CLIL implementation in foreign language contexts

CLIL implementation in foreign language contexts: Exploring challenges and perspectives Part I Guest editors: Eleni Griva Angeliki Deligianni

Volume 8, Issue 1 February 2017

Editor-in-chief:NicosSifakis,HellenicOpenUniversity

Assistanteditors:

EleniManolopoulou-Sergi,HellenicOpenUniversityChristineCalfoglou,HellenicOpenUniversity

Specialadvisortotheeditors:SophiaPapaefthymiou-Lytra,UniversityofAthens

Advisoryboard:

GeorgeAndroulakis,UniversityofThessalyMichaelBeaumont,Universityof

ManchesterYaseminBayyurt,BoğaziçiUniversityMaggieCharles,UniversityofOxfordBessieDendrinos,UniversityofAthensZoltanDörnyei,UniversityofNottinghamRichardFay,UniversityofManchesterVassiliaHatzinikita,HellenicOpen

UniversityJenniferJenkins,Universityof

SouthamptonEvangeliaKaga,PedagogicalInstitute,

GreeceEvdokiaKaravas,UniversityofAthensAlexisKokkos,HellenicOpenUniversityAntonisLionarakis,HellenicOpen

University

EnricLlurda,UniversityofLleidaMarinaMattheoudaki-Sayegh,Aristotle

UniversityofThessalonikiBessieMitsikopoulou,UniversityofAthensAnastasiaPapaconstantinou,Universityof

AthensSpirosPapageorgiou,EducationalTesting

ServiceAngelikiPsaltou-Joycey,Aristotle

UniversityofThessalonikiBarbaraSeidlhofer,UniversityofViennaAreti-MariaSougari,AristotleUniversityof

ThessalonikiJulia-AthenaSprinthourakis,Universityof

PatrasDinaTsagari,UniversityofCyprus

Editorialboard:

ThomaiAlexiou,AristotleUniversityofThessaloniki

LedaAntoniou,HellenicOpenUniversityAnastasiaGeorgountzou,HellenicOpen

UniversityEleniGerali-Roussou,HellenicOpen

UniversityMoiraHill,LincolnQatiefFemaleCollege

VasileiaKazamia,AristotleUniversityofThessaloniki

VasilikiRizomilioti,UniversityofPatrasKosmasVlachos,HellenicOpenUniversityVasiliosZorbas,UniversityofAthens�AikateriniZouganeli,EFLTeacherand

TeacherTrainer

2

TableofContentsofVolume8,Issue1,2017

SpecialIssue

CLILImplementationinForeignLanguageContexts:ExploringChallengesandPerspectives

PartI

pp.Editorial

4

Inmemoriam:KetiZouganeliBessieDendrinos

6

IntroductiontoSpecialIssue—VolumeIEleniGrivaandAngelikiDeligianni

8

CLIL—fromtheorytopractice:challengesandperspectives.AninterviewwithDrMarinaMattheoudakis

15

InnovativeeducationandCLILPietVandeCraenandJillSurmont

22

CLIL as a plurilingual approach or language of real life and language as carrier ofcultureÁineFurlongandMercèBernaus

34

CLILteachersandtheirlanguageMarySpratt

44

Open to interpretation: multiple intelligences teaching approaches in English forSpecificPurposesNatašaBakić-MirićandDavronzhonErkinovichGaipov

62

Reconceptualising schooling: implementing CLIL to cater for all types of multipleintelligencesAlexandraAnastasiadouandKonstantinaIliopoulou

74

Towardanunderstandingofcontentand language integrated learningassessment 88

3

(CLILA)inprimaryschoolclasses:acasestudyMakrinaZafiriandKetiZouganeliSketchingtheprofileoftheCLILinstructorinGreeceMarinaMattheoudakisandThomaïAlexiou

110

ThemanyshadesofCLIL:acasestudyofCLILapplicationbyEnglishteachersofveryyounglearnersataGreekprivateschoolEugeniaP.Iskos,CamillaRallsandSofiaGegkiou

125

AllarticlesinthisJournalarepublishedundertheCreativeCommonsLicenseDeed.Attribution3.0Unported(CCBY3.0)

4

EDITORIALAlthoughtheconceptof ‘Contentandlanguageintegratedlearning’(CLIL)wasfirstusedinthecontextofEuropein1994(Marsh2012:1), inoneformoranother ithasbeenaroundsinceat leastthe1980sandevenbefore, inCanadianimmersioncoursesofthemid1960s(Baker and Jones 1998). What is interesting in the initial spread of the concept of‘immersion’ is that it started from the bottom up,which also accounts for the enormoussuccess of similar programmes. In 1965, a group of English-speaking parents living in theFrenchterritoryofQuebec,Canada,suggestedthataneducationalkindergartenprogrammefor their children be established that would give these children the opportunity (a) tobecome competent to speak, read andwrite in French, (b) to reach normal achievementlevels throughout the curriculum, including theEnglish languageand (c) to appreciate thetraditionsandcultureofFrench-speakingaswellasEnglish-speakingCanadians(Baker2006:245). These same principles of combining language learning, subject learning andinterculturalcompetencearepartandparcelofwhatweunderstandtodayasCLIL.RPLTLisveryhappyand,indeed,proud,todevoteatwo-volumeSpecialIssueonthissubject.TheSpecial Issue isdivided intotwoparts,orvolumes.The firstvolume isconcernedwiththepresentationoftheCLILmodelasaninnovativewayofengaginglearnerswithboththecontenttheyareinterestedinandEnglishlanguageuseandlearning,whileatthesametimemakingthemawareoftheplurilingualcharacterofmodern-daycommunication.Thepaperspresented in this first volume make clear cases for the promotion of CLIL as a way ofenhancing autonomous learning (cf. the paper by van de Craen and Surmont), throughexposing learners to authentic learning situations (Bakić-Mirić and ErkinovichGaipov) andaccountingfordifferentlearningstyles(AnastasiadouandIliopoulou).OfequalinterestandimportanceisthediscussionofdifferentaspectsofCLIL,forexample,theculturaldimensionandthe‘gift’ofplurilingualism(FurlongandBernaus),thecentralissueofassessment(ZafiriandZouganeli),aswellasconcernsforteachercollaborationandplanning(IskosandRalls),teacher education (Mathaioudakis andAlexiou) and, needless to say, teacher professionaldevelopmentthroughCLILinstruction(Spratt).In the second part of the Special Issue, the guest editors have invited teacherswhohaveworkedwithvariousCLILimplementationstosharetheirperspectivesandexperiencesfromthese implementations. This entire volume is a case for formally introducing CLIL in theGreek primary and secondary educational context. The first section of this volume isconcernedwithcomprehensivedescriptionsofCLIL-relatedprojects that showthealreadyextensive integration of the CLILmethodology in such contexts. For example, readers areabletosee,amongotherfascinatingaccounts,howschoolsubjects likehistory,geographyandartcanbeseamlesslyintegratedwiththeteachingandlearningofEnglishto6thgraders(KorosidouandDeligianni),orhowEnglish language teachingand learningcanbeboostedthrough the subject of physical education (Emmanouilidou and Laskaridou). The secondsection goes on to present briefer first-hand descriptions of CLIL implementations by thevery teachers who implemented them. The volume is choke-full of practical ideas andsuggestionsforintegratingCLILindifferentcontexts—butwhatisalsoexcitingistheholistic

Editorial/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning1(2010)4-6

5

account provided by the contributors, which sheds light not only to the strengths andadvantages of CLIL in each separate case but also to the obstacles and problems theyencounteredintheirimplementationoftheCLILframework.TheSpecial Issue isdedicated to the lovingmemoryofourdear friendandcolleague,andmemberofRPLTL’seditorialboard,Aikaterini(Keti)Zouganeli.

NicosC.SifakisEditor-in-Chief

ReferencesBaker,C.(2006).FoundationsofBilingualeducationandBilingualism.(4thedition).Clevedon:

MultiligualMatters.Baker, C. & Jones, S. P. (1998). Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education.

Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Marsh, D. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). A Development

Trajectory.Córdoba:UniversityofCórdoba.

6

InMemoriam

KetiZouganeli

ByBessieDENDRINOSKatherine (Keti) Zouganeli was not merely a colleague and a friend with several of thepeople whose papers appear in this issue of RPLTL, which is dedicated to her, but aninspirationtothoseofuswhowerefortunateenoughtoworkwithherupuntilthelastfewdaysofheruntimelypassing.Adiligent,passionateeducator,concernedaboutthepoliticsof languageteachingand learning,shewastrulyappreciatedbycountlessmembers intheELTcommunityinGreece,bythoseofuswhowereamazedwithhercommitmenttopubliceducation, her enthusiasm for innovative ideas that would appeal to youngsters, herforwardthinkingaboutissuesofELTpedagogy.KetiZouganeli,whowasborn in1952andraised inAthens,graduatedfromtheFacultyofEnglish Language and Literature of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens in1975. From 1995 to 1997, she studied at the University of Warwick in the UK and wasawardedwithaMaster’sdegreeinTEFL.In2001shecompletedapostgraduateprogrammein distance learning at the Hellenic Open University, where she later taught amodule inEnglish for Young Learners –the area in which she had specialized during her studies atWarwick.Thisistheareainwhich,asavolunteer,sheofferedworkshopstoseniorstudentsattheFacultyofEnglishLanguageandLiteratureoftheUniversityofAthens,goingthroughtheirinitialEnglishteachereducationprogramme.KetiZouganelihadstartedbyworkingintheprivatesector,asalanguageschoolowner,butthenwentontobeastatesecondaryschoolEnglishlanguageteacher.In1993shechosetoswitchovertotheprimaryschoolsector,asshelovedyoungstersandadoredworkingwithandforyounglearners.Notthatsheappreciatedolderlearnersanyless.Shewasreadyandeager to be a facilitator to anyone who was interested in new learning experiences informal,semiformalandinformaleducation.Sheservedthestateschoolsystemuntil1999,the year she was seconded to the Ministry of Education to be an adviser on educationmatterstotheMinisterhimself.Sheremainedinthatpostuntil2004.Inthosefiveyearsat

Dendrinos/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning8/1(2017)6-7

7

theMinistry,shepromotedissuesthattheforeignlanguageteachingcommunityinGreecewasconcernedwith.Theseincludedthedevelopmentofamultilingualexaminationsuiteforthe state certificate of language proficiency, known as the KPG exams. The first CentralExamination Board, which was effective in starting to develop the assessment andcertificationsystem,wasappointeduponheradviceandcounsel.From2004 to2010 she servedasaCounsellorat thePedagogic Institute, attached to theMinistryofEducation.Asamemberof theDepartmentofEvaluationandAssessment shecoordinated the research programme for the quality in Greek school education and waseditor of the research report, published in Greek (http://www.pi-schools.gr/programs/erevnes). She was also editor of the proceedings of the PanhellenicConferenceorganisedin2006bythePedagogical InstituteandtheUniversityofAthensonforeign language teaching in compulsory education in Greece (http://www.pi-schools.gr/download/news/pract_sinedr_xenes_glosses.pdf). One additional importantproject for which she took responsibility, while at the Pedagogical Institute, was thecoordinationofthe“EuropeanSurveyofLanguageCompetence”inwhichGreecetookpartin 2000-11. Later, as a fellow of the RCeL of the Faculty of English, University of Athens(2011-2014),shecollaboratedforthequalitativeandquantitativeanalysisoftheGreekdata,and was also one of the editors of Greece’s national report in Greek(http://gr.rcel.enl.uoa.gr/fileadmin/rcel.enl.uoa.gr/uploads/images/ESLC_GR_WEB.pdf) andin English(http://www.rcel.enl.uoa.gr/fileadmin/rcel.enl.uoa.gr/uploads/images/ESLC_EN_WEB.pdf).From2011until2014shewasamemberoftheprojectteamthatdevelopedtheprogrammefortheteachingofEnglishtopupilsofthefirsttwogradesinprimaryschool.ButKetiwassomuchmorethanacollaborator.Shewasanenergizingforceoftheprojecttowhichshegaveheartandsoul.Oneofhersignificantcontributionswasherpart indevelopingane-coursefor self-directed learning entitled TEACHING ENGLISH TO EARLY LANGUAGE LEARNERS(TELL), working closelywith Prof. Kia Karavas and Smaragda Papadopoulou, an e-learningexpertandtireless,giftede-educator.KetiZouganeli,aladywithsuchacharismaticpersonality,willbesorelymissedbytheGreekEFLcommunity.

ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearningVol.8,No.1,February2017,8-14ISSN:1792-1244Availableonlineathttp://rpltl.eap.grThisarticleisissuedundertheCreativeCommonsLicenseDeed.Attribution3.0Unported(CCBY3.0)

SpecialIssueon

CLILIMPLEMENTATIONINFOREIGNLANGUAGECONTEXTS:EXPLORINGCHALLENGESANDPERSPECTIVES

VolumeOne

Introduction

EleniGRIVAandAngelikiDELIGIANNIThisRPLTSpecialIssueaimstobringto‘dialogue’differentperspectivesonresearchissuesrelated toContentandLanguage IntegratedLearning (CLIL)asaneducational challenge. ItaddressesissuesintheareaofCLILbothatanational,inGreece,andinternationallevel,anddeals with concerns, which are relevant to a range of stakeholders, namely educationalpolicy makers, researchers, teachers, material developers. The contributors of this issuereport and discuss challenges of CLIL application in diverse contexts, insights in variousresearchundertakings,andissuesrelatedtotheprovisionofeducationandtrainingforCLILteachers. It is important that understanding the perspectives and responding to thechallengesofCLILmethodofferpotentiallypowerfulnewwaysforsuccessfulandeffectiveimplementationatalleducationallevels.Taking intoconsiderationMarsh,MarslandandStenberg, (2001)whomaintain thatCLIL isaboutusinglanguagestolearn,thinkanddevelopaswellastherelativelyrecentbirthofthismajor trend in educationwhich shelters a variety of practices,we decided to place equalemphasisontheoreticalandpracticalroutesofCLILinbothEuropeanandGreekcontexts.ItisforthisreasonthatthisRPLTLspecialissue,dedicatedtoCLIL,isintendedtocomplementissuesconsideredfromatheoreticalaswellasfromanempiricalandpracticalpointofview,intwovolumes.ThefirstvolumeaspirestoofferacomprehensiveviewofCLIL,asaninnovativemethodinEuropeanandGreekcontexts,alongwithperspectivestocontentlearning,languageuseandplurilingual awareness in CLIL context, as well as teachers’ beliefs about learning in CLIL

GrivaandDeligianni-Georgakas/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning8/1(2017)8-14

9

classrooms in both primary and secondary educational settings. To this end, ProfMarinaMathaioudakis, Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Aristotle University,providesreaderswithherinsightsintothechallengesandbenefitsofimplementingtheCLILapproachatagloballevelandtalksaboutherpersonalexperiencewithCLILimplementationinGreekeducationalcontext.Shetouchesupon issuesrelatedtoCLIL resources,materialsandCLILassessmentandhighlightsthemainproblemsCLILteachersseemtoencounter.CLIL has much in common with other language-led approaches such as the Canadianimmersioneducation,content-basedinstruction(CBI)andEnglishforSpecificPurposes(ESP)(Tedick&Cammarata,2012).AssupportedbyBovellan(2014),theprinciplesof immersioneducationandCBIhaveinfluencedtheteachingofcontentthroughaforeignlanguagewhichhasbecomemorecommoninEuropeinthelastdecades.AsagenerictermCLIL“referstoanyeducational situation inwhichanadditional language […] isused for the teachingandlearningofsubjectsotherthanthelanguageitself”(MarshandLange,inWolff,2005,p.11).CLILmethod includesadual focuson language learningandcognition, theconstructionofsafeandenrichinglearningenvironments,theuseofauthenticmaterials,theenhancementofcooperationamongstudentsandteachers(Hammond,2001)andthepromotionofactivelearning and scaffolding to enhance autonomous learning as Peter van de Craen and JillSurmontstressintheirpaper“InnovativeeducationandCLIL”.CLIL integrates four interrelated principles for effective classroom practice, the ‘4CsFramework’ (Coyle 2008, p.1) according towhich a successful CLIL lesson should focusonthefollowing:1)‘content’,referringtosubjectmatter,2)‘communication’,placingemphasison appropriate language use, 3) ‘cognition’, related to the development of learning andthinking processes, and 4) ‘culture’ lying at the core of this conceptual framework as itenhances awareness of otherness and self and develops pluricultural understanding andglobal citizenship (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010). In response to Coyle’s (2008) ‘4CsFramework’,Meyer(2010)developedthe‘CLILpyramidmodel,whichincludesthefollowingdimensions:a)multifocallessonplanning,b)higherorderthinkingskills,c)scaffoldingskillsand strategies, d) multi-modal input, which caters for individual learning styles andaccommodates multiple intelligences, e) flexibility concerning modes of interaction, f)intercultural communication (Salaberri Ramiro & Sánchez Pérez, 2012, p. 5, in Griva,Chostelidou&Semoglou,2015).AsarguedinEuropeanCommission(2003,p.8),CLILisregardedtohavehighlycontributedto the goals of the European Union towards developing multilingual citizens (EuropeanCommission,2003,p.8),thereforetheEuropeanCommission(EC)havepromotedCLILasaninnovative and efficient tool to develop plurilingual competence among European citizens(EC,1995).AlthoughCLILcanberealizedinanylanguage,intheEuropeancontext,themostpopularlanguageinwhichCLILisundertakenisEnglishduetoitsfunctionasalinguafranca(Juan-Garau,2008,inPapadopoulos&Griva,2014).According toCoyle (2007), CLIL approachhas been followed inmany countries across theworld and as stated in Eyrydice (2012, p 39) “in nearly all European countries, certainschoolsofferaformofeducationprovision,accordingtowhich,non-languagesubjectsaretaughteitherthroughtwodifferentlanguagesorthroughasinglelanguagewhichis‘foreign’accordingtothecurriculum”.Applicabletoalllevelsofeducation,theformsitcantakevaryfrom fewhour cross-curricularprojects to severalmonth courses (Griva&Kasvikis, 2015).ΙntroducingCLILapproachatalleducationallevelshasbeenrecordedasoneoftheprioritiesof EU in acknowledgement of its considerable beneficial aspects (European Commission,


10

2003, p.8, in Griva, Chostelidou & Panteli, 2014). Greece, however, is one of the fewEuropeancountrieswhichdonottakethiskindofprovision.AlthoughCLILapproachhasnotbeenofficiallyintroducedtotheGreekschoolsystemasyet,therehasbeenalargenumberofCLILpilotprojectsimplementedandresearchedbyschoolsanddedicatedteacherswhodesignCLILprojectsandcoursesonthebasisofthedemandsoftheir own unique educational/teaching settings as Holmes (2005) suggests. Prof MarinaMathaioudakis, in her interview, provides us with her insights into the challenges andbenefitsof implementingCLILapproach.While talkingaboutherpersonalexperiencewithCLIL implementation in Greek educational context she reports that in Greece, CLIL hasstartedmaking itswayasaneducationalchallenge inprimaryandsecondaryeducation, inthepast5-7years.With a largenumberofbenefits recorded,Marsh and Frigols (2007, p 33) viewCLIL as “acatalyst for change in language education” as Peter van de Craen and Jill Surmont alsosupportintheirpaper“InnovativeeducationandCLIL”.Thesebenefitsincludeimprovementinlearners’speakingskills(Dalton-Puffer&Smit,2007;Korosidou&Griva,2016),greatgainsin relation to receptive and productive lexicon, specifically with regard to academicvocabulary(Dalton-Puffer&Smit,2007;Lasagabaster,2008)andenhancementofstudents’cognitiveskillsandreadingcomprehensionability(Tsai&Shang,2010).Furthermore,considerablepositiveeffectsonlanguagelearningandknowledgeacquisitioninparticularsubjectareashavebeenreportedinthelastdecades,accordingtoLasagabaster(2008).More specifically, students attending CLIL classes seem to significantly improve incontentknowledgeofaparticularschoolsubject(Stoller,2004,Serra,2007).Also,studentsare provided with opportunities for being exposed in an authentic learning environment(Troncale, 2002), and this is likely to result in their higher motivation through theirwillingness to be involved and participate. Nataša Bakić-Mirić and Davronzhon ErkinovichGaipovofferinsightsintohowauthenticlearningsituationshelpstudentsachievemaximumlearningperformanceinEnglishforSpecificPurposesintheirpaper“OpentoInterpretation:Multiple IntelligencesTeachingApproachinEnglishforSpecificPurposes”.Moreover,AlekaAnastasiadou and Konstantina Iliopoulou reveal that CLIL fends for all learning styles andMultiple Intelligences in addition to building subject knowledge and enhancement of asecond/foreign language mastery, in their contribution “Reconceptualising schooling:ImplementingCLILtocaterforalltypesofMultipleIntelligences”.Finally,asignificantadvantageofintroducingCLILisbroughtaboutwithregardtostudents’cultural awareness (Griva&Kasvikis,2015; Pavlou& Ioannou, 2008; Judith, 2010), as theycome in touch with cultural elements and have the opportunity to “build interculturalknowledgeandunderstanding”(Gimeno,etal.,2013)throughtheirparticipationinculture-based topic projects. There has been a great interest in enhancing multilingualism andmulticulturalismincurrentEuropeansocietyandCLIL,havingemergedsincethemillenniumasamajortrendineducation,isproposed,tothisend,asavaluableeducationalapproach(Järvinen, 2007, p.254). Aine Furlong and Merces Bernaus address the issue of culturedimension in the CLIL classroom and bring out the value of CLIL and plurilingualismintegrated approach in instructional contexts, in their contribution “CLIL as a plurilingualapproachorthelanguageofreallifeandlanguageascarrierofculture”.DespitethenumerousbenefitsofadoptingCLILapproachthereseemstobeagreatdealofhesitation and uncertainty on the part of the teachers due to a number of discouragingfactorswhichincludeitscomplexity,theissueofwhoistoteachCLIL,theteacheroverload,


11

since there is shortage of CLIL materials and finally CLIL assessment as the manifoldpossibilities to arrange it need to be still explored (Johnstone, 2000). An interestingperspectiveofCLILassessmentisofferedbyMakrinaZafiriandKetiZouganeliintheirarticle“TowardanunderstandingofContentandLanguageIntegratedLearningAssessment(CLILA)in Greek Primary Schools” where they propose the development of an assessmentframeworkwhichencompassesCLILassessmentandmethodsthatexploitexistingresourcesin both Greece and Europe. Findings of research conducted by Eugenia Iskos and CamillaRalls, offered in their contribution “Application of CLIL for very young learners of English:Whataretheteachersdoingataprivateschool inGreece?”revealthatbarrierstoCLILfortheteachersaremostlyaneedforcollaborationwithothersaswellas timeandplanning,andindicatethatCLILisanintegralpartoftheirteachingpracticesforveryyounglearners.Thereisfinallytheproblemofinsufficientunderstandingofcontentthroughthemediumofforeign language and the requirement on the part of the teacher for both language andsubject knowledge.Research findingsonvariousaspectsofCLIL teacher languageand thediscourse characteristics of CLIL teacher language are offered by Μary Spratt in “CLILteachers and their language use” where she makes recommendations for CLIL teacherlanguage training as part of their professional development. To cope with theaforementionedproblemstheCLILteacherisinneedofspecialtrainingduetothedemandforplanningCLILlessonswhich“requiresadifferentapproachfromtriedandtestedpracticeembedded ineithersubjectdisciplinesor foreign languagestudy” (Coyle,2006,p.11).CLILtraining, as discussed by Mehisto, Frigols and Marsh (2008, pp.232-236), includes theenhancement of CLIL teacher ability to create rich and supportive target-languageenvironments.DiscussingtheprofileofCLILinstructorinGreece,MarinaMathaioudakisandThomaiAlexiouhighlighttheneedforteachereducationprogrammes intheircontribution“SketchingtheprofileoftheCLILinstructorinGreece”.Niemi (2004, p.190, in Bovelann, 2014) maintains that there is a significant connectionbetween teachingmaterials and learning results therefore the teacher’s role in designingthemisvital.ThedifficultchallengethatCLILteacherisconfrontedwithlies inthebalancerequiredbetweenthecontentand languageas there isshortageof relevantmaterialsandresources.AshighlightedbyProfMarinaMathaioudakis,inherinterview,themainproblemsthatteachersseemtoencounterarethe lackofCLILteachingmaterialandtheabsenceoftraining.Additionally, further researchonCLILmaterials is suggested, fromadesignandataskperspective (Coyleetal.2010,p.147).CLIL trainingalsoaimsatenabling teachers tomake input comprehensible, to effectively use teacher-talk, to promote student’scomprehensible output and attend to diverse students’ needs (Mehisto, Frigols &Marsh,2008,pp.232-236).Atthispoint,weexpressourbeliefthattheaforementioneddiscouragingconditionscanbeovercomewiththecontributionandsupportofeducationalauthoritiesinthelightofrelatedresearchstudiesandthereforewehaveundertakenthisspecialRPLTLissueonCLIL.Wealsobelievethatthere isasignificant futureforCLILdevelopment inbothEuropeanandGreekcontexts.PetervandeCraenandJillSurmontin“InnovativeeducationandCLIL”arguethatCLIL is considered to be an important driver for educational change as, since the mid-nineties, ithasbeen introduced inEuropeasareactiontopoorresultsregarding languageteachingandlearning,aimingtopromotetheinternationalizationofeducationwhichisoneoftheCLILclassroomgoals.Concluding,itisexpectedthatthroughthepublicationofthisRPLTLspecialissueonCLIL,wecan contribute to a further in-depth understanding of CLIL. The contributions provide


12

perspectives from different angles to the above concerns, since they highlight some keyissuesinCLIL,demonstratethatthismethodcouldbefruitfultolanguagedevelopmentandcontentknowledgeforvariouspurposesindifferentcontexts,stressing,however,theneedforteachertrainingandraisingatthesametimeimportantquestionsabouttheidentifiableways and limits CLIL needs to have inmanifesting itself.We hope that these studies willprove useful to researchers and practitioners, send strong messages to policymakers ineducationandinspirefutureresearchinthisdirectioninGreeceandelsewhere.ReferencesBovellan, E. (2014). Teachers’ Beliefs about Learning and Language as reflected in Their

ViewsofTeachingMaterialsforContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL).CentreforAppliedLanguageStudies,UniversityofJyväskylä.

Coyle, D. (2006). ‘Towards strategic classrooms: learning communities which nurture thedevelopmentoflearnerstrategies’.LanguageLearningJournal,31/1:65-79.

Coyle,D.(2008).‘CLIL–apedagogicalapproach’.InN.VanDeusen-Scholl&N.Hornberger(Eds),EncyclopediaofLanguageandEducation.Springer,97-111.

Coyle,D.,Hood,P.&Marsh,D.(2010).CLIL:ContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (2007). ‘Introduction’. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Ed.),EmpiricalPerspectivesonCLILClassroomDiscourse.Frankfurt,Vienna:PeterLang,7-23.

European Commission (1995). White paper on education and training: Teaching andLearning: towards the learning society. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/white-papers/index_en.htm.

European Commission. (2003). Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: AnAction Plan 2004-2006. Brussels: European Unit. Available at:http://ec.europa.eu/education/doc/official/keydoc/actlang/act_lang-en.pdf.

Eurydice. (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012. Brussels:Education,AudiovisualandCultureExecutiveAgency.

Gimeno,A.,ÓDónaill,C.&Zygmantaite,R.(2013).‘ClilstoreGuidebookforteachers’.ToolsforCLILTeachers.Availableat:www.languages.dk/archive/ools/book/Clilstore_EN.pdf.

Griva, E., Chostelidou,D.& Panteli, P. (2014). ‘Ιnsider views of CLIL in primary education:challenges and experiences of EFL teachers’. International Journal for Innovation,EducationandResearch,2/8:31-53.

Griva, E. Chostelidou, D. & Semoglou, K. (2015). ‘“Our Neighbouring Countries”: RaisingMulticulturalAwarenessthroughaCLILProjectForYoungLearners’. InA.Akbarov(Ed),The practice of foreign language teaching : theories and appluications. CambridgeScholars,174-184.

Griva, E. & Kasvikis, K. (2015). ‘CLIL in Primary Education: Possibilities and challenges for developing L2/FL skills,historyunderstandingandcultural awareness’. InΝ.Bakić-Mirić & D. Erkinovich Gaipov (Eds.), Current trends and issues in education: aninternationaldialogue.CambridgeScholarsPublishing,125-140.

Hammond, J. (2001).Scaffoldingteachingand learning in languageand literacyeducation.Sydney:PrimaryEnglishTeachingAssociation.

Holmes, E. (2005). Teacher Well-being: Looking After Yourself and Your Career in theClassroom.NewYork:RoutledgeFalmer.

Järvinen, H. (2007). ‘Language in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)’. In D.Marsh&D.Wolff(Eds),DiverseContexts–ConvergingGoals.CLILinEurope.


13

Johnstone,R.(2000).‘Earlylanguagelearning’.InM.Byram(Ed.),EncyclopediaofLanguageTeachingandLearning.Routledge:London,188–193.

Judith,A.(2010).‘RaisinginterculturalawarenessatprimarylevelthroughstorytellingwithinaCLILapproach’.MasterThesis,UniversidadeNovadeLisboa.

Korosidou,E.&Griva,E.(2016).‘“It’sthesameworldthroughdifferenteyes”:aCLILprojectforyoungEFLlearners’.Col.AppliedLinguisticsJournal,18/1:116-132.

