Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) A Development Trajectory

(1)

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) A Development Trajectory

David Marsh University of Córdoba

2012

(2)

AUTOR: DAVID MARSH

Campus de Rabanales Ctra. Nacional IV, Km. 396 A 14071 Córdoba

www.uco.es/publicaciones publicaciones@uco.es

(3)

Introduction II Topic and Scope II

Summary Introduction to the Five Publications VII Justification for the Five Publications IX Objectives of the Thesis XI Selection of Publications to Achieve these Objectives XI Primary Hypothesis XIII Description of the Scientific Dimensions of the Five Publications XIII

References XXVIII

Chapter 1 1 The European Socio-‐political Dimension CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension: Actions, Trends & Foresight Potential,

(2002) European Commission: Public Services Contract DG EAC 3601, Brussels:

European Commission

1.1 The Emergent European Dimension through Supra-‐national 1 Declarations, Resolutions, and Communication

1.2 The Emergent European Dimension through Actions, Projects 26 and Initiatives 1989 – 2001

References 31

Chapter 2 36 The Inclusion Dimension

Special Educational Needs in Europe: The Teaching & Learning of Languages, (2006) Public Services Contract DG EAC 230303, Brussels: European Commission

2.1 Cognitive Engagement, Problem-‐solving and Higher-‐order 36 Thinking

2.2. Learners with Special and Specific Needs 38 2.3 Integrated Language Learning Educational Provision 42

(4)

References 51

Chapter 3 58 The Language Awareness Dimension

Language Awareness & CLIL (2007) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, New York & Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media

3.1 Developing Language Awareness 58 3.2 Teacher’s Language Awareness 61 3.3. Learner’s Language Awareness 64 References 70

Chapter 4 77 The Emergent Educational Neurosciences Dimension

Study of the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity

(2009) Science Report, European Commission, Public Services Contract EACEA/2007/3995/2, Brussels: European Commission

4.1 Neurosciences & Education 77 4.2 Mind, Brain & Education 79

4.3 Insights from Mind, Brain & Education on Languages 81 4.4. Media-‐rich Environments, Students & Education 86

4.5 Mind, Brain, Education and CLIL 90 References 94

Chapter 5 100 Reflection on the CLIL Development Trajectory

Content and Language Integrated Learning

(2011) Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, New York: Wiley

5.1 Transforming Education in the 21^st century 100 5.2 Transformation of Education through CLIL 104 References 108

(5)

Publications for Consideration in Support of the Thesis

Publication 1: CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension: Actions, Trends & Foresight Potential (2002) European Commission:

Public Services Contract DG EAC 3601, Brussels: European Commission

Publication 2: Special Educational Needs in Europe: The Teaching & 232 Learning of Languages (2006) Public Services Contract DG EAC 230303,

Brussels: European Commission Publication 3: Language Awareness & CLIL (2007) Encyclopedia of Language 292 and Education, New York & Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media

Publication 4: Study of the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity 345 (2009) Science Report, European Commission, Public Services Contract

EACEA/2007/3995/2, Brussels: European Commission

Publication 5: Content and Language Integrated Learning 393 (2011) Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, New York: Wiley

Chapter 7 406 Discussion & Conclusions

7.1 Chapter 1 (Publication 1) 406 7.2 Chapter 2 (Publication 2) 408 7.3 Chapter 3 (Publication 3) 410 7.4 Chapter 4 (Publication 4) 411 7.5 Chapter 5 (Publication 5) 412 7.6 Relevance of the Outcomes & Implications for Educational Policies 413 7.7 Limitations of this Thesis and the Publications Included 417 7.8 Future Lines of Investigation 421

Annex 1 Spanish Language Summary: Resumen en Español 424

(6)

through an additional language is a historical global phenomenon that is often a direct result of social, political and economic strategic actions. This means that it is done for different reasons. One such reason may be interpreted as a form of repressive action. Another may be to achieve social unity. The European launch of CLIL during 1994 was both political and educational. The political driver was based on a vision that mobility across the European Union required higher levels of language competence in designated languages than was found to be the case at that point in time. The educational driver, influenced by other major bilingual initiatives such as in Canada, was to design and otherwise adapt existing language teaching approaches so as to provide a wide range of students with higher levels of competence. In forging relationships across disciplines, namely linguistic and non-‐

linguistic, educational innovation became steadily established, resulting in outcomes which led to new ways of professional cooperation within and across schools, and new ways of teaching and learning.

