0 of 12

E 700/ ESM 700

TEACHING MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE IN ENGLISH

MODEL OF CLIL THAT IS SUITABLE FOR TARGET CONTEXT IN ACEH

Assignment 2

By

Irfan Rusmar

211076913

Content:

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

The Concept of CLIL .......................................................................................... 2

CLIL in Indonesia ............................................................................................... 5

The Implementation of CLIL in Aceh ................................................................ 6

Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 10

Reference ......................................................................................................... 12

1 of 12

MODEL OF CLIL THAT IS SUITABLE FOR TARGET CONTEXT IN ACEH

Introduction

Recently, the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has become a newsworthy issue in the

21st Century model of teaching and learning. It is because the use of foreign language as a second

language in teaching other subjects has influenced many teachers and learners in the teaching and

learning process. Even in Indonesia, the use of foreign language as a second language in teaching other

subjects has widely developed in the diversity of sciences. In addition, based on globalization and the

need for English, the legislation of the educational system in Indonesia set up a system that requires

every school in Indonesia to have an international standard of education (Sanjaya, 2010). According to

Sanjaya explanation, the government of Indonesia imposes the international standard of education to

every region in Indonesia, with the aims that every region has at least one international school, under

the responsibility of the local government.

Hence, at the turn of the new millennium, the system of teaching and learning in Aceh, for the certain

schools, has changed according to the government policy, to be the curriculum named a bilingual

approach. This is as a consequence that there is a pressure to change the educational practice, and

adapt it to the cultural and context demand, based on technology advance and economic issues that

often communicates in English. In doing those changes, integration which involves learner, teacher and

communities has become a key concept (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010). Based on these explanations,

implementing CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is the best answer.

Therefore, this essay will focus on the implementation of CLIL and the implementation of language

learning in Indonesia, and then relate it to the educational system in Aceh, to find the suitable model of

the content and language integrated learning for the target context in Aceh.

2 of 12

The Concept of CLIL

Defining the CLIL

In the 1990s, the European commission conducted a new method of education characterized by the

renewed and enhanced interest in foreign language teaching methodology which refers to European

economy and the development of globalization (Novotna, n.d.). The new trend has drawn by relate two

things, between European and overseas tradition towards the use of foreign language as a second

language to communicate in the teaching and learning process and daily life.

After the new trend was introduced, the European commission developed the use of second language

more widely. It wanted to build up the use of foreign language not only as a way of communication, but

also as an approach and language instruction to teach the content of the subject. It suggested the

method that known as teaching content in a foreign language. In other words, the European commission

declared realization to integrate content and language in teaching and learning other subjects and called

it The Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach (Novotna, n.d.). The use of the method

is to achieve the prior objective, to increase the proficiency of foreign language as well as understanding

the content of learning the subject. As revealed by Krashen’s view, in Costa and Coleman (2010: 19),

that said, “L2 as a medium of learning offers learners a substantial amount of comprehensible input”.

The content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is a broad definition used to refer to teaching non-

language subjects through the medium of second or foreign language. It means that, CLIL suggest the

equilibrium between content and language, with the content developed through L2 (second language)

and conversely, L2 developed through learning the content. In other words, Marsh et al. (2005: 6) said,

CLIL invites a re-conceptualization of how we consider the use of language and learning. The meaning is

the CLIL enables the development of an integrated educational approach which dynamically engages

students in applying and developing language of learning, language for learning and language through

learning. It has referred as education through construction, rather than instruction.

This is reinforced by the situation in Northern Germany, where there are two students from two

different groups compared, in an event at the Kiel University, in the skill about communicative problem

solving situation. The result revealed that the student who had participated in the content and language

integrated learning class had known more synonyms in English than one who had not participated in

3 of 12

CLIL class (Klipple 2003:73). Therefore, this is similar to the explanation in

(www.cambridgeESOL.org/exams/teaching-awards/clil.html, 2008: 2) that said the positive side of CLIL

is it can make the learners rich in language.

With respect to all points above, CLIL can be defined into many variants. Some of these may be seen as a

language primary learning. Some others can be perceived as mainly content learning. The essence of

CLIL can be having status as an element, where the content and language learning is conveyed in the

same teaching and learning non-language process.

