EQUILIBRIO
II. EL MEDICAMENTO, ¿UNA SIMPLE MERCANCÍA?
3. El Procedimiento de autorización como principal elemento de distinción 385
Referring back to the 2006 Eurydice report on Content and Language Integrated Learning and the 2008 report ‘Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe’
published by the European Commission, it reports that in 2012 Eurydice and Eurostat data will be combined and new information will be added, in particular on CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning)’ (European Commission 2011:10).
Stating that CLIL is a cross-‐cutting priority for all projects within the Leonardo da Vinci programme European Commission 2011:13), it also reports that The European Language Inspectors Network set up in 2005 following the Commission Action Plan on Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity 2004-‐2006 considers that Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is an aspect of language teaching that merits development and wider application and is amongst one of the core elements in the profile of a European Language Teacher. (European Commission 2011:40).
1.2 The Emergent European Dimension through Actions, Projects and Initiatives 1989 -‐ 2001
The 1989 European Council decision to launch the LINGUA unit within the European Commission (European Council 1989) was of fundamental significance in supporting policy and implementation support for innovation in language teaching and learning. At this time the Council of Europe was hosting 18 expert workshops (1990-‐1996) to examine teaching, learning and assessment in foreign languages under a project entitled ‘Modern Languages Project: Language Learning for European Citizenship’ (Council of Europe 1996). Some of these Workshops
focused on ‘bilingual education’ and ‘teaching non-‐language subjects through a foreign language’ (Council of Europe Workshops 12a / 12b – 1993/1996).
The LINGUA unit was in a position to co-‐fund European projects, and interest was shown in the potential of bilingual education. In an increasingly convergent European socio-‐political context, the issue of being able to mainstream previously successful examples of bilingual education was examined with respect to school and teacher development. LINGUA was not mandated to provide research funding, but it could co-‐fund initiatives which were both cross-‐border and focused on various forms of professional development and capacity-‐building. The Council of Europe was also operating with limited funds which prevented the type of research implemented in Canada for example when ‘immersion’ was being widely examined, developed, and implemented during the 1980s-‐1990s (Genesee, 1987). Whereas the Council of Europe Workshops were examining the current situation where bilingual education was being operated in often very distinct environments such as in bilingual border regions, the LINGUA unit was exploring if and how such an approach could be used in mainstream schools.
European Commission support was provided to a number of initiatives which supported a 1978 initiative (European Commission 1978) to encourage teaching in schools through the medium of more than one language. At the beginning these initiatives were based on inter-‐disciplinary professional networks, where experts were brought together to consider various dimensions of bilingual education.
In 1992, the proposition was made that the term bilingual education would not be optimal to describe schools where partial teaching through a foreign language would be developed. The European schools, and other exemplary examples as found in bilingual environments and border regions (see, for instance Baetens
Beardsmore 1993) could achieve high levels of bilingualism, and thus the term was appropriate. But in the case of starting to mainstream the experience of learning non-‐language subjects through a foreign language, bilingual education was not considered appropriate. From 1992 to 1993 there was active discussion between experts, often facilitated by actions through the European Platform for Dutch Education and the University of Jyväskylä (Finland), to seek a term which would be widely accepted.
In 1993 the term Content and Language Integrated Classrooms (CLIC) was proposed and circulated amongst LINGUA staff and others across Europe. CLIC denoted the context, not a methodological approach. Interest in the parameters of an educational approach that would suit contexts where students where learning non-‐language subjects through a foreign language, led to a need for term adjustment or replacement. In 1994, representatives of the European Platform for Dutch Education (Anne Maljers) and the University of Jyväskylä (David Marsh), in conjunction with other key stakeholders, then opted for adopting the term Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). This term was tested at an international forum in Finland (The 1996 Forum for Mainstream Bilingual Education, Helsinki 20-‐22 September), launched through the EUROCLIC network internet site, formally agreed by the coordinators of EUROCLIC at the 1996 European Conference on Immersion Programmes, Barcelona, Spain. 26-‐28 September and introduced to the European Commission (DGXXII) by David Marsh at the White Paper Thematic Conference, ‘Proficiency in three community languages’, Brussels, 10-‐11 October 1996.
