integrang)plurilingualism/culturalism) into)clil:)an ... ·...

Integra(ng Plurilingualism/culturalism into CLIL: an overview of ConBaT+, an

ECML project

Áine Furlong [email protected]

IRAAL April 25th 2012

Personal and professional background

Post-‐primary educa(on

Primary educa(on

Distance educa(on

Teacher educa(on

Third level educa(on

Áine Furlong IRAAL April 2012

21st Century challenges for language learning and teaching

The challenge of Plurilingualism Iden(ty as a single na(onal (and linguis(c) construct is

challenged

The challenge of CLIL: The teacher as an expert is challenged

Identity vs Identities

CLIL defini(ons Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-‐focused educa&onal approach in which an addi(onal language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language

(Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2009)


The defini(on describes an educa(onal choice. Pedagogical considera(ons are not explicit. The teacher appears super-‐human (dual-‐focus)

CLIL is a language-‐sensi(ve approach to content (Clegg 2002)


Language Content

The focus is on pedagogy and is not exclusive of the L1. The principle of scaffolding is implied.

Ra(onale for CLIL and plurilingualism in Europe

•  European na(on-‐states can no longer be viewed as monolingual en((es.

•  Communica(on is now interna(onal

•  European popula(on is characterised by mobility and migra(on

•  Europe needs to invest in its diversity

•  CLIL provides an authen(c L2 learning context


Ra(onale: CLIL to transform the language learner into a language user

Arguments in favour of CLIL from an SLA perspec(ve (Navés 2009)

•  Creates condi(ons for naturalis(c language learning (focus on meaning more than form)

•  Gives a purpose for language use in the classroom

•  Increases exposure (me to the L2

•  Promotes the development of BICS and CALP (Cummins)


European CLIL map


Status of CLIL provision in primary and

general secondary educa&on, 2004/05

CLIL in Ireland – Irish

•  Immersion: -‐ Gaelscoileanna (Irish medium primary schools): 32,551 pupils in 2010

-‐  Gaelcholáis` (Irish medium post-‐primary schools): 8,620 pupils in 2010

•  CLIL -‐ Irish CLIL/par(al immersion Project: 50 teachers in art and science (Harris 2006)


CLIL ac(vity in Ireland: Collabora(on between Irish and Modern languages

•  Since 2007-‐8: -‐ NUI Galway: Dioplóma Gairmiúil san Oideachas (DGO), for post-‐primary educa(on through the medium of Irish and Waterford Ins(tute of Technology for CLIL exper(se.

•  Current developments: 2 CLIL modules for pre-‐ and in-‐service teachers by WIT and NUI Galway (Irish and Modern languages)

•  Conference in NUI Galway, February 2010:

CLIL agus an Teagasc Trí Ghaeilge (Irish and European experts)

•  Conference on Ini(al Teacher Educa(on, St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra, July 2011

-‐ O’Dhuibhir: The Role of Content and Language Integrated Learning in Ini(al Teacher Educa(on

-‐  Furlong, Mac Mahon and Ní Ghuidhir: Irish and Modern Languages for re-‐imagined perspec(ves in Ini(al Teacher Educa(on


CLIL in Ireland for modern Languages at primary and third levels

•  Modern Languages in Primary Schools Ini(a(ve •  NCCA pilot project: 6 primary schools •  Individual ini(a(ves: DCU: Bruen & Wagner (2008)-‐ prepara(on for study abroad

WIT: (Furlong et al, 2009) Art & Design, Film Studies, Architecture, Intercultural Communica(on, Marke(ng, Communica(ons (Italian, Spanish, German and French).

