headings of Context, Content, Language (communication), Learning (cognition) and Culture. Pre-school 3–6 years The most typical models found with pre-school children often involve games and other play-based activities – a ludic approach, where the vehicular language is used to a greater or lesser extent. These models are often called ‘immersion’ and involve introducing sounds, words and structures where the main focus is on stimulating, fun activities. It is often hard to distinguish CLIL from standard forms of good practice in early language learning. This is because the learning topic is often highly authentic for the chil- dren. Whilst they are aware that they are learning to listen to and use sounds and words from another language, their main focus is on the doing – be it playing, singing, drawing, building models, or other activities. Often realised as forms of ‘language clubs’, pre-school CLIL is generally found in the private sector (as is much pre-school provision globally)  2 Curricular variation in CLIL 17 Table 1: Common reasons for introducing CLIL Context Preparing for globalization, e.g. developing the whole school curriculum through the medium of other languages. Accessing international certification, e.g. outside a national examination system such as International Baccalaureate. Enhancing school profiles, e.g. offering CLIL gives strong messages about plurilingual education. Content Multiple perspectives for study, e.g. modules in history where authentic texts are used in different languages. Preparing for future studies, e.g. modules which focus on ICT which incorporate international lexis. Skills for working life, e.g. courses which deal with academic study skills equipping learners for further study. Accessing subject-specific knowledge in another language. Language Improving overall target-language competence, e.g. through extended quality exposure to the CLIL language. Developing oral communication skills, e.g. through offering a wider range of authentic communication routes. Deepening awareness of both first language and CLIL language, e.g. those schools which offer 50% of the curriculum in other languages in order to develop a deeper knowledge and linguistic base for their learners. Developing self-confidence as a language learner and communicator, e.g. practical and authentic language scenarios such as vocational settings. Introducing the learning and using of another language, e.g. lessons which are activity-oriented are combined with language-learning goals, such as in play-oriented ‘language showers’ for younger learners. Learning Increasing learner motivation, e.g. CLIL vocational courses which explicitly target confidence-building through the use of the CLIL language where learners feel they have failed in traditional language-learning classes. Diversifying methods and approaches to classroom practice, e.g. courses integrating learners who are hearing impaired, where the sign language is the CLIL language. Developing individual learning strategies, e.g. upper-secondary courses in science which attract learners who are confident in the CLIL language, but much less confident in science, who might not otherwise have opted for further study in the first language. Culture Building intercultural knowledge, understanding and tolerance, e.g. module of psychology on causes of ethnic prejudice. Developing intercultural communication skills, e.g. student collaboration on joint projects across nations. Learning about specific neighbouring countries/regions and/or minority groups, e.g. ‘school hopping’, which engages students and teachers in border regions in sharing resources and curricular objectives. Introducing a wider cultural context, e.g. comparative studies involving video links or internet communications. (Adapted from Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala, 2001: 16) 18 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning with much attention given to use of kindergarten teachers and others who have a high degree of fluency in the vehicular language. This is because the teacher as a role-model speaker of the language is especially important when working with children of this age group, particularly in relation to phonology (Garcia, 2009: 348). Primary 5–12 years CLIL may be used as a form of pre-language-teaching ‘primer’ at this level. A range of models are commonplace, from task-based learning, involving simple use of the vehicular language, through to whole content topics taught in the CLIL language. Increasing motiva- tion towards language learning and building learner self-confidence are seen as particular- ly important where the vehicular language is distant from the lives of the learners and has the status of a foreign language. In other cases, where migrant children may have limited access to the majority language of the environment, CLIL can be used as a ‘leveller’ to make both the CLIL language and content accessible to all learners, regardless of first language. This has been the case in North America for many years, and is increasingly found in European contexts where the demographics of classroom participation have moved towards greater cultural and linguistic diversity. Whilst there is no finite agreement with regard to the age factor in language learn- ing, nonetheless, as interest in the significance of early language learning continues to grow, so too does interest in primary-level CLIL. Views which hold that ‘earlier is better’ and that the introduction of an additional language should be as ‘naturalistic as possible’ following the framework of ‘incidental learning’ support the introduction of CLIL at an early age (see García Mayo and García Lecumberri, 2003, and Johnstone, 2002, for further discussion). Model A1 Confidence-building and introduction to key concepts Theme-based module on climate change. Fifteen hours of learning time involving class-based communication with learners in another country. Class teacher approaches the module using CLIL-designed materials and networking system. → Instructions and set-up in first language with language support provided for key concepts in CLIL language. → Communication and outcomes through CLIL language. Model A2 Development of key concepts and learner autonomy Subject-based learning on home economics. Forty hours of learning time involving translanguaging, where activities are  2 Curricular variation in CLIL 19 developed through the CLIL language using bilingual materials. Subject and language