1. The Culture Dimension - CULTIX:
- Build intercultural knowledge and understanding;
- Develop intercultural communication skills;
- Learn about specific neighbouring countries/regions
and/or minority groups;
- Introduce the wider cultural context;
2. The Environment Dimension-
ENTIX
- Prepare for internationalization
- Access International Certification
- Enhance school profile
3. The Language Dimension-LANTIX
- Improve overall target language competence
- Develop oral communication skills
- Deepen awareness of both: mother tongue and target
language
- Develop plurilingual interests and attitudes
- Introduce a target language
4. The Content Dimension
- Provide opportunities to study content through different
perspectives
- Access subject-specific target language terminology
- Prepare for future studied and/or working life
5. The Learning Dimension
- Complement individual learning strategies
- Diversify methods and forms of classroom practice
- Increase learner motivation [Derived: Marsh & Langé, Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages]
Ball (2006) thinks that these dimensions are the
basis for CLIL. Keeping in mind content and language imply both communication
and knowledge, it is certain to consider these five dimensions provide
a framework for the approach.
First, Culture dimension contributes to the growth
of intercultural knowledge resulting in most of the cases in cultural
understanding. Likewise, culture dimension helps to introduce wider
cultural context, learning at the same time about specific neighboring
countries, regions and minority groups. It emerges as a means to handle
issues relating to regional-political conditions where even if cross-border
contact has been minimal in the past, the future invites much greater
contact. Colombia as multicultural and diverse as it is, offers a wide
spectrum to assume a cultural position in regards to one´s own perception
and the foreign language. CLIL is used to promote understanding and
awareness through language-enhanced methodologies.
Second, regarding the Environment, CLIL prepares
for internationalization which is nowadays one of the main goals of
the educational system in Kazakhstan. The programme curriculum may be
heavily influenced by specific environmental needs or opportunities
identified in the institution. In the same way, thanks to this internationalization,
there is an international certification access. Students have preparation
for future studies or work that involves different languages, so they
are ready to face any culture with all the necessary skills to take
an exam in which their proficiency is valued. When integrating content
and language, students have the opportunity to acquire both Basic Interpersonal
Communications Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
(CALPS) with the former being all the social language skills and the
latter the language skills to cope with academic requirements (Cummins,
2000). Being able to communicate academically and socially opens new
borders and encourages students to explore and travel around the world.
Third, in terms of Content, CLIL is seen as helping
to provide opportunities to study content through different perspectives.
Marsh et al (2001) claim that “Languages, and the cultures associated
with them, sometimes reveal differing world-views that can be seen in
the ways in which some content is taught.” One obvious example lies
in how educational curricula in different countries may describe shared
historical events. However, traditions in the different disciplines
can lead to significantly diverse ways of approaching and understanding
similar phenomena. CLIL enables learners to study through these different
perspectives that can lead to achieving a deeper understanding of the
subject matter. Tackling a topic from different perspectives undoubtedly
fosters critical thinking and broadens students’ perspectives on different
issues. The Content dimension even offers access to specific target
language terminology. Students acquire new lexicon in order to understand
concepts or express academic language accurately. CLIL is suitable for
all levels of education, from elementary to graduate or vocational to
professional education.
Fourth, Marsh (2001) affirms that in terms of Learning
Dimension, CLIL complements individual learning strategies. CLIL is
specifically geared to learner-centered methodologies that attempt to
improve learning by giving attention to individuals’ needs in terms
of social and thinking skills. One broad issue relates to how the brain
processes information (Sousa, 2006). Recently, it has been posed relevant
to how the brain learns; for instance, brain differences among boys
and girls, different learning styles or even how the arts influence
learning. Likewise, this Learning Dimension suggests that CLIL helps
to increase learner motivation which is at the heart of all education.
Lastly, in terms of Language Dimension, CLIL is a
significant approach to improve overall target language competence.
Using Marsh’s (2001) words, this is one of the most common reasons,
both historically and more recently, for the introduction of CLIL. This
focus stresses language competence in general and therefore includes
reading, writing, speaking and listening skills. CLIL furthers the language
experience through the integration of language and non-language teaching.
In the same way, this Language dimension proposes that the practicing
of oral skills can be done in a ‘utilitarian’ way that is to provide
opportunities to use the language as a tool to communicate. This means
that methods to be used are the ones that lead to a high degree of interaction
within the class. In such cases, even if desirable it is not necessary
for a teacher to have native-like competence in the target language;
what it truly matters is the ability to interact and transmit knowledge
by means of the target language.
Finally, these five dimensions build students’
profile and attitudes by being competent in the foreign language.
This focus often involves a learner being able to use a language for
specific purposes while developing cultural, personal and social understanding.