Akendance at CLIL ECML workshops


Report on European CLIL research (Ruiz de Zarobe, Jiménez Catalán, 2009; Ruiz de Zarobe,Sierra, Gallardo del

Puerto 2011)

•  Focus on language akainment in CLIL •  Content does not seem to be affected by a CLIL experience

•  Controversy in Spain (Moore 2009, Bruton 2011)

Reported gains are: •  Recep(ve skills •  Vocabulary* •  Quan(ty , Crea(vity , Risk-‐taking •  Emo(ve, affec(ve factors* •  Lack of speaking angst (Dalton-‐Puffer 2007, 2008)


Inconclusive and non-‐existent L2 CLIL research

•  Syntax (accuracy) •  Wri(ng (accuracy)

•  Informal, non-‐technical language

•  Pronuncia(on •  Pragma(cs


More research and development in:

•  Cogni(ve engagement of learners,

•  Affec(ve dimensions, artudes and mo(va(on

•  Specific situa(on of CLIL teachers (needs and solu(ons)

* Teacher mo&va&on through quality, CLIL specific teacher educa&on, appears to be central to successful CLIL programmes (Ball and Lindsay, 2010, see also Harris et al, 2006)


CLIL models •  The context determines the type of CLIL/EMILE programme that

will be adopted. •  The programme will be situated along a con(nuum from language

driven to content-‐driven and should aim to be dual-‐focused.

Language driven Content-‐driven content is used to teach content is more L2 structures and skills important than the language

(immersion and bilingual and earlier CLIL programmes)

CLIL models

•  Theme-‐based module •  Subject –based learning ( content and language teachers cooperate)

•  Schools in different countries share the teaching of a specific course or module

•  Bilingual educa(on (a significant part of the curriculum is taught for a number of years through CLIL)

•  Language-‐based approach: language teacher scaffolds content language (authen(c experience during language class)


More CLIL models

•  Voca(onal CLIL (closely related to competence-‐based approach)

•  Plurilingual educa(on (more than one language is used through CLIL during different years)

•  *Adjunct CLIL (language teaching runs parallel to content teaching, but is subject-‐specific)

•  Language-‐embedded courses developed from the beginning with language development objec(ves (Content and language specialists work together).


Adjunct model

•  Appears to be a successful model (Wiesemes 2009). Not surprising because language is explicitly used as a learning tool. Consolidates prior or current knowledge. This approach can also be incorporated in a thema(c approach.

•  Offers excellent opportuni(es to develop the academic strategies necessary to cope with real academic content.

•  The language component of the course is directly linked to the students’ academic needs, e.g. revising notes, test prepara(on, .

•  Provides different perspec(ve on and increases understanding of the concepts associated with the content.

•  Cultural dimension can be integrated. •  Helps to increase mo(va(on in terms of mastering both the language and the

content. •  Collabora(on between subject specialist and language teacher is essen(al. •  The learners are the specialists and must ar(culate their knowledge. •  Increases visibility of the L2 in the ins(tu(on and generates curiosity from subject

specialists.


CLIL pedagogies Key principles

Framework for CLIL

Finding the right pitch

Planning for a CLIL lesson

Pedagogical tools

A CLIL experience


Key principles for CLIL

Methodology is at the core:

a language-‐sensi&ve approach to everything we do

•  Re-‐thinking how and when certain types of subject maker and language/s are taught

•  Interdisciplinary mindset

•  The major concern is Educa&on, not mul(lingualism

(mul(lingualism is the added value)


A framework for CLIL: Do Coyle’s 4/5 Cs (2010)


Culture

Culture

Culture

Content Communica(on

Cogni(on

Context

Context Context

Context

Rosie Tanner’s and Jason Skeet’s + 4 Cs = 8 Cs (December 2011)

Collabora&on between learners, between teachers

Choices

learner differen(a(on in language proficiency, content comprehension, learning styles

Crea&vity

interface of language and content Connec&ons:

-‐  with content (prior knowledge, analysis and synthesis at the end of a lesson) -‐  with the curriculum and the wider school context, with others and the world


Preparing for a language-‐sensi(ve approach

BICS x

Y CALP

Low Cogni(ve demand

High contextualisa(on

Low contextualisa(on

High Cogni(ve demand

Adapted from Cummins (1984)

3 4

2 1

High cogni&ve demands

Low cogni&ve demands

Adapted from the CLIL matrix project (2004-‐06)

Low linguis&c demands

High linguis&c demands

You need a plan!

