A Brief History and Definition of CLIL

CLIL gained increasing popularity in European countries in the 1990s when greater levels of foreign language proficiency and new forms of bilingual education were needed due to socio-economic integration and globalization. Though the term CLIL was launched in 1994, its practice has been around a lot longer with its roots in immersion education from the 1970s and 1980s. In the1890s, bilingualism and multilingualism existed among the most privileged wealthy families. More recently, probably the first example of modern CLIL appeared in 1965 in Canada, where it was known as Content-based Instruction (CBI). English-speaking parents who were living in the French quarter of Quebec were worried because they saw that their children were disadvantaged compared with French speakers. They asked the Government to produce school immersion programs so that their children learned the subjects in French instead of learning the French language only. The idea apparently spread through Canada and to the rest of the world. In the 1970s more bilingual immersion programs for people of different backgrounds appeared and there was an increased awareness that language and content should go hand-in-hand. Therefore, CBI has been explicitly encouraged in official EU documentation since the 1990s.

In 1996 the Council of Europe introduced and developed the concept, subsequently underpinning it with a series of classroom based studies which provided evidence for its advantages (“CLIL in Europe,” 2015, para. 4). In 21^st century Europe almost all countries have incorporated this approach into their school systems. Some offer CLIL-type provision on a voluntary basis, others have made it an obligatory part of their education (Wolff, 2012).

The definition is clear with respect to most aspects of CLIL. It accentuates the dual focus of the content-language approach and makes clear that CLIL is expected to

102

promote pre-defined competences related to both language and content. Marsh and Langé’s seminal definition of CLIL has been modified since 2000. Nowadays this method is defined in the European Framework of references for languages as “a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of content and language with the objective of promoting both content and language mastery to pre-defined levels” (Marsh, 2006, p. 1).

CLIL came to be seen as “a joint curricular role in the domain of mainstream education, pre-schooling and adult lifelong education” where it does not give emphasis to either language teaching or learning, or to content teaching and learning, but sees both as integral parts of the whole (Marsh, 2007, p. 58). It also can be seen as a powerful tool which aims to safeguard the subject being taught whilst promoting language as a medium for learning as well as an objective of the learning process itself (Coyle, 2008, p. 37). Holmes, Coyle, and King (2009) described CLIL again in their

"Towards an integrated curriculum-CLIL National Statement and Guidelines" as:

a pedagogic approach in which language and subject area content are learnt in combination. The generic term CLIL describes any learning activity where language is used as a tool to develop new learning from a subject area or theme (p. 6).

While, in the view of Eurydice (2006), Marsh (2002, 2008) and Liang (2013), CLIL is a generic teaching method encompassing all methodological practices pertaining to various bilingual education models in which FL is used as a medium to teach academic subjects, CLIL is distinctive for its emphasis on the notion of integration of both content and language. Colye stated that “integration of content and language is a powerful pedagogic tool which aims to safeguard the subject being taught whilst

103

promoting language as a medium for learning as well as an objective of the learning process itself” (2008, p. 27).

The CLIL method requires language teachers to learn more about subject content and subject teachers to learn about the language needed for their subjects. CLIL therefore strives to promote two types of learning: non-language content and a target foreign language; each becomes a vehicle for promotion of the other. In CLIL practice, a dual-focused approach is understood in many countries as that which prioritizes the content subject: CLIL teaching and learning is foremost about content subject teaching and learning. The additional language in which teaching and learning takes place, is not taught as such but referred to whenever it seems useful. CLIL is therefore often called language-sensitive content teaching, and is based on a set of scientific concepts derived from second language acquisition research, from cognitive psychology and from constructivism (Wolff, 2008; Harrop, 2012; Fontecha & Alfonso, 2014). Empirical research in second language acquisition has shown that languages are learnt while they are being used; cognitive and constructivist psychologists have made it clear that language learning takes place when learners are involved in the content they are dealing with (Banegas, 2012, p. 12).

Clegg (2006) provided a useful table (Table 5) to point out the many differences between traditional FL teaching and CLIL.

Table 5. Comparison of FL Teaching and CLIL

(Source: Clegg, J. Teaching Subjects through a Foreign Language in the Primary School)

104

From Table 5, it can be seen that the major difference between traditional FL teaching and CLIL is that whereas the former focuses on language-supportive teaching, the latter focuses on both the language and subject content. In addition, CLIL provides a purpose for language use in the classroom, since learners need to communicate among each other in order to help cooperative learning. It has a positive effect on language learning by putting the emphasis on meaning rather than on form. By having non-disposable content, it focuses on meaning and grammar is embedded. Most students dislike learning grammar as a subject, therefore, learning grammar in a more meaningful way helps them to acquire grammar rather than study it. This method increases considerably the amount of exposure to the target language (Dalton-Puffer&

Smit, 2007), potentially doubling or more the amount of language exposure, while taking into account the learners’ interests, needs and cognitive levels.

As stated previously, CLIL is a meaning-focused learning method, an umbrella term used to talk about bilingual education situations (Van de Craen, 2006; Gajo, 2007;

Bentley, 2010). Furthermore it concerns languages and intercultural knowledge and understanding (Marsh, 2008, p. 12). CLIL is an evolving educational approach where subjects are taught through the medium of a non-native language, aiming at an equal development of proficiency in both content subjects and the language in which they are taught. It operates along a continuum of the FL and academic content at any one time, (Colye, 2006), with “an overall equal focus on content and language” (Leung & Liang, 2013, p. 22), see Figure 18 for the pattern of CLIL.