Marsh et al. (2001) pointed out that the dimensions are idealized and
should not be viewed as standing alone, because they are usually heavily
inter-related in CLIL practice. It is useful to distinguish the dimensions
because it allows to identify the separate, yet inter-locking reasons
why CLIL is implemented in diverse contexts.
The reasons for the implementation of CLIL in the
European schools was launched in 2001 in a book called the Profiling
European CLIL Classrooms – Languages Open Doors (Marsh et al, 2001)
accompanied by the CLIL Compendium website, which contain the analysis
of significant research that provides information on the effectiveness
of CLIL in the school curriculum. Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala (2001)
propose five dimensions and focuses of CLIL, which Pérez-Vidal (2009:
8-11)summarizes in three in the subsequent way:
1. Socio-cultural dimension: This dimension is related
to the general vision hidden behind the unification of the European
Union and the sharing of values which are accomplished through the exchange
of cultural elements among its members and the learning of languages
for better communication.
2. Educational / curricular dimension: The main idea
in this dimension is the way knowledge is presented and introduced in
the CLIL classroom. A socioconstructivist idea thus is suggested in
which oral interaction and communication, a socio-constructivist type
of learning, are considered the best methodology. On this issue, Do
Coyle (2000) proposes the 4 Cs curriculum, i.e. Culture, Content, Cognition
and Communication, explaining that, if these four elements are combined,
successful learning will occur in the CLIL context.
3. Psycholinguistic and Language Acquisition dimension:
This third dimension focuses on the linguistic acquisition that learners
have when they attend a CLIL programme. CLIL puts more emphasis on the
language acquisition than previous approaches of CLT. Factors that contribute
to successful linguistic achievement are sufficient and meaningful exposure
to input for more hours per week than the conventional language classes
along with the students’ beneficial production of the language in
the classroom setting as much as possible.
The general outcomes of the establishment of CLIL
in the European school system may be reached from a pedagogical, linguistic
and social perspective (Marsh et al, 2001). Schools re-organise their
curriculum structure to be in accordance with the new European standards
and support exchange programmes that promote communication and internalization.
Teachers are trained on and become agents of new methodologies and technologies.
They contribute to the students’ acquisition of knowledge in a basically
socialized environment that prepares students to become competent and
multilingual European citizens. Finally, students of CLIL courses gain
in terms of content, develop their cognitive abilities and are more
successful language learners as they acquire the second language more
effectively than students of solid language instruction (Dalton-Puffer,
2008: 4).
1.2. Dual focus of CLIL: Content
in CLIL. Language in CLIL.
CLIL is often implemented as a language pedagogy.
The goal of the CLIL curriculum is effective competence in a second
language. This has in the past been the situation in language maintenance
projects, such as the teaching through Irish in English-speaking regions
of Ireland in the 1950s and 1960s; and language imposition, where minority
language users are educated in the dominant language. More recently,
the basis of the communicative approach to language teaching owes much
to the experience of people such as Henry Widdowson and Chris Brumfit teaching
the school curriculum through English in contexts such as Bangladesh
and Tanzania. For them the context of subject learning at school and
college was the naturally communicative context in which language teaching
and learning could be developed. Currently, as a response to the role
of English in a globalised world, stakeholders such as parents, political
leaders and employers are advocating the early integration of a second
language – typically English – as core curriculum for the development
of a 21st century workforce. An additional motivation for CLIL is the
development and maintenance of multilingualism in contexts where dominant
and minority languages co-exist (Serra 2007). CLIL has emerged as a
viable strategy for achieving such goals in Europe and beyond. A major
element of the rationale here is efficiency in learning: two fields
of learning – a school subject and the target second language can
be progressed at the same time. The language development, viewed in
a communicative framework as a means of understanding and sharing ideas,
takes place through exploring concepts.
The theoretical rationale for CLIL is particularly
clear and persuasive where the focus in on the target language. Subject
learning activities provide a meaning context for the language use,
and learning interactions push the developing language resources. In
addition the reduced focus on language forms may assist with engagement
and confidence. However, good language teaching is not necessarily good
content teaching. Merrill Swain articulates clearly the potential tension
of education in a developing second language:
Content teaching needs to guide students’ progressive
use of the full functional range of language, and to support their understanding
of how language form is related to meaning in subject area material.
(Swain 1998: 68)
For the subject teacher of science, geography, art,
etc., there are two issues:
1) the extent to which the essential knowledge and concepts can be learnt
as well by all pupils in the CLIL language as in comparable mother tongue
classrooms;
2) the extent to which the same range of learning opportunities, including
activities which develop enthusiasm, motivation and confidence can be
engaged in the CLIL classroom as in comparable mother tongue classrooms.