Lange,G.(2001).TeachingthroughaForeignLanguage.Availableat:www.tieclil.org.Lasagabaster, D. (2008). ‘Foreign Language Competence in Content and Language

IntegratedCourses’.TheOpenAppliedLinguisticsJournal,1:31-42.Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE. The European Dimension. UniCOM Continuing Education

Centre,UniversityofJyvaskyla,Finland.Marsh, D.,Marsland, B.& Stenberg, K. (2001). Integrating Competencies forworking Life.

VocTalk: University of Jyvaskyla & The European Platform for Dutch Education: TheHague.

Marsh, D, & Frigols, MJ. (2007). ‘CLIL as a catalyst for change in language education, inBabylonia’.JournalofLanguageTeachingandLearning,33-37.

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. & Frigols, M. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and LanguageIntegratedLearninginBilingualandMultilingualEducation.Oxford:Macmillan.

Meyer,O. (2010). ‘Towardsquality-CLIL: successfulplanningand teaching strategies’.Puls,33:11-29.

Papadopoulos, I.&Griva,E. (2014). ‘Learning inthetracesofGreekCulture:aCLILprojectforraisingculturalawarenessanddevelopingL2skills’.InternationalJournal of Learning,TeachingandEducationalResearch,8:76-92.

Pavlou, P. & Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2008). ‘The educational approach CLIL and theapplication prospects of the Primary and Pre-Primary Education in Cyprus’. 10thConeferenceofPedagogicalAssociationofCyprus,UniversityofCyprus,June2008.

Serra, C. (2007). ‘Assessing CLIL at Primary School: A Longitudinal Study’. InternationalJournalofBilingualismandBilingualEducation,10/5:582-602.

Stoller,F. (2004). ‘Content-based instruction:Perspectivesoncurriculumplanning’.AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics,24:261-283.

Tedick, D. & Cammarata, L. (2012). ‘Content and Language Integration in K–12 Contexts:StudentOutcomes,TeacherPractices,andStakeholderPerspectives’.ForeignLanguageAnnals,45/1:28-53.

Troncale,N. (2002).Content-Based Instruction, Cooperative Learning, andCALPInstruction:Addressing the Whole Education of 7-12 ESL Students. Available at:http://journals.tclibrary.org/index.php/tesol/article/File/19/24.

Tsai, Y. & Shang, H. (2010). ‘The impact of content-based language instruction on EFLstudents'readingperformance’.AsianSocialScience,6/3:77-85.

Wolff, D. (2005). ‘Approaching CLIL’. In D.Marsh (Ed.), Project D3 - CLILMatrix. The CLILqualitymatrix.CentralWorkshopReport,10-25.

EleniGriva([email protected]&[email protected])isanAssociateProfessorofAppliedLinguisticsattheDepartmentofPrimaryEducation,UniversityofWesternMacedonia,Greece.Sheisalsothecoordinatorofthe“TestingandAssessmentinLanguageLearning”moduleoftheM.Ed,inTESOLoftheSchoolofHumanitiesoftheHOU.Herresearchinterests

include:L2/FLLearningandTeaching,LanguageLearningStrategies,Bilingualism/Multilingualism,MethodsandMaterialsinBilingual/SL

Education,TeachingGreekaL2/Fl,AssessmentinLanguageLearning.


14

AngelikiDeligianni-Georgakas([email protected])isatutor-counselorintheTEYLmoduleatHOU’sM.Ed.inTESOLprogram.SheholdsanEdDdegreefromExeterUniversity,UKinTESOLandaMastersdegreefromAUTHin

Pedagogy.ShehasworkedinthepostofEFLSchoolAdvisorandtaughtatAristotleUniversity.ShehasalsoservedonthepostofEducation

CounselorattheGreekEmbassyinLondonandcooperatedwithHellenicPedagogicalInstituteandCouncilofEuropeonanumberofEFLprojects.

Herinterestareasinclude:MetacognitiveStrategiesAwarenessinLanguageLearning,CLIL,Multi/Pluriligualism,AlternativeAssessment.

15


CLIL—fromtheorytopractice:challengesandperspectives

AninterviewwithDrMarinaMATTHEOUDAKISTheintroductionofCLILatalleducationallevelshasbeenrecordedasoneoftheprioritiesofvarious Educational systems in Europe, in acknowledgement of its considerable beneficialaspects.InGreece,CLILhasbeenmakingitswayasaneducationalchallengeinprimaryandsecondary education, in the past 5-7 years. Marina Matthaioudakis, who is an associateProfessorofAppliedLinguisticsat theAristotleUniversity,hasbeenoneof thepeoplewhotookthe initiativeto introduceCLIL intheGreekEducationalsystemandshehasalsobeentheCLILcoordinatorat3rdexperimentalprimaryschoolinThessaloniki.Intheinterviewthatfollows, she provides readers with her insights into the challenges and benefits ofimplementingtheCLILapproachatagloballevel(abroad),andshetalksaboutherpersonalexperiencewithCLILimplementationinGreekeducationalcontext.Shetouchesuponissuesrelated to CLIL resources, materials and CLIL assessment. Concerning CLIL teachers, shehighlights that the main problems they seem to encounter is the lack of CLIL teachingmaterial and the absence of training. Finally, she expresses her belief that there is asignificant future forCLILdevelopment inGreekEducational system,however she suggestssupportfromthepartoftheeducationalauthoritiestoallthoseteacherswhoarewillingtoexperimentinnovations.TheinterviewwasconductedbyEleniGrivaandAngelikiDeligianni,RPLTLGuestEditors,inFebruary2016.

�Η εισαγωγή της μεθόδου CLIL σε όλες τις βαθμίδες εκπαίδευσης αποτελεί μία από τιςπροτεραιότητες διαφόρων εκπαιδευτικών συστημάτων στην Ευρώπη, εξαιτίας τωνιδιαίτεραενθαρρυντικώναποτελεσμάτων.ΣτηνΕλλάδα,ημέθοδοςCLILκάνειτηνεμφάνισήτης ως εκπαιδευτική πρόκληση στην πρωτοβάθμια και δευτεροβάθμια εκπαίδευση, τατελευταία5-7χρόνια.ΗΜαρίναΜατθαιουδάκη,ηοποίαείναιαναπληρώτριακαθηγήτριαΕφαρμοσμένης Γλωσσολογίας στο Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο, υπήρξε από τους πρώτουςερευνητές που πήραν την πρωτοβουλία εισαγωγής της μεθόδου CLIL στο ελληνικόεκπαιδευτικό σύστημα, και είναι η συντονίστρια των προγραμμάτων CLIL στο 3οΠειραματικόΔημοτικόΣχολείοστηΘεσσαλονίκη.Στησυνέντευξηπουακολουθεί,ηΜαρίναΜατθαιουδάκηπαρέχει στους αναγνώστες πληροφορίες για τις προκλήσεις και τα οφέληαπό την εφαρμογή της CLIL σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο (στο εξωτερικό), και παρουσιάζει τηνπροσωπική της εμπειρίααπό την εφαρμογή της μεθόδου CLIL στο Ελληνικό εκπαιδευτικόπλαίσιο. Θίγει θέματα που σχετίζονται με το εκπαιδευτικό υλικό για εφαρμογές με τηνμέθοδοCLILκαιτηναξιολόγησησεένατέτοιοπλαίσιο.Όσοναφοράτουςεκπαιδευτικούς,τονίζειότιτακύριαπροβλήματαπουανακύπτουνείναιηέλλειψηδιδακτικούυλικούκαιη

Matthaioudakis/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning8/1(2017)15-21

16

έλλειψηκατάρτισης.Τέλος,εκφράζειτηνπεποίθησήτηςότιυπάρχεισημαντικόμέλλονγιατηνανάπτυξητηςμεθόδουCLILστοελληνικόεκπαιδευτικόσύστημα,ωστόσο,προτείνειτηνυποστήριξη,απότηνπλευράτωναρχών,όλωνεκείνωντωνεκπαιδευτικώνοιοποίοιείναιπρόθυμοιναπειραματιστούνσεκαινοτομίες. ΗσυνέντευξηδόθηκεστηνΕλένηΓρίβακαιΑγγελικήΔεληγιάννη,RPLTLGuestEditors,τονΦεβρουάριοτου2016.Eleni Griva (EG): Broadly speaking, what do you perceive are the most positiveaspects/benefits/outcomesofteachingContentthroughEnglish?MarinaMattheoudakis (MM): The teaching of content through English – or CLIL, as Iwillrefertoit–isatypeofbilingualeducation.Beingaformofbilingualeducation,itisexpectedto provide linguistic, cognitive and sociocultural benefits similar to those of bilingualeducationprogrammes.ThelanguagegainsthatstudentsacquirethroughCLILareprobablyexpected as CLIL is input-based and students are exposed to a wealth of language inputwhile at the same time they are required to interact, negotiate and thus produce richlanguageoutput.CLILhasapositiveimpactonlanguagefluencyandaccuracy,onvocabularydevelopment (both receptive and productive) and on the development of academiclanguage. The fact that learners are taught a school subject in English requires theuseofacademic language and terminology and this results in what Cummins (2000) has calledCognitive and Academic Language Proficiency (or CALP). As for the cognitive benefits,Bialystok (2001) claimed that bilingualism enhances specific intellectual abilities, such asinhibitorycontrol,shiftingofattentionandworkingmemory.Recentstudieshaveprovidedevidence for similarcognitivegains for studentsasa resultofCLIL instruction. In thisareamore research is definitely needed but preliminary findings are quite encouraging andpromising.WhatisclearthoughisthatCLILpromoteslearners’criticalthinkingandcognitiveflexibility. CLIL instruction involves implicit learningprocesses and thus learners are led todevelop not only lower-order thinking skills (LOTs) (e.g. understanding andmemorization)but mainly, and most importantly, higher order thinking skills (HOTs), such as analysis,evaluation, creation. The third important benefit of CLIL instruction refers to learners’sociocultural development; CLIL allows learners to familiarize themselves with othercultures,itdevelopstheirsocialawarenessofselfand‘otherness’.EG: What are the key issues regarding the balance between content and languagedevelopmentinthedesignofaCLILcourse?MM: According to the CLIL principles, this method has a dual focus, on content and onlanguage,andthustheteachingaimsofaCLILlessonshouldbebothlinguisticandcontentones. I’m not sure to what extent the balance between content and language can beachievedandmaintainedasinpractice,Isuppose,thefocusoftenshiftsfromtheonetotheother (from content to language and vice versa), according to the learners’ needs andaccordingtotheteachingcontext.Havingsaid that, I shouldclarify that,whendesigningaCLILcourse,itisthecontentthatdrivestheselectionofthelanguageandnottheotherwayaround. Let me illustrate that with an example. A teacher who teaches EnvironmentalStudiesthroughEnglishmayasklearnerstosuggesthowtheywouldsavetheplanetiftheywerethePresidentoftheircountry.Inthiscase,theaimisforlearnerstomakereasonablesuggestionsandprovide relevantarguments.Theuseof theconditional isaby-productofthe topic. Thus, if the suggestions and the argumentation provided by the learners areappropriate,inaccurateuseofconditionalformsisquiteunimportant.


17

EG:WhatarethecharacteristicsofthebestCLILmodeltouse?MM: CLIL is a flexiblemethod; this means that its implementation in different Europeancountries may vary widely in order to serve the teaching and learning needs of thecorresponding educational systems and contexts. I would not say that there is one singleCLILmodelthatisconsideredtobethebest.WhatIwouldsayinsteadisthataCLILmodelisgoodifitpromotesthelinguisticandcognitivedevelopmentofthelearnersaddressedintheparticulareducationalcontext. Imightalsosuggest that theeffectivenessofCLIL is largelydependentontheteacherandonthematerialused.EG: What is the process of curriculum development in a CLIL context? Whatteaching/learning materials and environments, tools and resources would you include tosupportteachersinCLILcontextintegratingcontentandlanguage?MM:TeachersinCLILcontextneedanarrayoftools,resourcesandmaterials.Thefirstthingtheyneedistomapthesyllabustheyneedtocover.ThisrequirescooperationbetweentheEFLandtheclassteacher;insomecases,teamteachingmightberequired.ThesecondstepistodesigntheappropriateCLILmaterialfortheageandgradeoflearnersaddressed.Thisisalongprocessandteachersneedtohaveaccesstotheinternetwheretherearehundredsof relevant websites with pictures, videos, tips and ideas, interviews, etc. The design ofappropriateworksheets, aswell as the involvementof learners in interactiveprojects, arehighlyrecommendedinallCLILlessons.EG:WhataboutCLILassessment?Isthelanguageorthesubjectknowledgeassessed?MM:Asweknow,CLILisadualfocusedmethodwhichplacesemphasisontheintegrationoflanguageandcontent.Thisdoesnotmeanhoweverthatteachersshouldcorrecterrorsandmistakesinbothlanguageandcontent.CLILisameaning-basedmethodandthismeansthatmeaning is given priority in both input and output. So, if learners achieve to convey themeaning intended in the foreign language effectively, teachers should not be concernedwiththeirlanguageinaccuracies.Angeliki Deligianni (AD):What are themain problems for the Greek teachersworking incontentandlanguageintegration?MM:ThemainproblemsthatallCLILteachersseemtoencounteristhelackofCLILteachingmaterial and the absence of teacher training targeting the needs of a CLIL teacher-to-be.These are problems that CLIL teachers in other countries encounter aswell; in fact,mostarticlesandreportsonCLILpointattheseproblemsandattheneedforcoordinatedactionsin Europe for the organisation of teacher training courses and the publication of CLILteachingmaterial.AD:ThereissomeinterestaroundCLILinGreece,butmanyteachersconsidertheapproachextremely demanding. What could you say to encourage them to implement CLILapproachesintheirclasses?Haveyougotanypracticaltipsforthoseteachers?MM: I would prefer to say that CLIL is challenging rather than demanding. The word‘demanding’ has negative connotations and that is not a fair description of CLIL. CLILrequiresmorework,especiallyfromanoviceCLILteacher,becauseteachersneedtodesign


18

theirownmaterialsandtracetheirownpathsinsteadofblindlyfollowingaschooltextbookandthesyllabusprescribed.ItischallengingbecauseitissomethingcompletelynewfortheGreek educational context and in that respect CLIL teachers have to access articles andstudiesonCLILinordertoinformthemselvesaboutthismethod.Havingsaidthat,however,IshouldalsoaddthatCLIILisimmenselyrewardingandfun.Ihavemetseveralprimaryandsecondary school teachers who decided to innovate in their schools and implement themethod and after one year of CLIL teaching experience, they were enthusiastic andimpressedwiththeirlearners’languagedevelopmentbutalsowiththeirskillstocopewithunknown content in a foreign language.Apart from their students’ language competence,however,whatwasequally rewardingwas teachers’professionaldevelopment.Theywerehappyandsatisfiedwiththemselvesandexcitedaboutwhattheyhadmanagedtoachievejustbecausetheyweresomuchmotivated.AD: What are the implications of CLIL challenge for teacher training and professionaldevelopment?MM:CLILteachertrainingneedstobecentrallycoordinatedandorganizedincollaborationwiththeacademia.Itneedstobemeaningfullyintegratedinourteachertrainingsystemandtargetbothpre-serviceand in-service teachers.The lackofappropriate teachingmaterialshas been pointed out time and again by various researchers and practitioners in otherEuropeancountries.AtthispointthereareCLILmaterialspublishedandusedinanumberofEuropean countries but as CLIL is implemented differently in those contexts, it is highlyunlikelythatthosematerialsaretransferabletooureducationalcontexts.Teachertrainingshould therefore include training formaterial design based on CLIL principles and the 4Cframework proposed by Coyle (1999). CLIL is a new method of teaching that aims tointegrate languageandcontent; therefore, it shouldnotbe seenasanaddition to foreignlanguageteacherswhoarerequiredtoteachanothersubject,norasanadditiontocontentteachers in order to increase their language proficiency. We need to approach it fromvarious disciplines without the fear of losing territory and take the step further towardsenriching it in order to achieve the best possible educational outcomes for students andeducatorsalike.PersonalexperiencewithCLILimplementationinGreekeducationalcontextAD: When did you start your CLIL journey with 3rd experimental primary school?MM: My CLIL journey with the particular school started in 2010 when we (the EFLinstructorsandthesupervisorycommitteeoftheschool)decidedtointroduceCLILasapilotproject.Now, fiveyears later,CLIL is systematically implementedasamethodof teachingvariousschoolsubjectsfromgrade1to6.CLILisnotimplementedinthisschoolasanelitistapproachtolanguagelearningandthusnostudentselectionismade;onthecontrary,CLILaims at everybody and thus, all learners graduating from this year onwards will havereceivedatleastoneyearofCLILinstruction–foratleastoneschoolsubject.AD:What challenges have you been facing as CLIL coordinator at the 3rd experimentalprimaryschool?MM:AsaCLILcoordinatorIfacedonlyonechallenge:thatofconvincingstudents’parentsthat CLILworks. However, thiswas a short-lived challenge because after the first year all


19

parentswantedtheirchildrentodoCLIL.AfterthatIhadadifferentkindofchallengetofaceandthatwassatisfyingparents’requestforCLILprovisiontoalllearnersatschool.AD:WhatissuesandchallengesEFLandGEteachersof3rdexperimentalprimaryschoolhavebeenfacingwhenteachinginaCLILcontext?MM:Theyhavebeenfacingvariouschallenges;perhapsthemostimportantoneisthatofdesigning their own teachingmaterials, as neither the school textbook nor other kind oftextbookcansatisfytheirneeds.So,theyhavetousetheprescribedsyllabusbuttheyneedtodesigntheirownmaterials,scaffoldthem,supportthemvisuallyandacoustically,gradethem,differentiatethem,etc.AnotherchallengetheyhaveprobablyfacedrelatestothefactthattheyareteachingyounglearnerswhoseEnglishlanguagelevelcannotbetoohigh(nomatterhowmanyhoursofEFLinstructiontheygetatschool).Thismeansthatthematerialdesigned needs to be both linguistically and cognitively adjusted to learners’ abilities andcompetences.Overall, the challenge is the fact that theyhavebeenpioneers in this field.TheywerethefirstoneswhoimplementedCLILwithinaGreekstateschoolcurriculumandtheyaretheonlyoneswhohavebeendoingitsystematicallywithinthesameschoolforsomanyyears.AD:HavetherebeenanylimitationswithinCLILthatyouareawareof?MM:Asallothermethodsandapproaches,CLILhasitsownlimitationsaswell.Theserelateto the lackofCLILmaterialsandto the limitedteacher trainingavailable for teacherswhowishtobecomeCLIL instructors.Somehow, interest inCLILtookoffveryfastandteachersdidnothavethenecessarytimetoacquirethetrainingneeded.Additionally,CLILmaterialsarestillscarceandeventhoseavailabledonotsuitlearners’needsindifferentcountriesandeducationalsystems.AD:WhatisyourexperienceofassessingCLILin3rdExperimentalSchool?MM:The implementationofCLIL inthe3rdExperimentalSchoolhasbeenassessedforthepast6years.Thisassessmentconcernedlearners’languagedevelopment,theirperformanceintheCLILsubjects(e.g.Geography,History,EnvironmentalStudies,etc.),andtheiraffectivedevelopment.Research into the impactofCLILoncontent learningseems to indicate thatCLIL learnersare, ingeneral,bettercontentlearnersthannon-CLIL learnersandtheyoftenoutperform their non-CLIL peers when tested in the L1. As they need to process andcomprehendcontentinaforeignlanguage,theyconstructcomplexconceptsandschemata.SuchfindingsmaybeattributedtoCLILstudents’greaterpersistenceontasksassigned,andtotheirhighertoleranceoffrustration.Asfortheirmotivationandaffectivereactions,CLILlearnersusually start their CLIL lessonswith skepticismand feelingsof concern, but theseare soon overcome when they realize that both language and content comprehensionimproveanddevelopquitefast.EG:CanCLILberecommendedforalltypesofGreekstateschools?MM:Ifwerefertobothgeneralandvocationalhighschools,yes,ofcourseitcan.EspeciallyinvocationalhighschoolsCLILisprobablythebestmethodtoteachEnglishasitallowstheteachingoftheforeignlanguagethroughtheteachingofasubject.Thus,learnerswhostudyinthoseschoolsandwhoarelessinterestedintheanalysisofthelanguageorintheexplicitteachingof its forms,will thrive inCLIL classroomswhere theywillbe led to focuson the


20

contentof thecourse rather thanon themediumof instruction.OfcourseCLILcannotbeimplemented in thesameway inall school settings.Dependingon thestudentpopulationandtheteachers’choices,someschoolsmayimplementthehardversionofCLIL,aswecallit,whileothersmightimplementasofterversionofCLIL.EG:Whatarethedifficultiesforstudentsincommunicatingcontentwhich‘surpasses’theirforeignlanguageproficiencylevel?MM:WhetherinaCLILclassornot,studentsinforeignlanguageclassesregularlyencounterproblemswithcommunicatingdifficult content.Asopposed toanEFLclass,however,CLILclassesalwaysprovidecontextualizedinstructionandatypeof immersion,thatis,richandextensivelanguageinputinwhichlearnersimmerse.Giventhis,itismuchmoreprobableforaCLIL learner, than fora regularEFL learner, tobeable tocommunicate thecontents/hewants by paraphrasing andmaking up for the language s/he doesn’t have.Of course onemight argue that the content in CLIL instruction is more academic and therefore morecognitively challenging for learners. So, I would suggest that what learners might finddifficultywithinaCLILclassroomisnottheunknownvocabularyorthegrammarrulesbutrather the academic discourse. However, let me remind you here that the acquisition ofacademiclanguageisoneofthegreatestbenefitsthatlearnersgainfromCLILinstruction.EG:CanCLILberecommendedforalllanguagelevels,andagegroups?Forexample,canCLILapproachbeemployedforpre-schoolers?MM:CLIL has been tried in all sectors of education (primary, secondary and tertiary) andseveralstudiesandresearchprojectsinFinland,Germany,Spain,theNetherlandsandothercountrieshavereportedontheresultsofthisimplementation.Overall,itseemsthatCLILismainly implemented in secondary schools in Europe, even though our CLIL experience inGreecederivesmainlyfromtheprimaryeducation.Asforthepre-schoolers,yourquestiongives me the opportunity to break the news about the recent introduction of CLIL to akindergarteninThessaloniki.CLILteachingatpre-schoolwaslaunchedasapilotprojecttwoyears ago by the School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The preliminaryresultsofthatpilotprojectwerequiteencouragingandthisyearweareofficiallyintroducingCLILinakindergarteninEvosmoswhichisexpectedtobecomepartofthe3rdExperimentalPrimarySchoolofEvosmos.EG:DoesCLILmakeEFLinmainstreamGreekEducationamorerealisticandachievableaim?MM: I should think ‘yes’. Because of the rich input provided and the extensive outputrequired, CLIL promotes language acquisitionwithin the instructed context. IfmainstreamEFL teaching followed the same principles, languageswould bemore effectively acquiredwithin the school setting. Unfortunately, EFL teachers focus too much on the explicitteaching of the language and miss valuable opportunities to use the foreign languagemeaningfullyandinteractpurposefullywiththeirlearners.EG:Whatwouldyousay toCLILsceptics tomakethembelieve thatcontentand languageintegratedlearningisnotjusta‘European’trendorfashioninEFLteaching?MM: CLIL was introduced because of Europe’s dissatisfaction with foreign languageeducationatschools.SeveralthingshavechangedinEFLeducationduringthelast40years:TheadventofCommunicativeLanguageTeaching,earlyforeignlanguageinstruction,useofComputerAssistedLanguageLearning,projects, crosscurricular teaching,andmanymore.


21

Although all of them were important innovations at that time, their impact on learningresultswasnot impressive. CLIL seems toworkbecause it increases learners’ exposure tothelanguageaswellastheiropportunitiesforlanguageproduction;it isatypeofbilingualeducationwhich seems to suit European educational systemsbecause it does not requirecurricularchangesandextensionoftheschooltimetable.WeareallexperiencedlearnersofEnglish.SomeofusarealsoexperiencedteachersofEnglish.Weallknowhowlongittakeslearnerstospeaktheforeign languageanduse itmeaningfullyandfluently;someofthemnevermanageto.ThesehavebeentheresultsofmainstreamEFLeducationinGreeceandofcourse inotherpartsof theworld. Ifwe continue to teach in thewaywewere taughtoreveninthewaywehavebeenteachingforsomanyyears,wearejustgoingtoproducethesame type of learners and similar learning results. I think that the best way to convincesomeone that CLIL does work is to help them experience it. Teachers who decide toexperiment with the method are very soon convinced of its applicability, usefulness andeffectiveness.CLILisnotanidealmethodofteachingbutithasthepotentialtoimprovethequalityofbothforeignlanguageandsubjectteachingandbringtogetherlanguageeducatorsandcontentteachers.EG:WhatisthefutureforCLILdevelopmentinGreekEducationalsystem?MM:BeingoneofthepeoplewhotooktheinitiativetointroduceCLILintheGreekprimarystate education, I shouldbe ableperhaps tohave a clear(er) pictureofwhat lies ahead. Idon’t.What I can see is an unpredictable explosion of interest expressed by practitionersfrom both primary and secondary schools all around Greece. What I cannot see,unfortunately, is a corresponding and much anticipated initiative taken by the Greekeducational authorities which seem to be totally absent from these bottom-up reforms.Greeceneedsaneducationreformthatwillbuildonwhathasautonomouslybeenachievedtodateandgiveaboostandwellcoordinatedsupporttoallthoseteacherswhoarewillingtomakeadifferenceandchangethestatusquoatschools.EG: Professor Mattheoudakis, I would like to thank you very much for this interestinginterview,andthetimewespentspeaking.MM:ThankyouDrGrivaandDrDeligianni.Ithasbeenapleasuretospeakwithyou.

References

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy and Cognition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Coyle, D. (1999). ‘Theory and planning for effective classrooms: supporting students incontentandlanguageintegratedlearningcontexts’.InJ.Masih(Ed),LearningThroughaForeignLanguageLondon:CILT.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: bilingual children in the cross-fire.Clevedon,UK:MultilingualMattersLtd.


InnovativeEducationandCLIL

ΚαινοτόμοςΕκπαίδευσηκαιημέθοδοςCLIL

PietVandeCRAENandJillSURMONTInthiscontributionCLILisconsideredtobeanimportantdriverforeducationalchange.Fromthe mid-nineties onwards CLIL was introduced in Europe as a reaction to poor resultsregarding language teaching and learning and for promoting the internationalization ofeducation. Some aspects of CLIL are counter-intuitive and lead to resistance towards itsimplementation. Some of the paradoxes that accompany these reactions are summarizedbefore tackling what we think is the most important aspect of CLIL, namely the learningissue. We argue that both the learning of languages as well as the subject matter ispositively influenced because of the particularway inwhich learning takes place in a CLILenvironment. Particular reference is made to implicit learning, and language pedagogicaltechniquessuchasscaffoldingandtranslanguaging.InthelastpartofthiscontributionsomesideeffectsofCLIL implementationareexamined,namely schoolorganizationand readinganddyslexia.

�ΣτησυγκεκριμένηεργασίαημέθοδοςCLILθεωρείταιμιασημαντικήκινητήριαδύναμηγιατην εκπαιδευτική αλλαγή. Από τα μέσα της δεκαετίας του ’90 η μέθοδος CLIL προτάθηκεστηνΕυρώπηωςμία‘αντίδραση’σταμηενθαρρυντικάαποτελέσματαγιατηδιδασκαλίακαιτηνεκμάθησηγλωσσών,αλλάκαιγιατηνπροώθησητηςδιεθνοποίησηςτηςεκπαίδευσης.Όμως ορισμένες πτυχές της CLIL εγείρουν προβληματισμούς και αντιδράσεις για τηνεφαρμογή της. Μερικά από τα παράδοξα που συνοδεύουν αυτές τις αντιδράσειςσυνοψίζονταιπριναπότηναντιμετώπιση,αυτούπουνομίζουμεότιείναιηπιοσημαντικήπτυχή της CLIL, δηλαδή του ζητήματος της μάθησης. Εμείς υποστηρίζουμε ότι τόσο ηεκμάθησητηςγλώσσαςστόχου,όσοκαιτουγνωστικούαντικειμένουεπηρεάζονταιθετικάλόγω του ιδιαίτερου τρόπουμε τονοποίοεπιτελείταιημάθησηστοπεριβάλλον τηςCLIL.Ιδιαίτερη αναφορά γίνεται στην έμμεση μάθηση, και στις παιδαγωγικές τεχνικές τουγραμματισμού,όπωςστην«σκαλωσιά»καιτη«διαγλωσσικότητα».ΣτοτελευταίομέροςτηςεργασίαςαυτήςεξετάζονταικάποιεςσυνέπειεςαπότηνεφαρμογήτηςμεθόδουCLIL,όπωςηοργάνωσητουσχολείουκαιηανάγνωσηκαιδυσλεξία.

