CLIL as a pathway to additive language

learning across language backgrounds

Thomas Somers, Esli Struys, Jill Surmont & Piet Van de Craen

MuRe, Multilingual Research Group

Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Should CLIL be inclusive?

31/12/2011 | pag. 2

The target groups approach

• ‘Language profile’ of education remains linked to that of the

target population …

• in terms of language abilities and use …

• defined in terms of homogeneous characteristics.

The target groups approach

• Submersion monolingual education

… for majority-language children (bilingualism = ignored)

• Transitional ‘bilingual’ education

… for powerless language-minority children (bilingualism = problem)

• Maintenance & revitalization bilingual education

… for empowered language-minority children (bilingualism = right)

• One-way immersion enrichment bilingual education

… for homogeneous monolingual elite (bilingualism = privilege)

• Two-way immersion enrichment bilingual education

… for two homogeneous language groups (bilingualism = resource)

BE types by language orientation

The target groups approach

• International migratory patterns (e.g. Lambert 1999, Vila 2001)

– diversity of IM languages

– number of IM speakers in total

– number of speakers per IM language

– interspersed settlement pattern

– qualified teachers

– Instructional materials

– language codification & elaboration

– dialect & standard varieties

Limitations and problems

The target groups approach

• Dominant-language-only pedagogy

– disempowering (Kubota 2003)

– ignores learners’ cultural identity (Pavlenko & Blackledge 2004)

– economically limiting (Banks 2004)

– pedagogical succes? (Cummins 2009)

• Two-way immersion (Valdés 1997, 1998; Palmer 2009)

– Power distribution

– Relative language status (need versus option)

– Political/economic language status (EU versus immigrant)

Limitations and problems

The target groups approach

• A target groups approach to education

– may cause subtractive bilingualism

– may lead to segregation

• Organizational formulas based on the homogeneity of

students clearly no longer work

• A different perspective on diversity is needed!

Conclusions

IM students in CLIL

• Influx of IM students in majority bilingual education

(CLIL/immersion)

• CLIL may provide a more suitable alternative to

effective language learning for IM students (Van de Craen

et al. 2007, Sierra & Lasagabaster 2008)

31/12/2011 | pag. 8

Subtractive?

• L1 support… ? (Cummins e.g. 1981)

• ‘’language disadvantage” doesn’t disappear with

removal (Genesee 2007)

• L2+L3 = greater difficulties? (Wolff 2005)

• Concern that they will not have adequate

opportunities to develop L2 (e.g. Dagenais & Berron 1999)

31/12/2011 | pag. 9

Research results

• Paucity of research and lack of agreement (Gunderson 2007,

Auerbach 1993)

• Studies from Canada (e.g. Dagenais et al.), BAC (e.g. Sierra &

Lasagabaster 2008), Catalonia (e.g. Vila 2001, 2009; Nussbaum & Unamuno 2006)

• Looking at

– Beliefs and attitudes: more positive (e.g. Makropoulos 2005;

Dagenais 2003, Dagenais & Day 1998, 1999; Manzanos & Ruiz Pinedo 2005)

– Motivation: ‘’investment” (e.g. Pierce 1995, Makropoulos 2009, Ibarran,

Lasagabaster & Sierra 2008)

– Achievement: equal or even better (overview by Roy & Galiev 2009)

31/12/2011 | pag. 10

Explanations

Two strands of explanations can be discerned:

1. Explanations from a pedagogical perspective

2. Explanations from a learning theoretical

perspective

31/12/2011 | pag. 11

Pedagogical perspective

CLIL is the ultimate communicative language teaching

• CLT should be communicative

• CLT should be inherently repetitive

• CLT should be functional/pragmatic

CLIL cannot be but inherently communicative,

repetitive, and functional/pragmatic.

31/12/2011 | pag. 12

Pedagogical perspective

• L1 support through flexible language arrangements

– code-switching (Gajo 2007, Ferguson 2003)

– translation (Manyak 2004)

– Translanguaging (Garcia 2009)

– transfer (Cummins 2007)

– collaborative dialogue (Swain 2001)

• Language as a cognitive tool for learning (Swain & Lapkin

2005)

• Visual aids, gestures, …

• Language awareness

31/12/2011 | pag. 13

Theory of learning perspective

• CLIL is a form of implicit learning …

• Implicit learning is not associated with ‘academic’

learning …

• It refers to a non-structured, non-guided,

scaffolded, holistic, unconscious mode of learning …

• Content is learnt through language, but no explicit

language teaching takes place, at least not initially…

• The status of this way of learning is different from

explicit learning

31/12/2011 | pag. 14

Theory of learning perspective

What is implicit learning… ?