Modern Languages in Primary Schools Initiative, Ireland, (2001)

CLIL classics: Graphic Organisers

Ac(vates prior knowledge, analysis, organisa(on of informa(on, synthesis of knowledge

Reading strategies, e.g. awareness of text structures (LICI handbook – available online)

Learning strategies (LICI handbook)

The CLIL/EMILE programme chosen by Waterford Ins(tute of Technology (Furlong, 2008)

•  Parallel teaching of the language and the subject (adjunct model)

•  16 learners, Business degree, Year 2 with French.

The subjects are: •  Marke(ng / French

– Marke(ng = 36 hours per semester –  French = 48 hours per semester including 20 hours of CLIL/EMILE

Did you enjoy the experience?

•  Language (n = 2): Increases my vocabulary. Helps me to speak about business related subjects in French

•  Content (n = 4): More challenging topics and more variety. Broader understanding of marke(ng Teaches relevant material. More interes(ng than grammar. Because you could relate it to the marke(ng module

•  Methodology ( n = 9): The style of teaching encourages a more relaxed approach. Liked it a lot. Different way of teaching. More comfortable rela(on between teacher and students. Beker group atmosphere. I wanted to go to French; before I never liked going to French classes. Interes(ng, new. Enjoyed learning in an unconven(onal manner. Pleasant, interac(ve methods while learning

•  1 class a week; other classes could be devoted to French culture, transla(ons and grammar (n = 1)

I did not enjoy the experience

•  I don’t like marke(ng as a subject (n = 2) •  Difficult to do the oral work about marke(ng (n = 2)

•  Irrelevant (n = 1) •  At (mes complicated and confusing ( n = 1)

Do you believe CLIL will help you in your marke(ng studies?

•  Broader understanding of content (n = 5): Insight into how French marke(ng operates. Gives a broader view of marke(ng. Learn some things that are not covered in marke(ng class x 3

•  Deeper understanding of content (n = 4): Knowledge of and being familiar with specific marke(ng terms is important. Went through marke(ng in a lot of detail. I understand the marke(ng topics beker now x 2

•  Be\er recall of content (n = 8):I learn the material twice x 2. I have become familiar with the topics x 2. Another way to revise. Because you already know it, it is easier to translate into French and learn. Helped me to remember aspects that I may not have spent a lot of (me on. There are things I’d remember from French class that I would need in a marke(ng exam

CLIL will not help me in my marke(ng studies

•  I did not think marke(ng through French overlapped much with my marke(ng class (n = 1)

Do you find you are learning French in this way?

•  It has helped me to use more technical phrases and words (n = 11)

•  I’ve learned a lot of new words this semester

•  You get to hear some of the words in other classes, so you’ll remember them faster

•  I’ve learned different registers of language •  I’ve learned to make formal presenta(ons

Does your knowledge of marke(ng help you during French class?

•  Memory (n = 1): it makes it easier to remember •  Input becomes Comprehensible (n =5) : Easier to understand and relate to texts. I could make an intelligent guess as to what we had to do. It facilitates the access to French, through English and marke(ng vocabulary. I was aware of certain terms that I would not have known if I did not study marke(ng. I already knew the SWOT analysis; with this knowledge I could understand more easily

Does your knowledge of marke(ng help you during French class?

•  Topics were difficult to apply to the French class (n = 1)

What do you like best in French class?

•  Output (n = 11 ): Group discussions x 5 (par(cularly on marke(ng). Debates. Pair work (because you share ideas and language). Presenta(ons because you have to talk and answer ques(ons you are not prepared for. Presenta(ons improve confidence and oral French. Oral work. Wriken exercises , Assignments

•  Content ( n = 1): Marke(ng (helps to relate to the business course in general)

•  Language (n = 1): The “core” of French

What do you like least in French class?