In contexts where teachers are implementing CLIL,
there are many views on these issues. Research into and development
of CLIL in many contexts however, focuses on process and achievements
in language learning (Lasagabaster 2008). There are two reasons for
this. First, the leaders and developers of CLIL initiatives tend to
be second language teachers and researchers looking for novel ways of
enhancing FL learning in schools. Second, the CLIL initiative is likely
to be innovative in terms of the language of instruction. The subject
learning is not itself the focus on curricular change, or a context
of dissatisfaction with educational stakeholders. The assumption in
CLIL is that the subject curriculum does not change.
This dual focus is a major challenge both for CLIL
organisation at school and curriculum level, and for the work of the
teaching in the CLIL classroom. This challenge is particularly important
in assessment policy and practice.
If one considers the dual focus expressed in the
previous paragraph, the term CLIL becomes an umbrella term to cover
“learning through any language that is not the first language of the
learner” (Ball, 2006). In consequence, the educational community needs
to be aware that using a foreign language when teaching content incurs
in language learning since structures, vocabulary, and pragmatics, among
other linguistic features, are implicit in the topic being taught. CLIL
entails teaching the foreign language while students learn subject –
matter.
Marsh (2003) adds that CLIL also includes procedure
when it is implemented effectively. For instance, when students learn
a subject; namely, history, geography and/or science through the medium
of a foreign language; the foreign language acts as a vehicle for learning,
thus educators plan integrating not only content and language but also
procedures by stating how content will be addressed in such a way that
it is meaningful for every learner, no matter their proficiency level.
As a result, CLIL is also an instructional approach.
"Content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
refers to any dual-focused educational context in which an additional
language, thus not usually the first language of the learners involved,
is used as a medium in the teaching and learning of non-language content.
It is dual-focused because whereas attention may be predominantly on
either subject-specific content or language, both are always accommodated
" (Marsh, 2003, ELC Information Bulletin 9) .
CLIL is focused on interdisciplinary curriculum or
cross curricular planning. In this regard, educators teaching English
as a Medium of Instruction (EMI), Language Across the Curriculum (LAC),
Content Based Instruction (CBI), Content Based Language Teaching (CBLT),
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) or any form of Bilingual Education,
are all applying CLIL. English has turned out to be the dominant language
in our society, therefore a need for language and content integrated
learning arises in order to prepare future professionals to face this
changing world. This situation gives the learning of a foreign language
the importance that it had never had before in the curriculum, as it
provides innumerable advantages if we are to accompany the new trends
in the world we are living in. Apprentices need to learn a language
to confront the demands of a new society; the studied language may provide
a better status and the possibility to use it for different needs. In
order to show the use of language, learners may do cross curricular
connections by doing project work, for example.
CLIL is generally defined as a pedagogical approach
which has a dual (integrated) aim: learning of the subject matter (content)
and learning of the (second/foreign/target) language used as the medium
of instruction for the content.
CLIL is seen as a continuum or an „umbrella term”
for all those approaches in which some form of specific and academic
language support is offered to students in order to facilitate their
learning of the content through that language.
Figure 2.
1.3. CLIL: A multifaceted learning
environment that strengthens motivation and enhances the development
of mental processes.
CLIL targets at promoting the cultivation of positive
attitudes towards learning by offering the students opportunities for
using the target language naturally to expand their knowledge in various
fields of study. Research in FL has shown that students are motivated
when they use it as a tool for communication, and when they see the
purpose for mastering a language (Vlachos, 2005 and 2006). In CLIL developing
FL language skills has always a purpose: to use the FL to acquire non
linguistic knowledge. Learning is dual focused and covers two broad
educational areas: 1. Using FL to elaborate content, discover new information
and expand non linguistic knowledge; and 2. Learning how to use the
FL accurately and appropriately (Marsh, 2002). Since both educational
areas are in need of equal attention, language learning is viewed as
holistic, which implies that the target language is seen as the medium
both of instruction and of learners’ communication. FL is perceived
as the main means the learners use to explore the world. It is expected
that language learning is realized in a context where students investigate,
decode and understand the technological and cultural achievements as
well as the existing values and attitudes that constitute modern societies.
It is, therefore, felt that project work is fully compatible with CLIL,
because when working with projects, students are offered the chance
to explore media with information with a view to synthesizing products
that exhibit the new knowledge they have acquired.
Since language learning is used for exploring new
non linguistic knowledge, CLIL students are not just invited to study
the linguistic system of the target language; they are required to move
beyond linguistic competence and start reflecting on the content of
the subject areas being studied and on the learning process, ‘thinking’
and ‘reflecting’ in the target language. Training the learners to
‘think’ in different languages (the mother tongue and the FL) promotes
the development of their mental processes and conceptualization (Marsh,
2008). Viewing the world from different perspectives, being able to
decode new information based on new thinking horizons, using frames
of reference that have been enriched with elements taken from different
cultures and value systems broaden the way students think and learn.