• Implicit learning is such a form of learning in which

“[complex information] is [learned] without complete

verbalisable knowledge of what is learned” (Seger 1994: 164).

• The difference with explicit learning processes is that implicit

learning is:

• more robust

• independent of age

• less prone to give rise to variation

• independent of IQ

• more suited to shared learning

(cf. Reber 1993)

31/12/2011 | pag. 15

Theory of learning perspective

• Implicit knowledge is later engaged to acquire

explicit knowledge, e.g. grammatical knowledge

• The movement from implicit to explicit learning is

recognized as one of the most powerful learning

mechanisms (Reber 1993, Cleeremans 1997, Shanks 2005)

• The learning outcomes are stronger, and thus creates

stronger learners.

31/12/2011 | pag. 16

Theory of learning perspective

• In CLIL schools when children learn how to read a

difficult language such as French and English, pupils

have better results when they start reading in an

easy language also when that language is not their

mother tongue…

• Wallonian children have better reading results in

their mother tongue if they have started reading in

Dutch (Vandersmissen 2010, Veron 2012)…

31/12/2011 | pag. 17

Example: Reading

Conclusion

• CLIL as a highly stimulating learning environment…

• In which implicit learning processes are central…

• That goes beyond the distinction between additive and

subtractive language learning…

• As learning is language-driven, but not language-specific.

31/12/2011 | pag. 18

Thank you for your attention

Merci de votre attention

Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit

Thomas.Somers@vub.ac.be

References (I)

• Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 27, 9-32.

• Banks, J. (2004). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

• Cleeremans, A. (1997). Principles for Implicit Learning. In D. Berry (Ed.), How implicit is implicit learning? Oxford: Oxford University

Press, pp. 196-234.

• Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In

California State Department of Education (ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles:

Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center California State University, pp. 3–49.

• Cummins, J. (2007): Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. The Canadian Journal of Applied

Linguistics 10, 221–240.

• Cummins, J. (2009). Multilingualism in the English-language classroom: Pedagogical considerations. TESOL Quarterly 43, 317-321.

• Dagenais, D. (2003). Accessing imagined communities through multilingualism and immersion education. Language, Identity and

Education 2, 269-283.

• Dagenais, D., Armand, F., Maraillet, E., & Walsh, N. (2008). Collaboration and co-construction of knowledge during language awareness

activities in Canadian elementary school. Language Awareness 17, 139-155.

• Dagenais, D., Armand, F, Walsh, N., & Maraillet, E. (2008). L’Éveil aux langues et la co-construction de connaissances sur la diversité

linguistique. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10, 197-219.

• Dagenais, D. & C. Berron (1999). A Case Study of Multilingualism and Educational Choices in Immigrant Families. Research on

Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis. Working Papers 20, Vancouver.

• Dagenais, D. & Berron, C. (2001). Promoting multilingualism through French immersion and language maintenance in three immigrant

families. Language, Culture and Curriculum 14, 142-155.

• Dagenais, D. and Day, E. (1998). Classroom language experiences of trilingual children in French immersion. The Canadian Modern

Language Review 54, 376-393.

• Dagenais, D. and Day, E. (1999). Home language practices of trilingual children in French immersion. The Canadian Modern Language

Review 56, 99-123

• Dagenais, D. & Jacquet, M. (2000). Valorisation du multilinguisme et de l'éducation bilingue dans les familles immigrantes. Journal of

International Migration and Integration 1, 389-404.

31/12/2011 | pag. 20

References (II)

• Gajo, L. (2007): Linguistic Knowledge and Subject Knowledge: how does bilingualism contribute to subject development? The International

Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, 863-582

• Genesee, F. (2007). The Suitability of French Immersion for Students who are At-Risk: A Review of Research Evidence. The Canadian

Modern Language Review 63, 655-687.

