clil
CLIL | Paul Raper | June 11th, 2005
Does anyone know anything about, or have they heard of the CLIL project?
What views do you have about this subject?
Paul
Re: CLIL | Jerry Talandis Jr. | June 11th, 2005
About this CLIL thing, I'm totally clueless. Just what is it? What does the acronym CLIL stand for? I can't get a clear idea of what it is.
Jerry
Japan
Re: CLIL | Karen Widle | June 11th, 2005
Hi Jerry,
CLIL stands for "Content and Language Integrated Learning." In the most basic sense, it uses English (or any other second language) as the medium of instruction for other areas of the curriculum (in the case of YL's: Maths, PE, Science, etc.). Instead of using "Language Arts" as a separate discipline, it's simply combined with the other disciplines. I believe one of the thoughts behind the theory is that language is best learned in the type of discourse in which it will be used. Thus, learners will become "socialised" in those discourses. Here is quite a good article online (.pdf) that outlines this.
My opinion is somewhere in the middle. I like using English as the teaching medium in my classes, but I still feel that there is so much "jumping around" that the children aren't learning the functions of the language and "how" to use it. They understand a lot.... but productive skills are another matter!
Karen
Re: CLIL | Sally Hirst | June 11th, 2005
Hi Paul,
You know the Guardian are really into CLIL? They've been part of a debate on it for weeks now.
I do the business/economics/management input days for MBA prep students and for the non-business graduates that's effectively clil- you can't get across the lexis involved in supply, demand and elasticity without making sure the concepts are in place, which means you are in effect teaching the subject (in very basic terms) and the English need to understand the subject simultaneously.
Links well into the age SLA question that started earlier though. At what point do you stop to learn the language? It's not time efficient when they are very little, but then they get into the sweep of other internal constraints such as the university entrance exam here, but if they are serious about further study, at some point it is going to be necessary- many subjects here require English for Masters level study- access to journals etc. But then wouldn't it have been more effective to learn all of those concepts in English in the first place?? I still haven't got down off the fence on this one.
Sally
Re: CLIL | Paul Raper | June 11th, 2005
Hi Sally,
Well at present I have some very confused and in many ways disillusioned teachers trying to get to grips with it.
It seems that the Swiss aren't sure whether or not to include grammar in with the package, and on top of that the delivery seems somewhat sketchy too. The teacher I'm talking to at present tells me that the teacher isn't expected to present the language in class, just to simply turn up with a CD player and let the machine do the talking.
I'm wondering what kind of effect this is going to have on language teaching/learning for the future, and who is actually making the judgments about this.
Like you I'm sitting on the fence observing, and to be honest I'm also not sure how seriously to take the statements being made. But then when I have two or three teachers saying the same thing, I have to say I'm beginning to get just a little concerned about what's happening here.
Paul
PS: Here are two articles regarding CLIL:
Van de Craen:
Content & Language Integrated Learning, Culture of Education, and Learning Theories
Ronald & Bonamie:
New Rules for the Language & Content Game
Re: CLIL | Sally Hirst | June 11th, 2005
Perhaps it would help a bit to look at the Canadian immersion stuff (which I think was one of the things Krashen was so impressed by and was part of his basis for why he thought we could acquire language) where they didn't pay any overt attention to language teaching- only content teaching in L2. Initially successful, but then Swain's later research suggests that while learner reception was great, their production was not good at all (came out with the comprehensible output hypothesis which makes a lot of sense). Later research, while far from conclusive, suggests that a focus on form helps too. Where am I dredging all this up from?? Participating in this discussion list is good for stretching the brain in one way, but now it will annoy me till I've tracked down the book.
And some five minutes later ...
Skehan ('A cognitive approach to language learning') gives a better version of what I've just said, then Lightbown and Spada's 'How languages are learned' gives some of the references to studies. The odd bits I've skimmed in the Guardian TEFL section gave me the impression that what is being advocated is a kind of modified immersion - content, but with language support woven in - but from what you are saying maybe that is only one way of going about it and some people are still going for pure deep end content. The former seems the most logical to me though. Perhaps I'm not as firmly on the fence as I thought I was.
Sally
Re: CLIL | Karen Widl | June 11th, 2005
Hi Paul,
Are you referring to the CLIL Compendium? I was recently told about that at work and looked briefly at the website. Here is what they say about the rational of the project:
The CLIL Compendium Rationale
The CLIL Compendium results from a research-driven project which has focused on identifying the dimensions of CLIL . It aims to be comprehensive but not exhaustive. Just as it identifies the foundations, so it is itself, a foundation by which to build greater understanding of the potential of CLIL.