(7)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A Development Trajectory Introduction: Topic and Scope

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) -‐ AICLE Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y Lengua - is 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 et al. 2010). Since 1990 CLIL has emerged as an example of inter-‐

disciplinary educational convergence (Wolff, 2012) that requires multi-‐faceted research approaches (Coyle, 2007; Dalton-‐Puffer & Smit 2007; Lyster 2007;

Mehisto 2011; Bonnet 2012).

Eurydice (2006) observes that ‘One of the first pieces of legislation regarding cooperation in CLIL is the 1995 Resolution of the Council. It refers to the promotion of innovative methods and, in particular, to the teaching of classes in a foreign language for disciplines other than languages, providing bilingual teaching’

(Eurydice 2006:8). The European Commission White Paper which followed this in 1995 also noted that mainstream schools (Secondary) should consider teaching subjects in the first foreign language of the school, as in the ‘European Schools’

which exist primarily to serve the children of personnel working for the European Institutions. From 1995 to the present, European programmes, educational legislative actions and other drivers such as professional initiatives have resulted in CLIL further establishing itself in education. ‘The debate on CLIL is very much alive. Fresh initiatives to promote this still novel methodological approach will be undertaken in the years ahead, probably within the next generation of education

(8)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

and training programmes for 2007-‐2013 (Eurydice 2006:8). This has been the case, and the extent to which the position of CLIL has changed since the full European study carried out by Eurydice in 2005-‐2006 is to be found in a follow-‐up study to be reported in 2012.

Baetens Beardsmore observes that ‘the social situation in each country in general and decisions in educational policy in particular always have an effect, so there is no single blueprint of content and language integration that could be applied in the same way in different countries – no model is for export’ (1993:39). In 2006, Eurydice found that the provision of CLIL could be found in the majority of European member states. The length of experience varies considerably, as does the means by which CLIL was introduced. The status of languages used is complex to determine because of a range of terms being used to designate CLIL-‐type provision. National, regional, heritage languages may be taught using an integrative method, but termed in different ways. The most notable issue relates to terms like bilingual education and immersion.

The levels of education (ISCED 1-‐3) are the most commonly reported but this does not include pre-‐schooling, which, in turn, may not be administrated by regional educational administrative infrastructure. Whilst most activity is reported at Secondary level (Eurydice 2006:20) the emergence of integrated methodologies at earlier stages remains commonplace (Eurydice 2006: 20). The organisation and evaluation of CLIL across Europe varies considerably from use of language tests, tests on languages and other subjects, a combination of both, and open systems where students are allocated places in CLIL streams according to application and availability. The subjects taught depend largely on educational sector with creative subjects and environmental sciences prominent at primary level, and science and

(9)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

social science being reported as common to secondary level (Eurydice 2006: 24).

What is significant is the trend towards developing cross-‐subject modules which extend the degree of integration even further (Coyle, Marsh, Hood 2012). The amount of time given to CLIL-‐type provision in the curriculum ranges widely from 1-‐2 hours per week upwards. Likewise the issuance of certification depends on the scale and type of education provided, with special additional certificates being issued in some countries, additional text on existing certificates in others, to no certification but an assumption that language certification will suffice. Given the innovative nature of CLIL provision it is the case that in many countries initial implementation has been through pilot projects (Eurydice 2006:33) which eventually lead to wider implementation (e.g. Italy National Decree on provision of pre-‐service CLIL training -‐ September 2011 -‐ and in-‐service education -‐ April 2012-‐

or reduction (e.g. England). In Eurydice (2006: 51) the factors inhibiting general implementation were reported as shortage of teaching staff; costs; restrictive legislation, and lack of appropriate materials.