In 1996, LINGUA supported the European Networks in Bilingual Education conference (Fruhauf et al. 1996). At this event it was agreed that organisations in the Netherlands (European Platform for Dutch Education) and Finland (University
of Jyväskylä) would coordinate a European Commission co-‐funded network. This was launched in 1996 as EuroCLIC (European Content and Language Integrated Classrooms).
Working closely with LINGUA the European Platform for Dutch Education and University of Jyväskylä then launched a range of initiatives to provide mainly pioneering teachers and schools with network opportunities and resources by which to explore means to integrate the learning of foreign languages across the primary, secondary and vocational curricula. Both countries were experiencing considerable interest in the teaching of non-‐language subjects through a foreign language which enabled case studies to be established which were then available to practitioners and others in other European countries (see, for example, Marsh 1996; Marsh & Masih 1996; Pohjanvirta et al. 1998; Nikula & Marsh, 1997; Takala, Marsh & Nikula 1998; Marsh, Takala & Nikula 1997; Marsh 1997; Marsh & Masih 1996).
Following publication of the European Commission’s White Paper: Teaching and Learning: Towards a Learning Society which stated that ‘school pupils should study certain subjects in the first foreign language learned, as in the European schools’
(European Commission 1996:67), growing interest across Europe, facilitated by the actions of the European Platform for Dutch Education and University of Jyväskylä, and continuously supported by expertise within the LINGUA unit led to a set of actions and outcomes.
Meanwhile the Council of Europe created the European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) in 1994 as an Enlarged Partial Agreement of the Council of Europe. The ECML was to establish a documentation centre providing specialists and multipliers with a wide range of teaching aids and results of research. Some of
these were focused on bilingual education. In 1997 it held the first Workshop on CLIL ‘CLIL in Vocational and Professional Education’ (Marsh, Bogner, Coyle &
Takala 1998).
In 1997 a think tank (CEILINK) was convened with the support of the European Commission to take stock of the situation, seek inter-‐disciplinary cooperation, and establish future oriented action plans. This led to publication of ‘CLIL Initiatives for the Millennium’ (Marsh & Marsland 1998). Efforts to disseminate information where supported by the European Commission co-‐supporting development of a broadcast quality video, InterTalk, and a host of actions were subsequent by which to raise public awareness. This was followed by a range of publications designed for parents and young people (see, for example Marsh & Langé 2000). In 2001 a European survey was published, Profiling European CLIL Classrooms (Marsh, Maljers, Hartiala 2001), which reported on reasons why schools wished to introduce CLIL. Five dimensions were found, culture; environment; language;
content, and learning.
From the late 1990-‐2001 an increasing range of materials were published to support CLIL. Some of these resulted from the ongoing coordination of activities by the European Platform for Dutch Education and the University of Jyväskylä (see, for example, Marsh & Marsland 1999; Marsh & Langé 1999; Marsh, Ennser & Sygmund 1999; Marsh & Langé 2000a; Marsh & Langé 2000b; Marsh, Marsland & Stenburg 2001; In 1998, a resource base was established covering research and materials in different European languages (Marsh & Marsland, 1998). At the same time many others publications and resources were being independently produced across Europe by different experts and entities.
REFERENCES
Asikainen et al. (2010) Talking the Future 2010 – 2020: CCN Foresight Think Tank Report. Languages in Education. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyväskylä.
Beetsma, D. (2002) Trilingual Primary Education in Europe. Inventory of the provisions for trilingual primary education in minority language communities of the European Union, Leeuwarden: Mercator-‐Education: Fryske Akademy.
CCN (2008) The CLIL Fusion Communiqué, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Civil Society Platform on Multilingualism (2011) Multilingualism in the European Union, 09 June, Brussels.
Council of Europe (1991/1993) Workshops 12A, 12B, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe (1997) Language learning for European citizenship – Final Report of the Project Group (Activities 1989-‐1996), Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Council of Europe (2009) DG IV / EDU/ LANG 2009, A platform of resources and references for plurilingual and intercultural education, Strasbourg.