They progressively become able to adopt learning strategies (cognitive,
metacognitive, social etc.) that enable them to internalize and consolidate
previously acquired information and look for new knowledge. It can,
therefore, be asserted that except from linguistic competence, more
competences and skills are expected to be developed through CLIL. As
we explain next, pragmatic, sociolinguistic and strategic competence
need to be enhanced in a CLIL learning environment.
It has long been felt that motivation may be an important
factor in the acquisition of a foreign or second language and with the
“World English Project” as suggested by Graddol (2006 Pg 18) where
“global English makes the transition from ‘foreign language’ to
basic skill,” (ibid) the issue may even become crucial to successful
EL teaching and learning. However much we discuss its importance it
is not always easy to pin down what motivation actually is. Dörnyei
(2001: 7) pertinently quotes Martin Covington on this point: “Motivation,
like the concept of gravity, is easier to describe (in terms of its
outward, observable effects) than it is to define.”
Certainly, it is easier to describe the outward signs
as we have all registered them in their positive aspects and their negative
aspects in countless classrooms all over the world. Not only this but
the outward signs of, for example, always doing homework on time and
arriving early and eager to class compared with finding the lesson boring
and complaining about it impinge on classroom dynamics leading to successful
or unsuccessful classroom practice no matter how diligent and experienced
the individual teacher might be.
We are all cognizant with the theory of intrinsic
or extrinsic motivation, with Maslow’s pyramid, perhaps also with
Jarvis’ theory of learning and Cambourne’s model of the Whole Language
approach, not to mention Cummins and Fisher yet the concrete control
of motivational aspects still eludes us in practice. Dörnyei (2001:
1) steers clear of trying to pin it down concisely by saying that motivation
is: “ an abstract concept that we use to explain why people think
and behave as they do. It is obvious that in this sense the term subsumes
a whole range of motives – from financial incentives such as a raise
in salary to idealistic beliefs such as the desire for freedom – that
have very little in common except that they influence behaviour. Thus,
"motivation' is best seen as a broad umbrella term that covers
a variety of meanings."
But we need to harness the positive side of it if
we are to make the best use of the restricted amount of time we usually
have in the EFL classroom. It may be more profitable to see motivation
as connection or engagement and try to develop our own theory from the
daily lived lives of our experiences within the classroom itself. This
connection relates to any relationship in real life and is crucial to
the desire to “ stay beside”, to “spend time with”, to “inhabit”,
or to tacit knowledge ( Polanyi 1958) where one “lives IN the skills,
or where one indwells only that to which one is committed; it has to
do with passion.”. Ian Tudor in his article in HLT, Pilgrims magazine
Jan 2004, says that connection “ involves students discovering a sense
of personal meaningfulness in their language learning in one way or
another.” Again, extremely abstract but clearly obvious if it
is seen through the holistic lens of the CLIL approach.
CLIL, Content and Language Integrated Learning, promotes
connection because the fundamental philosophy is holistic and appeals
to the needs of young learners. The five “tixes” of CLIL overlap,
intertwine, and weave their way through the minds, the souls, and the
bodies of the students in the charge of teachers worldwide. It may be
considered a sophisticated extension of TBL, of project work,
of LAC, of bilingual immersion, of EIL, of EGL. There
are as many interpretations of CLIL as there are teachers who teach
it. Without a doubt, for those who wish to move into a more global role
as a teacher of EFL, CLIL can be a solution. The authorities,
however, must weigh up the pros and cons of this approach in their specific
contexts.
The “tixes” include:
CULTIX- dealing with culture and intercultural communication
and understanding ;
ENTIX- dealing with the environment ;
CONTIX - the content or subject matter;
LANTIX- the English language dimension;
LEARNTIX- awareness of "Learning to Learn",
or learner training.
The method requires the teacher to comply with a
number of approaches which are not necessarily routine in the EFL classroom.
CLIL principles come from a number of sources. As Steve Darn, Izmir
University of Economics, Turkey ( Teaching English BC) says "all
teachers are teachers of language" (The Bullock Report - A Language
for Life, 1975) to the wide-ranging advantages of cross-curricular bilingual
teaching in statements from the Content and Language Integrated Project
(CLIP). The benefits of CLIL may be seen in terms of cultural awareness,
internationalization, language competence, preparation for both study
and working life, and increased motivation.
Some practitioners like to look at CLIL as composed
of four areas which are discrete in the planning but integrated
in the teaching / learning process: