Índice de tablas
3. DISEÑO Y DESARROLLO
3.3 Reconocimiento de secuencias fijas
3.3.1 El problema de la transposición y su solución
In addition to content learning, it is also linked to preparing the learners for forms of mobility.
Preparing for future studies and/or working life
There are many different situations in which learners need to develop their language capabilities for future studies and/or working life. Just as opportunities exist on a scale never seen before for young people to study in different countries within Europe, so we also see much workplace recruitment emphasising the need to be able to speak different languages. This focus is particularly important in activating interest in trans-‐national or cross-‐linguistic working life.
5. The Learning Dimension
Complementing individual learning strategies
Specifically geared to learner-‐based methodologies that attempt to improve learning by giving attention to individuals’ needs in terms of social and thinking skills. One broad issue here relates to the performance of boys and girls in relation to successful language learning. It has been argued that there is a gender bias in some educational systems that might actually disadvantage certain groups of boys who may then become alienated within the foreign language learning process. Although this is a controversial issue, CLIL/EMILE does provide alternative ways of approaching language learning, and if this reduces exclusion or otherwise serves mainstream learners then it is clearly advantageous. We have evidence that it develops their analytic, reflective and
hypothesizing skills and all that encourages them to become much greater risk-‐
takers in terms of their linguistic self-‐confidence (Do Coyle).77
Diversifying methods & forms of classroom practice
It is obviously not necessary to change the language of instruction in order to diversify learning methods and classroom practice. However, the introduction of CLIL/EMILE, which is itself a set of methodologies, can act as a catalyst for change. In other words, its delivery can encourage careful analysis of existing methods and appropriate adaptation. What is characteristic of many CLIL/EMILE methodologies is the synergy resulting from communication orientation on the language, the content, and the interaction as it takes place within the classroom. This is because in types of dual-‐focused education all three of these play a pivotal role at some point or another. Recognition of the value of this type of broadly interactive methodology is one reason why teachers may adapt their methods. This approach is much more effective than traditional foreign language teaching (Dieter Wolff).78
Increasing learner motivation
The development and nurturing of learner motivation is at the heart of all education. If CLIL/EMILE is specifically used to increase motivation then it usually involves low exposure programmes that aim to positively influence learner attitudes and self-‐confidence. Such programmes are often focused on providing non-‐threatening and supportive contexts where most or all of the learners feel comfortable with the classroom objectives. The whole process is relaxed and natural (Hugo Baetens Beardsmore).79
77 Quotation from InterTalk 1997 (Do Coyle), University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
78 Quotation from InterTalk 1997. (Dieter Wolff), University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
79 Quotation from InterTalk 1997 (Hugo Baetens Beardsmore), University of Jyväskylä, Finland
THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION, CONCERNS & DEBATE Introduction
The available evidence on forms of CLIL/EMILE needs to be evaluated in light of the many variables that are at play according to a myriad of differing types. The final verdict is not yet in and it will clearly take some time before a satisfactory profile of research into European CLIL/EMILE is available. There is, however, a voluminous amount of research on a wide range of differing situations which focus on learning through the medium of a second/foreign language, and an attempt will be made here to summarize a few of the key issues, some of which draw on experiences outside Europe. Others draw on examples of teaching and learning through the medium of a second/foreign language which do not resemble many forms of European CLIL/EMILE such as Canadian immersion. Although there may be substantial differences in application, there are some core methodological and theoretical issues that are very similar. At the end of the day much educational research is multi-‐faceted, just like classrooms, and the children in them, but there are some generalities worthy of observation and comment which interlink across contexts.
There are indications that an increasing research interest in European CLIL/EMILE is presently underway. Much anecdotal reporting, often by practitioners, or small research networks, has not been widely published. This is not to suggest that such practitioner or school-‐based reporting is not relevant and valid. On the contrary, it may well be so. Indeed there appears to be a wealth of experimentation, and small-‐scale enquiry, often in the case of monitoring contexts, action research and forms of reflective enquiry, which offer a rich source of information and data.
