UNIT 6:
Successful CLIL Programmes.
|
Objectives: 1. To
reflect on the ingredients of successful CLIL programmes 2. To
discuss how to implement a successful CLIL programme in each participant
context. Procedures:
1. Initial
activities (brainstorming, warming-up activities), initial evaluation tasks 2. Input
text and Individual reading of recommended articles 3. Tasks
on the texts for language teachers and subject-content teachers. 4. Assessment
(optional) Working
materials: 1
“What are the characteristics of Successful CLIL programmes? By Teresa
Naves 2
Navés, T & Muñoz, C. (1999) “Conclusions” from The Implementation of CLIL in Spain in
Marsh, D. & Langé, G. (Eds.) Implementing Content and Language
Integrated Learning. (154-156) 3
Krashen, Stephen D. Bilingual Education:
A Focus on Current Research. FOCUS: Occasional Papers in Bilingual
Education, Number 3. Spring 1991 http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed403101.html Expected
Outcomes: To be able to discuss some of the characteristics successful CLIL
experiences seem to share. |
1.
INITIAL
ACTIVITIES
1. Initial Evaluation Task 1
Strongly agree…………………………………….
Strongly disagree
1. School should
offer children from different language backgrounds, classes or some help in
their mother tongue
2. Schools should
teach some content subject areas in students L1 at early stages
3. Children's
mother tongues should be kept
4. Language
instruction which has its goal functional ability in the new language should give
greater emphasis to activities which lead to language acquisition than to
activities which lead to formal learning [i]
2. Initial Evaluation Task 2
1. Situation I.
Imagine that a couple, friends of yours, intermediate foreign language speakers
of English are planning to move to the States/ Germany / Italy / France /
Finland / Spain for more than twenty years. They are about to have children and
ask you for some advice on the type of school you would recommend to take their
future children.
2. Situation II. Describe
your feelings about the need /right of children to keep their mother tongue
when moving to a different linguistic community.
3.
Initial
Evaluation Task 3. Before reading Navés, T & Muñoz, C. (1999)
In pairs or small groups answer the following questions.
4.
How often do most schools meet during the course?
5.
If you are aware of a CLIL programme going on in your country which type
of schools does it involve state-run or
private?
6.
How is the state, council and school language policy guaranteed in your
country?
7.
In your institutions, do all parties (parents, teaching staff, school
board co-ordinators and education authorities) usually jointly work together
hand in hand?
8.
How easy is for teacher to find already-made suitable CLIL materials for
students? How much chances are teachers given to adapt materials to implement
CLIL experiences?
9.
Do most pre-service courses involve any CLIL at all?
10. How familiar
are teachers with theoretical foundations of CLIL?
2. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL CLIL PROGRAMMES? By T Navés
(UB)
Content and
Language Integrated Learning programmes , CLIL programmes have a long tradition
both in Europe and America. In the latter they usually involve Bilingual and
Immersion programmes designed to teach both a SL (Second Language) as well as
academic content whereas in Europe they aim at teaching a SL or FL (Foreign
Language) as well as subject-matter content.
Most of these
CLIL programmes intend to help learners to achieve a high command of the TL
(Target Language) whether they are LML (Language Minority Learners) also
referred to as LEP (Limited English Proficiency) or EFL (English as a Foreign
Language) learners
Second
language acquisition research has shown that the level of proficiency in the
first language has a direct influence on the development of proficiency in the
second language. The lack of continuing first language development has been
found, in some cases, to inhibit the levels of second language proficiency and
cognitive academic growth.
The underlying assumptions based on empirical
and theoretical research of these CLIL programmes are: On the one hand, the knowledge learners get through their
first language helps make the English they hear and read more comprehensible, on the other hand, literacy
developed in the primary language transfers to the second. Many researchers
agree that comprehensible input is a
necessary condition in order for successful language learning to occur while a
few claim that it is not only a necessary but a sufficient condition. Moreover,
learners can learn challenging content in language arts while they are learning
the TL
Furthermore, Muñoz & Nussbaum, among others, suggest
using content-based programmes as one way of providing extra exposure to the TL
in FL settings in particular, as one way of compensating the so limited
exposure to the TL learners get from traditional FL instruction.
There are four reasons for the
integration of language and content. Firstly, language is acquired most
effectively when it is learned for communication in meaningful and significant
social situations. Secondly, the integration of content and second language
instruction provides substantive basis and exposure for language learning.