VandeCraenandSurmont/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning8/1(2017)22-33

23

Keywords:CLIL,multilingualeducation,implicitlearning,cognitivedevelopment.1.IntroductionThis contributionaimsat showing inwhatwayContentand Language Integrated Learning(CLIL)isinnovativenotonlytolanguageeducationbuttoeducationingeneral.Thefocuswillbeonthe learningprocess itself.Thesimplefactthata language is learned,at least inthevery beginning, in an implicit way, has consequences for the learning process itself. Theimplicit learning process has a different status form explicit learning and we feel that asubstantialamountofsuccess thatCLILhasenjoyed in thepastdecade isdueto this. Inafirstpartasummaryofsomeof theargumentsagainst theCLILapproach isgiven.Secondwewill focusonCLIL learningand third, someexplanations for the successof thiswayoflearningaregiven. It is furtherarguedthatCLILequals innovativeeducationbecauseof itsimpactonthelearningprocessitself.2.TheantiCLILdiscourseTheintroductionofCLILinEuropeanschoolssincethemid-ninetieshasbeenasuccessstory.Ingeneral, three reasonscanbedistinguished forembracing thisnewapproach.First, theconviction inmanycountriesthattraditional languageeducation,despitegreateffortsandenergydevotedtoit,doesnotyieldgoodresults.TheresultsofthelatestEuropeanSurvey(2012), unfortunately, do confirm this. Second, the idea that education should aim atinternationalizationand teaching in anadditional language is a goodanswer to this need.This is, for instance, the case for a country like theNetherlandswhere CLIL developed insuch a context (Eurydice 2006). Thirdly, there is the desire by a number of scholars tochange learning and teaching of languages and to turn it into a more scientific andintegrated approach. CLIL is also the prima candidate to turn to as the foreword of theEurydicereportclearlyindicates(Eurydice,2006).But implementing CLIL means ‘change’, and any change in education is difficult. AsMachiavelli wrote in The Prince: “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, moreperilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in theintroduction of a new order of things”. This applies particularly well to education. NowonderthenthatCLILhascomeunderattack.Bruton(2011,2013),basedinSpain,summarizedsomeofthecounter-arguments,althoughnotconvincingly,accordingtous.VandeCraen(2004)andChopey-Paquet(2008)havealsohighlighted some negative aspects, which often present themselves in the form ofparadoxes.AlthoughtheyspringfromtheBelgiancontext,alloftheseparadoxescaneasilybe found in other European countries as well. Van de Craen (2004) distinguishes threeparadoxes.(i)While,ontheonehand,thereexistsgreatadmirationandappreciationfor–especiallyyoung–speakerswhospeakwellandeffortlesslyforeignlanguages,thereexists,on theotherhand,great fearandanxiety if ineducationsubject-matter is introduced inaforeign language. This fear is often grounded in some kind of unwarranted and irrationalideologicalandhistoricalbeliefpreventingclearandobjectivethinkingandevaluation…(ii)Whiletheresultsofteachinginaforeignlanguagehaveinvariablyshowngoodresultsmanyarestillconvincedthatit is impossibletolearninalanguagethatonedoesnotcompletelymaster.Forthem,learningsimplycannottakeplace…(iii)Whilethereisunrestrainedbelief


24

in themerits of scientific research for results related to, for instance, the pharmaceuticalindustry,researchresultsinthehumansciencesareoftenquestionedespeciallyiftheyarenot consistentwith the idea of the political administration that be. Sincemany ideas andfindings related to CLIL are counter-intuitive and require some kind of openness tointernationalization and educational change, it is nowonder that politicians have troubleacceptingthisapproach.Chopey-Paquet(2008)distinguishesnolessthansixparadoxesoverlappingwithsomeoftheabove. The political paradox. While nobody questions the importance of languageknowledge,at thesametimethere is ‘legal rigidity’and“therearepoliticalbarrierswhichinhibitconcreteprogress”(Chopey-Paquet,2008,p.2).Theculturalparadox.Someregionsor countries have no language learning tradition: Italy and Wallonia come to mind. Forinstance,Chopey-Paquet(2008)showshowWalloonsthinkthattheysimplycannotspeakaforeign language… In fact, they are referring to the notorious bad way foreign languageteachingtookplaceinWalloniafordecades.Theinstitutionalparadox:‘weareagainstit,itwillnotworkandyouaregoingtofallflatonyourface’referringtosomeoftheteachers’attitude towards this specific change. Structural and social paradoxes expressed in thereactionsofsometeachersandotheradversaries: ‘youwillnotfindteachers,theywillnotbepaidandCLIL isonly good forelite children’.Needless to say that, inBelgiumbutalsoelsewhere,someofthebestresultswereobtainedinvocationalschools(seeDenmanetal.2013).Theorganizationalparadox.Schoolsusetheapproachformarketingreasons, i.e. inorder to attract more pupils, but otherwise it is a gimmick. The (language) pedagogicalparadox. Pupils cannot develop competencies in a foreign language and teachers will beunwillingtocooperate.Toovercomesomeoftheissuesmentionedhere,CLILschoolsshouldcarefullypreparetheintroduction of CLIL by bringing together the teachers involved and convince themof thevalueoftheapproach.Atthesametimeparentsshouldbeinvolvedaswelland,ofcourse,local school authorities should support in one way or another the new initiative (seeMehisto,2007foraninterestingbucketlist).ItisalsoadvisablethattheschoolcreatesaCLILteam that closely follows up pupils and teachers alike after the start. Already after a fewmonthsresultscanbeobserved:pupilsofwhateveragespeakingthetarget languagewithconfidence and teachers feeling at ease with the approach. Let us now turn to moreinterestingaspectsoftheCLILapproach,namelythelearningprocessitself.3.LearningandCLILOvertheyears,particularlyfrom2000onwards,animpressivenumberofpublicationshavereportedonthesuperiorresultsoftheCLILapproachrelatingnotonlytolanguagebutalsotoanumberof issues (seeHuybregtse,2001; Jäppinen,2005;Dalton-Puffer&Smit,2007;Lorenzoetal., 2009;Marsh&Wolff,2007;VandeCraenetal., 2007a,b,c; Zydatiss,2007;Marshetal.,2009;Lasagabaster&RuizdeZarobe,2010;Murray,2010;Dalton-Puffer,2011;Linaresetal.,2012).Ofcourse,thefactthatthepupils’languageproficiencyinCLILclassesissuperior to that in non-CLIL classes should not come as a surprise.What does come as asurprisethoughisthefactthatsuperiorresultsonmathematicsareoftenreportedeveninthose classeswheremathematicswas not part of the CLIL activities (Van de Craen et al.,2007a,b,c;Murray,2010).The importance of this finding can hardly be overestimated. If it were just languageproficiencythatwasaffected,CLILwouldbenothingmorethananother language learningapproach,beitagoodone.Nowthatweknowthatthereismorethanlanguagesatstake


25

CLIL becomes a genuine tool for educational innovation. Thismeans that learning itself isaffectedandthatweshouldpayattentiontolearningprocessesinordertoevaluatetheCLILapproach.Anumberofscholarsandvisionariesalikehavelaunchedideasaboutwhatlearningshouldbe like in the future in anticipationor responseofwhat is often referred to as the globalvillage(cf.Bruner,1997;Robinson,2001;Fullan&Langworthy,2014).InthisrespectDelors(1996) distinguishes the following learning aspects or tensions as he calls them. They canalsobeconsideredaschallengesforeducationbecause,eventwentyyearsago,itwasclearthateducationinthe21stcenturyhadtobere-evaluated.(i)Thetensionbetweentheglobalandthelocal,referringtobecomingworldcitizenswithoutlosingone’sroots,(ii)thetensionbetweentheuniversalandtheindividual,i.e.attentiontolocalcultureshouldnotdwindle,(iii)thetensionbetweentraditionandmodernity,i.e.“changewithoutturningone’sbacktothepast”(Delors,1996,p.17),(iv)thetensionbetweentheshortandthelong-term,“manyproblemscallforapatient,concertednegotiatedstrategyofreform[…]precisely[…]whereeducationpoliciesareconcerned”(Delors,1996,p.17),(v)thetensionbetweentheneedforcompetition and the concern for equality of opportunity, i.e. attention to human factors,furthermore (vi) the tension between the expansion of knowledge and “the capacity toassimilateit”(Delors,1996,p.18)and,finally,(vii)thetensionbetweenthespiritualandthematerialortheimportanceoftraditionsandconvictionsversuspluralism.Delors’tensions HowCLILcopeswiththem RemarksGlobalvs.local The use of local languages in

education from a young ageonwards does not excludeinternationallanguages

Also applicable in areas wheremany languages are spoken,e.g.Africa

Universalvs.individual International languages vs.standardEuropeanlanguages

All or most languages arecherishedinthisway

Traditionvs.modernity Educational traditions cannaturallybepreservedinaCLILenvironment

Schools/authorities can opt fortwo local languages first andlater on add an internationalone

Shortvs.longtermviews Any language in a CLILenvironment will yield positiveresultsfrothelearner

The advantages of CLIL applyforanylanguage

Competition vs. equality ofopportunity

CLIL environments arestimulatingandleadtoequalityofopportunity

Both aspects should notexcludeoneanother

Expansion of knowledge vs.capacityforassimilation

CLIL always kills two bird withonestone

Learning content through alanguage expands knowledgeandenhanceslearning

Spiritualvs.material CLIL increases tolerance andopenness

CLIL includes many - oftenimplicit-socialimplicationsthatcanbeexploitedbyteachers

Table1:HowCLILcontributestothetensionsoftheeducationofthefuture

WefeelthatCLILenvironmentscananswertothesechallengeswhileCLIL“unlocksthedoorto [an] unpredictableworld. It has the potential to facilitate intercultural communication,internationalization,andthemobilityof labour,andhelppeopletoadapt tovarioussocial


26

environments” (Jäppinen, 2006, p. 22). The following table summarizes the potentialcontributionofCLILwithrespecttothetensionsmentionedabove(Table1).It is clear that thesimpleactivityof learning inadifferent language fromtheoneyouareused to, i.e. an additional language, answers to many challenges that were identified inDelors’(1996)paper.ButthereisyetanotheraspectthatexplainsthepowerbehindtheCLILapproach even more convincingly. This is the contribution of implicit learning and itsinfluenceonthelearningprocessitself.Implicit learningwas coinedby thepsychologistReber in1967 (seeReber,1967,1993) torefertotheunconsciouslearningofcomplexstimuliwithoutthelearnersbeingawarethatthey were actually learning. This kind of learning is opposed to explicit learning whereconsciouslearningisacquiredandthatismostlyassociatedwithaschoolenvironment(seeRebuschat 2015 for an overview). Today, consensus exists with respect to the followingaspectsrelatedtoimplicitlearning.(i)Itcreatessomekindofsenseofintuition,i.e.learnersareunawareoftheacquiredknowledgeyettheycanapplyit,(ii)implicitknowledgeismorerobust in caseofneurologicaldisorderand (iii) ‘implicit knowledgemightalsobe retainedmore easily and longer than explicit knowledge’ (Rebuschat, 2015a, p.xiv). Apart frompsychologists also linguists have shown a long-standing interest in implicit and explicitlearning and second language acquisition (SLA) (see for instance Hulstijn, 2003, 2015;DeKeyser,2003;Ellis,2015;Lamont,2015).Unfortunately,thesescholarshavenotyettakentoaccount learninginaCLILcontext,whichwouldundoubtedlyenlargetheirhorizonevenmore.Language learning in a CLIL classrooms starts out exclusively in an implicit way. Theemphasisisonactivity,i.e.learningbydoinginthetargetlanguageandhardlyanyattentionis paid to its formal aspects. The pre-primary and primary schools, our team guides, arerecommended, until the fifth formof primary school, to entirely focus on content and todisregard formalaspectsof the language, suchas verb conjugation for instance. From thefifth form a language teacher introduces the target language in amore formalway. As aresult, target language learning takes place in an implicit way and gives the learner aconsiderableadvantageoverlearnersinamoretraditionalenvironment(VandeCraenetal,2013) because later on, when more formal aspects of the language are introduced, thelearnercanusehisproficiencyand,inthisway,findabalancebetweenimplicitandexplicitknowledge(Lyster,2007).This focuson implicit learningcanonlyberealizedwhentheso-calledCLIL-pedagogiesareused. We distinguish three important aspects of CLIL pedagogies. The first one is themeaningfulenvironment inwhichpreviousknowledge isactivated.Thesecondone is thatcontent is learned through interaction and that the learner plays an active role in the“discovery” of it. The final aspect is the one where language support is offered throughscaffolding.Tocreateameaningfulenvironmentthatbuildsonpreviousknowledge,translanguagingisused.Translanguaging isapedagogicapproach inwhich theentire linguistic knowledgeofthelearnerisseenasonesingleresource(García&LiWei,2014).Thismovesawayfromthetraditional “one languageper classroom”principle,whereusageofother languages isnotallowed.InaCLILclassroomusageofmothertonguesandotherknownlanguagesisallowedand in some cases even recommended. This will allow learners to bridge gaps in theirknowledge and also overcome terminology issues. The idea behind this is that throughtranslanguagingthe learnercanbuildonpreviouslyacquiredknowledgeand increasetheir


27

insights in both language and content. As mentioned in the introduction on cognitivedevelopment, learning means building on previous experiences and knowledge. This isexactlywhat translanguagingdoes,namelyusingprevious (language) knowledge to createnewknowledgeandinsights.Usageoftranslanguagingintheclassroomthereforestimulatesthenaturallearningprocessbykeepingtheanxietylevelsofthepupilsaslowaspossible.Activatingmethodsare languagepedagogicalapproachesthatforce learnerstoparticipatein the creation of knowledge instead of just listening to what the teacher has to say(Dufresneetal.,1996).Bygivingthelearnersanactiveroleintheirlearningprocess-insteadof just letting them process the given input - they not only have to listen to the targetlanguage, but they are also forced to use it. Of course it is important that the teachersupportsthem,andthisisbestdonethrough‘scaffolding’and‘translanguaging’.Scaffolding is a teaching method that requires the teachers to support the learner inbridging the gapbetweenwhat is already knownandmastered andwhat is yet unknownand not yet mastered. This gap is what Vygotsky (1978) called the “zone of proximaldevelopment” (see further). There are three different types of scaffolding namely verbalscaffolding, content scaffolding and learning process scaffolding (Echevarrìa et al., 2010).Thefirstonemeansthatthe(CLIL)teacheradaptshislanguagetothelevelofthelearnerinorder to ensure that communication can take place. Content scaffolding means that theteacher is constantly using techniques (such as discussions) that assist and support thelearner in their understanding of and engagement with the content. Learning processscaffolding are techniques (such as teaching to each other) used by teachers to supportlearnersworkingprocessesbutalsotheirlearningprocesses(seeMassleretal.,2011foranelaboratediscussiononhowthis istranslateditselftotheclassroom).Researchhasshownthat CLIL classes provide more opportunities for learners to use discourse pragmaticstrategiesas theyoftenuse the foreign language formorediverse functionsand formorecomplexmeaningnegotiationsthantheirpeersinlanguagelessons(Nikula,2005).Combiningtheseapproachescreatesameaningfullearningenvironmentthatisnotteacher-centred - Freire (1974) calls it “the bankingmodel” - but pupil-centred,where learning isachievedthroughactivatingmethods,scaffoldingandtranslanguaging.Importanttonoteisthatthesepedagogiesnotonlyinfluencetheacquisitionoflanguage,butalsotheuptakeofinformation. By forcing the learners to actively take part in the learning process, higherorder thinking processes are stimulated aswell as an increased insight in conceptual andprocedural knowledge. In such a way it becomes clear how thinking processes andknowledgeconstructionarerelatedandhowtheinteractivemethodsofCLILstimulatebothcontentandlanguageacquisition.Asaresulttheadvantagesarenotlimitedtolanguageproficiency.Therearealsocognitiveadvantages(seeStruys2013foranoverview).HowcanthesedifferencesbetweenCLILandnon-CLILpupilsbeexplained?AsimpleexplanationcanbefoundintheintensitywithwhichCLILlearnersareconfrontedinthelearningprocess.AsJäppinenhasstated“learninginCLILenvironments proved to be initially more demanding than in environments where themother tongue is themediumof learning” (Jäppinen,2006,p. 28). Thisheavierworkload,especially in the initial stages of the CLIL approach, leads to better performance later on.Thisisalsowhymultilingualsshowanadvantageovermonolinguals(Costaetal.,2009)andwhymultilingualpupils from immersionprogrammesshowcognitiveadvantages (Bialystok&Barac,2013).


28

It is also hard not to make a comparison between what happens in CLIL learning andVygotsky’s idea of zones of proximal development where he discusses potentialdevelopmentunderadultguidanceorwithpeers(cf.Vygotsky,1978).Ashortdescriptionoftheidearunsasfollows:“whatachildcandowithassistancetodayshewillbeabletodobyherself tomorrow” (Vygotsky, 1978,p. 87). Thisdistancebetweenwhat a childpotentiallycan do andwhat it already can do, is the zone of proximal development. In CLIL classes,childrenofallageseasilyandrapidlyunderstandwhatisgoingoniftheinstructionsareinthe target language, i.e. passive knowledge so to speak. It takes awhile before they canactually express themselves in the target language and this difference is very similar toVygotsky’sconcept.Insummary,wecanstatethatlearninginaCLILcontextisadifferentkindoflearningthaninatraditional(language)class.Itisamuchmorechallengingwayoflearninginanimplicitwayand, as a result, pupils are much more cognitively stimulated as can be seen fromneuroscientific studies. At the same time CLIL is an answer to the desire for educationalchangethathasbeenaroundforquitesometime.Thiseducationalchangepertainstothelearningprocess itselfandaswewill see in thenextparagraphs thiskindof changehasanumberofunexpectedsideeffects.4.SomeunexpectedsideeffectsofCLILThereare twokindsofsideeffectswewant todrawattentionto.The firsthas todowithorganizationalmattersandtheschoolandthesecondhastodowithlearningprocesses.4.1.SideeffectsofCLILrelatedtotheschoolorganizationAny school that turns itself into a CLIL school faces a number of changes that affect thewhole entourage. Although, on the surface, the change itself seems very limited andinnocent the change is radical. A number of hours is taught and learned in an additionallanguage and all the protagonists will be affected. Pupils, teachers, the school itself, thecurriculumandtheparentsaswellaslocal,regionalornationalpolitics-asthecasemaybe-willhavetorespondtoanewsituation.Theschoolhas toprepare itself forsometurbulent times. Itneeds tocommunicateaboutCLILandthisoftenmeanstoeliminateconcernespecially fromparentsandteachersalike.Aswe saw in the beginning of this contribution fear is an important factor: fear that theresultswill suffer, fear that thechildwillbe incapableof followingsuchacurriculum, fearfromallkindofirrationalfeelings…Someteachers,especially,languageteachersmightevenfearthattheirjobisinjeopardy,othermightfearnottobecompetenttoteachinanotherlanguage. The school has to show strong and capable leadership in order to prepare thetransitionfromatraditionaltoaCLILschool.SchoolscanrefertoanumberofargumentstobackupthedecisiontointroduceCLIL.Oneoftheseargumentsisinternationalizationandtheimportanceofbeingabletospeakforeignlanguagesfluently.Otherargumentsincludeeducationinnovationandratherpoorresultsinlanguage proficiency in traditional classes. Our experience shows that, in general, once aschool has made the decision, it is willing to accept and deal with the consequencesengenderedbythatdecision.However,wefeelthatevenmoredeepsideeffectsshouldbetakenintoaccountaswell.


29

4.2SideeffectsofCLILrelatedtoreadinganddyslexiaThroughtheCLILapproachresearchhasbeenstimulated inaparticularway.Oneofthesenewpathshasbeen,aswesaw,theinterestinthelearningprocessesitself.Anotherpointofinteresthasbeentheinterestinproficiencydevelopment,particularlyinreadingprocesses.Some years ago we were asked by a French-speaking primary CLIL school about whichlanguage to use first for reading: the mother tongue, in this case French or the targetlanguage, Dutch. We were aware that in Europe at least two kinds of languages can bedistinguished:opaqueones,suchasEnglish,FrenchandPortugueseandmoretransparentones, such as Spanish, Dutch or Greek (Goswami et al., 1998; Seymour et al., 2003). Thedifference lies in the transparency of the spelling: in English and Frenchwords can oftencontain many letters but there is no logical connection to the way they should be readand/orpronounced.The lettercombinationgh forexamplecanbepronounced[f]as intolaugh or not at all as in through, [o] is pronounced [i] in women. This is confusing forbeginningreaders.We compared two groups of readers, one learning how to read in the mother tongue,French,theotheronelearninghowtoreadinthetargetlanguage,Dutch.Theresultsshowthat learners who started out in the opaque mother tongue, French, showed less goodresults thanthosewhostartedoutreading inthetransparenttarget language,Dutch.Thisunexpected resultwas also confirmedbyaparallel research carriedout at the same timewith the same combination of languages (see, Lecocq et al., 2009; Vandersmissen, 2010).The same resultwas obtainedwith other combinations of languages, French, Basque andSpanish(seeLallieretal.,2016).Reading inaCLIL context shows tobea techniquewhere ‘to crack the code’ seemsmoreimportant than the emotional value that themother tonguemight have. Reading can beenhancedbefirstlearninghowtoreadinatransparentlanguageandlaterontopassontoamore opaque one, regardless of the mother tongue. There is yet another remarkableobservationwithrespecttoreading,thistimeinvolvingdyslexia,whereCLILcanlearnusagreatdeal.AnecdotalobservationsindicatethatinCLILschoolstherearefewerpupilswithdyslexia than in non-CLIL schools. Of course, this may be because the pupils have beenpreselectedbeforebeingallowed toenteraCLIL school.But inBelgiumno such selectionproceduresexist.Yetthenumberofdyslecticchildrenseemslessthanaverage,i.e.-roughlyestimated-between5and12%ofthepopulation1.CoulditbethatCLIL learninginonewayoranotherhasaninfluenceondyslexia?This isafascinating hypothesis and one that is rather counter-intuitive aswell, sincemost peoplebelievethatdyslecticchildrenshouldnotenroll inabilingualprogramme(seeAnton,2004foradifferentopinion).Thehypothesisputforwardhereiswarrantedbytwoobservationsbackedupbyresearch.In2001Nicolsonandhisteampublishedapaperdescribingthecaseofadyslecticgirlthatovercamedyslexia bydoing equilibriumexercises on a balanceboard (seeNicolsonet al.,2001). The authors concluded that the stimulation of the cerebellum and the subsequentconnections that were made in the brain reinforcing the language zones significantlyimprovedreadingandwritingperformance.Activationofthecerebellumcanyieldpositiveresultsindyslecticchildrenwithdevelopmentalmotorproblemsnamelywithadeficientor‘slow’cerebellum.Itisunclearwhetherotherformsofdyslexiacanprofitforthis.

1Figuresfromwww.eda-info.eu/dyslexia-in-europe


30

Inanycasethis isan interesting finding.ThemoresosinceastudybyMatsumuraandhisteam showed that implicit motor learning has a stimulating effect on the cerebellum(Matsumuraetal.,2004).AswehaveseenCLILoffersimplicit languagelearning.Thisis,ofcourse,affecting themotorarea in thebrainand,according toMatsumuraetal.,also thecerebellum.Ifthisisthecaseimplicitlearningbuildsadam–sotospeak-againstdyslexiaand this might explain why in CLIL schools fewer dyslexic children can be found. Thishypothesisawaitsconfirmationorfalsificationbutitiscertainlyanintriguingone.5.ConclusionCLILisananswertothedesireforeducationalchange.Itisaninteractiveteachingapproachthatcreatesameaningfulenvironmentinwhichthelearneractivelyhastoparticipateinthecreation of knowledge on both content and language. Through language pedagogicaltechniques,suchasscaffoldingandtranslanguaging,bothcontentandlanguagelearningaresupported maximizing the learning effect. CLIL has also cognitive and neuroscientificimplications particularly regarding brain organisation as can be seen, for instance in thestudyofreading.BecauseallthiswecansafelysaythatCLILisanimportantdrivertowardsinnovativeeducation.

ReferencesAnton, M. (2004). ‘Dyslexia in the immersion classroom’. ACIE (American Council on

Immersion Education, 7/3. Accessed on: www.carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol7/May2004_Dyslexia_in_the_Immersion_Classroom.html.

Bialystok, E. & R. Barac. (2012). ‘Emerging bilingualism: Dissociating advantages formetalinguisticawarenessandexecutivecontrol’.Cognition,122:67-73.

Bruner,J.(1997).TheCultureofEducation.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress.Bruton, A. (2011). ‘Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the

research’.System,39/4:523-532.Bruton,A.(2013).‘CLIL:Someofthereasonswhy…andwhynot’.System,41/4:587-597.Chopey-Paquet,M.(2007). ‘Belgium(French-speaking)’. InA.Maljers,D.Marsh&D.Wolff

(Eds),Windows on CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in the EuropeanSpotlight.TheHague:EuropeanPlatformforDucthEducation,25-32.

Chopey-Paquet, M. (2008). ‘CLIL in French-speaking Belgium. Transforming paradox intopotential’.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31521729_

CLIL_in_French-speaking_Belgium_Transforming_paradox_into_potential.Costa,A.,Hernandez,M.,Costa-Faidella, J.&Sebastian-Gallés,N. (2009). ‘On thebilingual

advantageinconflictprocessing:nowyouseeit,nowyoudon’t.’Cognition,113/2:135-149.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). ‘Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice toprinciples?’AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics,31:182–204.

Dalton-Puffer,C.&U.Smit(Eds)(2007).EmpiricalPerspectivesonCLILClassroomDiscourse.Frankfurt:PeterLang.

DeKeyser, R. (2003). ‘Implicit and explicit learning’. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds), TheHandbookofSecondLanguageAcquisition.Oxford:Blackwell,313-348.

Delors,J.(1996).‘Education:thenecessaryUtopia’.InLearningtheTreasureWithin.ReporttoUnescoof the International Commissionon Education for the Twenty-first Century,13-35.


31

Denman,J.,R.Tanner&deGraaff,R..(2013).‘CLILinjuniorvocationalsecondaryeducation:challengesandopportunitiesforteachingandlearning’.InternationalJournalofBilingualEducationandBilingualism,16/3:285-300.

Dufresne,R.,Gerace,W.,Leonard,W.,Mestre,J.&Wenk,L.(1996).‘Classtalk:Aclassroomcommunication system for active learning’. Journal of computing in highereducation,7/2:3-47.

Echevarria,J.,Vogt,M.&Short,D.(2010).MakingContentComprehensibleforElementaryEnglishLearners.TheSIOPModel.Boston:Pearson.

Ellis, N. (2015). ‘Implicit and explicit language learning: Their Dynamic interface andcomplexity’. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages.Amsterdam:Benjamins,3-23.

Eurydice. (2006.) Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe.Brussels:EuropeanCommission.

Freire,P.(1974).PedagogyoftheOppressed.NewYork:TheSeaburyPress.Fullan,M.&Langworthy,M.(2014).ARichSeam.HowNewPedagogiesFindDeepLearning.

London:Pearson.García, O. & Li Wei. (2014). Translanguaging. Language, Bilingualism and Education.

Houndmills,Basingstoke,Hampshire:PalgraveMcMillan.Goswami,U.,Gombert, J.&deBarrera,L. (1998). ‘Children’sorthographicrepresentations

and linguistic transparency: nonsense word reading in English French and Spanish’.AppliedPsycholinguistics,19/1:19-52.

Hulstijn, J. (2003). ‘Incidentaland intentional learning’. InC.Doughty&M.Long(Eds),TheHandbookofSecondLanguageAcquisition.Oxford:Blackwell,349-381.

Hulstijn.J.(2015).‘Explainingphenomenaoffirstandsecondlanguageacquisitionwiththeconstructs of implicit and expliciet learning: The virtues and pitfalls of a two-systemview’. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages. Amsterdam:Benjamins,25-46.

Huybregtse,I.(2001).EffectenendidactiekvantweetaligvoortgezetonderwijsinNederland.Utrecht:Ivlos.

Jäppinen, A.-K. (2005). ‘Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science ascognitional development in content and language integrated learning (Clil): teachingthroughaforeignlanguageinFinland’.LanguageandEducation,19/2:148-169.

Jäppinen, A.-K. (2006). ‘CLIL and future learning’. In S. Björklund, K. Mård-Miettinen, M.Bergström & M. Södergård (Eds), Exploring Dual Focussed Education. IntegratingLanguage and Content for Individual and Societal Needs. Vaase: Vaasan YliopistonJulkaisuya,22-37.

Lallier,M. J.Acha, J.&Carreiras,M. (2016). ‘Cross-linguistic interactions influence readingdevelopment in bilinguals: a comparison between early balanced French-Basque andSpanish-Basquebilingualchildren.’DevelopmentalScience,19/1:76–89.

Lamont,A. (2015). ‘Newdirections in the studyof implicit andexplicit language learning’.StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition,37/2:185-196.

Lasagabaster, D. & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). CLIL in Spain. Implementation, Results andTeacherTraining.NewcastleuponTyne:CambridgeScholarsPublishing.

Lecocq, K., R. Kolinsky, V. Goetry, J. Morais, J. Alegria, & P. Mousty. (2009). ‘Readingdevelopment in two alphabetic systems differing in orthographic consistency: AlongitudinalstudyofFrench-speakingchildrenenrolledinaDutchimmersionprogram’.PsychologicaBelgica,49:111-156.

Linares, A.,Morton, T.&Whitaker, R. (2012).TheRoles of Languages in CLIL.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lorenzo,F.,Casal, S.&Moore,P. (2010). ‘TheEffectsofContentandLanguage IntegratedLearning in European Education: Key Findings from the Andalusian Bilingual Sections


32

EvaluationProject’.AppliedLinguistics,31/3:418-442.Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and Teaching Languages Through Content. A Counterbalanced

Approach.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Marsh,D&Wolff,D.(2007).DiverseContexts–ConvergingGoals.CLIL inEurope.Frankfurt

amMain:PeterLang,185-200.Marsh,D.,BaetensBeardsmore,H.,deBot,K.,Mehisto,P.,Wolff,D.&Hill,R.(2009).Study

on the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity. Compendium Part One and FinalReport.Brussels(www.europublic.com).

Massler,U.,Ioannou-Georgiou,S.&Steiert,C.(2011).‘EffectiveCLILTeachingTechniques’.InS.Ioannou-Georgiou&P.Pavlou.(Eds),GuidelinesforCLILImplementationinPrimary.PROCLILSocratesComenius-project,66-97.

