Is CLIL the Approach of the Future?

By Reina M. Becerra López

Introduction

It is evident that fact that the history of the development of teaching a foreign language has
taken place in the framework were linguists have set that to understand the society means a deep
understanding of language evolution can only come from the concerted, joint effort of
researchers of from a huge range of disciplines (Christiansen, M. & Kirby, S., 2003). Explosion
refers to innovation, whereas plateau periods refer to the dissemination, trial, and development
and in some cases the death of innovations (Ball, 2015). The teaching of a foreign language
deals with a new communicative movement for the future, with a necessary condition for
learning a language.

To analyze various caveats according to CLIL (Content & Language Integrated Language) it is
important to go through politics, history, culture, religion and society searching to reach a
educational system or approach in which CLIL suits. It may imply advantages and
disadvantages, the defense or the repudiation of the model, depending on specific contexts.

WHAT IS CLIL?

The term CLIL was coined by David Marsh in 1994. "CLIL refers to situations where subjects,
or parts of subjects, are taught through a foreign language with dual-focused aims, namely the
learning of content and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language" (Marenzi et al., p 200-
209). CLIL stands for Content and Language Integrated Learning. It refers to teach science,
history or mathematics through a foreign language. English teachers can carry it using cross-
curricular content resulting in the simultaneous learning of content and English.

CLIL teaching has been practiced across centuries, from the Babylonian era to the early sixties
when bilingual education led around the world. Even unaware of CLIL, maybe teachers already
have been using CLIL methodology. One can describe the features attributed to CLIL in many
ways. Plus CLIL and its positive effects on language capability in established curricula, De
Zarobe (2009: 49) list other similar teaching models:

- Bilingual Integration of Languages and Disciplines (BILD);

- Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

1
- Content and Language Integration in Primary (CLIP)
- Content-based Instruction (CBI)
- Content-based Language Instruction (CBLI)
- Content-based Language Teaching (CBLT)
- English Across the Curriculum (EAC)
- English as an Academic Language (EAL)
- English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI)
- Foreign Language Immersion Program (FLIP)
- Foreign Languages as a Medium of Education (FLAME)
- Languages Across the Curriculum (LAC)
- Teaching Content Through English, and
- Teaching English Through Content.

CLIL divides language skills into BICS (basic interpersonal communicative skills, whis is
familiar for TEFL territory) and CALP (Cognitive academic language proficiency, which is for
example, the science quid). Many people have a big stake in promoting and supporting CLIL
teaching, even some governments are enthusiastic for CLIL. For instance, the United Arab
Emirates has said it wants CLIL at the secondary level, so university courses can focus in other
subjects rather than EFL.

CLIL IMPLICATIONS

After years of teaching English as a foreign language in many countries, it has been established
that 3 hours a week are not sufficient to achieve a good competence – one of the authors teaches
English at the university, and based on experience agrees with that. Additionally, the English
syllabus have a Content Based approach, so what it is found most times is that they learn how to
form a grammar structure, but they do not know how to use it in a real life situation. In this this
context CLIL implies the study of subjects such as Literature or History in a second language.
Its main aim consists the learning of that second language. Thus CLIL can lead students to
develop a positive attitude towards the second language, English in this case, trying to
encourage their response.

This is not about forgetting formal teaching of English as a foreign language, but
complementing. The students have to continue with their learning in their English lessons and in
those subjects taught in English, they will have a practice of all that already they have learned.
In this specific situation, some principals consider that CLIL may have an undesirable impact in

2
the teaching of an L2, since in CLIL contents are the most important issue. However, as the
authors consider, CLIL represents a balance between the content and the language learning.

There is another viewpoint about CLIL is not something to be improvised. Here in Ecuador,
CLIL is not something can be implemented by now. Before that important change some
resources have to get acquainted first. Moreover, nowadays the Government is interested in the
preservation of native languages rather than a foreign one. Also, the teachers generally are not
appropriately prepared to face CLIL. The teachers that teach English in public schools in
Ecuador do not employ strategies to strength the communicative competence. Continuously,
They have utilized traditional strategies that obstruct the development of such competence, as
well as language skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking) resulting in a low achievement,
for example an average of 10.3 out of 20 points (CONCELT, 2004). Finally, even those who
take part in such programs receive not as much attention as they need from their institutions or
the Government.