The CLIL Models

Generally, there are four main models of CLIL that developed from a variety of contextual variables,

which include context, content, language, cognition and culture. These models are namely, preschool (3-

6) years, primary (5-12) years, secondary (12-19) years, and tertiary (higher education). In preschool,

children are often involved in several games and other play-based activities. This model called

“immersion”, and involved introducing words, sounds and structure where the main focus is on

simulating and fun activities (Coyle, 2010).

In the primary (5-12 years) level, a teacher uses the simple of vehicular language, through a whole

content of learning. In addition, the purpose is to increase the motivation and build self-confidence of

students. Increasing the motivation and self confidence of students is particularly important because

Cook (2001 cited in Coyle, n.d.) said that, high motivation is one factor that encourages a successful

learning. Moreover, according to Ekstrand (1981; Hamers & Blanc, 1989; Jones 1996: 287) the greatest

advantage from the introduction of a second language in the early age is it allows a longer period of

learning, and the younger children can learn faster than older learners.

According to Coyle (2010: 18), there are 3 main models in primary level. First, model A1 (confidence-

building and introduction to a key concept), this model reinforced in using the first language as an

instruction and set-up during the teaching and learning process with language support for key concept

in CLIL language. Second, model A2 (Development of key concepts and learner autonomy), where the

key concepts provided by first and second language and the assessment of key principles in first

language; portfolio assessment in the CLIL language. This kind of model is also using bilingual material in

4 of 12

developing activities for students. Third, model A3 (Preparation for long-term CLIL program), in which

CLIL language teaching complements focus on structures and words that enable learners to enhance

their thinking skills.

At the secondary level, the more sophisticated model is allowed to be implemented. This is because the

learners have learnt more than at the primary level. Additionally, they also have improved their thinking

and learning skills. In the secondary level, there are 5 different models, first, namely dual-school

education. Its approach requires institutional cooperation to share the teaching of a specific course by

using VoIP. In this model, students also work with input from both language and content teachers.

Second is bilingual education. This approach emphasized on study a significant part of the curriculum by

using two languages, the first and the second language. The specific goals of this model are to advance

in content and improve the proficiency of the second language. In this approach, learning is

complemented by language learning which focus on interpersonal skills and cognitive language ability.

Third is an interdisciplinary module approach. In this approach, a certain module is taught in CLIL

language by other teachers from different disciplinary subject. The fourth is a language-base project,

where learners learn through both content-based and communicative learning by using authentic

resources and lastly, the specific-domain vocational CLIL, which is learners develop their competence in

CLIL language. (Coyle, 2010)

The appearance of English as a lingua franca has had also a significant impact on higher education

around the world. In a higher education, the CLIL approach could be implemented in three models.

Firstly, the plurilingual education is where the students are expected to master more than one language;

because there are more than one language is used through CLIL in different years in related content

programs. Secondly, the adjunct CLIL is where only a specific focus is taught parallel with language

teaching. Lastly, Language-embedded content course is where a content and language specialist is

teaching the students to support optimizing students’ proficiency in English (Coyle, 2010).

5 of 12

CLIL in Indonesia

The success of CLIL in several European countries has brought a significant influence to many other

countries beyond continental Europe, such as Indonesia. Clearly, in Indonesia, the use of foreign

language in the content of teaching and learning process has started five years ago. It is evidently

enlightened in the educational law of Indonesian Republic No. 20 year 2003 about SISDIKNAS that

explained, the government and/or the local government held at least one unit of the educational system

and developed the system to be an international-based education. This law emphasized the educational

system of Indonesia in using foreign language, English, as a medium for teaching content of the subject.

Unfortunately, there are only in a few urban areas, such as Jakarta, Bandung and Yogyakarta that have

implemented CLIL as a medium of teaching and learning process. On the other hand, other provinces

such as Aceh do not know the terms of CLIL in teaching and learning content. Furthermore, in Aceh, the

people are more likely in using the terms of bilingual approach for the teaching and learning by using

second language.

However, in reality, several schools organizers are still finding the difficulties in realizing the use of

foreign or second language in teaching content to students. The main problem is still centered on the

ability of teachers to understand both languages, whether science in English or English communication.

Infante (n.d.: 156) said that it is not often easy to find a teacher who is ready to involve in the CLIL

methodology. The main difficulties go ahead of prerequisite skills.