teachers work together. → Key concepts provided in first and CLIL language. Key thinking skills for inquiry-based tasks on aspects of home life and behaviour. → Assessment of key principles in first language; portfolio assessment in the CLIL language. Model A3 Preparation for a long-term CLIL programme Interdisciplinary approach involving a set of subjects from the natural sciences where the learners are prepared for in-depth education through the CLIL language. Subject and language teachers work together following an integrated curriculum. → CLIL language teaching complements content teaching with major focus on words and structures which enable learners to access thinking skills. → Assessment of key principles in CLIL language, with parallel first-language assessment of major concepts. These three examples differ principally in terms of objectives and implementation time. But there are other subtle differences which influence how CLIL may be implemented at this level. Model A1 may be carried out by a class teacher with more limited fluency in the CLIL language, and without the support of a language teacher. Such a model is useful in countries where there is a lack of availability of language teachers or multilingual content teachers. Using purpose-designed materials, the class teacher embarks on a limited expo- sure to CLIL even if constraints exist. This example is particularly effective in introduc- ing the wider world of the vehicular language to the learners. Use of this model can be important for most educational contexts, but particularly those in which learners have little authentic access to languages and cultures beyond their own. It can also be managed in contexts where funding and resources are limited, because low technology can be used for classroom communication across schools and often countries – for instance, through artefacts, pictures, letters and videos sent through postal services. This has taken place, for example, between two classes in Rwanda and the UK: the schools worked on a joint eco- project using French as the vehicular language and exchanging project data via letters and video. But is it worth the effort? Can any learner be expected to benefit from such a short exposure to the CLIL language? Can learners really be expected to succeed in producing outcomes in that language when their own command of the language may be very limited? 20 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning These are questions which arise in the minds of educators when they examine such a model. In order to answer these, it is necessary to recognise that the confidence-building objective is often difficult to evaluate, other than anecdotally, because it relates to the affec- tive dimension of learning. The anecdotal evidence, however, is widely reported (see, for example, Genesee, 2004). Model A2 suits situations where a language teacher is available in the school along- side a subject teacher who has sufficient proficiency in the CLIL language, and where team- work is possible given the constraints of the curriculum and teaching schedules. It is possible that both teachers would be in the classroom for some time, but with most class- room interaction involving one teacher (if only because it is usually too cost-heavy to have two teachers working simultaneously in a classroom). Example A2 is an attempt to cover the ground found in Example A1, and go further, by deepening understanding of content concepts and developing metalinguistic awareness. In addition, it can act as a catalyst to introduce what may be alternative methodologies, such as formative assessment and enhanced learner autonomy. Model A3 depends on a purpose-designed support framework if it is to be imple- mented in a way which ensures that the full potential of learners is realized. It is not feasi- ble to expect such an approach to work unless the teachers in the classroom have the full support of the surrounding educational structures. These include school management, national/regional administrative structures, and even gate-keeping agencies such as exam- ination boards. Secondary 12–19 years Secondary-level CLIL allows for more sophisticated models to be implemented. This is often because the learners have already learnt some of the CLIL language, and have developed more advanced learning skills than at primary level. However, CLIL can also be used to introduce a second additional language at this level, leading to yet another imple- mentation type. Secondary-level students are increasingly motivated to use new technolo- gies for communicating across languages and often borders. This is a potential learning resource which can be exploited by using class time to encourage learners to use the new technologies in a way which actively supports not only their education overall, but also their skills in using these media to engage in authentic communication in the CLIL lan- guage. Much of the drive for introducing CLIL with this age group relates to parental and school-based attitudes towards globalization, and this is where English, in particular, has a dominant position as a CLIL language in many countries. When thinking of future edu- cation and working life, there is a view that experience of academic and vocationally based study can help prepare students for opportunities which may require use of the CLIL language in later life. Therefore, some of the models found at secondary level place fairly high demands on cognition, and need to be designed with carefully integrated prin- ciples. This is also true of vocational education where knowledge building and skills development require accuracy which cannot be impeded through problems in using the CLIL language.  