TEA CHERS’ST RATEGI ES

IN
CONTEN T A ND LANGU AGE
INTE GRATED LEARNING
(CLI L) I N C ATAL ON IA.
A preliminary, exploratory study.

ISB5-B AR CEL ON A
Carmen Pérez-Vidal
Universitat Pompeu Fabra
[email protected]
OUTLINE OF THE TALK

• CLIL: a form of bilingual education

• Research in content and language instruction and

on SLA

• The study
 JUSTIFICATION AND
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

 ALPME Advanced Level Programme in

Multilingual Education
 European Commission funded project
• (2001-2004)

 www.upf.es/dtf/alpme
 CLIL DEFINED I

 Approach in which curricular subjects, such

as History or Mathematics, or parts of
subjects are taught through the medium
of a second or foreign language.

 Learners are dealing with content matter in

a language they would have otherwise
learnt in conventional language classes.
 CLIL DEFINED II
 An environmental language spoken in the
community:

i.e. Catalan in Catalonia for L1 speakers of Spanish
with the normalisation decree (1983)
• (Pérez-Vidal, 2001).

 A foreign language not spoken in the

community:

i.e. German in Andalouisia, or English in Catalonia
in mainstream education.
• THE DATA IN THIS STUDY

or in Finland, Germany, Holland, France,Italy, etc…
(Grenfell, 2002).
 CLIL CHARACTERISED
 CLIL vs. similar programmes

 The rationale behind CLIL

 Its main features

 Its different modalities

 CLIL and Other programmes I
 CLIL: a specific European programme

• 1) immersion
• 2) content-based language
teaching/learning
• 3) teaching content through a foreign language
• 4) bilingual education
• 5) language enriched learning
• 6) pluri-lingual education
CLIL and Other programmes II
 BILINGUAL EDUCATION
 White Paper ‘Towards a learning society’ (1995)

 CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED

LEARNING (CLIL)
 European projects:
• BILD, DIESEL, ELC, TIE-CLIL, Compendium, ALPME.

 Nikula, Marsh (1999): ‘CLIL is an educational

approach which can enhance plurilingualism.’
 The Rationale I
 DIMENSIONS:
• 1. LINGUISTIC

• 2. EDUCATIONAL

• 3. SOCIAL

(Pérez-Vidal, 2005)
 The Rationale II
‘Linguistic’
 FROM
• UK formula ‘Language across the curriculum’

 TO
• ‘Languages across the curriculum’
• (Woolf, 1998).
 The Rationale II
‘Educational’
 CONTENT
 COGNITION
 COMMUNICATION
 (Coyle, 1998)

• ‘It is through progression in the knowledge,

skills and understanding of the content,
engagement in associated cognitive
processing and interaction in the
communicative context that learning takes place
(Coyle, 1998:7).
 The Rationale III
‘Social’
 MULTILINGUALISM AND
MULTICULTURALISM
• Ethos of European citizenship

 EUROPE WILL BE MULTILINGUAL,

• OR IT WILL NOT BE.
 CLIL Core features
 L2 is the medium of instruction.
 Overt support for the L1 exists as we are talking
about a ‘Languages across the curriculum
approach’.

Learners have limited knowledge of the L2.

Teachers are bilingual.
 The L2 curriculum in the CLIL subject parallels
the L1 curriculum.
 The classroom culture is that of the L1
community, not that of the L2 community.
 (Johson & Swain, 1997)
 CLIL Variable features
 Level at which programme starts
 Ratio of subjects/hours
 Status of subjects:
Mandatory/Eligible
 Continuity
 Resources
 Support and commitment
CLIL Modalities (Explicitness)

CLIL

CONTENT CONTENT AND LANGUAGE

(Content LANGUAGE (Language
teachers) (CLILteachers) Teachers)
 RESEARCH I
 Canadian experience
 Focused on ‘product’ or summative aspects
• (Genesee 1987:184)

 While learners in highly communicative

classes achieve higher levels of fluency and
communicative ability, these do not lead to
higher levels of accuracy or more refined
sociolinguistic skills.
• WEAKNESS IN LEARNERS’ PRODUCTIVE SKILLS,
SPOKEN AND WRITTEN, IN GRAMMATICAL AND
SOCIOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
• (Lyster, 1987)
 RESEARCH II

 ‘Balancing the experiential and

analytical approaches, that is
introducing approaches that focus on
form.’
• Harley, Allen, Cummins & Swain (1990)
 RESEARCH III
 SLA research findings

ADDING AN ANALYTICAL EXPLICIT
LEARNING APPROACH
• Particularly for young adolescents
 (DeKeyser, 2002; forthcoming)
 FOCUSING ON FORM

(Doughty & Long, 2003)

IN OTHERWISE CLT mode of instruction
 RESEARCH IV
 SLA findings warn of:

LIMITATIONS OF IMPLICIT
INSTRUCTION UNLESS IN
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS
 (DeKeyser, 2002; forthcoming)
• Stress the fact that:
 MEANING AND FORM ORIENTED
INSTRUCTION IS SIMPLY SUPERIOR TO
EITHER OF THE TWO INDIVIDUALLY

(Robinson, 1995; Hulstjin, 1989)
 COMMUNICATIVE
LANGUAGE TEACHING
(CLT)
 + Focus on meaning
 + Group work interaction
 + Genuine questions
 + Opportunities to use lang. creatively
 + Opportunities to participate in task
negotiations of topics
 FOCUS ON FORM (FoF)

 Attention drawn towards language

forms to develop linguistic awareness
which may result in uptake and
subsequently intake.
• (DeKeyser, 2002)
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 RQ1: Are the CLIL lessons analysed
COMMUNICATIVE in that teachers focus on
meaning not on form?

 RQ2: Do input and output have a high level

both quantitavely and qualitatively?

 RQ3: Do they also include instances of focus

on form?
• " The virtual absence of information
concerning the pedagogical and linguistic
strategies used by immersion teachers.
Lacking such information, we are poorly
prepared to train teachers in the most
effective instructional strategies, a
programme of research to investigate how
teachers integrated academic and
language instruction is called for."
(Genesee, 1987:18)
• "The closer we get to capturing the
strategies and techniques, the better
prepared we will be to train immersion
teachers. " (Snow, 1987:24)
 THE DATA

Table 1 Presentation of the CLIL

3 CLIL
lessons
lessons
analysed
analysed
Grad Age and N English CLIL instruction
Lessons e instruction
Geometry 6*Pr.*
6 11/12 (20) - 1020 hours
(L&C)
Physics (C ) 4 15 (18) 500 +150
ESO*
Biology (C ) 4 15 (12) 500 +60
ESO

Note: * = Mandatory subjects, the rest are eligible. + = Hours added to the English
instruction.
LANGUAGE INPUT AND OUTPUT

1. MEANING Content comprehension input: Techniques to

convey the meaning for comprehension.
2. ADAPTATION MEANING Learner-cued instruction: teacher’s
adaptation to the learners’ abilities, styles,
interests or needs, involving the learner,
implicit or explicit.
3. ADAPTATION OF LANGUAGE L2 input techniques used to help
understanding: simplified teacher-talk,
repetition; reading; reading and writing;
games and songs; non-verbal cues.
4. COMPREHENSION CHECKS Visual, physical or verbal, in the L1 or L2.
5. CLARIFICATION REQUESTS CONTENT Clarification request for content.
6. CLARIFICATION REQUESTS FORM Clarification request for form.
7. FOCUS ON FORM Explicit out-of-content teaching of the L2.
Sentences generated to focus on a grammar
point, reference to phonics, presentation of
lexis, negative feedback.
8. OUTPUT L2 output encouragement: scaffolding,
translation of L1 to L2 words, expectations of
comprehension before speech.
9. CODE-SWITCHING Into L1 to improve understanding.
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

10. SYLLABUS Reference to content taught, or to be taught.

11. LESSON Instructions for activities. Mention of the
lesson’s structure, boundary markers
between activities and subactivities.
12. MATERIALS Mention of materials production or evidence
of it.
OTHER
 RESULTS I

Figure 1. Distribution of Language and Management strategies in percentages.

100

80

60 Language

40 Managing
Other
20

0
Frequency
 RESULTS II
Figure 2. Distribution of types of strategies in percentages.

25

20

15

10

0
Frequency
Meaning Adapt.M. Adapt.L. Com p.Ch. Clar.R. M.
Clar.R. F. FoF Output Code-sw t. Syllabus
Lesson Interdiscp. Materials
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 RQ1: Are the CLIL lessons analysed
COMMUNICATIVE
 YES.

 RQ2: Are the quality and amount of input and

output high?
 YES.

 RQ3: Do they also include instances of focus

on form?

NO
 CONCLUSION
 If CLIL must draw lessons from existing research
WE MAY BE TEMPTED TO STATE:
 FoF should be included in the lessons!!

 YET
• WE NEED QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH TO MEASURE
LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT WITH CURRENT
PRACTICES, of which there is still very little, BEFORE
RUSHING TO SUCH A CONCLUSION
 Child bilingualism research I

 Child bilingualism:

 Takes place with an early and

simultaneous regular and continous
exposure and interaction in two
 Child bilingualism research II

 Often child bilingualism:

 Does not follow this pattern.

• One language dominant or stronger.