At the outset CLIL was described as involving a dual focus methodology (Fruhauf, Coyle & Christ 1996; Nikula & Marsh 1997; Marsh & Langé 1999; Marsh, Marsland

& Stenberg 2001) that draws on both content and language learning, and which is considered ‘integrated’ (Marsh & Nikula 1998).

The key characteristics of integrated CLIL practice as summarized by Coyle, Holmes and King (2009:14) indicate that it involves learning environments which have the potential for multi-‐variant teaching and learning objectives, and experiences. This leads to a synthesis of good practice based on appropriate content (meaningful, new, relevant); incorporation of intercultural understanding (where culture applies to a wide spectrum of forms of diverse interpretation);

(10)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

processing (personalized, peer-‐driven, and supported); and progression (sequences of learning scaffolded in relation to content and language, and the thinking demands required for progression in each).

Educational practice in general requires good teaching and learning practices if equally good learning outcomes are to be achieved with a wide cohort of students (see, for example, Wenglinsky 2000). Studies consistently report that more than 40% of the residual variance in measures of student performance is at the class or teacher level (Wright, Horn and Sanders 1996; Alton-‐Lee 2002; Darling-‐Hammond

& Baratz-‐Snowden 2005: Ingvarson & Rowe 2007). Sanders and Rivers (1996) report that over three years a high performing teacher can raise the quality of learning outcomes by 53 percentile points compared to a low-‐performing teacher with students who start at the same achievement level. In addition research on the impact of quality school leadership in schools which combines administrative and instructional practices reveal a significant impact. Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005) report an increase in student achievement of over 20 percentile points where an above-‐average principal leads a school and focuses on instructional practices. In order to successfully integrate content and language through CLIL it is understandable that expertise has focused on the means by which to achieve quality outcomes, even if practices exist where the quality of learning outcomes is low.

In recognizing that CLIL practice impacts on a range of key educational quality principals, it is the case that research needs to be multivariate. Often subject to research within a linguistic rather than non-‐linguistic framework (Dalton-‐Puffer 2007; Lasagabaster 2007; Heine 2010, Llinares, Morton & Whittaker 2012; Navés 2011; Pérez-‐Canado 2012; Ruiz de Zarobe & Jiménez Catalán 2009; Zydatiß 2012),

(11)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

CLIL practice can be interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, thematic, synergetic, or involve fusion in a form of project-‐based learning environment (Vollmer 2008).

In the last decade the dual focus on achieving simultaneous content and language learning outcomes has been influenced by multi-‐disciplinary educational research and dialogue (Mehisto 2012). This has resulted in the triple focus concept, whereby content and language goals are pursued with understanding of student cognition, usually referred to as thinking skills (Coyle et al. 2010). This triple focus is within the remit of researchers in the fields of language awareness (Svalberg 2007; Yassin et al. 2010; Llurda 2010) and the educational neurosciences (Fischer et al. 2007;

Adescope at al. 2010; Ansari et al. 2011; Campbell 2011). One of the key issues relates to being able to differentiate learning within the curriculum through understanding of the thinking skills, content, and language required to achieve successful learning.

CLIL has invited a challenge to the status quo whereby subjects are learned as separate disciplines (Wolff 2012). This is one characteristic of the CLIL development trajectory in Europe (Eurydice 2012), and increasingly in other continents such as Australia (Smala 2009; Turner 2012), East Asia (Shigeru 2011), South East Asia (Yassin 2009); and South America (Banegas 2012) over the period 1994-‐2012.

