Sign in Register

News Sport Comment Culture Business Money Life & style Travel Environment TV Video Data Mobile Offers Jobs

Go to: Guardian Unlimited home Go

NewsGuardian

Home Free trial Gift offer Guardian Monthly Games Email servicesOutlook Students Learning English Guardian Abroad Contact us Other publications

InformationInformationFour week free trialContact usCustomer serviceEmail servicesFAQ

Adding language withouttaking away

Where English has been imposed as the languageof instruction the result has often been failure. Theway forward is a sensitive and collaborativeintegration of language and content, argues DavidMarsh

Guardian WeeklyGuardian Weekly

There is a marked difference between teaching in Englishand teaching through English. Globally, teaching inEnglish is spreading like wildfire from primary to highereducation. Meanwhile teaching through English is steadilydeveloping as an educational methodology, particularly inEurope. Content and Language Integrated Learning (Clil) involvesintegration of language teaching into the learning ofother subjects. Clil invites confusion as it doescontroversy. Much of this derives from misunderstandingthe apparently subtle, yet fundamental differencebetween "in" and "through". Caustically referred to as the language of instruction, ifnot occasionally destruction, adoption of English as themedium of learning is responsible for widespread schoolwastage in various continents. From Africa to Asia, fromBolivia to Brunei, the use of a foreign language as themedium of instruction is directly linked to educationalexclusion. Medium of instruction language problems are by nomeans exclusive to some continents more than others.These issues span the world. Teaching in English, withoutadoption of appropriate language-sensitive curricula andmethodologies, inevitably leads to confusion, despair andhigh drop-out rates. Clil, as in teaching through English, always involves dual-focused aims. In a Clil class, attention is simultaneouslygiven to both topic and language. Colloquially describedas using languages to learn and learning to uselanguages, it can be viewed as the next phase of the1970s' communicative revolution. Clil is not new.Although the term was adopted in the 1990s, successfulimplementation of such dual-focused learning stretchesback many decades. Clil is a generic term, which coverssome 20 or more educational approaches. Althoughthese differ in terminology (immersion, languages acrossthe curriculum, bilingual education, etc), they sharecertain common methodologies. Clil was introduced asan inclusive "umbrella" term by which to capture andfurther develop these. What is new about Clil is that it is cascading intomainstream education, having previously been foundonly in special regions, or elite forms of education. Inaddition, there is now greater understanding of the

addition, there is now greater understanding of thecognitive and development advantages of this type ofeducation. But for these successes to be achieved,teaching through English requires much more than justteaching in English. The essence of Clil is in integration. The methods used inthe classroom depend on a set of core variables. Theseare interwoven into the curriculum, and realised throughclassroom practice. They revolve around the type ofsubject learnt, the cognitive demands involved, and thepupils' linguistic load. But there are others linked to theeducational environment. Is it Ethiopia, where policymakes English an educational lingua franca such thatsecondary students learn subjects in English? Or is it -England, where Clil is used to achieve the added value ofenhanced foreign language competence? The reasonsfor introducing Clil are diverse but the core chemistry ismethodological. When Clil is incorporated into the curriculum, languagetakes its position at the centre of the whole educationalenterprise. All teachers take responsibility for nurturingits development in the classroom. This is becausesuccessful language acquisition depends on the amount,quality and richness of input. Yet not all input becomesintake. And if there is limited intake then there will beequally limited opportun-ities for output, which is therealisation of meaningful language usage. In successfulexamples of Clil all teachers consider themselves to beresponsible for language development to a greater orlesser extent, even if the language focus is very, verysmall indeed. Clil does not necessarily correlate with the maximumexposure hypothesis (the more you have the better youbecome). This has been an erroneous assumption in theintroduction of teaching in English. A small amount oflearning through a foreign language can go a long way

towards achieving various positive outcomes. This couldbe as simple, yet as import-ant, as developing languagelearner self-confidence. It can also be found throughtapping into preferred language learning styles for whichthere is often too little time available in formal languagelessons. Clil presents an opportunity and a threat to acceptedELT practice. The so-called communicative dimension oflanguage teaching, where the language is treated as afunctional tool rather than the explicit object of study, isnow moving into the realm of subject teaching. Ofteninvolving few contact hours where students learnappropriate topics, rather than whole subjects, Clilcomplements parallel formal language instruction. This has direct implications that are likely to impact ondifferent types of ELT practitioners. One feature of Clilteacher competence relates to good understanding ofthe major first language of the environment. In thisrespect, the non-native speaker of English is emerging asa particularly successful Clil teacher. The role of thenative speaker EFL teacher, if monolingual and employedto encourage language practice, is likely to beundermined. Some have asked if Clil is the trojan horse that iscarrying English ever deeper into the European nationaleducational systems. Accepting the metaphor, otherssee it as a means of driving even better teaching andlearning practice into the heart of education. The debateis active and the ELT -practitioner needs to ensure thatshe is not sidelined. Such a sea-change in educationalphilosophy offers opportunities for enhancingprofessional performance. Formal language teaching is part of the Clil approach, solanguage teachers who re-position their teachingphilosophy according to the new demands could, in fact,

philosophy according to the new demands could, in fact,become conductors of the orchestra within the newlanguage learning framework. There is potential here forELT practitioners to regenerate their profession, but, bynot recognising the impact of Clil, they also run the riskof missing opportunities. In addition to internationalisation, there are variouscatalysts behind this contemporary Clil cascade. One ofthese is increasingly widespread access to theconverging technologies. The mindset orientation ofGeneration Y (born 1982-2001) is particularly focusedon immediacy as in "learn as you use, use as you learn -not learn now, use later". Generation C (2002-2025) willbe even more influenced by early experience ofintegrated media, curricula and practice. Another concerns cultural shifts in the teachingprofession. Generation Y, increasingly at ease withmobility, foreign languages and with a preference forlearning by doing will shortly be appearing as teachers in

schools. These teachers will have even greater capacityfor Clil. Globally, other drivers exist, ranging from interest in thevalue of cross-curricular approaches, through to anincreasing tendency towards market-orientededucational culture. Although there are substantialdifferences in application globally, there are coremethodological and theoretical issues common todifferent regions. Teaching in English can easily lead to language problems.Teaching through English can unleash language potential.These are early days in the emergence of Clil. If the -European models continue to take root, and be justifiedthrough the types of research now being published,there could be a positive knock-on effect globally. It isclear that dual-focused Clil methodol-ogies haveimmense potential in easing the language burden incertain countries, as in enhancing language learning inothers.

David Marsh, of the University of Jyvskyl, Finland, is aleading expert on Clil in Europe

You can also send send us your comments about Clil andEnglish medium and we will add these to a feedbacksection clil.debate@guardian.co.uk

Go back to the Clil Debate main page

Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Advertising guide | A-Z index | Inside guardian.co.uk | About this siteJoin our dating site today

guardian.co.uk Guardian News and Media Limited 2011