It will be difficult for teachers and learners in teaching and learning the content in English, if the they do

not attain a minimum level of language proficiency or BICS. In other words, both teachers and students

are need to achieve a level beyond BICS and a substantial level of CALP (Cognitive/Academic Language

Proficiency) for effective teaching and learning other subjects, especially in foreign or second language

(Cummins, 1980 cited in Lim & Presmeg, 2010).

Another issue, faced by the Indonesian teachers and learners is the style of assessment. The

assessments are still using Indonesian language to assess the learners, whether during the final

semester tests or national examination. This kind of test, I believe cannot help the students to develop

6 of 12

their proficiency in English. The reason is because of the language that appear in the tests is not similar

with the language of teaching and learning activities.

According to those issues about implementing CLIL in Indonesia, CLIL topic or project planning

framework that called 4C’s framework need to considered as a proportional way, to improve the use of

CLIL in the teaching and learning process. There are four guiding principles upon which CLIL program can

be built, namely content, communication, cognitive and culture. Therefore, before implementing CLIL in

their teaching, the teachers should think about four guiding principles of CLIL (Coyle, 2005).

The Implementation of CLIL in Aceh

Situation of Language Learning in Aceh

After the Tsunami came to Aceh in 2004, the use of English evolved not only as a foreign language, but

also as a second language. The communicative approach and practical language competence seeped in

to every part of the people life. It is not surprising therefore the language educators were instrumental

formed a new linguistic Aceh order as a formal policy about English at schools.

Through several schools, students are required to learn English implicitly inside the content of other

lessons. This is named a bilingual learning process. In short, for the minister of education, there are a lot

of advantages which can be obtained from this situation. First, in the case of they do not have to form a

new national curriculum system for improve students’ ability in English and second, in the context of

saving budget cuts and saving a program in state of education (Klipple 2003: 74). Moreover, the data

from Scholarship Commission Aceh reveals that learners’ motivations also receive a significant increase

in subject taught in foreign and second language in Aceh.

However, based on the experiences in teaching Mathematics in bilingual classes in some schools in

Aceh, I conclude that the use of English in such subjects is still at the level contextualized of language. It

is because the content of lessons, such as mathematics and science, are included as a topic in the ESL/

English lesson. So that, students are learning about content and language integrated learning only

through the English lesson taught by the English teacher, with the subject teachers are only as the

informant for the English teacher. Meanwhile, in the process of learning mathematics and science,

7 of 12

students and teachers still using Bahasa Indonesia as the core of learning. English is only as an

introduction of teaching and learning process.

In my opinion, the English proficiency of both teachers and students are considered as the main

problem. Therefore, both teachers and students have to attain the level of linguistic beyond the

minimum standard of linguistic to perform mathematics and science teaching in other languages.

The Model of CLIL that Recommended to be used in Aceh

In Aceh, as mentioned above, both teachers and students are still insufficient in developing their

language skills to deeply involve in the teaching and learning process in foreign or second languages. The

impact is, there will create several shock syndrome, misunderstanding, misconception and sometimes

will unmotivated to achieve a well process of learning, if the process is still implemented in an

inappropriate approaches. Moreover, it could be more complicated, when the lesson that taught by the

teachers is cognitively demanding. As expressed by Cummins (1984 cited in Jones, 1996), the cognitively

demanding subjects will require a good level of language target skills. Then, he also argues that a child’s

language-cognitive abilities need to enough develop to cope with the curricular processes of the

classroom. Moreover, he distinguished the language skills into two different levels: basic interpersonal

communication skill (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency. ). He also argues that children

will be able to cope with the school curriculum if only their CALP is sufficiently developed. Cummins has

made the concept of BICS and CALP as present below:

Figure 1. Adapted from Cummins (1984 cited in Coyle, 2007)

As shown in the diagram, BICS is the minimum level of language that requires lower cognitive and

linguistic demand. In contrast, CALP is the maximum language skill that requires higher cognitive and

language demand. To achieve an effective teaching and learning process in mathematics and sciences in

other languages, both teachers and students have to attain the linguistic level beyond BICS and

8 of 12

substantially in CALP (Cummins 1980 cited in Lim & Presmeg, 2010). However, to attain those levels of

linguistic, the cognitive progression of students needs to be maintained by accessing content gradually

from lower to higher cognitively demanding and language. It means that, when a teacher wants to teach

a subject by using CLIL approach, he must use the Cummins diagram as a tool to audit learning

materials, to match these to their learners’ needs and to monitor the progression in terms of linguistic

and cognitive development. Thus, a model that going implemented in Aceh should consider the level of

BICS and CALP of the learners and should not take a pressure in teaching the subjects. It means that,

teachers must give the lesson steadily, according to the level of the development of learners’ linguistic

and cognitive.