This thesis overview aims to describe the inter-‐relatedness of CLIL with respect to good educational practice (Hattie 2007; Sahlberg 2011); and new insights through certain studies of the mind and brain which influence our understanding of educational practices (OECD 2002; Pink 2005; OECD 2007; Jukes et al 2010). Thus it attempts to give attention to some aspects of the forces that have enabled the development trajectory to be driven. This is an attempt to explicate, for the first

(12)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

time, how and why this particular innovation became established in educational practice internationally in respect to selected driving forces.

Summary Introduction to the Five Publications

The research leading to publication of CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension:

Actions,Trends & Foresight Potential, (2002) European Commission: Public Services Contract DG EAC 3601, Brussels: European Commission was based on review and summary of existing research, and analysis of outcomes with respect to guiding future policy proposals and development within the European Union. The report focuses on two major issues with respect to teaching and learning through an additional language: the emergent European dimension through supra-‐ national declarations, resolutions, and communications; and the emergent European dimension through actions, projects and initiatives 1989 – 2001. The study was used in the strategic development of the European Year of Languages (2001), and the 2004-‐2006 Action Plan for Languages in Education: promoting language Learning and Linguistic Diversity.

The research leading to publication of Special Educational Needs in Europe: the Teaching & Learning of Languages (2006) Public Services Contract DG EAC 230303, Brussels: European Commission, was based on the identification of evidence to support good practices in supporting language learning for students with special and specific needs. The report focuses on identification of research which provides insights into good practice for students with a wide variety of specific educational needs. The report focuses on inter-‐linked research and practice issues: cognitive engagement, problem-‐solving and higher-‐order thinking;

(13)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

provision, and applications of SEN provision integrated content and language learning approaches. The study was used in the strategic development for the European Year of People with Disabilities (2003).

The encyclopedia article Language Awareness & CLIL, (2007) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, New York & Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media, is a review article which examines the inter-‐relationship between language awareness and CLIL. The article focuses on three main issues: developing language awareness; teacher’s language awareness, and learner’s language awareness.

The research leading to publication of Study of the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity (2009) Science Report, European Commission, Public Services Contract EACEA/2007/3995/2, Brussels: European Commission was based on a meta-‐study of available evidence to support or otherwise challenge a set of research hypotheses on the relationship between multilingualism and creativity.

The study involved examination of primary research evidence from different disciplines, the creation of a peer-‐reviewed compendium of key research reports and break-‐down of findings according to cognitive flexibility and functioning, and interpersonal communication.

The encyclopedia article Content and Language Integrated Learning (2011) Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, New York: Wiley is a review article which examines the role of CLIL within the scope of applied linguistics in respect to origins and emergence of CLIL; consolidation of insights from the educational and neurosciences; demand for languages; internet-‐based networking; and competence-‐based-‐education.

(14)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

Justification for the Five Publications

In recent years global forces have led to considerable pressures being exerted on societies. Socio-‐demographic shift, scientific and technological innovation, new knowledge and competence needs, governance, safety and security, economic shift are a few examples of where globalisation is exerting influence on existing realities.

These pressures often lead to the direct experience of change, and the recognition that change needs to be established.

Moujaes et al. (2012) examine how change has impacted on the education sector:

‘Globalization, new technology, and changing social patterns have significantly disrupted the education sector over the past decade. National education systems have scrambled to respond to these shifts, which are likely to increase in the future.

In that context, transformation in the new sector simply does not work. The specific initiatives may be well-‐intended, yet they fail during implementation. One major reason is a lack of communication and collaboration—policymakers often fail to sufficiently engage with stakeholders: school administrators, teachers, parents, students, the private sector, and the third sector (Moujaes et al. 2012:1).

Transformation can mean introduction of wholly new paradigms, or the creation of new ways of working through inter-‐connecting examples of existing good practices in novel and innovative ways.

This thesis concerns one such example of inter-‐connectedness relating to languages in education. The three report publications were all developed on the basis of Calls for Tender by the European Commission in order to understand more deeply certain aspects of change, transformation and innovative practices. These all focus through to integrated ways of providing education, and specifically

(15)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).

Each of the European Commission reports are unique. Prior to 2002, no existing research had been carried out to examine and explicate integrated language learning as a pan European phenomenon. Prior to 2006, the same applied to the teaching of languages to students in European education and institutions and the trends resulting from inclusion. Prior to 2009, the same applied to the contribution of multilingualism to creativity in relation to languages. These reports were original and innovative, and the reason why the European Commission ordered their production was because there was a knowledge deficit in each of these respective fields. The two remaining encyclopedia articles are also original in that they focus on content and language integrated learning as a cross-‐disciplinary endeavour.

‘We are entering an age where the added value of learning languages, linked with the development of inter-‐related electronic literacies, is becoming profoundly important’ is reported in the Talking the Future 2010-‐2020 CCN Foresight Think Tank Report (Asikainen et al. 2010:4). This report describes a number of factors described as driving innovation. These are neurological, cognitive, motivational and social bases of learning; dynamics of lifelong learning and the potential of E-‐

Learning 2.0/3.0; value creating networks and clusters of innovation; education systems and informal learning; human technologies that support learning;

technology-‐based and operating environments, and private and public sector educational and resources providers. The publications in this thesis include focus on the majority of these forces particularly through linking research from different disciplines to teaching and learning practices.

(16)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

Objectives of the Thesis

The primary objective of this thesis is to articulate the development of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as an educational approach which brings together complementary educational initiatives and socio-‐political requirements.

The period 1990-‐2012 has seen considerable changes in societies and demands for change in respective educational systems. Through selected reports this thesis tracks certain features of these developments as they affect curricular integration in respect to languages and non-‐language subjects.

The five publications focus on integration, inclusion, language awareness, impact of language learning and use on mind and brain, and CLIL as an educational approach.

The primary objective is addressed through a publication history, and thesis-‐

specific update and review chapters which concern four main inter-‐linked fields of educational expertise as objectives. Each of these is explored in more detail in the overview articles found in Chapters 1-‐5.

Sub-‐objective 1 Languages in Education

Publication: CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension: Actions, Trends &

Foresight Potential, (2002) European Commission: Public Services Contract DG EAC 3601, Brussels: European Commission

This publication examines historical approaches to languages in education and the emergence of deeper integration of language learning with genuine content learning and purpose. It looks at a pan-‐European development of differing initiatives which are bound by the main principle of integration of languages with non-‐language disciplines.

Sub-‐objective 2 Languages and Inclusion

(17)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

Publication: Special Educational Needs in Europe: The Teaching & Learning

of Languages, (2006) Public Services Contract DG EAC 230303,

Brussels: European Commission

This publication examines the extent to which learners with special or specific needs are given access to language learning, pan-‐European trends where inclusion requires greater access to language learning, and the means for achieving this with diverse learners through forms of integrated language learning. This then applies to a large cohort of students in mainstream education with respect to both equity and access to appropriate forms of language education.

Sub-‐objective 3 Language Awareness

Publication: Language Awareness & CLIL, (2007) Encyclopedia of Language and Education, New York & Berlin: Springer Science and Business

Media

This publication describes the relevance of two separate fields of complementary interest, language awareness where an individual develops a deeper understanding of language in use, and integrated language learning as a means to achieve this in mainstream education. The article thus articulates that through integrated approaches the development of language awareness can be achieved through means which are difficult to achieve in conventional language learning due to curricular constraints of time and standard language learning objectives.

Sub-‐objective 4 Mind, Brain and Education

Publication: Study of the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity, (2009) Science Report, European Commission, Public Services Contract EACEA/2007/3995/2, Brussels: European Commission This report examines the impact of enhanced language learning, awareness and use in respect to evidence found in significant primary research on the mind and brain.