Council of the European Union (2005) 3 May, The Changing European Classroom:
The potential of plurilingual education, 8392/05: Brussels.
Education Council, (1976) 9 February, Resolution, Brussels.
Education Council (1983) Brussels.
Education Council (1984) 4 June, Resolution, Brussels.
Education Council (1985) 27 September, Brussels.
Education Council (1988) 11 February, Brussels.
Education Council (1995a) 31 March, Brussels.
Education Council (1995b), Brussels.
Education Council (1995c) Resolution 31 March, Brussels.
Education Council (1996) Official Journal L 306, Brussels.
Education Council (1997) Resolution 16 December, Brussels.
Education Council (2000) 14 December, Brussels.
Education Council (2002) Resolution, Brussels.
Education Council (2009) Conclusions on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) Official Journal C 119, 28/05/2009
P. 0002 – 0010.
EEC Council (1958) Regulation No.1, June, EEC.
European Commission (1978) Proposal 14 June, Brussels.
European Commission (1996), White Paper, Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society, Brussels.
European Commission (1996) Green Paper, The Obstacles to Transnational Mobility Green Paper: Brussels.
European Commission (2001) Committee of Regions, Opinion of the Committee of the Regions, Brussels.
European Commission (2003a) The 2003 Education & Training 2010 Communication by the European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission (2003) Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity 2004-‐2006, Brussels.
European Commission (2005) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, The European economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism, Brussels.
European Commission (2007) Working Document, Report on the implementation of the Action Plan, Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity, Brussels.
European Commission (2006) The Main Pedagogical Principles underlying the Teaching of Languages to Very Young Learners, Brussels.
European Commission (2006), Communication, Education & Training 2010, The success of the Lisbon strategy depends on urgent reforms, Brussels.
European Commission (2007) Outcomes of the European Commission’s public consultation on multilingualism, Brussels.
European Commission (2008) Languages Mean Business: Recommendations from the Business Forum for Multilingualism, Brussels.
European Commission (2008) Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions, Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment, Brussels.
European Council (1983), Stuttgart.
European Council (1985) Milan.
European Council (1989) Brussels.
European Council (2000) Lisbon.
European Council (2008) Resolution, Brussels.
European Council Resolution (2008) European strategy for multilingualism, Official Journal C 320, Brussels.
European Council (2004) Common Position (EC) No. 28/2004.
European Parliament (2000a) 24 January, Decision No 253/2000/EC, Brussels.
European Parliament (2000b) Decision No 508/2000/EC Establishing the Culture 2000 programme, Brussels.
European Parliament (2000c) Establishing the European Year of Languages 2001, Decision No. 1934/2000/EC, Brussels.
European Parliament (1994) Official Journal L 340, 29/12/1994. 0008-‐0024.
European Parliament (1995a) 14 March, Decision 576/98/EC, Brussels.
European Parliament (1995b) 23 October, Decision 2493/95/EC, Brussels.
European Parliament (2001) The 2001 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
European Parliament, Article 22, Brussels.
European Parliament (2006) Recommendation 2006/962/EC on key competences for lifelong learning, Official Journal L 394 of 30.12.2006, Brussels.
Eurydice (2004) Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe Eurydice: Brussels.
Fruhauf, G., Coyle D. & Christ I. (Eds.) (1996) European Models of
Bilingual/Immersion Education: European Platform for Dutch Education: Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: studies of immersion and bilingual education. Newbury House Publishers.
Maastricht Treaty, 7 February 1992: Article 126
Marsh, D. & Masih J., (1996) Teaching Content through a Foreign Language in Finland. In Fruhauf, G. D. Coyle & I. Christ (eds.), p. 45-‐67, European Models of Bilingual/Immersion Education: European Platform for Dutch Education: Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Marsh, D & B. Marsland (eds.) (1998) A Resource Base for Bilingual Educators (Bibliographie Bilingualismus und Bilingualer Unterricht), CEILINK, Jyväskylä:
University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., Marsland, B. & A. Maljers (eds.) (1998) Future Scenarios in Content and Language Integrated Learning, EuroCLIC, den Haag: European Platform for Dutch Education.