The proposed model that is appropriate with the context in Aceh is the second model of Coyle (2010) in

secondary level, namely “bilingual education”, with slightly changes and modification. The changes and

modification here, I consider according to the situation of teachers, learners and environment in Aceh.

Moreover, according to Bruneian system (Jones, 1996), I consider to plan an alternative distribution of

the subjects that will be taught in English, Indonesian and mix language.

English Medium Indonesian Medium English-Indonesian Medium

Lower Secondary

History

English

Physical Education

Arts & Handicraft

Bahasa Indonesia

Islamic Religious Knowledge

Civics

Physics

Mathematics and Science

(Biology), Geography

First Upper Secondary

History

English

Physical Education

Arts & Handicraft

Bahasa Indonesia

Islamic Religious Knowledge

Civics

Mathematics and Science

(Biology, Chemistry, Physics)

Geography

Economics

Second and last year Upper

Secondary

Mathematics and Science

(Biology, Chemistry, Physics)

English

Physical Education

Bahasa Indonesia

Islamic Religious Knowledge

Civics

9 of 12

Anthropology

Sociology

Geography

History/ Arts & Handicraft

(depending on stream)

I suggested this content distribution from the lower secondary level because the BICS and CALP of the

first language is starting to develop from this level of students. In the lower secondary and first year

upper secondary level, it would be good to teach the cognitively demanding subjects in Bahasa

Indonesia, and for the cognitively undemanding subjects proposed in English medium. Meanwhile, for

the subjects that I think in the middle should be taught bilingually.

In the second and last year of upper secondary students, cognitively demanding and undemanding

subjects could be taught by using English medium. The reason is when a student has achieved a higher

level of study and being older, they will seem to acquire L2 morphology and syntax faster than younger

student (Ervin-Tripp, 1974; Jones, 1996). Subsequently, for Bahasa Indonesia, Islamic Religious

Knowledge and Civics are still based on the identity of nationalism and religious. Therefore, it will be

good to teach these subjects in Bahasa Indonesia medium, with the purpose to maintain the meaning of

the content.

Besides the strategies above, I believe, other strategies such as, code-switching, accepting ‘hybrid’ forms

of students, do not over pressurize, and be consistent in our repetition, are also consider as the

important method in teaching through bilingual education, to exploit classroom language effectively.

There are four strategies to exploit classroom language and understand about the content of the lesson.

1. Code-switching

As Notion (2003) said, the use of first language in teaching other subjects by using the second language

is extremely important at least for three things, including to increase the understanding about second

language proficiency, to minimize the source of embarrassment and to facilitate the effective

communication among the learners with the aims to increase understanding about the content of the

lesson.

2. Accept ‘hybrid’ forms of students

Accept students’ effort to use English with the positive attitude, to motivate them in learning by using

English.

10 of 12

3. Do not over pressurize

It would be beneficial after the students repeat new expression in chorus, we as a teacher can ask them

for repetition. However, do not over-correct and over-pressure because it will lose any students’

confidence.

4. Be consistent in our repetition

Do not expect the students to hear the new expression at once and remember it. Ask them repeat the

expression in many times until it sticks in their memory. Get them to repeat it occasionally to build their

confidence. (Cited in Sehacesaber website, n.d.)

Additionally, for the learning materials, I propose the teacher to find it in the foreign or second

language. I noted that the materials were usually given in foreign or second language, often given

considerable concern by the teachers whether in preparing or presenting it. The reason is, because of

language should be easier accessible in English by the teachers and learners.