Figure 18. Continuum of CLIL Approach (Source: “CLIL: Perceptions of Teachers and Students in Hong Kong”, 2013)

105

CLIL is a teacher-led movement, because what happens in classrooms and how this motivates both teachers and learners, is gaining momentum (Coyle, 2006). An essential feature of CLIL is that it places both language and non-language content on a continuum without implying preference or dominance of one over the other (Holmes, Coyle, & King, 2009). It is well-known that the experience of learning subjects through the medium of a non-native language is more challenging and intensive since there is more exposure to the language, and learners acquire knowledge and skills in different areas of the curriculum. CLIL models are by no means uniform (Coonan, 2007, 2012);

they are elaborated at a local level to respond to local conditions and desires. It is the combination of many choices with respect to the variables that produces a particular CLIL project. While the central aim of all CLIL projects is to learn language and content simultaneously, it is the interpretation of content and language integration in CLIL that has major implications for and impact on the development of CLIL pedagogies (Coyle, 2009; Richards, 2013, Troyan, 2014).

CLIL is a holistic approach to language learning because it promotes four key principles for effective CLIL practice, known as the “4Cs”: Content, Communication, Cognition, and Culture/Citizenship, and a successful lesson should combine these four elements (Coyle, 1999, 2008). The 4Cs Conceptual Framework views CLIL from a holistic perspective and “integrates four contextualized building blocks: content (subject matter), communication (language learning and using), cognition (learning and thinking process) and culture (developing intercultural understanding and global citizenship)”

(Coyle, 2008, p. 41), see Figure 19:

106

Figure 19. Building Blocks of Coyle’s 4Cs Framework ( (Source: Coyle, “CLIL: Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies”)

This 4Cs Framework integrates and contextualizes content (content and cognition) and language (communication and culture) learning, asserting the importance and symbiotic relationship of “learning to use language appropriately” while “using language to learn effectively” (Coyle, 2008, p. 9). Coyle (2008) views her framework not as a theory but as a conceptualization of CLIL. As Figure 20 shows, all of the four conceptual elements of CLIL are interwoven and form the educational basis for all variants of CLIL.

Figure 20: 4Cs Framework for CLIL (Source: Coyle, “Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies”)

107

CLIL lessons at school are typically scheduled as content lessons and they are taught on the basis of existing national curricula with the added advantage that the target language is a further foreign language subject (Dalton-Puffer and Nikula, 2009, p. 2).

However, greater flexibility is required in CLIL content than is required in selecting urricular subjects because the context of the learning institution defines content in CLIL (Coyle and Marsh 2008, p. 27).

According to the theoretical intentions of CLIL, it represents a student-led approach in which learners are cognitively engaged, with opportunities to think on their own, make choices, or to reason. Effective content learning can only take place when learners are intellectually challenged and when they get the opportunity to apply their knowledge through problem solving or creative thinking. For this reason Coyle claims that CLIL activates deep learning which “involves the critical analysis of new ideas, connecting them to already-known concepts and leads to understanding and long-term retention of those concepts so that they can be used for problem solving in unfamiliar contexts” (2008, p. 39).

As communication is at the core of learning in CLIL lessons, students are required to be active participants in meaningful interaction to acquire content knowledge. This “dialogic form of pedagogy” is an essential part of CLIL classrooms (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2012, p. 35). Students not only learn an additional language but also develop communication skills via active communication in the target language.

The terms “language” and “communication” are used interchangeably, not only as a syntactical device for promoting the “C” concepts, but also as a strategy for promoting genuine communication in the target language (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2012, p. 42).

Moreover, there is a strong connection between culture and language, since

“culture determines the way in which we interpret the world, and we use language to

108

express this interpretation” (Marsh 2007, 2012 p. 30). CLIL becomes a means for intercultural experiences because it raises awareness of “otherness” and “self” as well as mediating between different cultures:

culture associated with language cannot be “learned in a few lessons about celebrations, folk songs, or costumes of the area in which the language is spoken. Cultural awareness may focus on knowledge about different cultures, but the move towards intercultural understanding involves different experiences. [....] It starts with raising awareness about one’s own cultures, including culturally learned attitudes and behaviors (Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2012, p. 40).

CLIL induces an intercultural dialogue in which learners need to develop competences in analysing social processes or outcomes. In interactive settings CLIL students can demonstrate their cultural knowledge, attitudes, and skills. In addition to the views elaborated above, there are other distinguishing features of CLIL programs, providing a more comprehensive overview of CLIL:

1) The CLIL language is usually a FL rather than an L2.

2) Most CLIL teachers are content specialists (not target language experts) and non-native speakers of the target language.

3) CLIL lessons are scheduled as content lessons. There are stand-alone FL lessons conducted by language specialists.

4) In CLIL programs, usually less than 50% of the curriculum is conducted in the target language.

5) CLIL is normally implemented at the secondary level when students have already acquired some L1 literacy skills (Dalton-Puffer& Smit, 2007, p. 183-184).

109

CLIL is close to some types of immersion programs but different from other content-based approaches developed outside Europe. CLIL classrooms are not typical language classrooms; non-linguistic content is used to teach as learners acquire new knowledge but in a foreign language. According to Wolff and Marsh (2007), there are at least three important points in the CLIL teaching method:

Firstly, CLIL should not be perceived as an approach to language teaching and learning, as it is important to pay attention to both content and language. Second, in CLIL content and language are learnt in an integrated way. The two subjects are related to each other and dealt with as a whole. Thirdly, in CLIL, another language is used as the medium of instruction (p. 55).

Naturally, the learners must have some basic knowledge of the language they are learning and be capable of understanding the content. As knowledge of the language becomes the means of learning content, the learner is highly motivated and language acquisition becomes crucial.