Marsh, D. & Marsland,B. (1999). Marsh, D & B. Marsland (eds.) Fremdsprachlicher Fachunterricht: Ein Fernkurs zur Lehrerfortbildung, 2, DIESELL, Jyväskylä:
University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D. & G. Langé (eds.) (1999) Implementing Content and Language Integrated Learning – A research-‐driven foundation course reader. TIE-‐CLIL: Milan, Jyväskylä:
University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., Ennser C. & Sygmund, D. (1999) Pursuing Plurilingualism, vers le Plurilinguisme, Unterrichtsziel Mehrsprachigkeit. DIESeLL, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D. & Langé, G. (eds.) (2000) Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages: TIE-‐CLIL: University of Jyväskylä & Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione:
Milan.
Marsh, D & Langé, G. (eds.) (2000) Apprendimento Integrato di Lingua e Contenuti:
Proposte di Realizzazione. Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione regionale per la Lombardia: Milan.
Marsh, D., Marsland, B. & Stenberg, K. (2001) Integrating Competencies for Working Life. VocTalk: University of Jyväskylä & The European Platform for Dutch
Education: The Hague.
Marsh, D., Bognar A., Coyle, D. & Takala, S. (eds.) (1998) Content and Language Integrated Learning in Vocational & Professional Education. Report on Workshop 20/97, 35p, European Centre for Modern Languages, Graz: Council of Europe.
Marsh, D. & Marsland, B. (eds.) (1999) CLIL Initiatives for the Millennium. CEILINK, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D., Maljers, A. & Hartiala A-‐K. (eds.) (2001) Profiling European CLIL Classrooms. UNICOM, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä & en Haag: European Platform for Dutch Education.
Marsh, D. (2000) An introduction to content and language integrated learning for
Languages, Marsh, D. & Langé, G. (eds.) TIE-‐CLIL, . Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, Direzione regionale per la Lombardia: Milan.
Marsh, D., Takala. S & Nikula, T. (1998) Bilingual Education, in Takala, S. &
Sajavaara,K. Kielikoulutus Suomessa (trans. Language Teaching in Finland), p.139-‐
170, Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.
Marsh, D. & T. Nikula, (1998) Terminological Considerations regarding Content and Language Integrated Learning. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquee, Neuchatal:
Switzerland.
Marsh, D.,Takala, S. & Nikula, T. (1997) Teacher Training in Bilingual Education:
Finland. In Teacher Training in Bilingual Education, Language Teacher Training &
Bilingual Education, p. 27-‐47, The European Language Council: Berlin.
Marsh, D. (1997) Lifelong Learning of LWULT Languages. New Partnerships in Least Widely used and less Taught (LWULT) Languages, p.47-‐56, DGXXII, Helsinki: Centre for International Mobility & National Board of Education: Finland.
Marsh, D. & Masih, J. (1996) Teaching Content through a Foreign Language in Finland. In Fruhauf, G. D. Coyle & I. Christ (eds.), p. 45-‐67, European Models of Bilingual/Immersion Education: European Platform for Dutch Education: Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Nikula, T. & Marsh, D. (1997) Vieraskielisen Opetuksen Tavoitteet ja Toteuttaminen.
National Board of Education, Finland. (trans. Content and Language Integrated Learning in the Primary and Secondary Sectors), Helsinki: National Board of Education, Finland.
Pohjanvirta, Z., Blumchen, A., Lindström, A., Mustajoki, A., Nurmimen, E., Mustaparta, A-‐K., Lindroos, K., Marsh, D., Roman, A. & Tommila, L. (1998)
Vieraskielinen Ylioppilastutkinto (trans. The Matriculation Examination in a Foreign Language) Working Group Report 21:98, 23p. Ministry of Education: Finland.
Presidency to Education Committee (1995) 6 January, Draft Resolution, Brussels.