Matsumura,M.,Sadato,N.,Kochiyama,T.,Nakamurab,S.,Naito,E.,Matsunami,K.,Kawas,R. (2004). ‘Role of the cerebellum in implicit motor skill learning: a PET study’. BrainResearchBulletin,63:471–483.

Mehisto,P. (2007). ‘Whata schoolneeds toconsiderbefore launchingaCLILprogramme:theEstonianExperience’.InD.Marsh&D.Wolff.(Eds),DiverseContexts–DiverseGoals.CLILinEurope.FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang,61-77.

Murray. D. (2010). ‘Irish-Medium Language Immersion Programs. Effects onMathematicsEducation.’JournalofMathematicsEducationatTeachersCollege,Fall-Winter,28-32.

Nicolson, R., Fawcett, A&Dean, P. (2001). ‘Developmental dyslexia: the cerebellar deficithypothesis’.TrendsinNeurosciences,24/9:508-511.

Nikula,T.(2005).‘Englishasanobjectandtoolofstudyinclassrooms:Interactionaleffectsandpragmaticimplications’.LinguisticsandEducation,16/1:27-58.

Reber, A. (1967). ‘Implicit learning of artificial grammars.’Journal of Verbal Learning andVerbalBehavior,6:855-863.

Reber, A. (1993). Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge: An Essay on the CognitiveUnconscious.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Rebuschat,P.(2015).ImplicitandExplicitLearningofLanguages.Amsterdam:Benjamins.Rebuschat, P. (2015a). ‘Introduction. Implicit and explicit learning of languages’. In P.

Rebuschat(Ed.),ImplicitandExplicitLearningofLanguages.Amsterdam:Benjamins,xiii-xxii.

Robinson,K.(2001).OutofOurMinds:LearningtoBeCreative.Capstone.Seymour, P., Aro, M. & Erskine, J. (2003). ‘Foundation literacy acquisition in European

orthographies’.BritishJournalofPsychology,94:143-174.Struys,E.(2013).FunctionalandStructuralPlasticityintheBilingualBrain:AnInvestigation

into the Development of Cognitive Processing in Bilingual Populations.Brussels|, VrijeUniversiteitBrussel:Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation.

Survey(2012).FirstEuropeanSurveyonLanguageCompetences.FinalReport.LuxembourgPublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion.

VandeCraen,P.(2004). ‘Thetripleparadoxofmultilingualismandmultilingualeducation’.PublishedinDutch:‘Dedriedubbeleparadoxvanmeertaligheidenmeertaligonderwijs’.InJ.DeCaluwé,G.DeSchutter,M.Devos&J.VanKeymeulen(Eds),Schatbewaardervandetaal.Gent:AcademiaPress,803-814.

Van de Craen, P., Lochtman, K., Ceuleers, E., Mondt, K. & Allain, L. (2007a). ‘Aninterdisciplinary approach toCLIL learning in primary schools inBrussels. In C.Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds), Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt:PeterLang,253-274.

VandeCraen,P.,Ceuleers,E.&Mondt,K.(2007b).‘Cognitivedevelopmentandbilingualisminprimaryschools:teachingmathsinaCLILenvironment’.InD.Marsh&D.Wolff(Eds),DiverseContexts–ConvergingGoals.CLILinEurope.Frankfurt:PeterLang,185-200.


33

Van de Craen, P.,Mondt, K., Allain, L. & Gao, Y. (2007c). ‘Why and How CLILWorks. AnOutlineforaCLILTheory’.ViennaEnglishWorkingPapers,16/3:70-78.

VandeCraen,P.Ceuleers,E.Mondt,K.&Allain,L(2008). ‘Europeanmultilingual languagepolicies in Belgium and policy-driven research’. In K. Lauridsen & D. Toudic (Eds),LanguageatWorkinEurope.FestschriftinHonourofWolfgangMackieiwcz.Göttingen:V&RPress,139-151.

VandeCraen,P.,Surmont,J.,Mondt,K.&Ceuleers,E.(2012).‘TwelveyearsofCLILpracticein multilingual Belgium’. In G. Egger & C. Lechner (Eds), Primary CLIL Around Europe.LearninginTwoLanguagesinPrimaryEducation.Marburg:Tectum,81-97.

Van de Craen, P., Surmont, J., Ceuleers, E. & Allain, L. (2013). ‘How policies influencemultilingual education and the impact of multilingual education on practices’. In A.C.Berthoud,F.Grin&G.Lüdi(Eds),ExploringtheDynamicsofMultilingualism.TheDYLANproject.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,353-372.

Vandersmissen, C. (2010). Why French-speaking CLIL pupils should start out reading inDutch.Brussels:VUB.MasterThesis.WritteninDutch.

Vygotksy, L. (1978).Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.

Zydatiss, W. (2007). Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL). Eine Evaluation desbilingualenSachfachunterrichtsanGymnasien.Frankfurt-an-Main:PeterLang.

PietVandeCraen([email protected])isProfessorofLinguisticsattheVrijeUniversiteitBrussel(VUB).Hismainresearchinterestismultilingual

educationanditseffects.Heisco-founderofanetworkofbilingualschoolsinBrussels(2001)andco-founderoftheEuropeanLanguage

Council(1997).

JillSurmont([email protected])isAssociateProfessorattheVrijeUniversiteitBrussel(VUB).Herdoctoraldissertation(2015)examinedCLIL

andcognitioninBelgianschools.

34


CLILasaPlurilingualApproachorLanguageofRealLifeandLanguageasCarrierofCulture

ΗCLILωςμιαΠολύγλωσσηπροσέγγισηή

ηΓλώσσατηςΠραγματικήςΖωήςκαιηΓλώσσαωςΦορέαςΠολιτισμού

ÁineFURLONGandMercèBERNAUSMuch of what language educators do is particularly relevant to the 21st century labourmarket,particularlywhenCLILandplurilingualismareconsideredasanintegratedapproachin instructionalcontexts.NgũgĩWaThiong’o’sanalysisof languageasthe languageofreallife and language as carrier of culture (1986) provides further insight into a rationale forintegratingplurilingualismintoCLIL, therebyaddressingtheunresolved issueoftheCulturedimension in CLIL classrooms. Reports on an ECML project ConBaT+ (2008-2011) arepresented to support an educational reform based on intercultural understanding as weconsiderthediversityoftheclassroom.InessencethislanguageS-sensitivepedagogyisbothameansandanendinachievingpluriculturalawareness.

�Πολλές από τις μεθόδους που ακολουθούν οι εκπαιδευτικοί της γλώσσας στη διδακτικήπράξησχετίζονταιμετηναγοράεργασίαςτου21ουαιώνα, ιδιαίτεραότανημέθοδοςCLILκαι η πολυγλωσσία θεωρούνται ως μια ολοκληρωμένη προσέγγιση σε διδακτικάπεριβάλλοντα. Η ανάλυση του Ngũgĩ Wa Thiong’o για τη γλώσσα ως η γλώσσα τηςπραγματικήςζωήςκαιηγλώσσαωςφορέαςπολιτισμού(1986)σχετίζεταιπερισσότερομετηλογική της ενσωμάτωσης της πολυγλωσσίας στη μέθοδο CLIL, ενισχύοντας έτσι τηνπολιτισμική διάσταση σε τάξεις που ακολουθούν τη μέθοδο CLIL. Στη συγκεκριμένηεργασία,παρουσιάζονταιταέγγραφατουπρότζεκτECMLέργοConBaT+(2008-2011)γιαναυποστηριχθεί μια εκπαιδευτική μεταρρύθμιση που στηρίζεται στη διαπολιτισμικήκατανόηση, καθώς λαμβάνουμε υπόψη την ποικιλομορφία της τάξης. Στην ουσία αυτή ηπαιδαγωγική της ευαισθητοποίησης στη/στις γλώσσα/γλώσσες αποτελεί ταυτόχρονα έναμέσοκαιένανσκοπόγιατηνεπίτευξητηςπολυπολυτισμικήςεπίγνωσης.

FurlongandBernaus/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning8/1(2017)34-43

35

Keywords:CLIL,plurilingualapproach,languageuse,cross-curriculamaterials.1.Languageuse:CLILasaplurilingualapproachThecontext for thispaper is the21stcentury inaglobalworld,wheretimeandplacesaremarkedbynewdefinitionsofidentitynotconceivedasoneandfixed,butratherasdiverse,plural and constantly evolving. This new understanding of identity is brought about byincreaseddiversityinsocietyaswellasthecomplexityofsolutionsrequiredtosolveglobalchallenges. Ineducationalcontexts this is reflectedby renewedcalls for interdisciplinarity,encouraging learners and educationalists to think …. across the boundaries of theirdisciplines, and to interactwithmore andmore interlocutors from diverse environments,therebychallengingustobe….acrosssocio-culturalboundaries. Inevitably,manyof thesecognitive,communicativeandattitudinalprocessesarechanneledthroughlanguage,thatis,languageuse.The Council of Europe language policy through the Common European Framework ofReferenceforLanguages(CEFR,2001)placesparticularemphasisonthenotionoflanguageuse; specifically, language activities are not conceived in isolation from other humanactivitiesbutareintegratedintoawidersocialcontextinordertoachievefullmeaningand,ultimately, totransformthe language learner intoa languageuser. Inthisperspective, thelearner/userisdefinedasasocialagent:

“Languageuse,embracinglanguagelearning,comprisestheactionsperformedbypersonswhoasindividualsandassocialagentsdeveloparangeofcompetences,both general and in particular communicative language competences...” (CEFR,2001,p.9).

Thetextfurtherdefineswordssuchascompetences,whethergeneralor language–relatedin terms of action: ‘competences…. allow a person to perform actions’, ‘communicativelanguage competences…. empower a person to act….’ within a variety of socio-culturallydefinedcontextsanddomains includingtheeducational,occupational,publicandpersonaldomains(pp.9-10).The underlying principle of these definitions is that language, when used, is inextricablyinherent to human activity, i.e, doing and making things, taking action, in ways that areparticulartothesocioculturalvalues,beliefsandbehaviourstransmittedbythelanguageinuse.Itisagainstthisbackgroundthatthispaperproposesaninitialanalysisoflanguageusetakingtwodimensions intoaccount:the languageof real life– the languageweusetodothings–and the languageas carrierof culture – theparticularways inwhichwe learn toachievethesethings(NgũgĩWaThiong’o,1986).Inaddition,languageisalsousedtoacquireandcreateknowledge.However,anotheraspectneeds tobeconsidered: thenotionof spaces in-between.Thesebecomemanifestwhenboundaries are crossed, e.g. theboundariesof adisciplineand/orsocio-cultural boundaries as alreadymentioned. Bhabha (1994) describes these spaces asfollows:


36

“The‘in-between’spacesprovidetheterrainforelaboratingstrategiesofselfhood–singularandcommunal–thatinitiatenewsignsofidentity,andinnovativesitesof collaboration, and contestation in the act of defining society itself.” (Bhabha1994,pp.1-2)

Onthisbasis,weoughttoseekavenuesforlanguagelearningandlanguageuseinthe21stcentury that provide ‘innovative sites of collaboration’ to transform the language learnerinto a language user; consequently the language user –through action - becomes a socialagent–throughengagementandcommunicationwithothers.Weproposethataplurilingualapproach to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) through cross disciplinaryactivityanduseof languagesnotonly reflects the realityofour timesandourclassroomsbut just as importantly, provides an educational opportunity for children to grow andacquire the attitudes, skills and knowledge, that are required from them. Following anoverviewofNgũgĩWaThiong’o’s (1986) analysis of language, parallelswill bedrawnwithmorecontemporarypublicationsbytheBritishCouncil;althoughtheseparallelsmayseemironical-NgũgĩWaThiong’o’sDecolonisingtheMindrepresentshislastpublicationthroughthemediumofEnglish-,thesearedrawntoemphasisethevalueplacedonthespecificityoflanguages in language use when socio-cultural and economic interests are considered;results of a survey investigating teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards CLIL andplurilingualismwillbereported(Bernausetal.2012).Moreover,examplesofaplurilingualapproachtoCLILderivedfromtheworkofteachersacrossEuropewhotookpartinaprojectentitledConBaT+(Bernaus,Furlong,Jonckheere&Kervran,2011),attheEuropeanCentreofModernLanguageswillalsobepresented.2.ThelanguageofreallifeThisaspectoflanguageisbasictotheoriginanddevelopmentoflanguageandhere,NgũgĩWaThiong’oborrowsMarx’s terminology, i.e., the languageof real life. It is themeansofcommunication humans initially created to enable work and production for their ownsurvival; this included ways of acquiring and producing food, shelter, clothing, etc.) tosubsequently fuel the creation and control of wealth. In Ngũgĩ Wa Thiong’o’s words:‘production is co-operation, is communication, is language, is expression of a relationbetweenhumanbeings….’(1986,p.13).On this view, speech mirrors the language of real life because it is communication inproduction;therefore,productionisonlymadepossiblewhenlanguagedevelopsasasharedsystemofverbalsignposts.Thespokenwordmediatesbetweenhumanbeingsinthesamewayasthehandorthetoolmediatesbetweenhumanbeingsandnature.Similarly,throughthe evolution of human communication, the written word developed its own systemreflecting the interaction of men between themselves and between nature. This type ofcommunicationechoes thehuman livedexperienceof thosewho share this languageandNgũgĩ Wa Thiong’o argues that when the language of real life, i.e. communication inproduction, combinedwith speech andwritten signs reflects the reality of thosewhousethese signs, then there is ‘broad harmony for a child between these three aspects ofcommunication’(1986,p.14).However,theevolutionofalanguageisalsoafunctionoftheevolution of the culture that created the language; the culture is the sum of actions,directions and decisions taken in the act of production over time. It is simply howwedothingsandwhywedothemincertainways, inacontinualevolutionasweprogress intheworld.


37

3.LanguageascarrierofcultureAs mentioned above, language in use contains all that we need to help us to produce(something); it also holds all of our experiences acquired in particular contexts and overtime.Initself,languageholdsawayoflifewiththevaluesthatdefine,forexample,people’sperceptionsofwhatisrightorwrong,acceptableornotacceptable,beautifulorugly.Thesevalues are the building blocks of individuals’ identities within particular communities andthesevaluesaretransmittedthroughlanguage.Itisinthismannerthatlanguageisalsothecarrierofculture.NgũgĩWaThiong’oproposesthreedimensionstothisparticularaspectoflanguage.Thefirstaspectisthatculturemirrorsthecommunicationbetweenhumanbeingsin their endeavor to produce and control wealth. One can assume that at the heart ofproductionandcontrolofwealthliesthecommunicationthattakesplacetoestablishtrustandprinciplesofexchangethroughengagement. Interestinglyandmorerecently,thistypeof targeted communicationhas also beendescribed as soft power, a termdefinedby theBritishCouncilinapublicationentitledInfluenceandAttraction:Cultureandtheraceforsoftpowerinthe21stcentury:

“[Softpower isnations’] ability toachieve their internationalobjectives throughattractionandco-option rather than coercion– inaneffort topromote culturalunderstanding and avoid cultural misunderstanding…. [Where] …. culturalrelations activities … move beyond simple cultural ‘projection’ and towardsmutuality, together with increasing innovation and a recognition of the role ofculturalactorsasagentsofsocialchange.”(2013,p.3)

Moreover, soft power through cultural engagement and as ameans to achieve economicandpoliticalgrowth,inthe21stcentury,nowextendsbeyondtheactionofgovernementsasthe then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, William Haguecomments:

“Foreignpolicy today is no longer thepreserveof governments. There is nowamass of connections between individuals, civil society, businesses, pressuregroupsandcharitableorganisationswhicharealsopartoftherelationsbetweennations.”(BritishCouncil,2013,p.2).

It isthroughtheserelationswithinandmoresonowacrossspecificculturesthat languageas carrier of culture shapes culture-mediated images in the humanmind and defines theextenttowhichtheseimagesreflectordistortreality;theseimagesshapeourconceptionofnatureandnurtureandultimatelyofourselvesamongothers.Theprincipalvehiclefortheculture-mediated images in our minds is language. This second aspect of language issignificantinshapingourworldview.Today,weoperateinmulticulturalsettingswherethemutualityoftheseperceptionsbecomescrucialinoursuccessfulinteractionwithothers.The third aspect of language as carrier of culture is its cultural specificity. While theuniversalqualitiesoflanguageasahumancapacitytoorderandgivemeaningtosoundsandwordsareacknowledged,theydonottransmitaspecificculture.Hence,accordingtoNgũgĩWaThiong“aspecificcultureisnottransmittedthroughlanguageinitsuniversalitybutinitsparticularityasthelanguageofaspecificcommunitywithaspecifichistory”(1986,p.15).

Inthisregard,UNESCO’sworldreportonculturaldiversityandinterculturaldialoguestates:


38

“Languagesmediateourexperiences,our intellectualandculturalenvironments,ourmodesofencounterwithhumangroups,ourvaluesystems,socialcodesandsenseofbelonging,bothcollectivelyandpersonally. […] In thissense, languagesarenot justameansofcommunicationbut represent thevery fabricofculturalexpressions,thecarriersofidentity,valuesandworldviews.”(2009,p.12)

Engagingwiththeculturalspecificityofthelanguage(itssounds,itsgrammar,itswords,itsstyle)isnotonlyseenasanembodimentoftheculturethatproducesandusesthislanguagebut also becomes the gateway to the establishment of trust between people. The BritishCouncil’saptlynamedTrustPaysreportshowsthatthestrongestpredictoroftrustintheUKonthepartofintervieweesfrom10differentcountriesistheirabilitytospeakEnglish.Twoadditional factors are alsomentioned: the ability tomake friends in or from the UK andpersonalvisitstotheUK(2012,p.16).Trust inthiscontext isseenaskeytoeconomicandbusinessbenefits(2012,p.16).Inthislight,althoughnotmentionedinthisreport,theschoolsettingrepresentstheidealandobviousterrainforthedevelopmentrelationshipsandtrust,through languageuse, that is languageSof real life and languageSas carrierof culture, intheirspecificity.Tosumup,sofarwehaveseenthattwodimensionscharacteriselanguage:(1)thelanguageofreallifeassociatedwithhumanactivitytocreateandproduce;(2)languageuseascarrierof culture guiding thedirectionof thishumanactivity,which in turnhelps to shape socio-cultural values, ultimately becoming a composite of the identity of the language user.However, when the language of real life does not connect with language as carrier ofculture, the context for language use becomes somewhat dysfunctional. As we considerIrish,arecentreportontheusageofIrishintheGaeltachtsuggeststhat‘theIrishlanguagehas contracted as a community language in the Gaeltacht, especially in the strongestGaeltachtareas’(2015).Moreover,thereportpredictsthatIrish,asacommunitylanguage,willnotbeusedastheprimarymediumofcommunicationbythenextdecade.ThereportalsonotesthatIrishwillbeconfinedtoschoolsettingsandacademia.ThisisconfirmedbyarecentEconomicandSocialResearch Institutepublication (August2015) showing that theIrishmediumsectorineducationisconsistentlygrowingintheRepublicofIreland(p.24)andinNorthernIreland(p.39).Withoutunderestimating thechallenges facing Irishusage in thewidercommunity, schoolsettingsarealsoplacesofcommunitiesatwork,carryingparticularvaluesystems(seealsoDarmody & Daly, 2015). In other words, both the language of real life and language ascarrier of culture are used and define these particular environments; hence, there is noreasonwhy languages in their specificity, combinedwith their communicative and value-makingattributescannotbeusedtoenhancecommunicationinproductiontocarryouttheworkofamulti-facetedlearningcommunity.Inthisregard,muchhasbeendonetoaddressthis question through Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as well asPlurilingualism. The combination of the two approaches advocates the learning of schoolsubjectsthroughlanguagesotherthanthedominantlanguageoftheschoolorevenofthewider community. In other words, by using spaces in-between created as a result of thesegregation of academic subjects, e.g. science - Irish or Geography - French , new andinnovativelearning/workingcontextsemerge:thinkingandbeingacrossboundariesbecometangibleandrelevantasthegapbetweenthelanguageofreallifeandlanguageascarrierofcultureismeaningfullybridged.Suchanapproachalsoaddresses thequestionof the integrationofCulture inaCLILclass;manyCLILadvocatesdonotperceiveanautomaticplaceforcultureinCLILandthisinspite


39

ofCulturebeingacknowlegedasoneof thepillarsofasuccessfulCLILexperience;Dalton-Puffer (2009, p.211) proposes that “a learning space for intercultural competence is notautomaticallypresentinCLILclassrooms”,Coyle(2009,p.122)describesthepotentialofCLILtoaddvalueto intercultural learningandBallandLindsay(2010)statethatCLIL isnotthepurveyor of culture (October 2010, Factworld forum). However, as explained above,language as communication and as culture are products of each other, therefore,communicationcreatescultureandculturebecomesameansofcommunication(NgũgĩWaThiong’o, 1986, p.15). In this light, any subject may introduce not just a bilingual but aplurilingualaspecttothecontent.4.AEuropeanplurilingualCLILprojectIn concrete terms, learning and teaching applications of plurilingual CLIL have beendevelopedprincipallyinEuropeancontextsthroughtheworkofseveralprojects,sponsoredbytheEuropeanCentreofModernLanguages,suchasLanguageEducatorAwareness(LEA2004-2007)andContentBasedTeachingandPlurilingualism(ConBaT+2008-2011).Theoverarchingaimsoftheseprojectswere:

• Tocreatematerialsforlanguageteachertraining,aimingtobuilduplanguageandculturalawareness;

• Toraiseawarenessofdiversityasakeyelementofsociety;• To develop positive attitudes among language teachers & trainees towards all

otherlanguagesaswellastheirspeakers;• Toenrich language teacher educationwith thepotential to exploit linguistic and

culturaldiversityatindividualandsociallevels;• Tofacilitatecurricularchangesaimedatincorporatingplurilingualandpluricultural

awarenessintolanguageclasses.

More specifically, plurilingual competence among teachers and their pupils was targeted.Theteachingmaterialsconsideredalllanguageskillssoastoenablelearnersandteacherstoaccesscontentaswellasuselanguage/sinameaningfulway.Languagelearningstrategieswere activatedand included reading strategies,writing strategies, speaking strategies andlisteningstrategies.Thisplurilingualapproachoffersadditionalcognitivechallengestothosenormally associated with content alone while learners are encouraged to becomeautonomousandinquisitive.Teachers were also empowered to create quality cross-curricular materials in English,French,andSpanish,asanL2, forprimaryandsecondary school learners.Thesematerialsallow pupils to experience the language differently as well as view the content from adifferent perspective. Moreover, the student grows from being a language learner tobecominga languageuserwhichmakeslearningthecontentandthelanguagemuchmoreattractiveandmotivating.The languages and cultures present in the classroom were integrated into a number ofsubjects because the linguistic and cultural diversity that exists in our classrooms can nolongerbeignoredbyeducationalpractitioners.Therefore,theimpactofteachersprovidingopportunitiesforthisdiversitytobeheardbyallcannotbeoverestimated; inthiscontext,thematerialsofConBaT+provideteacherswiththeopportunitytouseotherlanguagesandempowerthepractitionerto introduceandusethe languagesof theclass.When learners’linguisticrepertoiresareencouragedintheclassroom,thelinguisticandculturalexperiences


40

ofeachandeveryoneemergenaturally. In this light,plurilingualism isauseful instrumentfor the initiation of intercultural dialogue and the development of language learningstrategies. Finally, plurilingualism creates a forum for the languages of the class that, sooften,remainunheardandunknownbytheschoolcommunity.InConBaT+,teacherswerealsomotivatedto impactonareformof language learningandteaching.ÓlöfOlafsdóttir(2011),statesthat:

“to impactona reformevery teacherneeds tohave the transversalknowledge,skillsandattitudesthatenablehimorhertobecomea“facilitator”ora“guide”who can steer the learning process of his or her students. Teachers need toencouragelearners’independence,theircreativity,self-relianceandself-criticism,help themto learn todebateandnegotiateand to takepart indecision-makingprocesses.Foreducationisnotonlyaboutknowing,itisalsoaboutknowinghowto be and knowing what to do. Our education systems continue to reproducepatterns in education that focus mostly on the transmission of knowledge andpreparation for employment, forgetting that the aims of education are alsopreparationforlifeasactivecitizens,personaldevelopmentandthemaintenance,inalifelongperspective,ofabroadandadvancedknowledgebase.”(p.7-8).

Thoserecommendationsshouldbetakenintoconsiderationbyteachers,administratorsandeducational authorities in order to impact on a real reform of language learning andteaching.4.1SurveyResultsAspartof theCONBAT+project,a surveywasdeveloped to study teachers’andstudents’attitudes toward content-based teaching and plurlingualism. The survey has 32 items andwas administered in 12 countries (Armenia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France,Finland, Greece, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Sweden). The data weregatheredfrom74teachersand558students.Thepilotsurveyshowsthatthreefactorsunderlietheitemsinthequestionnaire:AttitudestowardCONBAT+,Acceptanceof itsapproach,andSatisfactionwiththeschoolswheretheprogram materials were developed. Both students and teachers expressed positiveattitudes, acceptance and satisfaction. There was a slight tendency for boys to be lesspositive thangirlsand teachersmightwish toconsider thedifferencesbetweenboys’andgirls’reactionstotheprogrammaterials.Ifthereisanoverallconclusionemergingfromthedata analysis, it is that attitudes toward content-based and plurilingual approaches tolearning are positive, among both students and teachers. Therefore, we believe thatstudentsandteacherswillbereceptivetotheCONBAT+materials.5.Plurilingualcross-curricularmaterialsSeveralapplicationsof thedevelopmentofplurilingualcompetence, in the formofqualitycross-curricularmaterialsinordertoimpactoneducationalreformoflanguagelearningandteaching can be found below. The tasks proposed represent the three main educationsectorsandweredevelopedbyteachersandprojectcoordinatorsintheConBaT+initiative:The first example comes from the primary education sector and focuses on languageawarenessandtheoriginofthefollowingwordsinaGeographyclass:


41

Lookforthemeaningofthesewordsinadictionaryandtrytoguessthelanguagetheyareborrowedfrom:

n avalanche:…………………………n canyon:…………………………n fjord:…………………………n geyser:…………………………n golf:…………………………n iceberg:…………………………n jungle:…………………………n toundra:…………………………

(fromMotionintheOceanbyMartineKervran)

Anotherexample,thistimefrompost-primarylevel,combinesMathematics,MusicandLanguageswherestudentsareinvitedtomentionlanguagestheyspeakand/orknowaswellasbecomeawareofimportedwordsintheworldofmusicandmaths.

Theplurilingual textbelow isusedatuniversity level ina FrenchandMarketing class; thetraditionalblanks in the textare replacedby the languagesof the class,here, EnglishandIrish; on other occasions, the languages of the class included Arabic and this wasrepresentedinthetext.Theoutcomeofthisparticulartaskmakestheworkinterestingandintegratesthespeakersoftheselanguagesinthelearningcommunity;tocreatethisactivity,teacherssimplyusethehumanresourcesoftheirclass:

Allegro,π,mezzoforte,ß,Lied….Canyouthinkoflanguagesandculturesthatareimportantintheworldofmusic?Andintheworldofmaths?Insomeoftheexpertcardssomelanguagesandculturesarementioned.Inteams,takeoneofthelanguagesyouconsiderimportantintheworldofmusic,andmakeanewexpertcardwhichcontainsnewrelationsbetweenmusicand/ormathsandthenewlanguageyouhavechosen.Whataboutyourmothertongue?Andwhataboutotherlanguagesyoumayknow?Takingeverythingyouhavelearntinthisfirstandsecondpartoftheproject,thinkofhowmanyofthesenewmusicandmathsconceptsyoucansayinthelanguagesyouknow.Makeawordcloudliketheoneinactivity1.YoucanusetheonlinetoolWordle(www.wordle.com).(from“Asymphonyoffractions”byOriolPallaresandCarlotaPetitinhttp://conbat.ecml.at)


42

6.ConclusionThispaperproposed that languageuse impliesnotonly language to communicate for theproduction of particular outcomes but that inherent to such activities, lies language ascarrier of culture; one is the product of the other (NgũgĩWa Thiong’o, 1986); moreover,whiletheworldisbecoming‘anarenaofexchangeandmutuallearning’formutualbenefit(BritishCouncil2013,p.35),soareourclassrooms.Byexperiencingthe languagesofpeerswithinparticularCLIL tasks,orby raisingawarenessof languages,weare ineffectactivelyacknowledging the dynamic cultural composites constitutive of the class identity andapplying the concept ofmutuality. A CLIL experience is about learning and producing butlanguageuse is alsoabout thedevelopmentofpositiveattitudes to the speakersofotherlanguages. Inthisregard,theConBaT+projectandassociatedsurveyresultsdemonstratedthatCLILcanbeapproachedfromaplurilingualandpluriculturalperspective.Ifmanyofuslanguage specialists share Vygotsky’s analysis of thought and word, then we must alsorecognizethatthespecificityofawordalonecontainstheconsciousnessofitsspeakers:‘Awordrelatestoconsciousnessasalivingcelltoawholeorganism,asanatomrelatestotheuniverse. A word is a microcosm of human consciousness’ (1986, p.256). It is thisconsciousness,throughwords,thatweaseducatorsmustaimtoraiseamongourpeersandlearners.Note:Specialthankstotheeditorsofthefollowingpublicationfortheirkindpermissiontoreproduce parts of this article: Ó Ceallaigh, T.J & Ó Laoire, M. (eag/eds.) 2016 AnTumoideachas:BuanóDua?BaileÁthaCliath:COGG.ReferencesBall,P.&Lindsay,D.(2010).‘TeachertrainingforCLILintheBasquecountry:Thecaseofthe

Ikastolas–anexpediencymodel’. InD. Lasagabaster&Y.RuizdeZarobe (Eds.),CLIL inSpain: Implementaion, results and teacher training. Newcastle upon Tyne: CambridgeScholarsPublishing,162-187.