2 Curricular variation in CLIL 21 Model B1 Dual-school education Schools in different countries share the teaching of a specific course or module using VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol, e.g. Skype™) technologies where the CLIL language is an additional language in both contexts. → Learners work with input from both language and content teachers, engage in collaborative problem-solving tasks using new media, and work predominantly in the CLIL language. → Sometimes linked to forms of international certification, which provides added value in terms of learner access to formalized assessment systems. Model B2 Bilingual education Learners study a significant part of the curriculum through the CLIL language for a number of years with the intention of devel- oping required content-learning goals and advanced language skills. → Learners participate in ‘international streams’ and develop advanced CLIL language skills for these specific subjects. This is complemented by language learning which focuses on interpersonal skills and cognitive language proficiency. → Often linked to international certification, and national/ regional special status assessment and recognition. Model B3 Interdisciplinary module approach A specific module, for example environmental science or citizenship, is taught through CLIL involving teachers of differ- ent disciplines (e.g. mathematics, biology, physics, chemistry and language). → Learners engage in an across-the-curriculum module which is taught in the CLIL language because of the international dimension of the content learning (e.g. the environmental responsibilities of individuals worldwide). → Used in international network partnerships between schools, and often focuses on formative portfolio-type assessment. Both of these aspects are seen as complement- ing language teaching by providing an extra platform for authentic language use. 22 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning Model B4 Language-based projects This type differs from Examples B1–B3 in that it is the language teacher who takes primary responsibility for the CLIL module. This may be done through international partnerships and is an extension of both content-based and communicative language teaching. The module involves authentic content learning and communication through the CLIL language, and is scaffolded through language-teacher input. → Learners view this as part of language teaching but see it as an authentic way in which to use the language to learn non-language content. → Content assessment is usually formative and complemen- tary to existing language assessment. Model B5 Specific-domain vocational CLIL Learners develop competence in the CLIL language so that they are able to carry out specific task-based functions which might range from customer service through to accessing and processing information in different languages. Where applicable, this is carried out by content and language teachers working in tandem. It marks a shift away from existing practice such as teaching language for specific purposes towards practice which seeks to achieve the same objectives through a closer tie to content teach- ing and learning. → Learners learn through the CLIL language and the first language, so that they can carry out specific tasks in diverse contexts. → Assessment is often bilingual and competence-based. The lower-secondary curriculum often provides a particularly suitable environment for the introduction of CLIL. Pressures of examinations tend to complicate higher-level curricula in secondary education. This can occur where the educational system fails to recognise experience of CLIL in compulsory national examination systems, such as in the Netherlands. Vocational curricula are particularly interesting because even if some of the students may not have achieved well in earlier language learning, the opportunity to learn content through CLIL can provide a second chance to access the CLIL language. Vocational fields  2 Curricular variation in CLIL 23 long accustomed to including language learning, such as business studies, are now being joined by a wide range of others because of globalization and the changing nature of work- ing life. The added value of being able to use more than one language now permeates voca- tional sectors in different countries. Model B1 requires institutional cooperation and sufficient school-based recognition and support. Although technology is continuously evolving and becoming increasingly accessible, this example is fairly sophisticated and needs to be sufficiently resourced. But the benefits may be considerable and different ways of using the vehicular language can be found – for example, when students training to be chefs can engage in interactive work- based learning with a Master Chef and her or his employees via video conferencing in a restaurant kitchen where two other languages are used. There needs to be curricular align- ment so that each school is fulfilling context-specific objectives, and the cognitive demands that learners in each school will need to respond to are balanced. Model B2 also requires highly developed curricular and institutional support. For a long time this type has been used with the more privileged sections of certain societies where experience of learning through a specific language has been seen as a mark of status. However, there are cases (depending on the degree of egalitarianism within a specific edu- cational system) where it is used in a non-elite way to provide this specific type of educa- tional experience for a broad cohort of learners. Model B3 represents what may be considered a knowledge-based-society form of education – one which is marked by both convergence (of knowledge and application) and competences (to know and be able to apply specific types of learning). It only really suits more widely used languages (either globally or regionally), and when implemented can act as a major tool for re-developing existing educational practice across subjects. Language teachers have been involved with Model B4 for some years, leading to content-based projects which complement more formal forms of language instruction. These often involve content teachers, and work effectively when the purpose of the exercise is embedded into the curriculum, as opposed to some form of additional (practising language) task. Model B5 takes us into the vocational and professional education sectors. These have traditionally had differing status in specific countries, and in some cases the curricula have not included language teaching at all. CLIL can act as a means by which to both introduce languages into the curriculum, and to enhance existing practice. Geared as they often are to preparation for working life, these can be very successful in achieving higher levels of motivation towards language learning, and recognition of domain-specific and partial competences. Tertiary (higher education) The emergence of English as a global lingua franca has had a significant impact on higher education throughout the world. English has become the most dominant adopted vehicular language in Europe (Wächter and Maiworm, 2008), and beyond, as a direct result of international competitiveness linked to the