In recent years much available research has been rather positive about the impact of
‘teaching through a second/foreign language’. It could be argued that in times gone by (when most available evidence on bilingual education was overwhelmingly negative, suggesting infamously that it would stunt intellectual agility) research was conducted for a specific socio-‐political agenda – such as the protection of unilingual models of education in the 1930s. If so, some might say that certain types of current CLIL/EMILE research is self-‐fulfilling in terms of justifying an approach which has become
increasingly under the spotlight even before Joshua Fishman’s famous dictum ‘bilingual education is good for education’.80
If we examine some of the strongest criticism of CLIL/EMILE, then it can be argued that the grounds for critique are not so much directed at the methodological potential of this approach for enriching education. Rather they may be seen to serve other less obvious purposes. One of these is the sometimes voiced view that CLIL/EMILE serves solely as a platform for strengthening the English language within the European educational systems. For instance, it has been argued that this would be to the detriment of national languages.81 Some others might argue that by strengthening the English language in the curriculum through CLIL/EMILE, interest in the learning of other foreign languages diminishes.
Two important issues are raised when examining this type of argument.
Firstly, the reason for the argument may stem from political rather than research-‐
based interests. In other words, the argument may be made for reasons that go beyond education. It is important to remember in the words of Hugo Baetens Beardsmore that ‘research on bilingual development has frequently revealed counter-‐
80 Fishman, J. 1976:23 Bilingual education: An International Sociological Perspective.
Rowley: Newbury House
81 A recent example is from Sweden where the report Mål I mun – ett handlingsprogram för svenska språket (April 2002) published by a parliamentary committee (Kommittén för svenska språket), calls for new laws to ensure the primacy of Swedish language in the country. One feature of the report is the criticism it directs at CLIL/EMILE which is known as SPRINT in Swedish. It expresses some fear at the possible effects of this methodology on Swedish language. Interestingly reference to CLIL/EMILE is in terms of high exposure cases and criticism is directed at the lack of independent empirical research on its
implementation. This is hardly a case of the methodology being erroneous, but rather the relative authorities not providing the impetus for such research to be conducted. Ironically, the report suggests the impairment of the first language, Swedish, in learners involved with CLIL/EMILE, yet, by default, ignores the existence of national tests in Swedish and the target language in question which are not cited as evidence of negative impact. The report implies that CLIL/EMILE is emerging as a force which replaces foreign language teaching.
Yet this author knows of no serious cases where such a proposition would be given any credence, especially considering what is known, and well documented in Sweden about the importance of appropriate parallel language teaching for ensuring success. Finally, some of the severest criticism against SPRINT is based on evidence from North American
immersion education which bears little reality to most CLIL/EMILE as implemented in the Swedish context. Such reporting is thus de-‐contextualised and does not do justice to the types of implementation which may well be bearing success and not threatening the national language in question. One commentator notes that it is indicative of a protectionist political springboard against the interventions of the EU. It is worth considering the quote by T.McArthur in Comment: Worried about Something Else ‘ unease about language is almost always symptomatic of a larger unease’ (Marshall, D. (ed.) International Journal of the Sociology of language, vol. 60, 1986, p.7-‐75.
intuitive findings’.82 There are clear indicators that CLIL/EMILE is increasingly being considered as a platform for introducing and enhancing languages other than English in Europe, alongside corresponding enrichment of education in a broader sense. For example if the threat of English is used as a sound-‐bite in certain circles, there are other potentially stronger forces, particularly at the grassroots, which may be saying
‘my child will pick up English anyway, but I want them to be one step ahead and have another language’. Clarity of vision on the potential of CLIL/EMILE as an educational approach in its own right may be lost if it is caught up in the ongoing European lingua franca language debate. As yet there is insufficient evidence to substantiate this type of argument either way, but the debate can be both strong and based on intuition and not necessarily supported with facts. There is no a priori reason why English should be the main target language as European CLIL/EMILE develops across sectors.