Insight into the dimensions of CLIL practice allow us to identify the core principles of this educational approach as it is done in very different European contexts.
In the CLIL Compendium there are 5 dimensions based on issues relating to culture, environment, language, content and learning. Each of these includes a number of focus points realized differently according to 3 major factors: age-range of learners, socio-linguistic environment, and degree of exposure to CLIL.
The dimensions are idealized and usually heavily inter-related in CLIL practice. This means that in real-life implementation of CLIL, it is likely that a school will wish to achieve successful outcomes in relation to more than one dimension at the same time.
The CLIL Compendium has been launched alongside the publication of Profiling European CLIL Classrooms (see Books). This contains an introduction to the CLIL dimensions and focuses produced as reader-friendly text.
In Austria, some of the secondary schools and a handful of the bilingual primary schools are using (EAC) English Across the Curriculum, which, from what I gather is CLIL. Where I teach, English is used as the medium for the other subjects (Math, Social Studies, Science, Music, P.E). Although I feel that it's a great way for the children to learn English, it can cause problems because the focus changes so often and the "English" hours they get are pretty limited, which seems to be hindering their productive skill performance (speaking, writing). My hands are somewhat tied in the situation and when I've attempted to get creative with integrating grammar into my lessons, I get lashed by the Director and parents...although my 4 th graders were far superior last year than the other two that I didn't teach!! Go figure.
I know you are Switzerland, but in July, there is a three-day workshop in Vienna called "Meeting the Challenge of CLIL Teaching." If you are interested, you can find out more information on the Teachers of English in Austria (TEA) website- the information can be found under 'Events'. There is also another workshop in October called the Vienna ConneXion, where Jeremy Harmer will be a guest speaker; although the focus is on different topics. I've been thinking about attending the July workshops because one or two will be focusing on YL's.
Karen
Re: CLIL | Paul Raper | June 11th, 2005
Thanks for that Karen,
You are spot on. Are you having any feedback from teachers? Where I am they are simply going mad with it.
Sally,
What I'm truly worried about here is what seems to be a conflict in ideologies. We have the traditionally conservative Swiss teachers, and I hope I won't upset anyone else here, who are suddenly being asked to do something which, from those I've discussed this with, runs against the grain.
What they seem to be up against is the issues related to their feeling that as non-mother tongue speakers, they don't feel that they are the right people to be doing this. That said, I do know of some who basically don't give a monkey's. They simply feel that if this is what the state wants, this is what they will get.
To be honest, I feel as though I'm going into fast forward here. I'm trying to get to grips with something that I had previously over looked and paid not too much attention to. Now, here it is delivered to my door step with a whole bucket full of mixed emotions and feelings.
I am truly grateful for your references as I shall go away and read avidly, not that I have much time for that given I'm trying to close out my ASI assignment, get on with my AWD assignment which I'm half way through, and get involved with a whole load of other issues which interest me all related to teaching.
Why does teaching have to be one of those jobs that just fascinates from every direction?
Paul
Re: CLIL | Robert Haines | June 11th, 2005
For those following and contributing to the CLIL thread, I wonder how you would compare it to The Direct Method, which has come in and out of vogue several times in the last century if I'm not mistaken.
I haven't read through the entire CLIL compendium to which we've been provided a link, so forgive me if there's an answer to my query there. I'm interested in Paul's opinion along with others who have first-hand experience with CLIL.
Thanks,
Rob
Re: CLIL- teacher opinions | Karen Widl | June 11, 2005
Hi Paul,
Where I work, most of the "Class Teachers" have only ever used this type of method...so they are all for it. My school is quite special because it's one of only a few "bilingual primary schools", although there are no children in the school whose L1 is English!
I would really love to concentrate on phonics and other productive skills with the children and I do (by finding books and things related to the subjects we are teaching), but I've had problems with the other "Native Speakers" in the school because they simply don't want to teach those things (or may not know how!).
Now am I off course here or what?
Is it not our job as "English teachers, Native Speakers, English tutors" or whatever other title we have been given to "teach English" ??? The "Class Teachers" also don't "teach English".... they teach the discipline and use (a little) English. They enjoy this way of teaching because they mustn't change much in their yearly plan. As far as experience goes, I have learned to do my own thing.... as long as I can justify that it's sticking strictly to EAC (English Across the Curriculum) or CLIL.