BernausM.,FurlongÁ.,JonckheereS.&KervranM.(2012).‘Innovationinlanguagelearningand teaching’. InT. Lamb (Ed.)EmpoweringLanguageprofessionalsSpecial issueof the

Transformezcetextetrilingueentextemonolingue

Thepraticeducoût-plus-margeest-elleloighciúil?Engénéral,non.Uneapprochequineconsidersnidelademandenidevalue-basedpricing,nidecompetitorsdanslafixation des luachanna a peu de chances de conduire au profitmaximal, qu’il soit àcourt ou à long terme. Cette approche perd son sens si les díolteanna necorrespondentpasauxanticipations.

lavaleurperçuetientcomptelaconcurrencelapratique

logiqueprixventes


43

EuropeanCentre forModernLanguages.AbingdonOxon:Routledge,TaylorandFrancis,219-241.

Bernaus M., Furlong Á., Jonckheere S. & Kervran M. (2011). Plurilingualism andpluriculturalism in content-based teaching: A training kit. Graz: European Centre ofModernLanguages.

Bhabha,K.H.(1994).TheLocationofCulture.London:Routledge.British Council (2013). Influence andAttraction Culture and the race for soft power in the

21st century. Available at http://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/britishcouncil.uk2/files/influence-and-attraction-report.pdf.

BritishCouncil(2012).TrustPays.Availableatwww.britishcouncil.org/.CEFR (2001). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.Coyle, D. (2009). ‘Promoting cultural diversity through intercultural understanding: a case

study of CLIL teacher professional development at In-service and Pre-service levels’. inM.L. Carrió Pastor (Ed), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Cultural Diversity.Bern:PeterLang,105-124.

Dalton-Puffer,C.(2009).‘CommunicativecompetenceandtheCLILclassroom’.InY.RuizdeZarobe & R.M. Jiménez Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning.EvidencefromresearchinEurope.Bristol:MultilingualMatters,197-214.

Darmody,M.&Daly,T.(2015).AttitudestowardstheIrishLanguageontheIslandofIreland.Dublin2:TheEconomicandSocialResearchInstitute.Availableat

http://www.gaelscoileanna.ie/files/Attitudes-towards-the-Irish-Language-on-the-Island-of-Ireland.pdf.

Ngũgĩ Wa Thiong’o. (1986). Decolonising the mind. Nairobi: East African EducationalPublishers.

Olafsdóttir, Ó. (2011). Foreword. In J. Huber & P. Mompoint-Gaillard (Eds), Teachereducationforchange.Strasbourg:CouncilofEuropePublishing.

ÚdarásnaGaeltachta (2015):UpdateReport to theComprehensive Linguistic Studyon theUsage of Irish in the Gaeltacht: 2006-2011. Available athttp://www.udaras.ie/en/nuacht/tastail-a/

UNESCO (2009). Investir dans la diversitéculturelle et le dialogue interculturel. Paris:UNESCO.Availableat:unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001847/184755f.

Vygotsky,L.(1986).Thoughtandlanguage.A.Kozulin(Ed).Massachusetts:TheMITpress.

AineFurlong's([email protected])researchinterestsfocusoncreatinglearningrelevancethroughCLILwhileintegratingplurilingualelementsto

thelearningofsubjects.Shehasalsoinvestigatedtherelationofplurilingualismtocreativity.SheledtheMAinSecondLanguageLearningandTeachingatWaterfordInstituteofTechnologyandsupervisesPh.D.students.ShehasalsoworkedinteachereducationinIreland,Europe

andtheMiddleEast.

MerceBernaus([email protected])isemeritusprofessoroftheUniversitatAutonomadeBarcelona.Shecoordinated

plurilingualism/culturalismprojectsattheEuropeanCentreforModernLanguageslikeConBaT+andLanguageEducatorAwareness(LEA).

Recently,sheisengagedintheECMLTrainingandConsultancyprogramformemberstates.Sheiscollaboratinginworkshopsdealingwith

“SupportingMultilingualClassrooms”.


CLILTeachersandtheirLanguage

ΟιεκπαιδευτικοίτηςCLILκαιηγλώσσατους

MarySPRATTRelatively little focus has been given to the language needed by CLIL teachers, of whatever firstlanguage background, to fulfil their roles in the classroom. This paper attempts to summariseresearchonvariousaspectsofCLIL teacher languagecoveringwhat the research saysaboutwhatCLIL teachersmayneed touse language for, registers, thediscoursecharacteristicsofCLIL teacherlanguage and the demands placed on this language by recommended CLIL classroom practices.Finally it focusseson theCLIL teacherandTLA (teacher languageawareness)and then tiesall thisresearchintoCLILteachercompetences.ThissummaryofresearchonCLILteacherlanguageprovidesaplatformthroughwhichthearticle thengoesontoproposean initialspecificationof ‘English forCLILing’ and make recommendations for CLIL teacher language training as part of professionaldevelopment.

�Σχετικάμικρήέμφασηέχειδοθείστηγλώσσαπουαπαιτείταιαπό τουςεκπαιδευτικούς,οιοποίοιεφαρμόζουντημέθοδοCLIL,ανεξαρτήτωςτηςπρώτηςγλώσσας,γιαναεκπληρώσουντορόλοτουςμέσα στην τάξη. Η παρούσα εργασία επιχειρεί να συνοψίσει ερευνητικές δραστηριότητες σεδιάφορεςπτυχέςτηςγλώσσαςτωνεκπαιδευτικώνκαλύπτονταςοπτικέςγιατοπώςχρησιμοποιούνοι εκπαιδευτικοί τη γλώσσα, τα χαρακτηριστικά του λόγου του εκπαιδευτικού και τις απαιτήσειςπου τίθενταισεαυτή τη γλώσσααπό τιςπρακτικέςστην τάξηόπουεφαρμόζεταιημέθοδοςCLIL.Τέλος, η εργασία εστιάζει στον εκπαιδευτικό της CLIL καθώς και στη γλωσσική επίγνωση τωνεκπαιδευτικών, και συνδέει όλα αυτά με τις δεξιότητες του εκπαιδευτικού στο συγκεκριμένοδιδακτικό πλαίσιο. Η σύνοψη ερευνών που σχετίζονται με τη γλώσσα του εκπαιδευτικού πουεφαρμόζειτημέθοδοCLILπαρέχειμιαπλατφόρμαμέσωτηςοποίαςτοάρθροεπιχειρείμιααρχικήεννοιολογική αποσαφήνιση της «αγγλικής γλώσσας για CLILing» και προχωράει σε προτάσεις γιατηνεπιμόρφωσητωνεκπαιδευτικώνπουεφαρμόζουν τηνCLILωςσυνιστώσατηςεπαγγελματικήςτουςανάπτυξης.Key words: CLIL teacher language, language use, discourse, classroom practices, CLIL teachercompetences,EnglishforCLILing,professionaldevelopment.

Spratt/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning8/1(2017)44-61

45

1.IntroductionMuchhas been researched andwritten about different aspects of CLIL e.g. the rationale for CLIL,CLIL content, CLIL classroom practices and the evaluation of CLIL learning outcomes for subjectcontentandlanguage,butthereislittleuniquefocusonteachers’useoflanguageforandintheCLILclassroom.YetlanguageisoneofthemeansthroughwhichCLILisdeliveredandthroughwhichCLILlearnerslearnboththelanguageandthesubjectcontentoftheirCLILlessons.AssuchitispivotaltothesuccessofCLILinitiatives.ThispaperwillattempttopiecetogetherwhathasbeenwrittenaboutteacherlanguageinCLILandthendrawon this tooutline thebeginningsofaneedsanalysisofCLIL teacher language.Thiswilllead on to a brief discussion of some possible implications of the needs analysis for teacherdevelopmentthatwouldenabletheCLILteachertooperatemoreeffectivelyandconfidentlyintheirclassroom.Toavoidmisunderstanding,however, it isusefultostartwithastatementofthedefinitionofCLILthatthispaperwillworkwith.ItmakesuseofMarsh’swell-knowndefinition:‘Aforeignlanguageisusedasatoolinthelearningofanon-languagesubjectinwhichbothlanguageandthesubjecthavea joint role’ (Marsh, 2002). This definition highlights that CLIL has a dual focus: content andlanguage. CLIL is more than learning subject content through a foreign language (immersion) orlearningaforeignlanguagethroughsubjectcontent(someversionsofEFL).Itisfirmlyinthemiddleofthisspectrum(seeFig.1).

Focus Focus On On

Subject Language

Bilingual CLIL Language Education Teaching

Figure1:ThefocusofCLILThis paper also only reports on studies of CLIL initiatives involving English as the medium ofinstruction.2.LanguageuseandlanguageregistersintheCLILFrameworkWhenwe reviewwhat has been said about CLIL teacher language,we see it has focused on twothemes in particular:what the language is used for and the registers of language thatCLILworkswith.Wewilllookatbothofthese.Coyle(2006)hasproposedthatintheCLILclassroomthreekindsoflanguageusehelptoconstructknowledge:languageoflearning,languageforlearningandlanguagethroughlearning.Thelanguageof learningrefersto ‘languageneededfor learnerstoaccessbasicconceptsrelatingtothesubjectthemeor topic’ (Coyle,etal.,2010,p.37).This language ismadeupof subject specificvocabulary(e.g.forgeography:stream,confluence,tributary,tomeander),includingfixedexpressions(e.g.forsocialsciences:asshowninthegraph,ascanbeseen,asteeprise,graduallydecrease)andsubjecttypicalgrammar(e.g.useofthepassiveindescriptionsofscientificprocesses,useofthepasttense


46

inhistoricaldescriptions,useofpastmodalverbsininterpretationofevidenceinhistoryandsocialsciences).Italsocovers‘register’andgenre.WhiletheabovequotefromCoyleappearstofocusonthelearner,itisofcoursetheteacherwhowillbeengaged,withorwithoutthehelpofaidssuchasinputtexts,videos,computerresources,indeliveringormediatingthatlanguagetolearners.Languageforlearningistheenablinglanguageoftheclassroomthatallowstheteachertoconductclassroom and learning management e.g. scaffolding learning, setting up pair and group work,encouragingetc.Forlearnersitisthelanguagewhichallowsthemtodevelopandworkwithlearningskills such as ‘cooperative group work, asking questions, debating, chatting, enquiring, thinking,memorisingandsoon’(Coyle,2006).Whiletheteachermaynotneedtousethislearnerlanguagethemselvestheymaywellneedtoprovideittothelearnerstoenablethemtouseit.Finally,languagethroughlearningisdefinedaslanguage‘tosupportandadvance(learners’)thinkingprocesseswhilstacquiringnewknowledge,aswellastoprogresstheirlanguagelearning’(Coyle,etal.,2010,p.38).Aslearnersstruggletoexpresstheirunderstandingoftheirnewlearning,and,withthis,newmeanings,theywillrequiretheirownparticularexpressionoflanguagethroughwhichtodothis.Theywill,oftenasnot,needtheteacher’ssupporttoexpressthesenewmeanings,hencetheteachermustbeabletosupplythatsupportbeitlinguisticorcognitiveorboth.Llinares,MortonandWhittaker(2012)alsoidentifythreerolesforlanguageinCLIL(seeTable1).SUBJECTLITERACIES

CLASSROOMINTERACTION

LANGUAGEDEVELOPMENT

GENREREGISTER

ASSESSMENT

InstructionalandRegulativeregisters(focus)Communicationsystems(approach)InteractionpatternsandScaffolding(action)

ASSESSMENT

Expressingideationalmeanings(keyconceptsandunderstandings)Expressing interpersonal meanings(socialrelationships,attitudes)Expressing textual meanings(movingfrommorespokentoWrittenformsoflanguage)

Table1:Athree-partframeworkforunderstandingtherolesoflanguage

(Llinares,Morton&Whittaker,2012,p.15)Theauthorsdevelopedthisframeworkbycombiningviewsaboutlanguagefromsystemicfunctionallinguistics,Vygotsky’sviewoflanguageastheessentialmediatingtoolinourcognitivedevelopment(Llinares,etal.,2012)andasocialperspectiveonsecondlanguagedevelopment.In the framework, genres refer to the text types that are typicalof a subject area (e.g. inhistory:chronicalling, reporting, explaining, arguing (Dalton Puffer, 2007); in business studies: reports,journalpapers,casestudies;inscience:reports,proceduresandexplanations)andregisterreferstothegrammarandvocabularytypicalofasubject.WecanseethatthiscategoryhasmuchincommonwithCoyle’s languageof learning (Coyle, 2006). LLinares et al. (2012, p.16) say ‘CLIL teachers canidentifythesegenreandregisterfeaturesinthematerialsandactivitiestheyuse,andhighlightthem


47

for their learners’. Genres and register are the text types and language through which contentknowledgeisexpressed.Under the heading Classroom Interaction the authors talk of instructional and regulative register,theformerreferringtothelanguageusedtotalkaboutkeyconceptsandideasrelatedtothesubjectbeingstudied(Llinares,etal.,2012),whileregulativeregisterreferstothelanguageusedtomanageandorganisethesocialworldoftheclassroom,similartoCoyle’slanguageforlearning(Coyle,2006).In instructional language the authors draw our attention to a very useful distinction made byBernstein (Llinares,etal.,2012,p.39),betweenverticalandhorizontal language.Vertical languagereflectsthehierarchicalknowledgestructuresofasubjectarea(e.g.descriptionofcauseandeffectwithinachronologicalnarrativestructure),whereashorizontallanguagereferstoeverydaylanguageusedtotalkabouteverydaylifeandexperiences.Asateacherdeliversinformationaboutasubjecttheymaywellwishandneedtomovebetweentheseregisters,maybeusingahorizontalregistertoelicit students’ knowledgeandexperienceofa topicatawarmup stageofa lesson, thenusingaverticalregistertoidentifyparticipants,processes,circumstances,andcausal,andotherlogicallinksbetween them (Linares, et al., 2012), thenmaybe reverting to horizontal register to give or elicitexamplesfromeverydaylifeoftheconceptsunderdiscussion.Again,theseregisterswillbeusednotonlyby teachersbutalsoby learners,with teachersplayingaveryhelpful role inadvancingCLIL’sdualaimsiftheyenablelearners’learningofthiskindoflanguage.Useofthetworegistersfacilitatesthe dialogic inquiry advocated by Wells (1999) i.e. dialogue between teachers and learners toconstructknowledge.2.1CLILclassroomdiscourseWecananalyseateacher’sclassroomlanguagefromtheperspectiveoftheusesitneedstobeputto, as above, and also from that of the type of language characteristics that it makes use of.Cummins and others have proposed that in order to aid students’ learning of both content andlanguagethroughthedevelopmentofbothhigherandlowerorderthinkingskills(HOTSandLOTS),theteacherintheclassroomshouldtailortheirlessoncontentanddevelopmentroundtheCummins(1984)quadrant,asgivenbelow:

(Cummins,1984;modifiedformat,https://juanpwashere.wordpress.com/page/3)Cumminsmaintainedthattherearetwocausesofeaseanddifficultyinexpressingorunderstandingtopics in the classroom: the amount of cognitive demand they create and the complexity of the


48

languagethroughwhichtheyareexpressed.Easierlanguageismadeeasypartlybybeingsupportedby theclues (e.g.gestures, surroundings, facialexpressions)providedby thecontext inwhich it isproduced. More difficult language is made difficult partly by the fact that it is not contextuallysupported, and is also expressed in languagewhich is structurally complex. Cummins (1979) alsomaintainsthatthesevariablesmeanthatlanguagecanbeusedtoexpresslowlevelthinkingskillsineasylanguage.Converselyitcanalsoexpresshighlevelthinkingskillsindifficultlanguage,ordifficultconceptscanbeexpressedthrougheasylanguageorviceversa.The CLIL teacher is encouraged to make use of all these quadrants to scaffold the learning oflanguage,subjectorthinkingskills,tocaterfordifferentlevelsoflearnerandtoaidtheacquisitionofthemoreabstractlanguagethroughwhichsubjectmatterandhigherorderthinkingskills(HOTS)are often expressed, especially in variouswritten genres. As can be seen,moving between thesequadrants is likely to require the teacher (and learners) to operate with and in both formal andinformalregistersof language, involvingtheuseofBICS(Basic InterpersonalCommunicationSkills)andCALP(Cognitiveacademiclanguageproficiency)i.e.intheCLILclassroomitisnotsufficientforparticipants just tobeable touse theday today languageneeded to interact socially (BICS) ,butthey also need the language for formal academic learning that covers not just subject specificlanguage, but also the comprehension and expression of higher level thinking skills such ascomparing, analysing, evaluating, hypothesising, inferring, synthesizing, as in Quadrant IV above(CALP). These are skills and language which the learner will need for academic activities such aslisteningtoalecture,readinganacademictextbook,presentingapaperorwritinganessay.InaCLILclasstheteacherwillneedtoteachthethinkingandlanguageskillsinvolvedinsuchtasks.Research (e.g. Collier, 1989; Thomas & Collier, 1997) has found that whereas BICS can be learntwithina fewyears in theschoolcontext, itmaytake five tosevenyears for learners tomasteranappropriatelevelofCALP,thoughotherresearchsuggeststhatinaCLILcontext,inwhichexposuretothetargetlanguageoutsidetheclassroommaybeverylimitedornon-existent,theopportunitiesfor encountering and using BICS may therefore be similarly limited (Dalton-Puffer, 2007) andinsufficient for it to be acquired automatically (Varkuti, 2010). This suggests that theCLIL teachermayinsomecontextsneedtohelplearnerstolearnbothBICSandCALP.ThereareclearsimilaritiesbetweenCummins’CALPandBernstein’s‘verticalregister’(discussedabove),andsimilarlybetweenBICSandBernstein’s ‘horizontal register’. (Cummins,1979;Bernstein1999 inLlinares,etal.,2012,p.39).In the CLIL literaturewe also find reference to the discourse of the CLIL classroom.Unlike in theabove research, the literatureon classroomdiscoursebases itself on studiesofwhat talk actuallyoccursintheCLILclassroom,asmentionedbyNikula,etal.(2012).Whilethestudiesintheseareasdo not usually focus uniquely on teacher discourse, certain features of CLIL teacher discourseneverthelessemerge.Beforeidentifyingthese,itneedstobestressedthatthepracticeofCLILvariesconsiderably from classroom to classroom, and country to country, and it is difficult to talk of atypicalCLILclassroomandthereforeoftypicalCLILclassroomdiscourse.Mostofthestudiesreportonteacher-ledclassroomsandonwhole-class interactioninsecondaryschoolsthroughoutarangeofcountriesinEurope.Featuresofteacherdiscoursesuchasthefollowingreceiveattentioninthestudies:negotiationofmeaning;dealingwitherrorsandprovidingfeedback,particularlythroughtheuse of recasts; teacher use of different types of questions, particularly open and referentialquestions;teacher-ledwholeclassdiscussions;theteacher’scentralroleasinputgiver;theteacher’srole as provider of comprehensible input; the teacher’s modification of input so as to make itcomprehensible;theteacher’suseofexplicitdiscoursemarkerstostructurelecturesparticularlyinuniversitysettings.ThestudiesalsosuggestthatthesefeaturesaregenerallymoreprominentinCLILclassroomsthantheywouldbeintheaverageEFLclassroom.Theauthorsconclude:


49

“Overall, discourse analytic and pragmatic studies suggest that teaching contentmatterthroughaforeignlanguagehasthepotentialforrenderingclassroomdiscoursequalitatively different from contexts where language is the object of scrutiny. Thebiggestdifferencesrelatetostudents’increasedopportunitiestobeactiveparticipantsin interaction and to use the target language for contextually relevant meaningmaking.However,thesedifferencesalsorelatetopedagogicalpractices:gainsarelessobviousifteacher-centeredmethodsprevail.”(Nikula,etal.,2012,p.86).

Another study of CLIL classroom discourse of particular relevance and interest to this paper is inNikula(2010).ThisreportsonastudyoftheclassroomdiscourseofoneFinnishteacherwithagoodcommandofEnglish(Nikula,2007),teachingoneclassbiologyinEnglishandanotherclassbiologyinFinnish.Differences arenoted in the teacher’s discoursebetween the two classes. These are thatwhen teaching in his mother-tongue, Finnish, the teacher engaged in more monologic and lessinteractional language whereas in the CLIL class where he was speaking in English his discoursetendedtobemoredialogicandinteractional.TheresearcherhypothesizesthatthismaybeduetothefactthattheteacherdoesnotcommandtheformalregisterofEnglishsufficientlytoallowforhisextended use of it for monologues, and/or that in the CLIL classroom where the teacher andstudents areworking collaboratively to find their feet, theremaybe less place for the teacher toadoptanauthoritarianrole.YetwehaveseenabovethatinCLILtheteachermaywellneedontheoccasiontomakeuseofvertical languageandCALP.Thestudyalsofindsthat intheCLILclasstheteacher makes less use of nuanced interpersonal strategies for classroom management andattributesthistotheteacher’slackoflanguageabilityinthisregister.Althoughthesefindingscannotbe generalised, as they are a case study of one teacher in one classroom context, they suggest amethodology for further studies of CLIL teacher language and potential areas on which teacherlanguagemightimpact.2.2LanguageandCLILclassroompracticesThese findings from discourse analysis provide us with some clues as to the kinds of pedagogicinterventions aCLIL teacherneeds touse language for themselves, andalso indicate areaswhereCLIL learnersmay need support for their language comprehension and use.We are arriving at apictureofwhattheCLILteachermayneedtousetheirlanguagefor.Absentfromthispicturesofar,however, is a detailed focus on CLIL methodology and the demands it may place on teacherlanguage.ThisgoesbeyondCoyle’s ‘language for learning’as it is linked to specific recommendedCLILclassroompractices.WhileitisgenerallyacceptedthatthereisnoonefixedCLILmethodology,certain principles are constantly promoted for CLIL classroom practices as they enable theachievementofCLIL’sdualaims.We find thatCLIL teachingpracticesare frequentlyplacedwithinthecontextoftheteachingofthe4C’s(Content,Communication,Culture/Community,Cognition)astheseunderlieandenablethedualaimsofCLIL.Coyleillustratesthe4C’sasshowninFigure2.Weseethatwhilethereisafocusonthe4C’sinCLILteaching,itisneverthelessContentthatdrivesand decides on the content of the other C’s, i.e. what from the other C’s will be selected andfocussed on to enable and extend the teaching of content. At the same time the 4Cs will beconstantlyintegratedsotheteaching/learningofonesupportstheteaching/learningoftheothers.Wordsandphraseswhichoftenoccur indiscussionof recommendedCLILclassroompracticesandhowtopromotethe4C’sare:

• Exposureandacquisition;• Scaffoldedlearning;• Interactive,co-operative,dialogic,andexploratoryteaching;• Focusonform.


50

Figure2:Coyle’s4C’smodel.ExposuretolanguageisthoughttobeessentialinCLILasitisthroughthisthatlearnerswillacquirethe target language. As we have seen, this language may well vary in register (BICS/CALP,instructional/regulative).Itmayalsobespokenorwrittenandproducedbytheteacherordeliveredthroughaidssuchasreadingpassagesorvideos.Teacherswillprovidethisinputwhen,forexample,theyexplainsomethingtolearners,describevisualsorprocesses,givetheiropinioninawholeclassdiscussion,providefeedbacktoa learner/ learners,organiseprojectorgroupwork,engage inoralwhole class exploration of a new concept, etc. However, experts in language acquisition such asKrashen,Lightbown,Ellishavelongmaintainedthatinordertolearnfromandthroughexposuretolanguage, learners need to be exposed not just to any language but to what they term‘comprehensibleinput’,atermelaboratedbyKrashen(1982),whichreferstolanguagewhichisjustabove the learners’ current levelof competence.Theyhavealsomaintained that languagecanbelearnt,and,indeedismainlylearnt,throughacquisitionratherthanlearningi.e.bybeingexposedtoitratherthanfocussingonit.InCLIL,exposureisobviouslyrequiredtoenablelanguagelearning,butitisalsorequiredtocommunicateaboutsubjectcontentandtoenabletheteachingoftheotherC’s(culture/community, cognitive skills). Thismeansa teacherwill need tobeable togaugewhetherthelanguagetheythemselvesareusingseemstobeattherightcomprehensiblelevelforstudents,and ifnot,beabletomodify it.Theywillsimilarlyneedtogaugethe languageofanymaterialsoraidstheyuse,andmodifythelanguageinthemifitisatthewronglevel.ThereisaverynicequotefromSwan(1994)thatcapturestheessenceofprovidingcomprehensibleinputintheclassroom:

“Good teaching involves a most mysterious feat – sitting, so to speak, on one’slistener’s shoulder,monitoringwhatone is sayingwith the listener’s ears, andusingthis feedback to shapeandadaptone’swords frommoment tomoment so that thethread of communication never breaks. This is art, not science……” (Swan, 1994 inAndrews2012,p.4)

Scaffolding is another mainstay of the CLIL classroom-whether it is scaffolding of content orscaffolding of communication. Scaffolding involves providing temporary support to the learner inordertomakespecificlearninggoalsmoreattainable.Itmayconsistoftechniquessuchasbreaking

Content

CognitionLearning

Thinking skillsProblem solving

CommunicationUsing languages to learn

Learning to use languages

CultureIntercultural

understanding


51

tasksupintosmallertasksandsequencingthesubtasksappropriately,providinglearnerswithvisualorganisers toenable themtosee the route thata lineofargumentor topicdevelopment follows,giving learners a (bilingual) glossary of key terms, providing a model text (spoken or written),providing learners with language frames to support writing or speaking activities, providingemerging language to learnersas they, forexample, answerquestionsor takepart indiscussions,demonstrating an activity prior to asking students to do something, doing a warm up to engagelearners’schemata,providingfeed-backbeforemovingontothenextstageetc.Scaffoldingissaidtobe particularly necessary in CLIL because of the dual demands, cognitive and linguistic, that CLILplacesonthelearner.Scaffoldingmakesdemandsonteachers’languageinavarietyofways.Intheactivitiesabove,forinstance,teachersmayneedtobeabletosupplyemerginglanguage/languagethrough learning, recognise a discourse structure (e.g. cause-effect, cycle, ordering of a process,event sequence in a narrative) in order to provide a suitable visual organiser, gauge thedifficultylevel(linguisticand/orcognitive)oftasksinordertosequencetheiruse,swapbetweenregulativeorinstructionalregistersinawarmupetc.CLIL teachers are also encouraged tomake their teaching ‘Interactive, co-operative, dialogic, andexploratory’. Interaction can be between teachers and learners, or between learner(s) andlearner(s). It is believed that it is through cooperation in the verbal exploration and socialconstruction of ideas that learning fully takes place. Coyle, et al. (2010, p.35) say: According toFreire:

‘withoutdialoguethere isnocommunicationandwithoutcommunicationtherecanbenotrueeducation’ (1972, p.35). This puts classroom communication- interaction between peers andteachers- at the core of learning. There is also growing recognition that ‘dialogic’ forms ofpedagogy-that is,where learners are encouraged to articulate their learning—are potent toolsforsecuringlearnerengagement,learningandunderstanding.Focussingteachingandlearningonquality discourse between learners, and between learners and teachers—where learners havedifferentopportunitiestodiscusstheirownlearningwithothersasitprogresses,wherefeedbackis integrated into classroom discourse and where learners are encouraged to ask as well asanswerquestions—promotesmeaningful interactionfundamentaltoanylearningscenario.ThisiswhatWells(1999)terms‘dialogiclearning’(Coyle,etal.,2010,p.35).

So,indialogicteachingtheteacherispromptedtouselanguageinteractivelywithlearners,soastoencourage cooperation between learners, to encourage the joint exploration of new concepts toallow for the co-constructionof knowledge andmultiple associationswith it, to provide feedbackandtorespondtostudents’questionsaswellasasktheirown.MortimerandScott(2003)focusonfourkindsofclassroomtalk:interactive/noninteractiveanddialogic/authoritarian.Indialogictalk,studentsareencouragedtocontributetheirownideasandunderstandings,whereasinauthoritariantalkonly the teacher’sorofficial view is recognised (Llinares,Morton&Whittaker,2012).Wecansee thatwhen a teacher is giving the facts of a subject theymightwant to use an authoritarianmode,whereasadialogicmodewould lend itselfmore toexplorationand interpretationof thosefacts.ThefourthsetofwordsoftenusedinrelationtoCLILteachingisafocusonform,bywhichismeanta deliberate focus by the teacher on language forms which are key to and within particularinteractions, registers or genres in use/focus at thatmoment in the classroom, drawing learners’attentiontohowsomethingissaidwhileremainingwithinthecontextofcommunication.Thisisnottosuggestthatactivitiesmightinvolveadeliberateandseparatefocusondifferentgrammarpoints–thesewouldbreaktheflowofcommunicationandexchangeofmeaning-butrather,forexample,providing learners with a range of exponents of the function of agreeing to enable group work,givingthemahandoutwithalistofwaysofexpressingcauseandeffecttoaidthemwithwritingareport,providingonthespotcorrectionofpronunciationofkey lexisorofuseofkeygrammaror


52

lexis after a learnerhasused this language inaccurately. Inotherwords, a focuson form involvesintegratingintothelessonflowabrieffocusonkeylanguagerequiredforaspecificactivity.Thisisdifferent fromtheproceduresand focusofmuch languageteaching.TherehasbeengreatdebateamongstCLILexpertsandpractitionersabouthowmuchCLIL teachers should focuson form,withsomemaintainingthatthereisnoplaceintheCLILclassforsuchafocus,andthatexposinglearnerstolanguageissufficientforthemtolearnit.Manyrecentstudies,however,suggestthatthisisnotthecase.Learners,inimmersionorCLILsettings,whoselearningofthelanguagehasbeenlimitedtoexposurehaveregularlybeenfoundtofallshortof thedesired levelofproficiency,particularlyonthelevelofgrammaticalaccuracy.(e.g.Lyster&Mori,2006;Lightbown,2014).Therehavealsobeenfindingsfromlanguageacquisitionstudiessuggestingstronglythatbeforesomethingcanbelearntitneedstobenoticed(Schmidt,1990).Theteachercanhelplearnerstonoticekeylanguagefeaturesby employing ways of making themmore salient. These techniques have been reported to haveresultedingreateraccuracy(Vazquez,2010).3.TeacherLanguageAwarenessintheCLILcontextTheoverviewprovidedsofarbythispaperallowsustoseethataCLILteachernotonlyneedstobeabletousethelanguageinparticularwaysbutalsoneedsto‘knowabout’languagesoastobeableto do things such as focus on form, recognise genres, make input comprehensible, providecorrectionandfeedbackonlanguageuse.Astheseauthorssay:

“TheteacherofwhatevermaterialisbeingtaughtinanL2,shouldnotonlyupdatehislinguisticknowledgetoastandardandrecognizedleveloffluencybutshoulddevelopadifferentlinguisticsensitivitytobeabletoadaptthecontentstothenewlanguageanddevelopteachingproceduresthatmakeitpossibleforthestudenttolearn.”(Lorenzo,etal.,2005,p.71).