General Agreement on Trade in Services 24 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning (GATS). There are strong indications that this will continue to be the case for some years to come (Graddol, 2006). The shift towards adoption of English as a vehicular language does not automatically correlate with the introduction of CLIL. This may be due to the assumption that students studying through the medium of English as an additional language do not require an inte- grated approach where both content and language objectives are included. But the cognitive demands of tertiary programmes are often high, and there are examples of CLIL being intro- duced to both further develop additional language skills and to accommodate the learning needs of migrant students who do not have a high level of proficiency in the medium of instruction adopted. CLIL can act as a professional development catalyst within faculties of a higher education institution. In some countries, higher education teaching and research staff have not been explicitly trained in educational methodologies. In these cases, higher edu- cation has been viewed as characterized by transactional modes of educational delivery (largely imparting information), rather than the interactional modes (largely process- oriented) characteristic of CLIL. At the same time, staff have come under pressure to become increasingly multi-skilled. This is not only in respect of teaching and report- writing, but also professional representation and the resourcing of external funding. Therefore interactional skills in widely used languages have become increasingly relevant in modernizing the workforces found in certain types of higher education. Training pro- grammes in CLIL can therefore have a knock-on effect in developing staff in other ways beyond teaching skills. The introduction of CLIL in this sector has been influenced by discussion over whether the ability to know and use a specific language is a basic competence, or an addi- tional competence. This, in turn, has opened discussion on whether language teaching is a part of the core of academic life, or a secondary auxiliary science. If language teaching and language specialists have been viewed as ‘auxiliaries’ in some countries, then teachers may have a lower position within hierarchies. And yet the rising importance of a global language such as English has led to some re-positioning of this specific profession. This is similar to the way in which certain levels of ICT expertise have achieved a high status within organi- sations which have become dependent on ICT as a basic operating competence. Finally, the adoption of an additional language such as English in higher education has put pressure on secondary-level providers to prepare students through CLIL for future studies. Model C1 Plurilingual education More than one language is used through CLIL during different years in related content programmes. → Students are expected to master content and the ability to be sufficiently skilled in more than one language prior to entering working life or further studies.  2 Curricular variation in CLIL 25 → Closely linked to prestigious forms of higher education where internationalization is viewed as a key part of institutional strategy so as to attract and retain high- performing students from different countries. Model C2 Adjunct CLIL Language teaching runs parallel to content teaching with specific focus on developing the knowledge and skills to use the language so as to achieve higher-order thinking. → Language teaching is field-specific (e.g. mechanical engineering or physics) with language teachers embedded in departments and not seen as external providers, and courses complement stage-by-stage higher-education programmes. → Students successfully learn content and gain the ability to use the CLIL language for specific purposes. Model C3 Language-embedded content courses Content programmes are designed from the outset with language development objectives. Teaching is carried out by content and language specialists. → Students, even those with less than optimal proficiency in the CLIL language, have support throughout the educa- tional process so that dual learning takes place. → Particularly suitable where higher education attracts stu- dents from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, so that they can both cope with and benefit from learning in the additional language. Whereas Model C1 can only be implemented in very specific types of higher-education institution (for example, business and management faculties where students attend courses with a reasonable level of proficiency in the target languages), Models C2 and C3 are more commonplace. The position of CLIL is clearly at an exploratory stage in higher education in many countries and although there are situational and structural variables which work against its introduction, there are also forces which give it considerable potential (cultural and linguistic diversity, and competence-based learning). The risks involved with inappropriate adoption of an additional language as medium of instruction are considerable at any educational level. The increasing need for 26 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning higher-education institutions to strengthen international profiles so as to achieve com- petitive advantage entails increasing pressure to ensure a suitably high quality of per- formance. Global competition often means teaching certain degree courses through the medium of English. This may involve simply expecting students and teaching staff on those courses to have sufficient command of the language to cope without extra support. In those cases where support is recognised as necessary, there are moves towards the adoption of CLIL. We have now seen examples of curricular models across the educational spectrum. There are other types, for instance in adult education and workplace training, and these often replicate the examples found in more formal educational contexts. In Chapter 3 we will look at theoretical implications for integrating content and language learning, before examining in Chapter 4 how this can be applied to the diverse contexts which we have begun to explore in this chapter. References Garcia, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective, Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell. García Mayo, M. P. and García Lecumberri, M. L. (eds.) (2003) Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Genesee, F. (2004) ‘What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students?’, in Bhatia, T. K. and Ritchie, W. (eds.) (2003) The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism, London: Blackwell. Graddol, D. (2006) English Next, London: British Council. Johnstone, R. (2002) Addressing “The Age Factor”: Some Implications for Languages Policy, Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Marsh, D., Maljers, A. and Hartiala, A-K. (2001) Profiling European CLIL Classrooms, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Wächter, B. and Maiworm, F. (2008) English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education. The Picture in 2007, Bonn: Lemmens. 