•  Language (n =2): Not enough grammar .Would prefer to focus on the language

•  Output (n = 1): Having to re-‐write ar(cles in our own words and then present them to the class

•  Group work ( n = 1): some people make other people work

Average marks 2006-‐07 42 students including 15 French learners

Marke&ng (+ French) Marke&ng (-‐ French)

55.5% 49% Economics Economics

58% 46%

Accoun(ng Accoun(ng 76% 59%

HRM HRM

67% 64%

Culture in CLIL

•  A learning space for intercultural competence is not automa(cally present in CLIL classrooms (Dalton-‐Puffer 2009)

•  ‘A poten(al’ in CLIL (Coyle 2010) •  CLIL: not the purveyor of culture (Ball 2010)


Culture in 21st Century =

Diversity and dynamism

Because

There is no culture of one

because

Culture is communica;on and communica;on is culture (Hall, 1959, p. 186)

ConBaT+ aims

–  To raise plurilingual, pluricultural and intercultural COMPETENCE among primary and secondary school teachers and their pupils.

–  To empower teachers to create QUALITY cross-‐curricular materials in English, French, and Spanish, as an L2, for primary and secondary school learners.

–  To introduce the LANGUAGES and CULTURES present in the classroom into a number of subjects.

–  To mo(vate teachers to IMPACT on a reform of language learning and teaching.

–  To strengthen professional NETWORKS by providing several interna(onal and na(onal mee(ngs.


So… How can we reconcile content + languages + cultures?

1. "CLIL is methodologically neutral” (Likle 2003)

2. A plurilingual approach is not content-‐dependent (Candelier, ALA 2006)

Therefore, any subject may introduce a plurilingual aspect to the content.

An integrated pedagogy for Conbat+, 1. A competence-‐based approach with a focus on tasks

+ 2. Focus on tasks accommodates a focus on content:

text or input +

3. A plurilingual approach focusing on languages and their speakers – i.e. the learners

= Development of posi(ve artudes ++++++++++++++++++++++++

Model for an integrated pedagogy: ConBaT+

Content

Tasks LanguageS

hkp://conbat.ecml.at/

Example of a language-‐sensi&ve approach to content

•  ‘You need to become real experts, so use as many strategies as you can to become more and more familiar with the content of the expert card: one of you explains, the others listen and help, ask each other ques(ons, quiz each other...

•  When your teacher tells you to, work in pairs with someone from your “expert” group. Take turns explaining the text to each other without looking at it. The listener can look at the text and help the speaker (from A symphony of frac;ons by Oriol Pallares and Carlota Pe(t, ConBaT+).

All language strategies are s(mulated to make the content accessible.

Reading, listening, speaking skills

Progressing to a languageS-‐sensi&ve approach

•  Allegro, π, mezzo forte, ß, Lied … . Can you think of languages and cultures that are important in the world of music? And in the world of maths?

•  In some of the expert cards some languages and cultures are mentioned. In teams, take one of the languages you consider important in the world of music, and make a new expert card which contains new relations between music and/or maths and the new

language you have chosen. •  What about your mother tongue? And what about other languages

you may know? •  Taking everything you have learnt in this first and second part of the

project, think of how many of these new music and maths concepts you can say in the languages you know. Make a word cloud like the one in activity 1. You can use the online tool Wordle (www.wordle.com).

•  (from “A symphony of fractions” by Oriol Pallares and Carlota Petit) Áine Furlong IRAAL April 2012

CLIL and plurilingualism/culturalism at third level


Transformez ce texte trilingue en texte monolingue

The pratice du coût-plus-marge est-elle loighciúil ? En général, non. Une approche qui ne considers ni de la demande ni de value-based pricing, ni de competitors dans la fixation des luachanna a peu de chances de conduire au profit maximal, qu’il soit à court ou à long terme. Cette approche perd son sens si les díolteanna ne correspondent pas aux anticipations.

la valeur perçue tient compte la concurrence la pratique

logique prix ventes

Successful CLIL programmes rely on:

•  Varied language teaching and learning methodologies

•  Op(onality •  Dedicated teacher educa(on characterised by materials development

•  Collabora(on •  Stability


CLIL and Plurilingualism in/for unpredictable (mes

•  Develop ‘new’ arguments for language learning: cogni(on, crea(vity, risk-‐taking, diversity management, informa(on management, coping with the unknown.