FIGURE 1 EF ENGLISH PROFICIENCY INDEX IN LATIN AMERICAN ‘14

The English proficient adult competence in English remains weak in Latin America. Of the 14
Latin American countries included in the Index 1, 12 have a low level competence. However, the
average EF EPI ranking in the region has improved, increasing 2.16 points since 2007. Brazil,
Chile, Colombia, Ecuador (in the 35th place out of 60) and Peru are characterized by above-
average growth, while English proficiency is not improving in Venezuela, Panama, Costa Rica,
Uruguay and El Salvador, explains the article. Figure 1 helps to understand.

Another point to bring in, certainly are students themselves. If CLIL is presented to the students
through their Maths lessons, they will be reluctant to it, and consequently will feel that it is a
challenge for them to follow the teacher. As English teachers, the authors claim that, in order to
1
EF English Proficiency Index

3
succeed, it has to be decided which subjects are going to be taught in English and, then teach
them from the very beginning, to feel CLIL with Maths in English as something natural. In
addition, there are no linguistically limited subjects: any topic can be taught in a foreign
language. But eventually, it is not expected the same lexicon in Maths and in Literature or
History. Nevertheless, the more registers the students know, better will be their linguistic
competence.

But what if the language demands of the class activity are too high for the students? Is the use of
English compulsory? Mehisto et al. (2008:105-106) claim the teacher’s consistent use of and
motivation to use the L2, while Coyle et al. (2010:15-16) argue that in some CLIL forms
interlanguage may occur. Code-switching has positive effects: it contributes to low students’
fear of failure; it permits the improvement of language proficiency in both of the languages;
and, it guarantees naturalness when debating course results.

The Cognitive Challenge

Simultaneously, learning content and language eventually is translated to a cognitive challenge.

For subject syllabus, the students need to perform specific effective skills, for instance: solving
problems, describing, classifying and comparing, as well as: analyzing, interpreting and
applying (Jordan, 1997). Obviously, it has to be done in not-their-own language.

This situation ensure anxiety and preoccupation from the fear of failure. To soft it, the academic
literature recommends an accent on short-term learning goals to construct student confidence,
and outstand the learners’ necessity of support within their individual “zone of proximal
development” (Vygotsky, 1978). Due to philosophers advocate for a constructivist approach,
supported by the clue that learning should start from the present state of knowledge and improve
out of with social interaction (Lattuca et al., 2004). In this context, many Italian schools wich in
most of the cases, encourage the pursuit individual performance goals, it might be necessary a
modification in their individualist culture and a teacher-student training process to develop the
collaborative study skills. Pair work and group work turn into essential techniques in a CLIL
class. Consequently, this change means that the teacher’s new role consist in a learning
facilitator and of manager of interpersonal skills (Dalton-Puffer, 2007:24).

Materials and Tasks Authenticity Challenge

When one decides to plan a CLIL course, will perhaps find that there is a lack of course books
and other materials. Therefore, teachers have to design and produce them. Articles,
documentaries, slide presentations result highly motivating and transforms the classroom in a

4
multicultural dimension. In other cases, if the materials are too difficult, sometimes they can be
simplified or the students need to use scaffolding.

The 4cs Framework

The 4Cs framework works as the basis of CLIL. It is used to describe the relation of the
different factors that the CLIL model includes. Coyle et al. (2010, 41) suggest that considering
this relation, effective CLIL can occur. The components of the 4Cs framework are content,
communication, cognition and culture, as portrayed in Figure 2. Thus, as Coyle et al. (ibid.)
argues, content deals with the themes that are being taught whereas communication includes
learn and use of language. Cognition, naturally, refers to the learning-thinking processes, and
culture supports the intercultural understanding and world citizenship.