• Gunderson, L. (2007). English-only instruction and immigrant students in secondary schools: a critical examination. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

• Ibarraran, A., Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J.M. (2008). Multilingualism and language attitudes: Local versus immigrant students’ perceptions.

Language Awareness 17, 326-341.

• Kubota, R., 2003. New approaches to gender, class, and race in second language writing. Journal of second language writing 12, 31-47.

• Lambert, R.D. (1999). A Scaffolding for language policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 137, 3-25.

• Makropoulos, J. (2005). A case study of French immersion stayers in an Ottawa high school: Cultural capital, investment, and

identification to French. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on

bilingualism. Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Press.

• Makropoulos, J. (2009). Factors Related to Student Participation in French Immersion Programs. Journal de l'immersion/Immersion Journal

31, 31-32.

• Manyak, P.C. 2004. “What did she say?” Translation in a primary-grade English immersion class. Multicultural Perspectives, 6, 12–18.

• Manzanos, C. & Ruíz de Pinedo, I. (eds.) (2005). La infancia inmigrante en las escuelas de Vitoria-Gasteiz. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU, Denon

Eskola, Bachue

• Nussbaum, L., Unamuno, V. (eds) (2006). Apropament a l’escola multilingüe. Usos i competències multilingües entre escolars d’origen

immigrant. Bellaterra: Publicacions de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

• Palmer, D. K. (2009). Middle-class English speakers in a two-way immersion bilingual classroom: 'Everybody should be listening to

Jonathan right now...'. TESOL Quarterly 43, 177-202.

• Pavlenko, A., & A. Blackledge. (2004). Introduction. In A. Pavlenko and A. Blackledge (eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual

contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 1-33.

• Pierce, B.N. (1995) “Social identity, investment, and language learning”, TESOL Quarterly 29, 9-31.

• Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. NY: Oxford University Press.

31/12/2011 | pag. 21

References (III)

• Roy, S. & Galiev, A. (2009). Pourquoi les immigrants veulent-ils apprendre le français? Journal de l'immersion/Immersion Journal 31, 38-40.

• Seger, C. A. (1994). Multiple mechanisms in implicit learning. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science

Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 794-799.

• Shanks, D. R. (2005). Implicit learning. In K. Lamberts and R. Goldstone (eds.), Handbook of Cognition. London: Sage, 202-220

• Sierra, J.M. & Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Los programas AICLE en aulas diversas: ¿una alternativa para todos?. Lenguaje y textos 28, 131-142.

• Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review 58, 44–63.

• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: Some implications for program

development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15, 169–186.

• Valdés, G. (1997). Dual language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard

Educational Review 67, 391–429.

• VALDÉS, G. (1998). The world outside and inside school: Language and immigrant children. Educational Researcher 27, 4-18.

• Van de Craen, P., E. Ceuleers, K. Lochtman, L. Allain, and K. Mondt. (2007). An interdisciplinary research approach to CLIL learning in

primary schools in Brussels. In C. Dalton-Puffer and U. Smit (eds.). Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt am Mein:

Peter Lang.

• Vandersmissen, C. (2010). CLIL en lezen: onderzoek naar leesbaardigheid in meertalig onderwijs. Unpublished Master thesis. Vrije Universiteit

Brussel.

• Veron, K. (2012). Nederlandse taalvaardigheid in meertalige Waalse scholen: een vergelijkende studie. Unpublished Master thesis.Vrije

Universiteit Brussel.

• Vila, I. (2001). Algunes qüestions referides a l'aprenentatge lingüístic de la infància estrangera a Catalunya. Articles de didàctica de la

llengua i de la literatura 23, 22-28.

• Vila, I. (2009). Els programes de canvi de llengua de la llar a l'escola: el repte de la catalanització escolar. Treballs de Sociolingüística

Catalana 20, 229-257.

• Wolff, D. (2005). Approaching CLIL. In: Marsh, D. et al. (2005). Project D3-CLIL matrix – Central workshop report 6/2005 (Graz, 3-5

November 2005). European Centre for Modern Languages. 10-25. Retrieved on 9 November 2011 at

http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/clilmatrix/pdf/wsrepD3E2005_6.pdf.

31/12/2011 | pag. 22