3 CLIL as a theoretical concept Whilst Chapters 1 and 2 have laid the foundations for exploring the development of CLIL, Chapter 3 explores the theoretical implications of integrating content learning and lan- guage learning. CLIL is not about ‘translating’ first-language teaching and learning into another language in the hope that learners will be immersed in a bains linguistique and seam- lessly learn in another language. Neither is CLIL an attempt to ‘disguise’ traditional language learning by embedding systematic grammatical progression of the target language in a differ- ent type of subject content such as deforestation, photosynthesis or medieval history: Teachers have found that content and language integrated learning is about far more than simply teaching non-language subject matter in an additional language in the same way as the mother tongue... [It] is not a matter of simply changing the language of instruction. (Marsh, Enner and Sygmund, 1999: 17) All learning is complex, and understanding the potential of integrating content and language demands an exploration of emergent synergies. The word synergy comes from the Greek synergos which implies working together ‘in a dynamic state’ where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Yet CLIL will not automatically lead to realising this potential. Instead, careful analysis of what can be achieved by integrative learning through a second or additional language is needed, based on a conceptual theoretical framework. This chapter introduces the framework for integration and the theoretical issues surrounding it. 3.1 Connecting content learning and language learning In every kind of knowledge-based, progressive organization, new knowledge and new directions are forged through dialogue... The dialogue in Knowledge Age organizations is not principally concerned with narrative, exposition, argument, and persuasion (the stand-bys of traditional rhetoric) but with solving problems and developing new ideas. (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 2005) The content of learning A useful starting point is to consider the content of learning. The concept of what con- stitutes content in a CLIL context is much more flexible than selecting a discipline from a tra- ditional school curriculum such as geography, music, biology or physics. Whilst curricular 27 28 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning subjects such as these might be appropriate for some CLIL programmes, contextual variables such as teacher availability, language support, age of learners and the social demands of the learning environment may mean that a different choice of content is more appropriate. In other words: what exactly is meant by ‘content’ in CLIL will depend on the context of the learning institution – an issue already raised in previous chapters. Content can range from the delivery of elements taken directly from a statutory national curriculum to a project based on topical issues drawing together different aspects of the curriculum (for example, the Olympic Games, global warming, ecosystems). Content in a CLIL setting could also be the- matic, cross-curricular, interdisciplinary or have a focus on citizenship, for example. Themes might include issues-led investigations into climate change, carbon footprint or the Internet; cross-curricular studies might involve inquiry into health in the community, water or genocide; interdisciplinary work which encourages collaboration on a common theme whilst maintaining the integrity of each subject could, for example, lead to designing an eco- friendly house; and citizenship might focus on global issues such as race, global communica- tion or learning across continents. CLIL, therefore, offers opportunities both within and beyond the regular curriculum to initiate and enrich learning, skill acquisition and develop- ment. The exact nature of these opportunities will depend on the extent to which the CLIL context demands an approach which is more content-led, more language-led, or both. However, the crucial point here is that, no matter whether issues concerning the content or the language are more dominant at a given point, neither must be subsumed or the interre- lationship between the two ignored. The learning of content: Synergies, scaffolding and social interaction Identifying the type of content involved does not, however, automatically address a fundamental question: what is meant by content learning? It might be useful to start by considering some issues to do with content learning in general, before identifying specific challenges presented through using a second or additional language as the medium for that learning. Syllabuses and programmes all have their aims and objectives, often with articulated goals and outcomes for teaching and learning. But these alone do not address the how of content learning – only the what of content teaching. The impact of general learning theory and how individuals learn, based on work from eminent theorists such as Bruner, Vygotsky and Wood (see Bigge and Shermis, 1998, for an overview) does not always directly influence classroom practice. But if CLIL is to build on potential synergos, then considerations of how effective learning is realized must be brought into the equation. In other words, CLIL demands an analysis of what is meant by effective pedagogies in different contexts. Different pedagogic approaches have been debated across continents in recent times (see Chapter 1). The dominant model in many Western societies has emphasized a transmis- sion of knowledge where the expert (the teacher) deposits information and skills into the memory bank of the novice (the learner). This has been called a ‘banking model’ (Freire, 1972) and tends to be teacher-controll