Thirdly language acquisition naturally goes hand in hand with cognitive
development Finally, knowing how to use language in one context does not
necessarily mean knowing how to use it in another. The integration of second
language instruction with content instruction respects the specificity of
functional language use
Although the
majority of CLIL programmes, whether (BE) Bilingual Education or (IM)
Immersion, share basic characteristics, they display two major differences as
to the language of initial instruction and also whether the learners are
unilingual or multilingual. BE whether -Transitional BE or Two-Way BE- provides
instruction in learners’ mother tongue while most if not all initial
instruction in IM is in L2. Secondly, in immersion programmes all learners are
initially unilingual in L1 whereas in BE native speakers of the TL are mixed
with LML. Successful CLIL Programmes SCLILP display eight basic characteristics
1. SCLILP not only
acknowledge and support learners’ home language and culture by allowing
learners to use their L1 at early stages but also provide some academic instruction
in learners L1. Language arts (reading, writing...) are introduced in L1 and at
different stages content subject matter are taught in L1 as well
2. Most teachers
are bilingual although in IM programmes they only speak in the TL while showing
understanding of learners L1 by responding appropriately and rephrasing
learners’ remarks made in their L1. Learners are requested to use L2 only from
primary school
3. TL instruction
is not structured or of a pull-out nature but rather contextualized,
integrated. Sheltered in BE programmes
4. SCLILP are
optional, not imposed
5. Parental
involvement is pivotal in any SCLILP
6. SCLILP require
the joint effort of all parties involved: educational authorities, parents and
teachers at both district and school
level are actively involved in planning the policy to implement such programmes
and the means by which they are sustained. One of the key factors to the
success of these programmes is longevity which includes not only the continuity
of the program but also the stability of teaching teams. Also the presence of
the program across the entire school curriculum is guaranteed when all educational authorities support the
programme
7. Teacher
training must be tailored to meet the specific needs of CLIL instruction which
involve as well as teaching strategies (see last feature) curriculum
development and reform
8. Finally all
SCLILP show a wide variety of teaching
strategies
(a)
Teachers
exhibit active teaching behaviours such as giving instructions clearly,
accurately describing tasks, maintaining learners' engagement in instructional
tasks by maintaining task focus, pacing instruction appropriately, and
communicating their expectations for students’ success
(b)
In
presenting new information teachers use appropriate strategies such as
demonstrating, outlining, using visuals, building redundancy, rephrasing,
scaffolding, linking new information to learners’ previous knowledge, etc. to
make input comprehensible and context-embedded.
(c)
Teachers
monitor students progress and provide immediate feedback whenever required.
They check comprehension constantly resulting in high levels of communication
between teachers and learners and among learners themselves.
(d)
Effective
instruction is aided by allowing learners to respond in a wide variety of ways:
from verbal responses both in L1 and L2 to non-verbal responses (responding by
doing) in early stages but are gradually expected to respond only in the TL
once they show enough command of the TL. At the early stages, emphasis is on
the development of receptive skills.
(e)
Consistent
integration of cognitively demanding academic content and the TL.
(f)
Teachers
respond to and use information from their students’ home cultures, using
cultural references, organising instruction to build upon participant
structures from students’ home culture and observing the values and norms of
students’ home culture.
(g)
Task
work includes: hands-on tasks, experiential learning tasks, problem solving
tasks, etc.
(h)
Cognitive
abilities and processes such as identifying, comparing, drawing conclusions,
finding similarities and differences, etc. are integrated in the design of the
program
(i)
Collaborative
learning, autonomous learning and self-directed learning are also suggested by
some CLIL specialists.
(j)
Teachers
have high expectations about learners’ performance and degree of academic
achievement
|
1.
|
|
|
2.
|
|
|
3.
|
|
|
4.
|
|
|
5.
|
|
|
6.
|
|
|
7.
|
|
|
8.
|
|
|
9.
|
|
|
10.
|
|
Read the following extract about immersion programmes and decide why there are so many similarities between them
WHAT ARE THE KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL IMMERSION PROGRAMS?
Successful immersion programs are characterized by: (1) administrative support; (2) community and parental support; (3)
qualified teachers; (4) appropriate materials in the foreign language; (5) time for teachers to prepare instructional materials in the
language; (6) and ongoing staff development.
(Source: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Languages and Linguistics Washington DC. Foreign Language Immersion
Programs. ERIC Digest.
4
2. This in an
excerpt from Krashen’s (1991) article. Read the article (http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed403101.html ) again and then compare Krashen’s
conclusions with the ones presented in the tutorial.
Recent research shows that when bilingual programs are set up correctly, they work very well. In our survey of successful programs in California (Krashen and Biber, 1988), we found that students in well-designed bilingual programs consistently outperformed comparison students, and did very well compared to local and national norms, often reaching national norms between grades three to six. According to the view of language acquisition presented earlier in this paper, we defined a "well-designed" program as one that had the following characteristics:
(1) Comprehensible input in English, in the form of high quality ESL classes, and sheltered subject matter teaching (comprehensible subject matter teaching in the second language).
(2) Subject matter teaching in the first language, without translation. This provides background knowledge that will make English input more comprehensible.
(3) Literacy development in the first language, which will transfer to the second language.
3.
Discuss the following statements. What do they have in common? Do the
authors agree?
A second language is most successfully acquired when the focus of
instruction is on meaning rather than form, when the language input is at or
just above the proficiency of the learner, and when there is sufficient
opportunity to engage in meaningful use of that language in a relatively
anxiety-free environment.