Chapter 2 Special Educational Needs in Europe: The Teaching & Learning of Languages. 2006. European Commission: Public Services Contract DG EAC 230303, Brussels: European Commission
2.1 Cognitive Engagement, Problem-‐solving and Higher-‐order Thinking Development of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodologies has focused on cognition for some years (see, for example, Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2011). This has been in terms of thinking and learning skills, and in accommodating diverse types of student, with often diverse levels of competence in the vehicular language.
Diversity can make teaching contexts more complex. However diversity has become a reality in many European Union schools (Eurydice 2009) and, can also be exploited to introduce advantage if an individualised learning path approach is adopted. Diversity in schools is not only related to the impact of migration. It is also linked to the inclusion into mainstream classes of young people with special or specific needs, which is commonplace across the European Union (European Agency for development in Special Needs Education 2010). It can also be linked to early childhood lifestyle differences of children with respect to use of technologies (Hargreaves 1994; Bain & Weston 2011; Howard Jones 2010, Howard Jones 2011a, 2011b).
Content and Language Integrated Learning has involved teaching and learning practices which accommodate diversity (Alton-‐lee, 2003). In so doing emphasis has been made on the issue of cognition, and how individuals learn. The correlation between individualized learning approaches and educational outcomes is being increasingly examined as a success factor in educational practice (Hill & Russell, 1999; OECD 2002; OECD 2006; Sahlberg 2011). ‘The dominant model in many Western societies has emphasized a transmission 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-‐controlled and teacher-‐led. Alternative, social-‐constructivist approaches to learning emphasize ‘the centrality of student experience and the importance of encouraging active student learning rather than a passive reception of knowledge’
(Cummins, 2005: 108).
Social-‐constructivist learning in essence focuses on interactive, mediated and student-‐led learning. This kind of scenario requires social interaction between learners and teachers and scaffolded (that is, supported) learning by someone or something more ‘expert’ – that might be the teacher, other learners or resources.
When learners are able to accommodate cognitive challenge – that is, to deal with new knowledge – they are likely to be engaged in interacting with ‘expert’ others and peers to develop their individual thinking. Vygotsky (1978) introduced the term ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD) to describe the kind of learning which is always challenging yet potentially within reach of individual learners on condition that appropriate support, scaffolding and guidance is provided. In settings shaped by social-‐constructivist approaches, the teacher’s role involves facilitating cognitive challenge within an individual’s ZPD. This involves the teacher in maintaining a balance between cognitive challenge for learners and appropriate and decreasing support as learners progress’ (Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2011:28-‐29).
In order for teachers to respond to this trend towards individualized learning and the challenges posed by diversity, it is necessary to link back to the notion of multiple intelligences (Gardner 1999); cognitive process taxonomies (Bloom 1956;
Anderson & Krathwohl 2001; Marzano 2000; Hayes et al 2005); and learning skills (van Lier 1996). This is happening in an age of rapid change where ‘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, 2005:749-‐750).
It is argued that ‘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’ (Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2011:28) but when teaching through a foreign language it is often essential to maximize both quality and effectiveness of teaching. This is because of the added dimension of linguistic competences, the link between language and thought (REF), and the impact of quality teaching on student’s learning outcomes (Laczko-‐Kerr & Berliner 2002; Wenglinsky 2002).
Interest in accommodating diversity, and developing student’s thinking skills in educational contexts where a group of students may not be at the same linguistic or cognitive level, has presented a challenge for practitioners and researchers (McGuiness 1999). This is a particular area of interest for those scholars who are exploring inter-‐disciplinary collaboration in seeking to determine evidence-‐based linkage between thinking, brain and learning processes (see, for instance, Koizumi 1999; OECD 2002; Fischer et al. 2007; OECD 2007; Hinton, Miyamoto & della Chiesa 2008).
2.2 Learners with Special and Specific Needs
Special Educational Needs is a term that is understood in different ways across the European Union. This is equally true of the term Specific Educational Needs.
Definitions are influences by legislative, educational, medical, and even funding