Whatisbeingdiscussedhereis‘Teacherlanguageawareness’(TLA)whichThornburydefinesas‘theknowledgethatteachershaveoftheunderlyingsystemsofthelanguagethatenablesthemtoteacheffectively’(Thornbury,1997,p.x).Thornburyistalkingaboutlanguageteachers.However,whathesaysbecomesrelevantforCLILteacherstooin lightofCLIL’sdualaims,thoughit isprobablymoreappropriatetosaythatCLILteachersneedknowledgeoftheuses,genresandregistersoflanguagethataretypicaloftheirsubjectareaandoflanguageforlearningorregulativeregister,ratherthanoftheunderlyingsystemsoflanguageasawhole.Wecanseeverygoodexamplesofsubjectspecificlanguage inDaleandTanner’s2012book ‘CLILActivities’. Theauthorsprovidedescriptionsof thelanguageof different subjects, in termsof their typical genres, genre features, functions, thinkingskills,useofspokenandwrittenmodes,recurrentgrammarandvocabulary.DaleandTanner(2012,p. 80-81) point out, for instance, that the subject of science is typified by thinking skills such asreasoning, questioning, creative problem-solving and evaluating, and genres such as scientificarticles,writtenreports,instructionsforexperiments.Withinthese,itsfunctionsareoftenthoseofrecounting,describing,informing,explaining,predictingandhypothesising,andthesubjectcontentmakes frequentuseofgrammatical structuressuchaspresent tenses, timeclauses, linkingwords,future tenses and modals, complex sentences with subclauses, comparisons and specialisedtechnicaltermssuchasalkali,molecule,energy,atom,solution,soluble.Differentmaterials and activities will vary in their use of these features, and TLAwill enable theteacher to recognise them, make judgements about whether the text is comprehensible for aparticular set of learners, decidewhich features, if any, are important to focus onwith learners,decidewhichneedscaffoldingandhow,allowtheteachertoanticipate learnerproblemswiththelanguage of the text and devise appropriate tasks round the text that focus on content and/ orlanguage.InotherwordsTLAfacilitatesboththeplanningandthedeliveryofalesson.


53

Andrews(2012)identifiesthepositiveenablinginfluenceofTLAwhenplanningalessonasgivingtheteacher:

- Sufficient freedom/control over content of teaching to engage fullywith language relatedissuesoflessonbeforeenteringclassroom

- Confidence in own explicit grammar knowledge and communicative language ability, andconfident about assuming responsibility for shaping the language related content of thelesson.

- Information for pre-lesson reflections about language-related issues, and therefore toinfluencelanguagerelatedaspectsofpreparation

Andwhendeliveringalessonallowingtheteacherto:

- Act as a bridge between the language content of thematerials and the learners,makingsalientthekeyfeaturesofthegrammararea

- Filterthecontentofpublishedmaterialsandnotice/avoidpotentialpitfalls- Filter their own classroom output (spoken and written) to ensure that it is structurally

accurate,functionallyappropriate,clearlyexpressed,pitchedatthelearners’level- Filter learner output (as appropriate in the context of form focussed activity). Mediation

takes the learners’ perspective into account and is correct, precise and intelligible,structurally accurate, functionally appropriate, pitched at the learners’ level, an adequatebasisforlearnergeneralisations

- Operate the filter in real time, responding spontaneously and constructively to issues oflanguagecontentastheyariseinclass

- Employmetalanguagetosupportlearningcorrectlyandappropriately(paraphrasedfromAndrews2012,pp.42-45)

Wecannotethatthesefactorsrelatetobothlessonplanninganddelivery.Alsointerestingtonoteishow much the factors mention the importance of TLA in making the teacher feel confident inplanning and delivering the lesson. Here are some examples of how TLA can affect details of alesson:

“Within the classroom, TLA has the potential to exert a profound effect upon theteacher’s performance of a range of tasks. These tasks include: (i) mediating what ismade available to learners as input; (ii) making salient the key grammatical featureswithin that input; (iii) providing exemplification and clarification, as appropriate; (iv)monitoringstudents’output;(v)monitoringone’sownoutput;(vi)helpingthestudentsto make useful generalisations based upon the input; and (vii) limiting the potentialsources of learner confusion in the input; while all the time (viii) reflecting on thepotentialimpactofallsuchmediationonthelearners’understanding.”(Andrews2012,p.43).

Thornbury(1997,pxii)drawsattentiontothenegativesofnotmakinguseofTLA:

• Failuretoanticipatelearners’learningproblems;• Inabilitytoplanlessonspitchedatrightlevel;• Inabilitytointerpretmaterialsandadaptthemtospecificlearners;• Inabilitytodealsatisfactorilywitherrorsorfieldlearnerqueries;• Generalfailuretoearnlearnerconfidence…andpresentnewlanguageclearlyand

efficiently.


54

While both Andrews (2012) and Thornbury (1997) are talking about TLA in relation to languageteacherswhoareteachingaforeignlanguage,itisnothardtoseetherelevancetotheCLILteacherofmuchofwhattheyidentify.TheaboveoverviewofaCLIL teacher’susesof language intheclassroomandofTLA,andof theirimpact in the classroom show the importance and centrality of teacher language inCLIL.We findrecognitionofthisinsomestatementsaboutthecompetencesrequiredbyCLILteachers.KeithKelly,for instance,mentions inhis listofcompetencies for the idealCLIL teacher: isproficient in theFL,useslanguage-appropriatematerials,integratescontent&languagelearningduringlessons,abletoidentifylanguagedemandsofsubjectmatter(Kelly,2012).Butprobably themostdetailed specificationofCLIL teacher competences is thatofBertaux, et al(2010),CLILexperts,whoproducedthespecificationin2010undertheEuropeanUnion’sLeonardoda Vinci programme.Many of the competences are language related as can be seen from theseextracts:

• UsingCognitiveAcademicLanguageProficiency• Usingthelanguageofclassroommanagement• Usingthelanguageofteaching• Usingthelanguageoflearningactivities• Designingacourse• Lessonplanning• Translating(lesson)plansintoaction• Knowingsecondlanguageattainmentlevels• ApplyingSLAknowledgeinlessonpreparation• Applying SLA knowledge in the classroom • Applyinginteractivemethodology• HavingknowledgeandawarenessofcognitionandmetacognitionintheCLILenvironment• Knowingaboutandapplyingassessmentandevaluationproceduresandtools

(extractedfromBertaux,etal.,2010).(Seeappendixfordetailsofhowthesedifferentcompetencesareevidencedinlessonplanninganddelivery).WeseethespecificationspickuponbothlanguageproficiencyandlanguageawarenessandmakecleartheimportanceandcentralityoflanguagetotheCLILteacher’srole.So far in this paper we have identified what CLIL teacher language needs to be used for andcharacteristicsitcontains.Wecansummarisetheseinthefollowingtable(seeTable2).Theareasoutlinedinthistableareasummaryoftheresearchthispaperhasreportedonsofar.Theresearchers reported on were working separately from and independently of one another, andinevitably use different units of measure and different terms, sometimes for the same thing. Toarrive at a clear specification of English for CLILing it would be useful to use a single over-ridingperspectiveforanalysisforalltheareas.WealsonotethattheaboveresearchonlydealswiththeCLILteacher’srolesas,amongstothers, inputsource,mediator,generatorof interaction,manager.The CLIL teacher however plays other roles e.g. adviser/ counsellor, assessor,materials designer,CLIL teaching partner. These would also need to be taken into consideration in any furtherspecificationoftheCLILteacher’slanguageneeds.Thetableprovidesadeparturepoint.


55

Withinasubjectspecific4C’sframework:Usesoflanguage Languageof,for,throughlearning

Languageforsubjectliteracies,classroominteractionandlanguagedevelopment- Instructionalandregulativeregister- Verticalandhorizontallanguage

Languagecharacteristics

BICSCALPSubjectspecificgenres(lexis,grammar(register),texttypes)

FeaturesofCLILteacherdiscourse

Negotiation of meaning; dealing with errors and providing feedback, particularlythroughtheuseofrecasts;teacheruseofdifferenttypesofquestions,particularlyopenand referential questions; teacher-led whole class discussion; input giving; providingcomprehensible input; modifying so as to make it comprehensible; explicit discoursemarkerstostructurelectures

DemandsonlanguagefromCLILpedagogies/pedagogicinterventions

Provisionof-exposuretolanguageandopportunitiesforacquisition-scaffolding-afocusonformsUseofinteractive,exploratoryanddialogiclanguage

Languageawareness

TLA(teacherlanguageawareness)-toenablelessonplanninganddelivery

Otherteacherroles e.g.adviser/counsellor,assessor,materialsdesigner,CLILteachingpartneretal.

Table2:CLILteacherlanguage/LanguageforCLILing.ThetableshowsusthatCLILteacherlanguageisnotthesameasgenerallanguageproficiencyasitcontains features that go beyond general language proficiency e.g. CALP, TLA.We could say thatwhathasbeenpresentedisthebasisforanEnglishforSpecificPurposes(ESP)whichwemightcall‘EnglishforCLILing’.Freeman,Katz,GarciaGomezandBurnsargueintheir2015ELTJpaperthatEFLteachers’languageisakindofESPandnotetheadvantagesofseeingitassuch.Theysay:

“Focusingthetargetdomainoflanguageuseontheclassroomworkteachersaredoinghasseveraladvantages.Itmakesthattargetmorerelevantandattainabletoteachersaslearners. It simultaneously affirms clear, consistent communicative language thatstudents are likely to understand in the context of the classroom. In this way, thisfocusedapproachconvertstheproblemoflanguageimprovementfromoneofgeneralproficiency to one of specialised contextual language use, which is likely to be moreefficient in bringing out practical impacts on teacher classroom efficacy and studentlearningoutcomes.”(Freeman,Katz,GarciaGomez&Burns,2015,p.131)

Theseauthors(2015),forexample,useHutchinsonandWaters(1987)ESPmodeltoarriveatanESPanalysisofEFLteacherlanguageneeds.AsimilarspecificationforCLILteacherswouldallowcoursedesignersworkingindifferenttrainingcontextstochoosefromitareasrelevantfortheirparticularteachers, as not all CLIL teachers will have the same needs. They will have different ‘gaps’. Forexample,itcouldbethatnativespeakersubjectteacherswhohavenotstudiedlanguageatschoolorduringtheirprofessionaltraininglackTLAandaknowledgeofformalregisterssuchasCALP.Ontheotherhand,proficientlanguageteachersmaylacksubjectspecificlanguage,aswellasanabilityto ‘talk CALP’ and the awareness of TLA related to it, but in neither case is their need simply forgreater general language proficiency. Similarly, primary teachers will not have the same CLILlanguageneedsassecondaryteachers,andteachersoperatinginCLILsituationsinwhichthesubject


56

teacher just teaches thesubjectandaseparate language teacherprovides the language inputwillhavedifferentneedstoo.It could also be that CLIL teachers from different backgrounds and working in different contextsrequiredifferentlevelsoflanguagetraining.Theanalysismightprovidethebasisforamorehonedspecification of the level of this language. This level is often described as B1 or B2 or C1 (cfclilingmesoftly.wordpress.com) using CEFR reference points. But the CEFR was intended to beappliedtogeneral languageproficiency,which,wesuggest, isnotcustomisedenoughtomeettheneedsoftheCLILteacher.Thereareseveralareashereworthyoffurtherstudy.4.ConclusionToconclude,thispaperhasprovidedanoverviewofresearchonCLILteachers’languageanddrawnfromthatasetofCLILteacherlanguageneedswhichcouldformthebasisforamoredetailedandconsistentanalysisofthoseneedsaswellasaplatformfordifferentiationinlanguagedevelopmentprogrammesaspartofCLILteacherdevelopment.ThepapermakesacaseforCLILteacherlanguagetoberegardedasanESP.SomeCLILteachersmayfinddauntingthelanguageneedsoutlinedabove,andtheirpresentationasCLILteacherrequirements.VasquezandEllison(2013)havespokenofthegreatuneaseCLILsubjectteachersfeelabouttheirlackoflanguageknowledgewhilebeingexpectedtoteachCLIL.Andothers(c.f.Harder,1980;Moate,2008)ofothernegativeeffectsonhowteachersandlearnersviewandexpressthemselveswhentheydon’tfeelfullyateaseinorwiththelanguagetheyareusing.WhatisclearisthatitisnotjustuptotheCLILteachertogetthemselvestrained,butfor trainers, school administrators and educational authorities such asministries to provide suchtargeted language training. The risk of not doing so is that CLIL will not achieve its dual aims,teacherswill feel frustrated, restricted in their pedagogical choices and kindsof intervention, andundermined;andlearnerswillhavebeendeprivedoftheopportunityforarichlearningexperienceandallthatcanprovideintermsofeducationalachievement,learnermotivationandself-esteem.

ReferencesAndrews,S.(2012).TeacherLanguageAwareness.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Bertaux,P.,Coonan,C.M.,Frigols-Martin,M.J.&Mehisto,P.(2010).TheCLILteacher’scompetences.

http://lendtrento.eu/convegno/files/mehisto.pdfretrievedonMay,2016.Collier, V.P. (1989). ‘How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in second

Language’.TESOLQuarterly,23:509-31.Coyle,D.A.(2005).DevelopingCLIL:Towardsatheoryofpractice.Monograph6,APAC,Barcelona,

Spain.CoyleD.,Hood,P.&Marsh,D.(2010).CLILContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning.Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.Cummins, J. (1979). ‘Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the

optimumagequestionandsomeothermatters’.WorkingPapersonBilingualism,19:121-129.Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedogogy. San

Francisco,CA:College-HillPress.Dale,L&Tanner,R.(2012).CLILActivities.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Dalton–Puffer,C.(2007).DiscourseinContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL)Classrooms.

Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.FreemanD.,KatzA.,Garcia-Gomes,P.&Burns,A.(2015). ‘English-forTeaching:rethinkingteacher

proficiencyintheclassroom’.ELTJ,69/2:129-139.Harder,P.(1980).Discourseasself-expression.Onthereducedpersonalityofthesecondlanguage

learner’.AppliedLinguistics,1/3:262-270.


57

Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A Learning-centred approach.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Kelly,K.http://www.factworld.info/clil/cafe/090122/index.htm.Retrieved2012.Krashen,S.D.(1982).Principlesandpracticeinsecondlanguageacquisition.Oxford:PergamonPress.LlinaresA.,MortonT.&WhittakerR.(2012).TheRolesofLanguageinCLIL.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.Lightbown,P.(2014).FocusonContent-BasedLanguageTeaching.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Lorenzo,F.,Hengst,H.,Hernández,H.&Pavón,V.(2005).BorradorparalaelaboracióndelCurrículo

Integrado,PlantoPromoteMultilingualism,JuntadeAndalucía.RetrievedNovember22,2012,fromtheWorldWideWeb:http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/averroes/plurilinguismo/curriculo/borradorcil.pdf.

Lyster, R & Mori, H. (2006).’Interactional Feedback and Instructional Counterbalance’. Studies inSecondLanguageAcquisition,28/2:269-300.

Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE– The EuropeanDimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight. PotentialPublicServicescontractDGEAC:EuropeanCommission.

Moate, J. M. (2011). The impact of foreign language mediated teaching on teachers’ sense ofprofessionalintegrityintheCLILclassroom.EuropeanJournalofTeacherEducation.

Mortimer,E.F.&Scott,P.H.(2003).MeaningMakinginSecondaryScienceClassrooms.Buckingham,UK:OpenUniversityPress.

Nikula, T. (2010). ‘Effects of CLIL on a teacher’s classroom language use’. In T. Nikula , C. DaltonPuffer&A.Llinares(Eds.),CLILClassroomDiscourse.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,187-213.

Nikula,T.,Dalton,C.&Llinares,A.(2012).CLILClassroomDiscourse.RetrievedNovember2016fromhttp://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/17-12-2014/nikula_dalton-puffer_and_llinares_clil_classroom_discourse.pdf.

Schmidt, R.W. (1990). ‘The role of consciousness in second language learning’.Applied Linguistics11/2:129-58.

Swan, M. (1994). ‘Design criteria for pedagogic language rules’. In M. Bygate, A., Tonkyn & E.Williams(Eds.),GrammarandtheLanguageTeacher.HemelHempstead:PrenticeHall,45-55.

Thomas,W.P.&Collier,V.P.(1997).Schooleffectivenessforlanguageminoritychildren.Washington,D.C.:NationalClearinghouseforBilingualEducation.

Thornbury,S.(1997).AboutLanguage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Varkuti, A. (2010). Linguistic benefits of the CLIL approach: Measuring linguistic competences,

InternationalCLILResearchJournal,1/3:67-79.Vazquez, A. (2010). ‘A study of linguistic transfer in the oral discourse of learners of English as a

foreign language in the framework of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in theautonomous community of Madrid’. Unpublished Master’s dissertation, Madrid: UniversidadeAutonomadeMadrid.

Vazquez, V.P. & Ellison, M. (2013). Examining teacher roles and competences in Content andLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL).Lingvarvmarena,4:65–78.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Socio-Cultural Practice and Theory of Education.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.


58

APPENDIX Competences Indicatorsofcompetence Using the language of

classroommanagementCanusethetargetlanguagein:

- Groupmanagement- Timemanagement- Classroomnoisemanagement- Givinginstructions- Managinginteraction- Managingco-operativework- Enhancingcommunication

Using the language ofteaching

Canuseownorallanguageproductionasatoolforteachingthroughvarying:

- Registersofspeech- Cadence- Toneandvolume

Using the language of

learningactivitiesCanusethetargetlanguageto:

- Explain- Presentinformation- Giveinstructions- Clarifyandcheckunderstanding- Checklevelofperceptionofdifficulty

Can use the following forms of talk (Barnes,Mercer,etal.)

- Exploratory- Cumulative- Disputational- Critical- Meta- Presentational

Designingacourse Canintegratethelanguageandsubjectcurriculasothat subject curricula support language learningandviceversaCan plan for the incorporation of other CLIL corefeatures and driving principles into the courseoutlinesandintolessonplanning,including:

- Scaffolding language,contentand learningskillsdevelopment

- Continuous growth in language, contentandlearningskillsdevelopment

- FosteringofBICSandCALPdevelopment- Fosteringcommunicationwithothertarget

users

Canselectthelanguageneededtoensure:- Studentcomprehension- Richlanguageandcontentinput- Richstudentlanguageandcontentoutput


59

- Efficientclassroommanagement Lessonplanning Cananalysecontentintermsoflanguageneeds Translating (lesson) plans

intoactionCan support students in moving from ‘contextembedded’ to context reduced’ materials(Cummins)Can make content and language accessible byhelping students to turn their tacit/passiveknowledgeintoexplicit/activeknowledge

Knowing second languageattainmentlevels

Can use the Common European Framework forlanguagesasaself-assessmenttoolCan use the CEF as a tool for assessing students’levelofattainmentwithcolleaguesCan call on the CEF to define language targets intheCLILclass

ApplyingSLAknowledge inlessonpreparation

Can distinguish between language learning andlanguage acquisition and select language inputaccordinglyCan identify words, terms, idioms and discoursestructures that are new for the students in text,audio or audio-visual materials, and supportcomprehensionthereofCan identify the language components needed bythelearnersfororalorwrittencomprehensionandproducesupportmaterialCan identify the language components needed bythelearnersforcomplexoralorwrittenproductionand produce adapted resources (e.g. vocabulary,sentenceandtexttypes)Can,ifnecessary,planpriorlanguagelearningCancallonarangeofstrategiesforfosteringBICSandCALPdevelopment

ApplyingSLAknowledge intheclassroom

Can support students in navigating and learningnewwords,terms,idiomsanddiscoursestructuresCan call on a wide repertoire of strategies forsupportingstudentsinoralorwrittenproductionCan use awide range of strategies for scaffoldinglanguage use so as to produce high qualitydiscourseCan navigate the concepts of code-switching andtranslanguaging, and decide if andwhen to applythemCandecidewhetherproductionerrorsarelinkedtolanguageorcontentCan use a wide range of language correctionstrategies with appropriate frequency, ensuringlanguagegrowthwithoutdemotivatingstudentsCan use strategies such as echoing, modelling,extension, and repetition to support students intheiroralproductionCan develop a classroom culture where languagelearning is supported through peers and learner


60

autonomy Applying interactive

methodologyCanselectlearningactivitiesintermsofclassroominteraction (learner<->learner, learner<->teacher,teacher<->teacher)Cansupportthedevelopmentoflearnerautonomythrough choice, planning outcomes, identificationof scaffolding needs and sources, and formativeassessmentCangivestudentsasubstantial‘voice’inclassroomdiscourseCancreaterichlearningexperiences,e.g.:

- group work that involves definition ofeachgroupmember’srole- mid-task analysis of work process andresults, scaffolding language and contentforinteractionandtaskcompletion- peer enhancement - tasks for thoselisteningtopresentation- end-of-task assessment of group workprocesses and results, and using this inplanningfornextgrouptask

Candrawoutcurrentstudentknowledge,waysoforganising knowledge, ways of thinking, andinterests, and help students to learn and userelatedlanguage

Having knowledge andawareness of cognitionand metacognition in theCLILenvironment

Can scaffold learning along a scale from lowerorder tohigherorder thinking,e.g., remembering,understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating,creating(AndersonandKrathwohl)Can identify, adapt anddesignmaterials suited tothe students’ current level of cognitivedevelopmentCan identify syntactic structures and otherlanguagerequiredforhigherorderthinkingCan foster higher-order thinking about language,contentandlearningskillsCan foster thinking about the interrelationshipsbetweenlanguage,contentandlearningskillsCanusedifferencesbetween languagestoanalysehow two cultures perceive one and the sameconceptCan use linguistic similarities and differences todevelopmetalinguisticawareness

Knowing about andapplying assessment andevaluation procedures andtools

Canengagestudentsinanassessment-for-learningculture including maintaining a triple focus onlanguage,contentandlearningskillsCan distinguish and navigate CLIL-specificcharacteristics of assessment and evaluationincluding:

- languageforvariouspurposes


61

- work with authentic materials -communicationwithspeakersoftheCLILlanguage

- ongoing language growth (beingalerttoplateauing)

- level of comfort in experimentingwithlanguageandcontent

- progress in achieving plannedcontent,languageandlearningskillsgoals-developingalllanguageskills

- distinguishing contentand languageerrors

- carrying out assessment in thetargetlanguage

(ExtractedfromBertaux,Coonan,Frigols-MartinandMehisto,2010)

MarySpratt([email protected])isanELTandCLILconsultant,trainerandwriter.Shehasworkedinteaching,teacherdevelopment,andELTresearch,

andistheauthor/co-authorofvariousELTcoursebooksandsupplementarymaterials.ShealsoworksonvariousCambridgeAssessmentqualifications.


OpentoInterpretation:MultipleIntelligencesTeachingApproachinEnglishforSpecificPurposes

ΑνοικτοίστηνΕρμηνεία:ΗδιδακτικήπροσέγγισητωντύπωνπολλαπλήςνοημοσύνηςστηνΑγγλικήγιαΕιδικούςΣκοπούς

NatašaBAKIĆ-MIRIĆandDavronzhonERKINOVICHGAIPOV

ThispaperanalysesMultiple IntelligencesTeachingApproach(MITA) inEnglish forSpecificPurposes(ESP)course inhighereducation.Thisholisticteachingmethodcreatesnewwaysof engaging students to achieve maximum performance in class and to leverage theirknowledge. Authors discuss how this approach helps teachers to understand students’intelligenceandhaveagreaterappreciationoftheirstrengths,howithelpsstudentstolearnEnglish for Specific Purposes in authentic learning situations and increase examachievements.ReflectingonthefivestagesofMultipleIntelligencesTeachingApproach,theauthors state that thisapproachprovidesnumerousopportunities for students to increasetheirmotivationandoptimalbrainpotential todeveloptheeight intelligencesortheeightwaystolearningaforeignlanguage,inthiscaseEnglish.

�Ηεργασίααυτήαναλύει τηδιδακτικήπροσέγγισημεβάση τιςπολλαπλέςνοημοσύνεςσετάξεις, όπου διδάσκεται η Αγγλική για Ειδικούς Σκοπούς. Αυτή η ολιστική μέθοδοςδημιουργεί νέους τρόπους εμπλοκής των μαθητών με στόχο την επίτευξη της μέγιστηςαπόδοσηςστην τάξη και τηναξιοποίηση των γνώσεών τους. Συζητάμε για τοπώςαυτήηπροσέγγισηβοηθάτουςεκπαιδευτικούςνακατανοήσουντιςνοημοσύνεςτωνμαθητώνκαιναεκτιμήσουνπερισσότεροταπλεονεκτήματάτους,καθώςκαιτοπώςβοηθάτουςμαθητέςνα μάθουν αγγλικά για ειδικούς σκοπούς σε αυθεντικό περιβάλλον, έτσι ώστε να έχουνκαλύτερη επίδοση στις εξετάσεις. Εξετάζοντας κριτικά τα πέντε στάδια της διδακτικήςπροσέγγισης με βάση τις πολλαπλές νοημοσύνες, αναφέρουμε ότι η προσέγγιση αυτήπαρέχει πολλές ευκαιρίες στους μαθητές να κινητροποιηθούν και να αξιοποιήσουν τοδυναμικότουεγκεφάλουτουςγιανααναπτύξουντουςοκτώτύπουςευφυΐαςήτουςοκτώ

Bakić-MirićandErkinovichGaipov/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning8/1(2017)62-73

63

τρόπουςγιατηνεκμάθησημιαςξένηςγλώσσας,στηνπροκειμένηπερίπτωσητηςηαγγλικήςγλώσσας.Key words:Multiple intelligences, content-based approach, English for Specific Purposes,students.1.Introduction

Since the last decade of the 20th century, the theory of multiple intelligences has beenconsidered bedrock of educational innovation and language teaching. This theory ofintelligence was originally designed to change the common learning environment byenhancingdifferentlearningstylesandtopromotedifferentwaysinwhichstudentscanbeintelligent (not just by a single general ability). As a result, a relatively new teachingmethodology has been developed - Multiple Intelligences Theory Approach (MITA) thatdependsentirelyonthestudents’learningpotentialandperformance.Theauthorspresentthis holistic approach as a unique teachingmethod in ESP (English for Specific Purposes)course that reinforces and stimulates students’ intelligences in authentic learningenvironment.2.TappingintoMultipleIntelligencesTheory

Moderncognitivepsychologistshaveputforthtwodifferentviewsofintelligence.Thefirstviewisadevelopmentalviewofintelligencewhereintelligenceisusedtorefertointelligentacts, suchaswritingabookordesigninganewcomputerprogram.Thismeans thateachintelligenceactisassociatedwithauniquementalprocess(PiagetinChristinson,2005).Thesecondviewisaninformationprocessingviewofintelligencewhereintelligenceisusedtorefertoamentalprocessthatproduces intelligentactssuchasanalyzingandsynthesizinginformation.Thisreferstoasinglementalabilitythatunderliesallintelligentachievements(Kail&Peregino,1985inChristinson,2005).Inthe20thcentury,however,Dr.HowardGardnerofferedanewviewofhumanintelligence.Accordingtohim,intelligenceisnotjustasingleconstructappliedinthesamewaytoeachtaskorproblembutis,rather,madeupofcomponentpieces.Inhisopinion,therearemanydifferent and yet autonomous intelligence capacities that allow people to have manydifferent ways of knowing, understanding and learning about the world. Dr. Gardnerbelieves that each person has raw biological potential and differs in the particularintelligence profiles with which they are born and ways in which they develop them(Gardner,1993:19):

“Itisoftheutmostimportancethatwerecognizeandnurtureallofthevariedhumanintelligences,andallofthecombinationofintelligence.Weareallsodifferentlargelybecauseweallhavedifferentcombinationsofintelligences.Ifwe recognize this, I think we will have at least a better chance of dealingappropriatelywiththemanyproblemsthatwefaceintheworld.”