Content-based ESL has been used for many years in adult, professional, and university education programs for foreign students but is now emerging at the elementary and secondary school levels. The approach is effective because language acquisition using this instructional approach, is stimulated by input that is meaningful and understandable to the learner. Such courses offer instruction in the special language of the subject matter while focusing on the subject matter itself. Reilly, T. (1988).
The authors take the position that students with limited English
proficiency, or as they refer to them, potentially English proficient students, will learn more when the focus of
language instruction is shifted away from teaching the language directly, to a situation in which
students acquire language naturally, through lively exchanges with other students. The key to these exchanges is
content area instruction in English. Lim, H. L., & Watson, D. J.(1993)
4. Read the
following excerpt and discuss how CLIL can facilitate the acquisition of
academic language
Individuals develop two types of language proficiency, basic interpersonal language skills
(social language) and cognitive academic
language proficiency (academic
language) which vary according to the degree of context available to the
individual and the degree of cognitive challenge of the task.
While
social language is usually highly contextualized, informal, and cognitively
less demanding, academic language is less contextualized, more formal, abstract
and cognitively demanding.
Students
can acquire social language relatively easily but academic language can take
much longer.
5. Read the following book review and discuss the extent to which it seems to support some of the summarised research findings regarding successful CLIL experiences
Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (1992). Whole language for second language learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
This book explains and emphasizes
the need for a whole language approach to learning, especially for second
language learners. Each chapter of the book counters a commonplace assumption
about language acquisition with a basic principle of whole language: that
learning needs to begin with a bigger picture, followed by more specific
details; instruction needs to be centered around the learner, not the teacher;
lessons need to be immediately meaningful and relevant to the student; group
learning is most effective; written and oral language skills are acquired
simultaneously; native languages should be used in second language acquisition;
and the learning potential of bilingual speakers is not limited. The authors
use examples of successful whole language approaches to illustrate their
points. They also include sample lesson plans and practical helpful ideas for
teachers of second language students.
6. Numrich focuses
on five strategies to improve the comprehension of content in CLIL. Read the
summary and discuss why they might be worth considering.
7.
Numrich, C. (1989). Cognitive strategies for integrating ESL and content area instruction. In Macero, J. D., et al. (Eds.),
Realizing the dream. Selected conference proceedings. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 314 959).
Five classroom strategies for improving the comprehension of the content areas by ESL students are described.The strategies strengthen students' ability to process aural input rather than production. The strategies can help students learn English and also prepare them for higher-level thinking skills in the subject areas. The five strategies focus on such skills as (1) predicting on the basis of prior knowledge, (2) anticipating what will be read next, (3) using statements to check comprehension of a text during reading, (4) analyzing text organization by looking for specific patterns, and (5) classifying to facilitate comprehension of similarities and differences.
8. Eric is the most extensively used database for education. It also contains digests and full-text articles. Go to ERIC Digests http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ and run a search to find articles on successful bilingual /content-based/ immersion / CLIL programmes. Choose a digest to report to the rest of the class. How many results were found? What were your key words in your search. Compare your results with your partner’s.
9. Read the following short report on a CLIL experience carried out in Metropolitan Barcelona and give some pieces of advice to the co-ordinator of the project in order to make it more effective and successful.
· What problems might the teachers encounter? Why? Suggest other possible solutions.
In 1994 a group of foreign language
teachers and teacher trainers were given the opportunity to implement a
three-year CLIL experience for four state secondary schools in metropolitan Barcelona.
It was funded by the Regional Educational Authorities and consisted in
developing an experimental optional CLIL course of 30 hours which integrated
both science and English. Materials were specifically designed to meet the
needs of the project by a joint team of EFL advisors and science advisors and
revised and evaluated afterwards by the teachers teaching the course. Specific
teacher training was provided prior to carrying out the experience. The
practitioners were experienced teachers that volunteered for the job. Team
teaching was chosen since FL teachers who could be regarded as native-like had
nevertheless no previous training in science on the one hand, and science
teachers, on the other were not proficient enough in the FL. CLIL classes would
have both teachers, the science teacher and the FL teacher working together.
Most of the instructions, task description, communicating expectations, and
information were given by the FL teacher.
The science teacher would be mostly guiding and monitoring the tasks
although they also contributed by answering questions in the TL.
This project was of a short-term nature and was not integrated within the whole curriculum. It was not a long-term CLIL program from kindergarten to secondary school. By the time our CLIL project was implemented, 14 year-old learners were already literate and had already had approximately 400 hours of formal EFL instruction some of which could be best described as structured, and since our CLIL course was optional no full CLIL program was ever offered. Another major difference between our CLIL experience and mainstream CLIL programs is team-teaching. As in other CLIL experiences in European FL settings portrayed in Marsh, 1998, content-subject teachers, science instructors in our project, were non-native speakers of English . FL teachers were, on the other hand, fluent speakers of English who could be regarded as bilingual teachers to a given extent. Although the literature emphasises the need for co-ordination between teachers, no team- teaching of this sort has been reported in the literature to the best of our knowledge.