FIGURE 2 THE 4CS FRAMEWORK (COYLE, HOOD AND MARSH, 2010)

As the word communication suggests, the emphasis of the language learning is on

communicative issues rather than in the traditional. Coyle et al. (2010, 54), cited by
Ainikkamäki (2013, 15) suggest that traditionally the understanding of language learning often
focus in grammatical issues, while in the CLIL context communication and learning demands of
the learning moment are emphasized. Some grammatical concerns need to be considered, thus
students will be able to communicate. In order to succeed, the teaching-learning of language
process needs to be approached from different viewpoints, and this is pointed in CLIL.

Learning Assessment and Evaluation Challenge

The integration principle of the 4Cs causes testing and evaluation problems too due to the soft
line between content and language proficiency, and of course, other questions that the
pertinence of traditional testing tools create. Educational institutional policies inevitably require
formal testing, which in CLIL may be a challenge. The evaluation should be content-based with

5
a special score taking into account both content and language performance. But in a situation
where the course is co-taught, it guarantee a satisfactory scorer reliability degree (Hughes,
2003:43), but may still the model can origin difficulties as for face validity, because the results
will not reveal whether a failure is: language or content, or both of them.

The truth is that evaluation must be done and there are reliable ways to measure the results
objectively, also including monitoring and assessment (Mehisto et al., 2008), which, agreeing
with common good practices, will consist of self- and peer-correction, self- and peer-
assessment. The experience that the authors as English teachers speaks by itself, and confess
that CLIL and good practices should provide the students with high self-esteem and give more
valuable data, because of the measuring of individual progress and performance and check a
wider spectrum of linguistic competence.

The students’ evaluation is a related topic and this area is an unpleasant but essential task. At
the beginning, the evaluation would start the monitoring and assessment tools to validate the
quality of the CLIL program. Teachers can design questionnaires at the end of each chapter to
measure the feeling effectiveness of the activities. Additionally, teachers’ portfolio could
include a record about their observations about the lessons, their problems, the possible
solutions, the progress, and their own perspectives about the activities’ impact on students.
Another activity for the teachers that would be effective is tutoring. It needs more time and
effort but should have a great positive impact on the lower-competence students. Also, the
analysis of the collected data will certainly give crucial feedback on students’ progress, which
will help the objective of improving the CLIL teaching model and the future ones.

Conclusion

Nobody can affirm that CLIL will become a standardized language learning method in the
future, and at the present time, in Ecuador it is impossible thanked to Government Policies
about the teaching-learning of English. At this moment the Ecuadorian University will not
introduce CLIL courses. But CLIL has the potential from an international perspective to boost
the motivation for language learning because of a more authentic purpose. It also seems likely
to rely on students strengths in the content to compensate their difficulties in the language.
CLIL has the authority to affect curricular language teaching positively, because of the
meaningfulness of the learning contexts.

6
BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Ainikkamäki, E. M. (2013). The intriguing human being: a cooperative CLIL material

package for teaching human anatomy and senses through English in elementary school.
- Ball, P. (2015). Content and Language Integrated Learning. FUNIBER
- BBCMUNDO (2015, February, 11th). Ecuador tiene 'nivel bajo de inglés', según informe
de Education First. Recuperado de http://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2015/02/11/nota/454
7176/ecuador-tiene-nivel-bajo-ingles-segun-informe-education-first
- Christiansen, M. H., & Kirby, S. (Eds.). (2003). Language evolution. Oxford University
Press.
- CONCELT, 2004. Evaluación ex-post proyecto CONCELT. Facultad de Filosofía, Letras y
Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador, 57 pp.
- Coyle, D., Hood, P., and Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language Integrated Learning.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press
- Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)
Classrooms. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
- de Zarobe, Y. R., & Cataln, R. M. A. J. N. (Eds.). (2009). Content and language integrated
learning: Evidence from research in Europe (Vol. 41). Multilingual Matters.
- Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
- Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for
teachers. Cambridge University Press.
- Lattuca, L. R., Voigt, L. J., & Fath, K. Q. (2004). Does interdisciplinarity promote learning?
Theoretical support and researchable questions. The Review of Higher Education, 28(1),
23-48.
- Marenzi, I., Kupetz, R., Nejdl, W., & Zerr, S. (2010). Supporting active learning in CLIL
through collaborative search. In Advances in Web-Based Learning–ICWL 2010 (pp. 200-
209). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
- Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., and Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Oxford: Macmillan
Publishers Limited
- Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press