64

By singling out the eight intelligences, Gardner explained the criteria that defines eachintelligence(Gardner,1999):

• Verbal/Linguistic Intelligence involves sensitivity to spoken and writtenlanguage,theabilitytolearnlanguages,andthecapacitytouselanguageto accomplish certain goals. It includes the ability to effectively uselanguage to express oneself rhetorically or poetically and as ameans toremember information.Writers, poets, lawyers and speakers are amongthosewhoinGardner’sopinionhavehighlinguisticintelligence.

• Logical/Mathematical Intelligence is the capacity to analyze problemslogically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issuesscientifically.InGardner'swords,itenhancestheabilitytodetectpatterns,reasondeductivelyandthinklogicallyanditismostoftenassociatedwithscientificandmathematicalthinking.

• Visual/Spatial Intelligenceinvolvesthepotentialtorecognizeandusethepatternsofwidespaceandmoreconfinedareas.

• Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence entails the potential of using one's wholebodyorpartsofthebodytosolveproblems.Itistheabilitytousementalabilitiestocoordinatebodilymovements.InGardner’sopinionmentalandphysicalactivityisinterrelated.

• Musical/Rhythmic Intelligence involves skill in the performance,composition, and appreciation ofmusical patterns and encompasses thecapacity to recognize and composemusical pitches, tones, and rhythms.Gardner postulates thatmusical intelligence runs in an almost structuralparalleltolinguisticintelligence.

• Interpersonal Intelligence is the capacity to understand the intentions,motivations and desires of other people and to work effectively withothers. Educators, sales people, religious and political leaders andcounselorsallneedawell-developedinterpersonalintelligence.

• Intrapersonal Intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, toappreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations. It involves having aneffective working model of our selves, and our ability to use suchinformationtoregulateourlives.

• Naturalist Intelligenceenableshumanbeingstorecognize,categorizeanddrawuponcertainfeaturesoftheenvironment.

It is important to point out that with this theory Howard Gardner was not designing acurriculumorpreparingamodeltobeusedinformaleducation(Hoerr,2000inChristinson,2005).Actually,itistheeducatorswhohavetakenthistheoryasaframeworkforcreativityin the classroom, put it together in different ways and applied it in their lessons andcurriculum.Armstrong,forexample,saysthatthetheoryofmultipleintelligencesseemstoharboranumberofeducationalimplicationsthatareworthyofconsiderationbecauseeachpersonpossessesalleight intelligences that functiontogether inuniqueways.Thismeansthat somepeoplehavehigh levelsof functioning inallormost intelligences.Unlike somemodern psychologists, who say that intelligence cannot change in time and with propertraining, Armstrong believes that the intelligences can be developed. The multipleintelligences theory actually suggests that humans have the capacity to develop all eightintelligences to a reasonably high level with appropriate encouragements and training


65

becausetheseintelligencesdonotexistalonebutalwaysinteractwitheachother.Asimpleexampleof this is that if youwant tocookameal, youhave to read the recipe (linguisticintelligence),doubleingredients(logical/mathematicalintelligence),knowyourwayaroundthekitchen(spatialintelligence)(ArmstronginChristinson,2005).Inasmuch as there is still no scientific consensus about tangibility of Gardner’s theory ofmultiple intelligences ineducation, ithasbeenendorsedbysomeeducators (especially intheUnitedStates,CanadaandAustralia)andhasfoundaudienceamongststudentsaswell.In the Introduction to the tenthanniversaryeditionofhis classicwork “FramesofMind”,Gardner(1993:35)himselfposits:

“In the heyday of the psychometric and behaviorist eras, it was generallybelieved that intelligence was a single entity that was inherited; and thathuman beings-initially a blank slate-could be trained to learn anything,provided that it was presented in an appropriate way. Nowadays anincreasing number of researchers believe precisely the opposite; that thereexistsamultitudeofintelligences,quiteindependentofeachother;thateachintelligencehas itsownstrengthsandconstraints; that themind is far fromunencumbered at birth; and that it is unexpectedly difficult to teach thingsthat go against early ‘naïve’ theories of that challenge the natural lines offorcewithinanintelligenceanditsmatchingdomains.”

In the same direction, Christinson (2005) postulates that MI theory helps educators tounderstandintelligencebetteranduseitasaguidefordevelopingclassroomactivitiesthataddress multiple ways of learning and knowing. Furthermore, Kornhaber (2001) believesthat teachers and policymakers in North America have responded positively to HowardGardner’s theory of multiple intelligences because it also offers educators a conceptualframework for organizing and reflecting on curriculum assessment and pedagogicalpractices. In turn, this has ledmany educators to develop new teaching approaches thatmightbettermeetthelearners’needs.In Weber’s (2000) opinion, MI theory also allows teachers to select and apply the bestteachingtechniquesandstrategies(e.g.problem-solvingactivitiesthatdrawonMI)foreachstudentbecause thestudentshavespecific strengths,unique learning stylesanddifferentlearningpotentials.Ontheirpart,studentsare likelytobecomemoreengaged in learningbecause they use learningmodules that match their intelligence strengths and initiate apowerful expectation-response cycle that can lead to greater achievementlevels.Additionally, students’ regular reflectionon their learningencourageseffectiveandacceptablelearningpractices(Weber,2000,inBakić-Mirić&ErkinovichGaipov,2015).

3.CreatinganEfficientMITALessonPlanCreatingaMITAlessonplanisnoteasy.Thereasonsforthisaretwo-fold.Firstly,ateachershoulddetailthespecificactivitiesandcontentthatcorroborateswithmultipleintelligencestheory. Secondly, a lesson should include: objectives, methods of assessing students,studentgroupings(accordingtointelligences)andmaterialsneededtocarryoutthelessonplan.Followingarethestepping-stonesincreatinganeffectiveMITAlessonplan:


66

Ask a Question. An opening question describes the lesson topics and relates content tostudents’ interests and abilities. There is nomagic formula to elicit good and interestingquestions,butstudents’attentionisfocusedoninterestingprofessionaltopicstoencouragetheir motivation to solve problems. As Weber (2000) suggests consider any topic “as itrelatesto:musicalinquiry-amusicianmightbeinterestedinquestionsaboutvocalsounddistinctions, lyrics, musical compositions, instrumental work, background music, culturaldistinctives; bodily-kinesthetic inquiry - a gymnast, dancer, builder or actor might beinterestedinquestionsaboutmovement,dance,roleplays,constructedmockups,buildingprojects,games; interpersonal inquiry -adebater, teacher, salespersonorpoliticianmightaskquestionsaboutteamwork, interculturalprojects,groupproblem-solving,cooperativeactivities, pair-sharing; intrapersonal inquiry - a reflective or wise person might askquestionsaaboutcrop-management,dairyfarming,animal,treeorplantpopulation,moralabout journal entries, letters written, self-management, moral judgments; naturalisticinquiry–anenvironmentalistoranthropologist,or farmermightaskquestions judgmentsaboutagriculturalandanimal interests; logical-mathematical inquiry -amathematicianorscientist might ask questions about data, logical sequencing of events, problem solvingstages;linguisticinquiry-apoet,speaker,writerorlawyermightbeinterestedinquestionsabout brainstorming activities, written words, debates, speeches, media reports; spatialinquiry - an artist, sculptor or navigator might ask about visual representations, graphs,geometricdesigns,diagrams,artisticdisplays,maps,orsculpturing.Diversequestionshelpstudentstobreakcomplexproblemsintomanageablepiecesthatawakentheirproclivitiesto identify itspartswithoutgoingwildlyastray” (Weber,2000, inBakić-Mirić&ErkinovichGaipov,2015).Identify Objectives. MITA curriculum guides faculty to establish clear goals for studentoutcomes in each lesson and well-stated objectives to create active student-centeredlearning and deeper understanding of topics. Weber’s examples of the abovementionedobjectivesincludethefollowing(theexampleshavebeenmodifiedbytheauthortorelateto the topic of intercultural communication (IC): 1) list all crucial points in interculturalcommunication; 2) write a 500 word essay describing IC; 3) create a IC poster and itsbuildingblocks;4)interviewanexpertontherelevanceofIC.Thekeyhereistolistspecificobjectivesthatstudentsareexpectedtomeet.Theseobjectivesovertimewillextendintolearningandassessmenttasks forstudents.For instance, ifanobjectivestates,"createaninteractive written dialogue or journal with two other students," a list of related topicsmightbegeneratedasspringboardideasforstudents'journalentries.Requirementsmightinclude:a)brainstormnewapproachestosolvingaproblemandenlistaspecialist'shelpforresearchingsomeaspectoftheproblem;c)sequenceonepossibleresponsetoanidentifiedproblem; d) contrast pros and cons of a controversial issue related to IC; e) raise threeprobingquestionsaboutadiscussion,readingorprojectproposalonIC;f)communicateanyconfusionaboutsomeaspectofthematerialbeingstudied;g)demonstratethefeasibilityofanexperimentorhypothesis;generateaprogressionofcritical thinkingexercises;h)draftanoutlineforacriticalessayforascientificjournalonIC;i)detailedoutlinehelpstolocatespecificresourcesonthistopic.(Weber,2000,inBakić-Mirić&ErkinovichGaipov,2015).InWeber’s opinion (2000), this MITA phase allows students to activate their uniquepredispositions,usepersonalabilitiesandinterestsinordertomeetrealworldchallenges,whichtheyperceiveasmeaningful.


67

Createa rubric. Rubrics area specific andeffective tool forevaluationandassessmentofstudents’workinMITA.Thisrequiresthewholeclasstocreatearubricwhichshowsexactlyhowassignmentswillbegraded.Asstudentsgetmoreinvolvedintheirtasks,activitiesandprojectstheystarttobuildteamcooperation,theypaymoreattentiontostudentdiversity,they draw on each other’s strengths and weaknesses and assist and help each otherimproveininweakerareas.Toavoidconfusionandchaosateachercancreateonecommonrubrictorepresentgeneralcriteriaexpectedforallassignments.Inturn,thiswilldependonthenatureof assignments andon specific criteria expected from theoutcome.AsWeberstates:“Whetherstudentscreaterubricsorteachersdistributethem,rubricsshouldactasasignpost for excellence and help students to light clear pathways toward new learningheights”(Weber,2000,inBakić-Mirić&ErkinovichGaipov,2015).Assign an Assessment Task. Teachers should assign tasks that match related learningapproaches (PBL, TPR, CBL), cover content, solve realworld problems, createmeaningfulchallenges, and increase students’ motivation to explore related issues. Through diverseassessmenttasksinplaceofrigidtests,studentsbegintobrokertheirgiftsandabilitiestoexplore lesson topics at deeper levels (Weber, 2000, in Bakić-Mirić& Erkinovich Gaipov,2015).Reflect toAdjust. InWeber’s opinion the success of student reflection is closely linked tosuccessful student learning. In theMITA approach, students are assessed in a variety ofways to accommodate their variousproclivities for knowing specific curricular content. InWeber’sopinion:“Reflectionisaregularcommitmentmuchlike inspectinganairplaneforeach new flight.” Simply, after initial mistakes are corrected, subsequent performancesusuallyimprove(Weber,2000,inBakić-Mirić&ErkinovichGaipov,2015).On the other hand, assessment tasks chosen by students to demonstrate theirunderstanding might include a mix of multiple intelligence tasks. Weber proposes thefollowingtasks:guidedstudentdiscoverythroughhands-onactivities;modelsthatshowtheprocess; interviews with scientists, other teachers and parents; advanced organizers toshow an overview of new work; small group work, including shared inquiry and peerteaching; conferencing with members of the community; student presentations, teacherpresentation, and mini-lectures; detailed visuals to describe each stages of becoming asuccesful intercultural communicator; experience charts to show students' relationship tothe topic; games and simulations created by students to teach; computer-assisteddemonstrations; centers that students created for eight ways of expressing knowledgeaboutthetopic; investigationresultsandrecords;performances,role-plays,andtheatricaltechniques;practicalandapplicationalactivitiesthatusemultipleintelligencestoillustratean assigned classroom topic; field trips and community involvement; creative problemsolving; independent studies and research projects; semantic mapping and relateddiscussions; student designed projects; portfolios that show one month's progression;learninglogs;interestandabilityinventoriesforeachaspectofanassignedclassroomtopic;building backgrounds for a story or narrating a play on the topic; exploratory talk anddiscussion; problem solving in groups and individually; transformation from one form toanother; cooperative learning in groups of three; observation activities inwhich studentsobserveandreportback;audiovisualstoreportlearning;dioramasormockupsonthetopic;manipulatives created to show resolutions, or; visualizations and imagery to reflect oninformation(Weber,2000,inBakić-Mirić&ErkinovichGaipov,2015).


68

3.1.TheMITALessonPlan

Thefollowinglessonplan1hasbeendevelopedbasedontheeightintelligencesdiscussedinthispaper.Itcoversthetopicofinterculturalcommunication.

TimeLimitation:3consecutiveperiodsStudentLevel:FirstyearstudentsClassSize:80studentsTeachingMethod(s):Wholelanguagelearning&task-basedlearning

Firstperiod:ClassroomActivitiesApproximateTimeIntelligence(s)1. Introduce the topic of intercultural communication by reading a quote by Martin

LutherKingJr.:“Peoplefailtogetalongbecausetheyfeareachother;theyfeareachotherbecausetheydon'tknoweachother;theydon'tknoweachotherbecausetheyhave not communicated with each other.” (5 minutes) Verbal/Linguistic (learningthroughdiscussion)

2. Brainstorming on prime questions, e.g. How does the quote coincide withinterculturalcommunication?WhatpurposedoyouthinkMartinLutherKingJr.hadfor saying this? And/or what does it imply to you? (10minutes) Verbal/ Linguistic(throughinformalspeaking)Intrapersonal,andInterpersonal

3. Listeningtoanarrativelecturetograspthemainideas.(5minutes)Verbal/Linguistic(throughlistening)

4. Oral reading for comprehension through the strategy of „topic sentence” detectingand commenting on statements about intercultural communication. (20 minutes)Verbal/Linguistic (through seven reading strategies: previewing, contextualizing,questioning to understand and remember, reflecting on challenges to your beliefsand values, outlining and summarizing, valuating an argument, comparing andcontrastingrelatedreadings.)

5. Vocabularylearningthroughthestrategyofguessingmeaningfromcontextorform.(10minutes)Verbal/Linguistic (throughvocabulary learningstrategies: signalwords,newwordsoftheday,quadrantcharts,multiplecontexts)

Secondperiod:ClassroomActivitiesApproximateTimeIntelligence(s)Lecturehallactivities:1. Group discussing intercultural communication (e.g., by deductively expanding,

inductively generalizing, etc.), reviewing and summarizing its main idea(s). (15minutes) Verbal/ Linguistic, (through discussion) Interpersonal and Logical/Mathematical

2. Doing exercises on dining etiquette either orally or in writing in groups (team-building) and/or individually. (25 minutes) Verbal/Linguistic (through speaking andwriting)andInterpersonal.

1Theoriginallessonplancanbefoundatwww.52en.com/xl/lunwen/lw_3_0015.html


69

3. Commenting on the concepts/ideas one agrees or disagrees aboutmulticulturalismandinterculturalcommunication,andstatingreasonsfortheiropinion.(10minutes)Verbal/Linguistic(throughoralpresentation)andIntrapersonal.

Thirdperiod:ClassroomActivitiesApproximateTimeIntelligence(s)Withthereferenceofactivitieslistedatthebackofthetext,therearefivedifferenttaskstobe completed (10minutes for the performance/presentation of each task). Students canchoosewhichtasktoworkoneitherbyjoiningagrouporworkingindependently.Task1(teambuilding)Look at the two drawings, concerning the customs of hand-shaking and social distance(nonverbal communication: haptics and proxemics). Discuss in a group and report thesimilaritiesanddifferencesthatmayexistbetweentheEastandtheWest,ormakeaverbaldebate against each other. (Visual/Spatial, Interpersonal, Logical, and Verbal/LinguisticIntelligences).Task2(teambuildingorindividualwork)Findasongthatdealswithculturaldifferencesorafolksongfromaparticularcultureandenjoylisteningandsingingitwithnecessaryexplanationofitslyrics.(Musical/RhythmicandVerbal/LinguisticIntelligences).Task3(teambuilding)Write a sketch based on a culture shock anecdote and perform it. (Verbal/Linguistic,Bodily/Kinestheticand/orVisual/spatial,and/orMusical/RhythmicIntelligences).Task4(teambuilding)Discuss, in a small group, a problemor an embarrassing situation youmay confrontwithdue to cultural conflicts, and comeupwitha solutionbydrawinga flowchart to show itsprocedure.(Logical/Mathematics&Visual/SpatialIntelligences).Task5(teambuildingorindividualwork)Searchforsomeuniquewords,orbodylanguagedevelopedinacultureduetoitsparticularnatural environment, e.g., geographic location, climate, etc. (Verbal/Linguistic andNaturalistIntelligences).4.AssessmentGenerally,MITAfirmlyopposestheuniformviewofeducationandstandardizedtestsandfavorsmultiplemodesofassessmentthatallowstudentstoshowtheiragilityandstrengthfor optimal performance in particular. Table 1 shows somehands-on assessment tasks tochoosefrom.


70

Intelligence LanguageskillsVerbal/Linguistic

- Listening–listeningtoacademiclectures- Formal and informal speaking–making verbal presentations to

others, making conversations, having discussions and debates,etc.

- Humor or jokes–creating puns, limericks and telling jokes ontopicsofstudy

- Reading–silent reading,oral readingandgroup/chain readingofexcerptsinrelatedtoalessontopic

- Writing-doing written exercises (business letters/emails, shortanalyticalessays),minutes,summary/reportwriting

- Creative reading–reading original pieces (e.g. stories, poems,essays,novelsetc.)

Logical/Mathematical

- Logical/Sequential Presentation–inventing point-by-point logicalexplanations for items or making a systematic presentation ofsubjectmatter

- Problem solving–listing appropriate procedures for problemsolvingsituations

- Formingrelationships–creatingmeaningfulconnectionsbetweenideas

- Syllogisms–making“if…,then…”logicaldeductionsaboutatopicVisual/Spatial - Visual aids using/making–using pictures, paintings, charts,

graphs, diagrams, flowcharts, slides to facilitate learning andencouragestudentstomakethevisualaidsbythemselves

- Mind mapping–creating or arranging visual mapping activities(e.g.wordmaze,visualwebsofwritteninformation)

Bodily/Kinesthetic - Physicalactions–arrangingTPR(totalphysicalresponse)- Body language–“embodying” meaning, interpretation or

understandingofanideainphysicalmovement- Role playing/Mime–performing skits or characters to show

understandingoftopicsofstudy- Dramatic enactment–creating a mini-drama that shows the

dynamicinterplayofvarioustopicsofstudyMusical/Rhythmic - Vocalsounds/tones–producingsoundswithone’svocalchordsto

illustratethemeaningofawordoraconcept- Jazzchants/tones–producingorusingrhythmicpatterns,suchas

jazzchantsorrapstohelpcommunicateortoremembercertainwords,sentencestructures,concepts,ideasorprocesses

- Singing/humming–creating songs for a class, a team, a topic ofstudyorfindingexistingsongsthatcomplementatopic

Interpersonal - Persontopersoncommunication–focusingonhowteachersandstudentsrelatetoeachotherandhowtoimprovetheirrelating

- Giving and receiving feedback–offering input on one’sperformance or about one’s opinions; and accepting another’sinputorreactiontoone’sperformance/opinions

- Pairworkandgroupprojects–investigatinganddiscussingatopicprobleminteams

Intrapersonal

- Independent studies/projects–encourage students to workindependently for goal-setting, process-planning, self-assessingandseminarpresentationschoosing

- Focusing/concentration skills–learning the ability to focus on a


71

singleideaortask- Thinking strategies-learning what thinking patterns to use for

whattaskNaturalist - Elements classification–the elements in the periodical system

andtheircounterpartsinnature- Sensory stimulation exercises–exposing the senses to nature’s

sounds,smells,tastes,touchesandsights.

Table1:MITAassessmenttasksinESP(Bakić-Mirić,2009)In addition, Weber (2000) proposes the following guidelines for MITA assessment (therubric has beenmodified for the topic of intercultural communication) (Weber, 2000, inBakić-Mirić&ErkinovichGaipov,2015): “A”gradesonthisassignmentwould:

• indicatedeepthoughtfromreadings;• illustratepracticalapplicationsofideaslearned;• resultinenthusiasticcontributionsinclass,basedonquestionscompleted;• includeyourpersonalideasandinsightsconcerningeachreading;• showideasastheymightaugmentenvironmentalstewardship;• illustratehowpersonalinquiryassistedyourownlearning;• usediverseintelligencestoproblemsolveinoriginalways;

“B”gradesonthisassignmentwould:

• indicatesomethoughtfromreadings;• illustratesomeapplicationsofideaslearned;• resultinparticipationinclass,basedonquestionscompleted;• includeyourpersonalideasconcerningideasread;• identifyideasastheymightaugmentenvironmentalstewardship;• illustratehowresearchideasassistedyourownlearning;• useseveralintelligencestoproblemsolveaccurately;

“C”gradesonthisassignmentwould:

• indicateunderstandingreadings; • illustratesomeconnectiontoreallifeexperiences;• resultinclassparticipation;• includeyourpersonalideasconcerningideasread;• identifyideasastheymightaugmentenvironmentalstewardship;• illustratehowresearchideasassistedyourownlearning;• useseveralintelligencestoproblemsolveaccurately.

Theauthorshavealsoaddedguidelinesfor“D”grades:

• indicateslightunderstandingofreadings;• illustrateslightconnectiontoreallifeexperiences;• includesomepersonalideasconcerningideasread;• identifysomeideasastheymightaugumentenvironmentalstewardship;


72

• slightdemonstrationhowresearchideasassistedyourownlearning;• usefewintelligencestoproblemsolveaccurately.

5.Conclusions

TheintroductionandimplementationofMITAintoexistinghighereducationcurriculaisnoteasy and without difficulties, mostly because curriculum change is always difficult ininstitutionsofhighereducation.Nevertheless,ithasstillfounditsplaceinhighereducationdespitethefact thatsomeeducatorsunderstandablyopposethisnewmethodof learningand teaching and rather adhere to the traditional and somewhat outdated teachingapproaches.Nonetheless, the introduction of MITA in ESP can bring many positive changes in theclassroom. For example, the teacher offers a choice of projects, such as narrative,persuasive or descriptive writing tasks, writing a resume and business letters/emails,preparingseminarpresentationsetc.Thestudentsarethenassignedtocompleteaproject,individually or in groups, and demonstrate their understanding. The objective is only toallow students to employ their preferred ways of processing and communicating newinformation,whichhelps them tobecomemoreengaged indiscussing specific topics andgainabetterunderstandingofthetopics.Thisreinforcestheirthinkingstrategiesandlogicalskills.Withthiskindofprojects,morestudentsareabletofindwaystoparticipateandtakeadvantage of new language acquisition opportunities. At the same time, team building isreinforcedandstudentsbegintorealizethateveryonehasdifferentstrengthsandthateachpersoncanandwillcontributetothegroup.Forexample,onestudentmightfeelconfidentabout planning, another might prefer to do the writing, and a third might be better inpresenting a project to the whole class (Bakić-Mirić, 2009 apud Bakić-Mirić& ErkinovichGaipov, 2015). Thus, MITA teaching strategy transfers some control from teacher tostudentsby giving themchoicesonhow to guide their learningprocess anddemonstratetheir knowledge and performance. MITA strategies, undoubtedly, encourage students tobuildonexisting strengthsandknowledge to learnnewcontentandskills inanauthenticlearning environment. Students likely become more engaged in learning as they uselearningmodulesthatmatchtheirintelligencestrengths.In conclusion, introduction ofMITA in ESP offers numerous opportunities for students todevelop and/or reinforce all eight intelligences not just the one(s) they have before theyenroll a university. It is collaborative and hands-on teaching approach that encouragesstudentstoworkwithotherstudentsandtheirteachertodevelopdeeperknowledgeofthesubject,acceptchallengesandsolveproblems,talkaboutimportantissues,takeactionandsharetheirexperienceinanauthenticlearningenvironment.Lastly,ratherthanfunctioningas a prescribed teaching method, curriculum, or technique, MITA helps the teacher tounderstand and stimulate students’ intelligences, address multiple ways of learning (bymakingitmoreeffectiveforindividualstudents)andhelpstudentsusetheirfullintellectualandlearningpotential.


73

ReferencesBakić-Mirić,N.&D.ErkinovichGaipov(2015)'MultipleIntelligencesTeachingApproach–A

Model for Redesigned ESP Classes’. In N. Bakić-Mirić & D. Erkinovich Gaipov (Eds),Current Trends and Issues in Higher Education: An International Dialogue. NewcastleuponTyne:CambridgeScholarsPublishing,51-69.

Bakić-Mirić, N. (2009). 'Implementation of Multiple Intelligences Theory in the EnglishLanguage Course Syllabus at the theUniversity of NišMedical School’. Srpski Arhiv zaCelokupnoLekarskoDruštvo,138:105-110.

Christinson, M A. (2005).Multiple Intelligences and Language Learning: A Guidebook ofTheory,Activities,InventoriesandResources.Utah:AltaBookCenterPublishers.

Gardner,H. (1993).FramesofMind:TheTheoryofMultiple Intelligences.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Gardner,H. (1999). IntelligenceReframed.Multiple intelligencesforthe21stCentury,NewYork:BasicBooks.

Kornhaber M L. (2001). ‘Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences in Education’. In J. A.Palmer (Ed.),FiftyModernThinkersonEducation: FromPiaget to thePresent, London:Routledge,110-125.

Weber,Ε. (2000).MITAsFivePhasestoPBL:MITAModel forRedesignedHigherEducationClasses. Αccessed 10 August, 2014 fromhttp://education.jhu.edu/PDU/newhorizons/strategie/topics/mi/weber3.htm.

NatašaBakić-Mirić,Ph.D([email protected])iscurrentlyalanguageinstructorataforeignlanguagesinstituteinBologna.Sheis

alsoanadjunctfacultymemberatSuleymanDemirelUniversityinAlmaty,Kazakhstan.Shehasauthoredfourandco-editedthreebooks

andsheisanauthororco-authorofover60publicationsininternationalpeer-reviewedjournals(outofwhich17injournalscitedinThomson

ReutersArts&HumanitiesCitationIndexand6injournalswithImpactFactor).HerresearchisheavilyfocusedonInterculturalCommunication,

MultipleIntelligencesTheory,EnglishforSpecificPurposes,andthepoetryofPercyByssheShelley.

DavronzhonErkinovichGaipov([email protected]),Ph.D.

teachesatSuleymanDemirelUniversityinAlmaty,Kazakhstan.HeistheDeanoftheFacultyofPhilologyatthesameuniversity,andalsooversees

hiringandfacultydevelopmentinadditiontoworkingoncurriculumdesign.Anauthororco-authorofanumberofpublicationsinnationalandinternationaljournalshealsoservesasamemberoftheeditorial

boardintwoforeignjournalsandhasparticipatedinseveralconferenceswithpapers.Hehasco-editedthreebooksandhasco-authoreda

scientific-terminologicalelectronicdictionaryinfourlanguages(English,Russian,KazakhandTurkish).Hisresearchisheavilyfocusedon

multilingualeducation,multilingualism,andlanguagepolicy.


ReconceptualisingSchooling:ImplementingCLILtoCaterforAllTypesofMultipleIntelligences

Επανοηματοδοτώνταςτηνεκπαίδευση:ΗεφαρμογήτηςμεθόδουCLILγιατημέριμνατωνΠολλαπλώνΤύπων

νοημοσύνης

AlexandraANASTASIADOUandKonstantinaILIOPOULOUContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL)hasbeenburgeoningintheEuropeanEdu-cationalsystems(BritishCouncil,2014)thelasttwodecadesputtingforwardthenecessitytoadvance multilingualism and upgrade the learners’ knowledge along with their linguistic,cognitiveandcommunicativedexterities.Thispaperpresentsacasestudyconducted inanexperimentalschoolinNorthernGreeceinvolvingathirdgradeclassofajuniorhighschoolconsistingof25studentsandtwoteachers,namelytheteacherofEnglishandtheteacherofHistory.ThestudyinvolvedthreelessonsrevolvingaroundatopicfromthesyllabusofHistorywhichweretaughtthroughthemediumoftheEnglishlanguage.Theparticipatingstudentsfilledinquestionnairesattheexitpointoftheinterventionwiththeaimofpresentingtheirattitudes towards the efficacy of CLIL. The collected data advocated the hypothesis thatapart frombuilding the students’ knowledgeof a subject and enhancing their L2mastery,CLILalsofendsforalllearningstylesandMultipleIntelligences(Gardner,1999)andthatstu-dentsdeveloptheabilitytoattributemerittoCLILforthiscontribution.