• Passive bilingualism.
 Child bilingualism research III

 Child Directed Speech (CDS):

 Use of attention getters and holders

• Names and exclamations

• Modulations: high-pitched voice, exaggerated
intonation, rise pitch
• Gestures
 Child bilingualism research IV

 Child Directed Speech (CDS):

 Selection of topics

• ‘Here and now’ topics: anticipate,

describe
• Easier words, useful
• Onomatopoeia
 Child bilingualism research V

 Child Directed Speech (CDS):

 Simplified language

• Omission of plurals
• Short, simple sentences
• Pauses
• Canonical structures, no abbreviations
• Repetitions
 What is a CLIL programme? I
IMMERSION
 Immersion for majority-language students in a
minority language:
• The Canadian case

 Immersion in a foreign language:

• The Hungarian case
• The Spanish case

 Immersion for language support and revival

• The Catalan and Basque case in Spain

 Immersion in a language of power

 What is a CLIL programme? II
Core features i)

 Additive bilingualism

 Cultural and linguistic pluralism

 Linguistic choice
 What is a CLIL programme? II
Core features ii)

 L2 is the medium of instruction

 L2 exposure is confined to the classroom
 Learners have limited knowledge of tL2
 Teachers are bilingual
 The L2 curriculum parallels the L1 curriculum
 The classroom culture is that of the L1
community, not the L2
 What is a CLIL programme? II
Variable features

 Ratio at different ages

 Continuity

 Support for students

 Resources

 Commitment

 Status of the L2 language and culture

 THE CLIL PROGRAMME I: Content

• Dynamic, motivating integrative approach.

• Learning content through a different language

allows for a deeper approach to learning.

• Studying strategies improve when combining

content and language learning.

• Work with CLIL is more demanding cognitively and

triggers creative thinking.
 THE CLIL PROGRAMME II: Language

• Quantity and quality of input.

• Quantity and quality of output

• Stimulus for interaction

• Language is the means to learn, not the object of

learning.

• ‘Incidental’ language learning, not ‘intentional’

 THE CLIL PROGRAMME III: Educational

• Cross curricular approach to language learning.

• Learning processes become important.

• Based on intrinsic motivation to learn the

content.
 THE CLIL PROGRAMME I: Social

• It promotes linguistic diversity.

• It enforces a plurilingual and pluricultural

approach.

• It takes into account different cultural

perspectives.

• It promotes European citizenship.

 THE CLIL PROGRAMME I: Success

• A CLIL programme established IS success.

• In contrast with conventional language courses

it is HIGH success.

• In contrast with native speakers performance

IT IS NOT success.
 The myth of the ideal bilingual

 An individual can think of himself/herself as a bilingual

speaker when s/he can go from one language to
another with relative ease (Lüdi, 1991:8).
 THE STUDY: OBJECTIVES

 Preliminary, exploratory, ethnographic nature.

 Investigates:
 4 state-run schools:

• 3 secondary, 1 primary
 6 teachers:
• 4 secondary, 2 primary (team teaching)
 THE STUDY: HYPOTHESES

 There is higher quality and quantity of input

and output in the TL in the CLIL classroom

 The language is a means to learn not an end

in itself

 Techniques and strategies will replicate adult-

child ones.
 THE STUDY: THE SCHOOLS

 BARCELONA:

Primary
• CEIP Vila Olímpica (PILOT SCHEME)

Secondary
• IES Valldemossa (ORATOR)
• IES Lluis de Requessens (inner city) (ORATOR)

 LLEIDA
• IES Ronda (ORATOR)
 THE STUDY: THE DATA

 Corpus of classes videoed:

 1 Geometry (Primary) (11 y.o.)

 1 Physics (Secondary, IES Ronda) (15 y.o.)

1 Biology (Secondary, IES Valldemossa) (“)
 2 History (Secondary, IES Lluis Requesens)
• 1 BAT & 2 BAT
 THE STUDY: ANALYSIS

 Bernhardts (1992) adapted: 12 types of teachers’

strategies

SYLLABUS, LESSON, INTERDISCIPLINARY, ADAPTATIONTO
CONTENT, MEANING, CHECK, MATERIAL, CLARIFICATION
FOR CONTENT, FOCUS ON FORM, ADAPTATION OF
LANGUAGE, OUTPUT, CLARIFICATION FORLANGUAGE,
CODESWITCHING
 THE STUDY: RESULTS I

 Bernhardts (1992) adapted: 12 types of teachers’

strategies

Output (25%)

Meaning (21%)

Check (17%)

Materials (11%)

Adaptation of content (8%)

Adaptation of language (3%)

Syllabus (3%)

Lesson (3%)

Focus on form, Interdisciplinary, codeswitching, clarification
requetsts(0%)
 THE STUDY: RESULTS II


Hypothesis 1: confirmed


Hypothesis 2: confirmd


Hypothesis 3: contradictory results


Highly demanding conceptually, allowing for deeper thinking.
 THE STUDY: CONCLUSION


Identified techniques


Refuted previous generalisations.


Establish hypotheses for further more robust research


CLIL programmes are highly demanding, and FRAGILE

 They are worth it……….