Conclusion

In practice, CLIL is implemented in a variety of ways and makes use of various forms of instruction. One

of the variables that common occurs in Indonesia, specifically Aceh, is the teachers and learners

proficiency in foreign or second language (English). In some countries, CLIL starts in kindergartens

(Jovotna, n.d.), however in some other countries, based on constrain of various points, CLIL could be

started in the secondary level.

Accordingly, in my opinion, in Aceh CLIL would be advantageous, if it started in the secondary level of

learners. As Ervin-Tripp (1975; Jones, 1996) said, older learners seem to acquire L2 morphology faster

than younger students. CLIL in secondary level usually means the teaching several selected subjects in

foreign language. Furthermore, according to the learners and teachers proficiency and environment of

education, the model of CLIL that appropriate to use in Aceh context is “bilingual education”. As we

know, through bilingual education, learners can learn the content of the lesson by using two languages,

such as English-Indonesian. As explained in Notion (2003), that the first language of learners can play a

useful role in some strands of learning in second-language classes. Therefore, it is important to say that

11 of 12

we need to find out more about CLIL before we decide to adopt the approach into the teaching and

learning process. More we learn could make its implementation more appropriately. By learning more

about CLIL, we can recognize which model is suitable to use in a certain situation for any specific area.

12 of 12

References

Cambridge Assessment Group. (2008). Teaching Knowledge Test, Content and Language Integrated

Learning. Cambridge Teacher Handbook for Teachers. University of Cambridge ESOL

Examination. Retrieved on 27th December 2010 in: www.cambridgeESOL.org/exams/teaching-

awards/clil.html

Costa, F., Coleman, J.A. (2010). Integrating Content and Language in Higher Education in Italy: Ongoing

Research In: International CLIL Research Journal. Vol. 1 (3) 2010 [online]. Retrieved on 23rd

December 2010 in http://www.icrj.eu/13-741

Coyle, D. (2005). Planning Tools for Teachers [Online]. Retrieved on 24thDecember 2010 in

http://s3.amazonaws.com/ppt-download/theoreticalframework-090316135155-

phpapp01.pdf?Signature=rmtwaQCf8Mh%2BTqi/lYpeo/yrpSg%3D&Expires=1293126573&AWSAccessKeyI

d=AKIAJLJT267DEGKZDHEQ

Coyle, D. (2007). Content and Language Integrated learning: Towards A Connected Research Agenda for

CLIL Pedagogies. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, Vol. 10, No. 5,

2007.

Coyle, D. et al. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Cambridge University Press.

Infante, D., et al. (n.d.). The effect of CLIL from the Perspective of Experienced Teachers [online].

Retrieved on 18th December 2010 in http://www.icpj.eu/?id=20

Jones, G. M. (1996). Bilingual Education and Syllabus Design: Towards a Workable Blueprint. Journal of

Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(2 – 4), 280 – 293.

Klipple, F. (2003). New Prospect or Imminent Danger?: The Impact of English Medium Instruction on

Education in Germany. Prospect, 18(1), 68 – 81.

Lim, C. S. & Presmeg, N. (2010).Teaching Mathematics in Two Languages: A Teaching Dilemma of

Malaysian Chinese Primary Schools. International Journal of Science and Mathematics, online

first. Retrieved on 28th December 2010, from SpringerLink database.

Marsh, D. et .al. (2005). Project D3-CLIL matrix – Central workshop report 6/2005 (Graz, 3-5 November

2005). European Centre for Modern Languages [online]. Retrieved on 18th December 2010 in

http://repository.wit.ie/127/1/wsrep.pdf

Novotna, J., Hofmannova, M. (n.d.). CLIL and Mathematics Education [online]. Retrieved on 18th

December 2010 in http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Jnovotna.PDF

Sanjaya, K. (2010). Dampak RSBI/SBI [Online]. Indonesia Educate website. Retrieved on 18th December

2010 in: http://indonesiaeducate.org/dampak-rsbi-sbi.html

13 of 12

Sehacesaber.org. retrieved on 27th December 2010 in: http://www.sehacesaber.org/sehacesaber-

admin/userfiles/file/90743_BEST_1(1).pdf

Widdiharto, R. et al.(2008). Pengenalan Bahasa Inggris untuk Pembelajaran Matematika SMP. Paket

Fasilitasi Pemberdayaan KKG/MGMP Matematika. Pusat Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan

Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan Matematika. Yogyakarta-Indonesia.