Secondly, when criticism of CLIL/EMILE surfaces, it may portray a single type and ignore the variants. This type is likely to be high exposure to the target language over an extended number of years in a single language, English. These types do exist and sometimes for good or not so convincing reasons. But there are many other types of CLIL/EMILE delivery in Europe that do not fit such a category. It is these types which tend to show the innovativeness of this approach, and often have not been subject to intensive research in the past. It is some of these types that offer the most important potential for the future because in relation to some important targets which espouse plurilingualism, less exposure to CLIL/EMILE may be better than more.
Finally, a caveat needs to be introduced when we consider CLIL/EMILE and research. It relates to why we introduce this type of methodology in a given kindergarten, school, or through, for example, distance education for adults. Is it predominantly to introduce, teach, or otherwise develop the language? Is it to teach some non-‐language content with language as an added value? Is it to implement a set of educational methods that are considered successful in introducing, teaching and otherwise developing both? There is little doubt from what we know about European CLIL/EMILE that much delivery is focused on, in Fishman’s terms, education and not just language.
82 Baetens Beardsmore, H. 1993. Report to the Ministry of Education of Brunei Darussalam on the Visits to Schools and Discussions with Ministry Officials. Bander Seri Begawan,
Yet much research, from Europe or abroad, mainly Canada, focuses solely on the language dimension.83
…there currently exist a variety of L2 instructional approaches that integrate language and content instruction and these can be characterized as falling along a continuum from language-‐driven to content-‐driven. In language-‐driven approaches, content is used simply as a vehicle for teaching target language structures and skills. The primary goal of these programs is language learning…. At the other end of the continuum are approaches where the content and language are equally important so that mastery of academic objectives is considered as important as the development of proficiency in the target language. Bilingual/immersion education are examples of content-‐driven approaches.
(Fred Genesee)84
This quotation is particularly revealing because it shows the tendency towards language that much research espouses, particularly that from Northern America where many applications of ‘teaching through a second/foreign language’ differ considerably from the European experience of CLIL/EMILE.
The publication from which this quotation derives is predominantly about the
‘language’ aspect of what is termed bilingual education – indeed this is why it is to be produced (2003). Here and elsewhere language is widely viewed as the predominant raison d’être for teaching and learning through a foreign language. But in Europe we have seen that there are reasons other than language per se which predominate85 and the term, enriched education, is clearly applicable to some contexts.
Note in the quotation above the following:
1. A variety of L2 instructional approaches
83 During the questionnaire retrieval process leading to compilation of the The CLIL Compendium, language was not as frequent a reason for implementing CLIL/EMILE as others such as developing intercultural understanding, influencing learner attitudes, or learning of certain types of non-‐language subject matter.
84 Genesee, F. 2003 (forthcoming) What do we know about bilingual education for majority language students? In Bhatia, T.K. & Ritchie, W. (eds.) Handbook of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism. London: Blackwell
85 Marsh, D., Maljers, A. & A. Hartiala (eds.) 2001. Profiling European CLIL Classrooms.
UniCOM, University of Jyväskylä.
In European CLIL/EMILE some would argue that delivery is not part of L2 instruction
2. At the other end of the continuum are approaches where the content and language are equally important
In European CLIL/EMILE ‘at the other end of the continuum’ the non-‐language content is considerably more important than the language
3. Bilingual/immersion education are examples of content-‐driven approaches CLIL/EMILE is not bilingual/immersion education per se, it is a rapidly developing dual-‐focussed educational approach which goes beyond what we have so often referred to as bilingual education in the past (see Chapter 1)86
In any review of research it is essential that we do not lose sight of the fact that the degree to which we can generalize findings from one situation to another is severely limited.
However, some research, whether conducted in Europe or beyond, does have bearing on the validity of CLIL/EMILE87
What follows are two quotations on key aspects of research in this field:
In his overview of bilingual schooling William Mackey claimed that up to 3 000 variables could potentially intervene to account for the nature of the bilingual classroom. If we can accept this estimate, then it is evident that unravelling those parameters that educators can operate is a gigantic (task). Much of the sociologically oriented research in bilingual education has concentrated on macro-‐variables to help outline policy, while the inter-‐disciplinary aspects of the field are still awaiting an integrated assessment of the fragmented and isolated variables, which together explain successful programmes.