•  Highlight the poten(al contribu(ons of L2 pedagogies to wider curriculum (McMurry, S. M. (2010). Mathema;cs as a language: Understanding and using maths)

Irish and English and Modern Languages Primary curriculum, 2 subjects at post-‐primary level, TY, modular system

at third level, interdisciplinarity European language developments over the past 20 years: por�olio,

learner autonomy, study abroad, tandem language learning, technology for L2 learning and teaching, CLIL, Plurilingualism/culturalism


Look at what we have…

Bibliography Ball, P. & Lindsay, D. (2010). Teacher training for CLIL in the Basque country: The case of the Ikastolas – an

expediency model. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementaion, results and teacher training (pp.162-‐187). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2008) Mul(lingualism, Cogni(on and Crea(vity. Interna;onal CLIL Research Journal Vol. 1(1,) 4-‐19. Accessible at hkp://www.icrj.eu/11-‐73 Bernaus, M., Furlong, A., Jonckheere, S. & Kervran, M. (2012). Plurilingualism and pluriculturalism in content

based teaching. Graz: ECML. Bruen, J. and Wagner, T. (2008) Content and Language Integrated Learning: reflec(ons on a pilot module. Teanga. The Irish Yearbook of Applied Linguis(cs., Special edi(on , 76-‐91. Bruton, A. (2011) Are the Differences between the CLIL and non-‐CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A Reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010). Applied Linguis;cs, 32 (2), 236-‐241. Candelier , M.(2006) Key note address at the ALA conference at the Université du Maine, July 2006, Le Mans,

France. Clegg, J. (2002) ‘Towards Successful English-‐medium Educa(on in Southern Africa’. In D. Marsh, A. Ontero, T. Shikongo (eds) Enhancing English-‐medium educa;on in Namibia Finland: University of Jyväskylä. CLIL Matrix Project. (2004-‐2007). ECML’s second medium term programme of ac(vi(es. Retrieved from hkp://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix ConBaT+ project: Content-‐Based Teaching and Plurilingualism hkp://conbat.ecml.at

Coste, D., Moore, D. and Zarate, G. (1997). Plurilingual and pluricultural competence, Strasbourg : Council of Europe. Cots, J.M. and Tusón, A. (1994). Language in educa(on: an interview with Leo Van Lier. Sintagma 6, 51-‐65.


Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. Interna;onal Journal of Bilingual Educa;on and Bilingualism, 10, 543-‐562. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins (1984) Cummins, J. (1984) Bilingualism and special educa;on. Clevedon : Mul;lingual Makers. Dalton-‐Puffer, C. (2007) Discourse in CLIL Classrooms. Amsterdam: Benjamins Dalton-‐Puffer, C. (2009) Communica(ve competence and the CLIL classroom. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R.M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.). Content and language integrated learning. Evidence from research in Europe (197-214). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Eurydice (2006) CLIL at School in Europe. Brussels: COE. Furlong, Á., Cisneros, A., Cummins, N., Fraioli, P., Molloy, R.& O’Neill, D. (2009) Challenging assump(ons in language learning and teaching.In J. Murphy and B. Higgs, Teaching and Learning in Higher Educa;on: Challenging Assump;ons. NAIRTL Furlong Á., MacMahon, B. and Ní Ghuidhuir, S. (forthcoming) Irish and Modern Languages: Collabora(on in Ini(al Teacher Educa(on. Conference Proceedings of Re-‐imagining Ini(al Teacher Educa(on. Perspec(ves on Transforma(on, St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra, June 31st-‐July 2nd 2011. Furlong, Á. (2008) Insights into a third level CLIL experience. AILA World Congress. Essen, DE., August 24th-‐ 29th 2008. HALL Edward T. (1959). The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday Harris, J., Forde, P., Archer, P., Nic Fhearaile, S., & O’Gorman, M. (2006). Irish in primary school: Long term na;onal trends in achievement. Dublin: Department of Educa(on and Science. Harris, J. and O’Dhuibhir, P. (2011) Effec;ve Language Teaching: A Synthesis of Research. Dublin: NCCA.