Karen
Re: CLIL | Jerry Talandis Jr. | June 11th, 2005
Hi Karen,
Thanks for the definition. Now I have a better idea of what everyone is talking about. This "CLIL" sounds like content-based teaching to me, similar to what Martin was talking about back in the "Carts & Horses" thread a while back.
Jerry
Japan
Re: CLIL- teacher opinions | Paul Raper | June 11, 2005
Karen,
Take a look at the UCL website for phonetics.
Go to my Aston links page, and you can get to the UCL from there.
What you say echoes strongly what I'm hearing hear in that the way CLIL seems to be set up is that it doesn't encourage innovation. Some of the materials I've so far seen and the descriptions of how to use them would indicate that the developers of this course are looking for presenters of the subject, rather than teachers.
Would that sound about right by your judgment?
Paul
PS: I have put some other documents and files on the site if you want to take a look.
Login Aston MSc
Password: Aston
Re: CLIL | Martin Lovatt | June 11th, 2005
Hi Karen,
I've just read the introduction to CLIL that you recommended as an intro to this discussion. Soetaert & Bonamie certainly know how to write a good paper! Way out of my class here, I'm afraid, but it's a good read and although I cannot claim to have understood it in it's entirety, I instinctively feel they're onto something useful and important.
However, there is one thing in their paper that I think is short-sighted; the importance of English for the internet. Certainly, in the near-term English is very relevant to the internet. However, technology will soon supersede this need, as in time (and I guess it won't be such a long time judging by the pace of progress in technology) web sites will be available in most languages - either by translation software or by market-driven forces demanding (at least initially) manual translations. There will simply be a number of flags at the top of each web page and visitors will be able to choose their own language. Learning languages (as we all know) takes people too long to be practical if you need to keep up with the advance of technology. Unfortunately, (at least for us English teachers) technology isn't going to wait 20 years while the world catches up with their English studies so they can use the Internet effectively. Technology will expedite an easier way simply because market forces (i.e. businesses on the internet) demand it.
Technology is setting an ever-faster pace, and very soon information will be available in the language of your choice.
So perhaps at present the Internet is fostering linguistic imperialism, but in my humble opinion, those days are numbered.
In truth, we English teachers may very well be dinosaurs.
Best,
Martin
(Brontosaurus in Fukuoka, Japan)
Dinosaurs | Karen Widl | June 12, 2005
Hi Martin,
I think the article from Soetaert & Bonamie (1999) was just some clarification on CLIL, as well as, CALL. They do mention in their article that the Internet and computers are great "tools" for both teachers and students alike, and I'm behind that 100%. Now on to my debate!! Although I agree with you that technology is advancing at an ever alarming rate (to everyone's advantage), I can't quite imagine that we (teachers) will one day be obsolete. Even now it's possible to translate web pages to many languages, although they aren't always the most competent. We also have computer programs and other collocation programs that make life easier, but these are exactly what they are meant to be...tools. In 20 years there will be all sorts of advances...ones that my little brain can't even grasp on to. Please excuse me if I misunderstood your statement, but, to think that teachers will one day be "dinosaurs" is something I can't agree with.
Humans are social animals and need interaction and contact. It has nothing to do with simply gathering information from the Internet...it has to do with communication. In my opinion, computers will probably never be able to substitute for actual "human interaction". How can someone learn the social and cultural aspects of the language, simply by gathering information (in their own language)? People will always have the need to communicate (face-to-face, voice-to-voice) with someone that speaks another language. How should this work without us language teachers?
I have a sister who is married to a Japanese man. They live in America and have four children (ages 8-17). All the children and my sister are monolingual (a shame in my eyes). When their grandparents from Japan come to visit or call on the telephone, neither side can communicate with the other - aside from the father who translates everything. I would venture to say that they all have some motivation to learn the other's language, but neither side has taken the effort. Sure, they can send some e-mails with translation software that is somewhat understandable, but what about interaction and contact? Sad situation I think. Fortunately for this world, many people do take the effort to learn another language for communication purposes and without us dinosaurs, it would be pretty difficult...and I just can't see that it will change in 20 years, even with the best information technology.
So, I hope I didn't go off on a tangent here, but I was thrown for a loop with the dinosaur thing!!
Have a great day!
Karen (refusetobelieveosaurus)
with 
and 