(Hugo Baetens Beardsmore)88
86 See The Significance of CLIL/EMILE by Hugo Baetens Beardsmore – expert statement in this report.
87 The author is particularly grateful to Fred Genesee for providing a succinct description of research findings on bilingual education for majority language students which is to be published as in Endnote 15. Some secondary sources derive from this paper in this section.
In addition thanks are extended to Hugo Baetens Beardsmore for assistance in identifying
Bilingual education for majority language students is varied and complex as each community adopts different programmatic models and pedagogical strategies to suit its unique needs, resources and goals
(Fred Genesee)89
This next section breaks down some key aspects of research and discussion on this area according to certain aspects of implementation:
Which Methods?
In the field of second language acquisition there is a difference between instructed and naturalistic learning situations. In addition, there are two types of knowledge considered. One is explicit in which learning is usually intentional, and the other is implicit where it may be incidental.90
CLIL/EMILE is often delivered through a form of naturalistic situation that allows for largely implicit and incidental learning.91 Learning out of the corner of one’s eye92 where the language itself is only one part of a form of dual-‐focused education which takes place through authentic, meaningful and significant communication with others, is widely cited as a success factor in forms of CLIL/EMILE.93
In terms of providing a wider range of learners with opportunities for foreign language acquisition, Reber (1993) hypothesizes that ‘from an evolutionary perspective, unconscious, implicit functions must have developed in man well before conscious
88 Baetens Beardsmore, H. 1997. Manipulating the Variables in Bilingual education. Report on the Conference on European Networks in Bilingual Education. The European Platform for Dutch Education: The Hague.
89 Genese, F. 2003 ibid
90 See, for example, Norris, J.& Ortega, L. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative meta-‐analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-‐528.
91 It relates to the Vygotsky school of thought on ‘learning being strictly dependent on interaction between individuals’, and Piaget who argued that ‘everything which is in our mind has necessarily passed through our hands’.
92 See, for example, Ehrman, M.E. 1996:183 Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties. California: Sage.
93 See, for example, Snow, A., Met, M., & Genesee,F. 1989. A Conceptual Framework for the Integration of language and Content in Second/Foreign Language Instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201-‐218.
explicit functions’.94 The following observations on implicit learning are of interest when considering the reported impact of some types of naturalistic CLIL/EMILE delivery95:
▪ Implicit learning and memory should not be altered by the disorders that affect explicit learning and memory
▪ Implicit learning should be independent of age and level of development and last through time
▪ Acquiring knowledge implicitly should not show significant individual variation.
Implicit learning processes should be very similar across the population
▪ Different from explicit learning processes, implicit processes should show little agreement with the results of tests of ‘intelligence’, such as the commonly used IQ tests.
Successful language acquisition depends on the amount and quality of input. But not all input becomes intake. If there is limited intake then there will be equally limited opportunities for output. Output is the realization of productive language skills. Reber’s hypothesis has bearing on why practitioners claim that CLIL/EMILE can work well with a broad range of learners. This is sometimes cited as one reason why this approach is egalitarian in opening the doors on languages for a broader range of learners.96 To achieve success, specific methodologies are developed, tested and implemented.
Heinz Helfrich97 observes that using a foreign language as a vehicular language requires methods, teaching styles and strategies which are neither in the traditional repertoires of foreign language teachers and not in the repertoires of non-‐language subject
94 Pavesi, M. 2002. Incidential vs. Intentional Learning, Unit 5, Second Language Acquisition for CLIL, TIE-‐CLIL, Milan, Italy citing Reber, A. (1993) Implicit Learning and Tacit
Knowledge. NY: Oxford University Press.
95 Reber, A. 1993:88 Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge. NY: Oxford University Press, cited by Pavesi, M. 2002. Incidential vs. Intentional Learning, Unit 5, Second Language
95 Reber, A. 1993:88 Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge. NY: Oxford University Press, cited by Pavesi, M. 2002. Incidential vs. Intentional Learning, Unit 5, Second Language