(18)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

It argues that language use through language learning enhances impact in a way which links back to how we learn languages in education. The indicators for the advantages of more widespread exposure to integrated language learning in the curriculum is presented and justification given in respect to learning objectives required in curricula, particularly in respect to competences.

Primary Hypothesis

That the adoption of the term Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in the early 1990s as a generic term to articulate practices appropriate for dual language teaching and learning environments would take root as an emergent innovation in inter-‐linked fields of educational expertise.

Description of the Scientific Dimension of the Five Publications

This thesis is based on five core publications. Each of these has resulted from the use of one or more different methodologies. These are evidence-‐based synthesis, meta-‐analysis, narrative review, and case studies.

CLIL/EMILE – The European Dimension: Actions, Trends & Foresight Potential, (2002) European Commission: Public Services Contract DG EAC 3601, Brussels:

European Commission, concerns the teaching of a subject through a foreign language which is hereafter referred to as CLIL/EMILE: in which CLIL is an acronym for Content and Language Integrated Learning; whereas EMILE is an acronym for Enseignement d’une Matière par l’Intégration d’une Langue Etrangère.

In the original terms of reference CLIL and EMILE refer to any dual-‐focused educational context in which an additional language, thus not usually the first

(19)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

language of the learners involved, is used as a medium in the teaching and learning of non-‐language content.

The original study was one of four launched during the same period for tendering by September 2001 entitled Four Studies concerning aspects of the teaching and learning of foreign languages in Europe. These concerned the training of foreign language teachers, the early learning of foreign languages, the teaching of other subjects through the medium of a foreign language, and the impact of the use of new information technologies and Internet on the teaching of foreign languages, and on the role of teachers of a foreign language.

The rationale was to provide the Commission with evidence-‐based practical information and analysis constituting a broad survey of the situation ‘on the ground’ in Europe to guide future policy proposals and development.

The work was to be done within the framework of the 1995 White Paper

“Teaching and learning: towards the learning society” (1995), whereby the Commission stresses the importance of every European citizen being able to speak two Community languages in addition to his / her mother tongue.

The technical requirements were as follows: to review and summarise recent relevant literature, actions and developments in Europe concerning Content and Language Integrated Learning in pre-‐primary, primary, general secondary, secondary vocational and further education, analyse the results of experiments with this approach, and define the extent to which this approach is used in Europe.

Conclusions were to be drawn on: the relevance of this approach for the Commission’s overall language objectives; the potential of this approach for improving the quality of foreign language teaching; the potential of this approach

(20)

The CLIL Trajectory

Introduction

for increasing the number of successful foreign language learners; and to present at least ten detailed case studies, from at least seven different countries, of high quality innovation or best practice in this field, together with practical proposals for extending best practice in these areas to other countries. Furthermore, it was to define the conditions for the successful extension of this approach and make proposals about opportunities for further developments in this area at European or national level.

The policy focus points upon which the report was to contribute involved greater understanding of the following: the promotion of linguistic diversity (including in formal education systems) and in particular the encouragement of people to learn the less widely used and less taught languages; the objective that every citizen should be able to speak his/ her mother tongue plus two other European Community languages; improving the quality of foreign language learning; and increasing the quantity of foreign language learning.

The reference points cited included certain relevant studies, publications, databases, networks, etc., which exist at European, national or regional level., one of which was co-‐authored by this author, namely, Profiling European CLIL Classrooms (Marsh, Maljers & Hartiala 2001).

The objectives are described as in the original text as comprising analysis, observations, comment and recommendations on CLIL/ EMILE with respect to recent literature, actions, and developments in pre-‐primary, primary, general secondary, secondary vocational and further education. It analyses results of experimentation and outlines the extent to which the approach is used in Europe.

Comment and conclusions focus on the relevance of CLIL/EMILE for the European Commission’s overall language objectives, the potential of the approach for