Järvinen, H., Furlong, Á., Corsain, M., Barbero, T., Liubiniene, V., Sygmund, D., Parvainen, H. & Pakozdi, M

(2009). Language in Content Instruc;on . Turku: University of Turku. Retrieved from hkp://lici.utu.fi/ Lasagabaster D. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (Eds.). (2010). CLIL in Spain: Implementaion, results and teacher training. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Likle, D. (2003). Languages in the post-‐primary curriculum: A discussion document. Dublin: NCCA. Likle, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: some fundamental considera(ons revisited. Innova;on in

Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 14–29. Lorenzo, F., Casal ,S. and Moore, P. (2010) The Effects of Content and Language Integrated Learning in European

Educa(on: Key Findings from the Andalusian Sec(ons Evalua(on Project. Applied Linguis;cs, 31, 418-‐42.

McMurry, S. M. (2010). Mathema;cs as a language: Understanding and using maths. Dublin: Living Edi(on. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. & Frigols, M.J. (2008) Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Mul;lingual Educa;on. Oxford: Macmillan Educa(on. Mitchell, R. (2000). Anniversary ar(cle. Applied linguis(cs and evidence-‐based classroom prac(ce: The case of foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied Linguis;cs, 21(3), 281-‐303.

Mohan, B, (1986) Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-‐Wesley Moore, F. P. ( 2009) On the Emergence of L2 Oracy in Bilingual Educa;on: A compara;ve Analysis of CLIL and Mainstream Learner Talk. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. Unpublished Doctoral Disserta(on. Navés, T. ( 2009) Effec(ve content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programmes. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R.M.Jiménez Catalán (Eds), Content and language Integrated learning: Evidence from Research in Europe (pp.22-‐40). Bristol: Mul(lingual Makers, 22-‐40.

; Áine Furlong IRAAL April 2012

Ó Duibhir, P. (2009). The spoken Irish of sixth-‐class pupils in Irish immersion schools. Unpublished PhD, Trinity

College, Dublin Rubenfeld, S., Clément, R., Lussier, D., Lebrun, M., Auger, R. (2006). Second language learning and cultural representa(ons: beyond competence and iden(ty. Language Learning 56/4, December 2006, 609-‐632. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and Jiménez Catalán, R. M. (2009) Content and language Integrated learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Bristol: Mul(lingual Makers

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. ,Sierra,J. M., Gallardo del Puerto, F. (2011) Content and language Integrated learing: Contribu(ons to Mul(lingualism in Euroepan Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang. Skeet, J. and Tanner, R. (13 December 2011) The 8 Cs of CLIL? Reflec&ons on CLIL

h\p://clilreflec&ons.blogspot.com/search?q=8+Cs

Seikkula-‐Leino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affec(ve factors. Language and Educa;on, 21(4), 328 -‐ 341. Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. Ethnography and second-‐language classroom research. Harlow: Longman.

Wiesemes,R. (2009) Developing Theories of prac(ces in CLIL: CLIL as post-‐method pedagogies? In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and R.M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds), Content and language Integrated learning: Evidence from Research in Europe (pp. 41-‐62). Bristol: Mul(lingual Makers. Wolff D. (2002). Languages across the curriculum: a way to promote mul(lingualism in Europe. In The European dimension: CLIL EMILE -‐ The European dimension; ac;ons, Trends and Foresight Poten;al. Jivâskylâ: UNIcom.


integrang)plurilingualism/culturalism) into)clil:)an ... ·...

Documents