�Ηπροσέγγιση τηςολιστικής εκμάθησηςπεριεχομένουκαι γλώσσας (CLIL) έχειαναπτυχθείπάραπολύτηντελευταίαεικοσαετίαστηνΕυρώπηωςαπόρροιατηςανάγκηςγιαπροώθησητηςπολυγλωσσίας.ΗπροσέγγισηCLILδημιουργείτοπλαίσιοόπουοιμαθητέςδιδάσκονταιένα μαθησιακό αντικείμενο μέσω μιας ξένης γλώσσας και ταυτόχρονα βελτιώνουν τιςγνώσεις τους στη γλώσσααυτή. Επιπλέον, με αυτή τη μέθοδο καταβάλλεται προσπάθειαγιαανάπτυξηόλωντων τύπωνΠολλαπλήςΝοημοσύνης.ΗπαρούσαεργασίαπαρουσιάζειμιαμελέτηπερίπτωσηςπουδιεξήχθηστηνΤρίτη γυμνασίουενόςΠειραματικούσχολείου.Στηνέρευνασυμμετείχαν25μαθητέςκαιοικαθηγήτριεςτηςΙστορίαςκαιτωνΑγγλικών.ΗέρευναδιήρκεσετρειςδιδακτικέςώρεςκατάτιςοποίεςοιμαθητέςδιδάχθηκανμίαενότητατηςΙστορίαςσταΑγγλικά.Ταερωτηματολόγιαπουσυμπλήρωσανοιμαθητέςστοτέλοςτης

AnastasiadouandIliopoulou/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning8/1(2017)74-87

75

διδασκαλίαςεπιβεβαίωσαντηνυπόθεσηότιημέθοδοςCLILόχιμόνοπροάγει τις γνώσειςτων μαθητών σε ένα γνωστικό αντικείμενο και συμβάλλει στην εκμάθηση της ξένηςγλώσσας, αλλά επιπλέον συντελεί στη βελτίωση των Πολλαπλών Τύπων Νοημοσύνης.Επιπρόσθετα, οι μαθητές ανέπτυξαν την ικανότητα να κατανοήσουν τηναποτελεσματικότητατηςμεθόδουCLIL.Keywords:CLIL,Greekeducationalcontext,cross-curricularity,multipleintelligences.1.IntroductionThe necessity formultilingual citizens has led to the emergence and proliferation of CLILbothgloballyandinEurope(Lasagabaster&Sierra,2009).CLILinvolvesdual-focusedteach-ing in that it attends toadoublepurpose: tobothoffer students’ knowledge in a specificscientific fieldandenable them toenrich their FL(foreign language)mastery.Goinga stepfurther,Pavlou&Ioannou-Georgiou(2008)stressthesecondgoalstatingthat learnersaregivenareal,short-termreasontocommunicateauthenticallyintheforeignlanguageratherthanthelong-runaimoffurtheringtheirstudiesandfindingajobintheremotefuture.Fur-thermore,theyaddathirdtargetintheCLILapproach,whichisthedevelopmentofintercul-turalmentalityandskills,oneofthemostimportantdimensionsofourmodern,multicultur-alsociety(ibid,p.648).TheCLILlessoncanbesuccessfullybuiltfollowingthe4Csframework(Coyle,2005,2006):

• Content:thecontentreferstothetopicofaspecificsubjecttobetaughtencompass-ingunderstandingandlearningoftherelevantknowledgeandskills.

• Communication: Language is themeans forboth communicationand learning, thefocalpointbeingbothfluencyandaccuracy.Inthislineofthought,themainprinci-pleisusinglanguagetolearnwhilelearningtousethelanguage.

• Cognition:CLILaspires toenable students to constructmeaningby triggeringbothconcretethinkingskillsandhigherorderones,thatisabstractreasoning.

• Culture:Thestudentsareexposedtoothercultureswhichaidsthemtoacceptoth-ernessandasaresultbetterunderstandthemselves.

1.1RelatingCLILtocross-curricularityandtheMultipleIntelligencesHaving presented the aim and the recommended implementation framework for the CLILapproach,aneffortwillbemadetorelateCLILtocross-curricularityandtheMultipleIntelli-gences.1.1.1.Cross-curicularityThetheoreticalfoundationofCLILisbasedonthecross-curricularapproach(Marsh,2002,p.32),whichsupports learners intheirattempttodraw informationfromdiversesubjects inorder to process knowledge holistically and develop critical thinking. The cross-curricularframeworkconstitutestheunderlyingphilosophicalandmethodologicalassumptionsoftheGreekNationalCurriculum(GovernmentGazette303/13-03-03).Furthermore,theIndividualProgrammesofstudyforforeignlanguagesspecifythatanFLshouldbothaimatfacilitatingcommunicationamongpeopleofdifferentoriginandcultureaswellaseasing theacquisi-


76

tion and processing of knowledge from various scientific fields (Government Gazette304/13-03-03,p.4085).Despite its successful implementation in various European educational settings, little hasCLILbeenappliedintheGreekeducationalmilieu(Oikonomou,2013).Givenitsimportance,though,inenhancingthestudents’handlingofbothcontentandaforeignlanguageandduetothefactthattheunderlyingpedagogicalassumptionoftheGreeknationalcurriculumisthecross-curricularapproachwhichencouragesthecooperationofthediversesubjects,CLILcouldeasilybeintegratedintheGreekschoolreality.Furthermore,itwouldbealignedwithGreek students’ interest for foreign languagesandespeciallyEnglish (Griva&Chostelidou,2012).1.1.2.MultipleIntelligencesHavingestablishedthatcross-curricularityprovidesan idealeducationalsetting for the im-plementationofCLIL,anattemptwillbemadeinthissectiontoframethelinkagebetweenCLIL andMultiple Intelligences (Gardner, 1999). Gardner (1999) claimed that rather thanhavingoneunifiedtypeofintellignence,thehumanbrainconsistsofseveraltypesofintelli-gencesandthatstudentsunveiladiversecombinationof intelligences,allofwhichshouldbeattendedtointeaching.Hedefinedthefollowingframesofmind:Studentswithlinguisticintellingence arecompetentusersof language in itsbothoralandwrittenmode. Learnerswith logico-mathematical intelligence are able to make deductions, identify relationshipsamongvariousconceptsandexhibitabstractreasoning,whilethosewithvisual-spatialintel-ligenceareinclinedtocapitaliseoninformationderivedfromimages,shapesandpicturesinordertointernaliseknowledge.Bodily-kineastheticlearnersprioritise‘learningbydoing’andareinneedofphysicalmovementsoastoabsorbinformation.Interpersonalstudentsprefertorelatetootherlearnersandarewillingtocollaborateinclass,whereastheintrapersonaloneswouldratherworkalone.Naturalisticintelligencesignifiesinteractionwithnatureandfondnessofall livingbeings.Seen inthis light, learnerswithaugmentednaturalistic intelli-gencetendtoshowmoreempathytootherculturesandrespectotherness.Finally,“musicalintelligence” aids learners to make use of rhythm in their endeavour to assimilateknowledge.TheCLILapproachcanrender learningmorechallengingandenjoyableby linkingboththecontentandtheforeignlanguage.Thestudents’self-esteemandconfidenceisbuiltthroughraisingtheirmotivation(Dörnyei,2001)which isdeemed indispensible inthe learningpro-cess. This can be achieved by using tasks that accommodate the multiple intelligences.Therefore,thelearningofasubjectmatterthroughaforeignlanguageisnotsolelyconfinedtolinguisticimprovementandcompilationofknowledgeinaspecificfieldbutitalsoembedsinterpersonalandintrapersonalinteraction,enhancementofabstractreasoningandpromo-tionofacceptanceofdiversity.2.LiteraturereviewAsignificantbodyofresearchinvestigatedtheeffectivenessofCLILinvariouscontexts.Ya-mano (2013) conducted a study in a Japanese primary school with an experimental classemployingtheCLILmethodologyandacontroloneapplyingtheconventionalEFLmethod-ology.Theparticipatinggroupsdealtwiththesametopic.Bothquantitativeandqualitativeinstrumentswereused,namelyastudents’questionnaireandclassroomobservationwhichpointed to the efficacy of CLIL.More specifically, vocabulary acquisition was accelerated,communication was promoted and awareness of global issues was raised in the experi-


77

mental group. A positive attitude towards CLIL surfacedwhich highlighted its potential toimproveEFLeducationintheJapaneseprimaryeducation.Severalstudiesattemptedtotracethelearners’stancestowardstheimplementationofCLIL.Tothisend,LasagabasterandSierra(2009)exploredtheattitudesof287secondaryeduca-tionstudentsfromfourdifferentschoolswhereCLILwasimplemented.Thefindingsindicat-ed that theparticipants revealedhighly significantpositiveattitudes towards theFL in theCLILclasses.Inanefforttotraceanygenderdifferences,theyfoundoutthatfemalesoptedforCLILlessonsmorethantheirmalecounterparts.Inastudyinthetertiaryeducationcon-text,Pinner(2013)foundoutthatthe103respondentsratedtheimportanceofcontentandlanguageequally.Thequantitativeandqualitativedatahighlightedcontentasthemostim-portantdimensionindeterminingauthenticity.Thelearnersdisplayedaversiontowardsthegrammar-translationapproachandsupportedanauthentic,content-orientedmethodologytolearninganFL.AhostofstudiesexploredthelinguisticbenefitsoftheCLILapproach.Inastudyconductedin Vienna, Ackert (2007) examined the essays of ten eighteen-year- old secondary schoolstudentswiththeaimofcomparingthelinguisticoutputofCLILandnon-CLILstudents.Hav-ingcarriedouterroranalysisonthelexical,grammaticalanddiscourselevel,shereachedtheconclusionthatalthoughthenumberofproblematicareasdoesnotrevealaclearproficien-cysupremacyofCLILlearnersincomparisontotheirnon-CLILcounterparts,it,nevertheless,unravelsabeneficialinfluenceofCLILonthelearners’productiveskillofwriting.Moreover,theCLILstudentsproducedasignificantlyhigherrangeofvocabularycomparedwiththenon–CLILparticipants.Várkuti(2010)exploredthelinguisticattainmentinEnglishofsecondaryschoolparticipants.Morespecifically,shemeasuredthelearners’BICS,thatiseverydaylan-guage use and their CALP, namely their academic linguistic achievement. The results dis-closedthatnotonlydidCLILstudentssignificantlyoutperformtheirnon-CLILcounterpartsinboth social and academic communication, and use of more sophisticated vocabulary buttheyalsoexhibitedabilityincorrectapplicationofgrammarrulesandhighermeta-linguisticawareness.ThesefindingscorroboratetheviewthattheimplementationofEnglishinlearn-ingvarioussubjectsfacilitatesforeignlanguagelearningmoreeffectivelythantraditionalFLteaching(seealsoMarsh,2012).To the best of our knowledge very little research has been conducted regarding the ad-vancement of multiple intelligences through the CLIL approach focusing mainly on veryyoung students. Inaneffort tomonitor the students’ speakingand listening skills throughmultipleintelligencesbasedlessonswithintheCLILcontext,Garcia(2014),havingaddressedpre-kindergartenschoollearners,foundoutthattheirspeakingandlisteningabilitywasim-provedafterfiveworkshops.Havingrealisedthatthereisaresearchgapconcerningtheca-pacityof theCLIL framework tomaximize theMultiple Intelligences,weventuredthepre-sentstudy.3.ThestudyAsstatedintheprevioussection,themainpurposeofthepresentstudywastomeasurethepotentialoftheCLILmethodologytocapitaliseonthelearners’MultipleIntelligences.Inthisline,thefollowingresearchquestionswereaddressed:-CanCLILpromotethestudents’MultipleIntelligences?- Do students who receive CLIL tuition acknowledge its contribution to the promotion oftheirMultipleIntelligences?


78

4.Methodologyanddesign4.1.ParticipantsA case study was conducted in the third grade of an experimental junior high school inNorthernGreececonsistingof25students - fifteen femalesand tenmales,whose levelofEnglishisB1-B2.TheteacherofEnglishandtheteacherofHistoryparticipatedinthestudywhichinvolvedtwolessonsbasedonatopicfromthesyllabusofHistoryconcerningthepo-liticalpropagandainGermanybeforetheSecondWorldWar.Theemergenceofthispropa-gandawasoneof thepolitical consequencesof theGreatRecessionof1929which led tototalitarianregimesthatusedpropagandatomanipulatepeople.4.2.Instrumentation4.2.1.MaterialspresentationandProcedureΑtextwaswrittenbytheauthors(AppendixI)basedonanideatakenfrom:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskulturkammer,http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/propaganda_in_nazi_germany.htm,andhttps://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005207WarmupWorkinginpairstrywithyourpartnertoanswerthefollowingquestionaboutpropaganda(terminology,techniques)(10΄).WhatIthinkIKnow WhatIwouldliketoknow Τheaimofthistaskistoactivatethestudents’priorknowledgeandadvancetheirinterper-sonalintelligence.ActivitiesActivity1Now read the following text (SeeAppendix I) and see if any of your ideas arementioned(20΄).Τheaimofthistaskisreadingforgist.AsthestudentsreadthetexttheycanheartheanthemofthethirdReichontheInternet.Activity2Readthepassageagainandfillinthetablebelow(10΄).

ReichChamberofCommerceorCultureItsaim Itspolicy Itsresults

Τhe purpose of this task is to provide studentswith practice in reading for specific infor-mation.


79

Activity3-Vocabularypractice(8΄).Nowputinyourstarany10wordsfromthetextwhicharerelevanttopropaganda.

Thegoalofthisactivityistohelpstudentspractisevocabulary.Activity4–VocabularyextensionMatchthewordswiththeirsynonyms(7΄):

• military• might• enlightenment• loyal• ransack• approach• concentrate• rally• arena• chamberofcommerce

• education,information• stadium• gathering• army• power,strength• devoted,patriotic• rob,breakin• organisationofmasscontrol• focus• methodology

Thistaskaimsatenrichingthestudents’vocabulary.Activity5-NamethetechniquesthattheNazisusedintheirpropaganda(15΄).Τhepurposeofthistaskistoenablelearnerstoreadforgistaswellasclarifytermsofthemaincontent.Activity6Nowlookatthepictures. Inwhichwaydidthepicturesofthearticlehelpyouunderstandthemeaningofpropaganda?Didyougetanyextrainformationoutofthem?(10΄).Τheactivityintendstoactivatethestudents’visualintelligenceandboosttheirvisuallitera-cy.Activity7Nowlistentothemusicagain.Inwhichwaydidthemusichelpyouunderstandthemeaningofpropaganda?Didyougetanyextrainformationoutofit?Howdiditmakeyoufeel?(10΄).Thistaskstimulatesmusicalintelligence.Activity8Workonyourown.Trytothinkandsay:Whichtechniquedidyouconsidertobetheworstone?(10΄).


80

The students’ critical thinking and strategies of self-expression are triggered in this task.Moreover,theirintrapersonalintelligenceisadvanced.Activity9What does the phrase “Where one burns books, one eventually burns people"mean foryou?Writeyourthoughtsasifyouwriteinyourdiary(10΄).Thisactivityaspirestointegratewritingaswellastopromotethestudents’criticalthinking.Activity10Youareinacourt.Oneofyouisthejudge.Therestoftheclassaredividedintotwogroupsoflawyers.ThefirstgroupisinfavourofthehugerallieswhichhighlighttheGermanpower,therestareagainstthesegatherings.Discussyourargumentsandchooseasecretarywhoisgoingtopresentyourviewstothejudge(20΄).Thisactivityaspirestoelevatethestudents’criticalthinkingandcaterfor‘kinaestheticintel-ligence’.4.2.2.Students’questionnaireSincethepresentresearchinvolvedasmall-scalecasestudy,qualitativemethodswhichre-quirea longitudinal investigation (i.e. classroomobservation, teacher’sdiary) couldnotbeexploited.Thus,theresearchersdecidedtoemployastudents’questionnaire(appendixI)inordertotracetheirattitudestowardstheroleofCLILindevelopingtheirdiverseframesofmind.As the learnersmaynotbe familiarwith the term“multiple intelligences”,an intro-ductionwasgiventothemtohelpthemunderstandtheirmeaningandfunctionaswellasensurethattheyprovidedreliableanswers.Thequestionnairewasadministeredinthestu-dents’mothertongueinordertoavoidanymisinterpretationsduetopossiblelinguisticob-stacles. The completion of the questionnaire took fifteenminutes, therefore, the learnershadampletimetofamiliarisethemselveswiththevarious‘framesofmind’andanswertheitems.Consequently, the intervention along with the administration of the questionnaire lastedthreeteachingsessionsinordertogivetheopportunitytotheparticipantstogetacquaintedwiththeCLILmethodologyandtheMultipleIntelligencesframeworkandatthesametimehaveenoughtimetoexpresstheiropinionconcerningthequestionnaireitems.4.2.3.Dataanalysis.Thequantitativeanalysisofthefindingswascarriedoutthroughmeasuringtheparticipants’responses to thequestionnaire itemsonapercentagescalemonitoring the frequencyandpercentagesoftheanswers.Themainaimwastogaugetherespondents’capacitytoponderon theenhancementof theirmultiple intelligencesand judge theirability tomonitor theircognitivedevelopment.


81

5.PresentationanddiscussionofresultsThissectionpresentsandinterpretstheresultsofthestudyinanattempttoprobewhethertheresearchquestionswereverified,toendeavourtosearchforplausibleexplanationsandconsiderthepedagogicalimplicationsoftheaccrueddata(Table1).A CLIL lesson helps youto learn better becauseyou…

StronglyAgree Agree

NeitherAgree norDisagree

DisagreeStronglyDisagree Total

1.Workonyourown(Intrapersonal Intelli-gence)

Ν 20 4 1 - - 25

% 80 16 4 - - 100,0

2.Listentosongs,music,rhythm (Musical intelli-gence)

Ν 18 2 5 - - 25

% 72 8 20 100,0

3. Improve your use oflanguage-linguistic abil-itylinguisticcompetence(LinguisticIntelligence)

Ν 22 3 - - - 25

% 88 12 - - - 100,0

4. Move and touchthings during Role play-ing (Kinaesthetic Intelli-gence)

Ν 20 3 2 - - 25

% 80 12 8 100,0

5. Use pictures- seethingsinordertolearn–acquire knowledge ofthespace(Visual-spatialIntelligence)

Ν 20 5 - - - 25

% 80 20 - - - 100,0

6. Make comparisons,trytofindinterrelations,improve your criticalthinking(Logical-mathematicalIntelligence)

Ν 20 5 - --

25

% 80 20 - - - 100,0

7.Work with other stu-dents in pairs or groups(Interpersonal Intelli-gence)

Ν 18 5 2 - - 25

% 72 20 8 - - 100,0

8. Relate content to na-ture and culture (Natu-ralisticIntelligence).

N 17 3 2 - - 25

% 68 12 8 - - 100,0

9.Useofdifferentkindsof materials (audio, vis-ual, kinasthaetic) - dif-ferentiated materials(video,internetextracts,etc.)promotesallMulti-pleIntelligences

N 20 5 - - - 25

% 80 20 - - - 100,0

Table1:Students’attitudesconcerningthecontributionofaCLILlessontothedevelopmentoftheir

MultipleIntelligences.


82

TheresultsindicatedthatthestudentsvaluetheimportanceoftheCLILtotheameliorationof theirmultiple intelligences.The itemthat receivedthehighestapproval (88%)concernsthe improvement of the linguistic intelligence. Five items gained equal ratings at 80% (in-trapersonal, kineasthetic, visual-spatial, logico-mathematical intelligenceandpromotionofall learningstyles).The itemswhichgainedthe leastendorsementwere the interpersonal,musicalandnaturalistic intelligencewithaveryhighpercentage,though(72%and68%re-spectively).In thepresent case study, the emphasiswas gradually given to the four fundamental ele-ments of CLIL namely the 4 Cs, that is Content, Cognition, Communication and Culture(Coyle,2006).Webelievethatwehavemanagedtoemployallthestagesadequately:

• Content:Regardingcontentthestudentsgotfamiliarwithdifferentwaysofpropa-gandainGermanybeforetheSecondWorldWar.

• Communication:Concerningcommunication,theyenhancedtheir linguisticcompe-tence.

• Cognition:Inrelationtotheircognition,theywereprovidedwithampleopportuni-tiestopractisetheircriticalthinking.

• Culture: As regards culture, they developed awareness of otherness (Germans,Jews).

Furthermore,specialattentionwaspaidduringthedesignofthelessonstoaccomodateallthetypesofmultiple intelligences. Insteadofproducingactivitiesthatwereofserviceonlyto learnerswithaugmentedlinguistic intelligenceandstyle,andverbalpreferences,weat-temptedtoengageactivelythefullrangeof learnersinthisspecificclass.Therefore, itcanbededucedthatthefirstresearchquestionwassubstantiated.Thesecondresearchquestionwasalsoverifiedastherespondentsassertedtheimportanceof CLIL tuition to promote their multiple intelligences. More specifically, they rated theirperceptions towards theeffectivenessof theCLIL approach toboost their framesofmindhighly(Table1).OurfindingsconvergewiththeonesinGarcia(2014),thedifferencebeingthat sheexplored the speakingand listening improvementof youngsters throughmultipleintelligenceorientedlessonsintheCLILframework.Thenoveltyofourstudyisthatwefo-cused on older students and sought to explore their performance holistically rather thanconcentrateonlyontwoskills.5.1.Classroomimplications-SuggestionsAneffortwillbemadeinthissectiontoelaborateontheinformationaccruedfromthere-trieveddatawithaviewtoputting forwardpedagogical implicationsandoffering relevantrecommendationsconcerninganeffectiveapplicationofCLIL.Ithasbeendisplayedthat,apartfromdevelopingallkindsofmultipleintelligences,CLILcanbeusedfortheadvancementofthelearners’cognitive,linguistic,socialandculturaldevel-opment.CapitalisingontheuseofcontentandanFLConcerningthedebatebetweenthesupportersof theseparateuseofL2 intheclassroomandtheemploymentofacontentofasubject,ontheonehand,andtheadvocatesoftheCLILmethodology,ontheother,itcanbesaidthatabalanceshouldbesticken.Inthislineof


83

thought,intheCLILcontext,thecontentofasubjectandtheforeignlanguagecanworkad-ditively rather than subtractively (British Council, 2014) in the sense that they support in-stead of undermining each other. A harmonious cooperation among the content and theforeignlanguagecouldbringaboutmaximumresultstothelearners’evolution.FosteringcriticalthinkingandmentalityoftolerancetowardsdiversityCLILcanpromotethelearners’criticalreasoningandtheirunderstandingofotherness.Thisseemstorenderstudentsindependentlearnerswhocanmonitortheirlearningprocess,in-fluencethesocietythey live inandbesmoothlyassimilated in thecontemporarymulticul-turalcommunities.MaximisingthepromotionofMultipleIntelligencesSpecialcareshouldbetakentonurtureallframesofmindinordertoprovideequaloppor-tunitiestoallstudentsandgeneratevalue-addededucationalbenefits(Coyle,2006,p.3).6.ConclusionInanattempttocontributetothenecessity formoreresearchontheeffectivenessof theCLIL approach in the Greek educational setting, the current study explored the extent towhichtheapplicationofCLILlessonsassistedthepromotionofthevariousframesofmindofathirdgradeclassofajuniorhighschool.Thefindingsverifiedtheameliorationofthestudents’varioustypesofintelligencesthroughthemeaningful cooperation ofHistory and English. The two subjects interacted andwereinterrelatedtothebenefitofthelearnerswhoexploredthecontentofthesyllabusofHisto-ryandimprovedtheirperformanceinEnglish.Moreover,notonlydidtheimplementationofCLIL enhance the learners’multiple intelligences but it seems that it empowered the stu-dentstogain insight intothepotentialoftheCLILapproachandacknowledge itscontribu-tiontotheameliorationoftheirvarioustypesofintelligence.Consequently,limitedastheywere,theresultshighlightedtheimportanceofimplementingCLILintheGreekstateclass-room.Themajor limitation of the present study is that it involves a small scale researchwhichgaugesthestudents’attitudestowardstheefficacyofCLILtoboosttheirdiverseframesofmind. A larger scale study involvingmore teaching sessions andmoremethodological in-strumentsthatisclassroomobservationandteachers’diariesmightyieldmoregeneralisabledata.ReferencesBritishCouncil(2014). ‘CLILPolicyandPractice:Competence-basededucationforemploya-

bility,mobilityandgrowth’.LakeComo,1-5.Ackert,C.(2007).‘Lexico-grammarintheessaysofCLILandnon-CLILstudents:Erroranalysis

ofwrittenproduction’.VIEWZViennaEnglishWorkingPapers,16/3:6-11.Coyle,D.(2005).Planningtoolsforteachers.TheUniversityofNottingham,SchoolofEduca-

tionhttp://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/20-01-2014/coyle_2014/coyle_clil_planningtool_kit.pdf..Accessed05October2015.


84

Coyle,D.(2006).‘ContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning:Motivatinglearnersandteach-ers’. Scottish Languages Review, 13: 1-18,http://blocs.xtec.cat/clilpractiques1/files/2008/11/slrcoyle.pdf .Accessed 05 October2015.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001).Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cam-bridgeUniversityPress.

Garcia,L.F.B.(2014). ‘CLIL:Awaytopromotebasiccommunicativeskillsthroughmultipleintelligencesbasedlessons’.Unpublisheddissertation,ManizalesUniversity:Manizales.

Gardner,H.(1999).MultipleIntelligences:TheTheoryandPractice.NewYork:BasicBooks.Griva,E.&Chostelidou,D.(2012).‘MultilingualcompetencedevelopmentintheGreekedu-

cationalsystem:FLteachers'beliefsaidattitudes’. International JournalofMultilingual-ism,9/3:257-271.

Lasagabaster,D.&Sierra,J.M.(2009).‘LanguageAttitudesinCLILandTraditionalEFLClas-ses’.InternationalCLILResearchJournal,1/2:4-17.http://www.icrj.eu/12/article1.html.

Marsh,D. (2002).CLIL/EMILE- The EuropeanDimension:Actions, Trends and Foresight Po-tential.PublicServicesContractDGEAC:EuropeanCommission.

Marsh, D. (2012). ‘Using language to learn and learning to use languages’.http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/clilmatrix/pdf/1UK.pdf.Accessedon15October2015.

Milona,S.(2012).‘Cateringforyounglearners’multipleintelligencesbyemployingthestory-based framework:A case studyof a 4th grade class in theGreek stateprimary school’.Unpublisheddissertation,HellenicOpenUniversity:Patras.

Pinner,R. (2013). ‘AuthenticityandCLIL:Examiningauthenticity froman internationalCLILperspective’. International CLIL Research Journal, 2/1: 44- 54.http://www.icrj.eu/21/article4.html.

Várkuti,A.(2010).‘LinguisticbenefitsoftheCLILapproach:Measuringlinguisticcompetene’.InternationalCLILResearchJournal,1/3:67-79.http://www.icrj.eu/13/article7.html.

Yamano, Y. (2013). ‘CLIL in a JapanesePrimary School: Exploring thepotential ofCLIL in aJapanese EFL context’. International CLIL Research Journal, 2 /1: 19-30.http://www.icrj.eu/21/article2.html.

GreekReferencesΦ.Ε.Κ. Τεύχος Β΄ αρ. φύλλου 303/ 13-03-2003 Παράρτημα, Τόμος Α.΄ Αθήνα Υπουργείο

ΕθνικήςΠαιδείαςκαιΘρησκευμάτων–ΠαιδαγωγικόΙνστιτούτο.Φ.Ε.Κ. Τεύχος Β΄ αρ. φύλλου 304/ 13-03-2003 Παράρτημα, Τόμος B.΄ Αθήνα: Υπουργείο

ΕθνικήςΠαιδείαςκαιΘρησκευμάτων–ΠαιδαγωγικόΙνστιτούτο.Οικονόμου, Κ. (2013). ‘Εφαρμογές CLIL στο ελληνικό σχολείο: επισημάνσεις από τη

διδασκαλία σε ένα επαρχιακό γυμνάσιo’. Επιστημονικό Εκπαιδευτικό Περιοδικόeκπ@δευτικόςκύκλος,1/2:122-193.

Παύλου, Π. & Ιωάννου-Γεωργίου, Σ. (2008). ‘Η Εκπαιδευτική προσέγγιση CLIL και οιπροοπτικές εφαρμογής της στην Δημοτική και Προδημοτική Εκπαίδευση της Κύπρου’.Στα Πρακτικά του 10o Συνέδριο Παιδαγωγικής Εταιρείας Κύπρου, 645-655.http://www.pek.org.cy/Proceedings_2008/pdf/i8.pdf.

Electronicreferenceshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskulturkammer(Accessed06October2015).http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/propaganda_in_nazi_germany.htm (Accessed 05 Oc-tober2015).https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005207 (Accessed 06 October2015).


85

APPENDICES

APPENDIX1ThetextThetextwaswrittenbytheauthorsbasedoninformationtakenfromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskulturkammerhttp://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/propaganda_in_nazi_germany.htmhttps://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005207Politicalpropaganda:ThecaseofGermanybeforetheSecondWorldWar.Propagandainvolvestheabilityofconvincingothersthatyourpointofviewiscorrect,whileother people distort the truth. Some politiciansmay use propaganda to persuade peoplethattheirpoliticalandmilitarymightissogreatthatnoonecanresistit.Hitlerrealisedtheimportanceofpropagandaanddecidedtoorganiseitproperly.Therefore,heaskedJosephGoebbels to become responsible for propaganda and so propaganda in pre-war Germanybecameextremelysophisticated.Goebbelswasappointed inchargeofpropaganda,hisofficialtitlebeingMinisterofPropa-gandaandNationalEnlightenment.HeestablishedtheReichChamberofCommerceorCul-turein1933inanattempttocontroltheGermanmediaandchannelthepeople’sthoughts.TheChambermonitoredeverymeansthatcould influencepeoplethat isart,music, litera-ture,newspapers,filmsandradio.Ifyouwantedtoproduceapieceofliterature,anarticle,abooketc.youhadtojointheReichChamber.OnlytheNazipartycouldjudgeifapersonhadtherightqualitiestobeaChambermember.Peoplewhodisobeyedwerepunished.On-lytheNazishadtherighttodeterminewhatpeoplecouldread,watchandlistento.ByMay1933, theNazi partyhadbecome sopowerful thatGoebbels decided toburn thebooks that opposed the Nazi ideals. So, loyal Nazis ransacked libraries, removed the un-wantedbookswhichwere consideredoffendingandburnt them inpublic. Theyburnt thebooksofBertholdBrecht,KarlMarx,ThomasMann,JackLondon,TheodoreDreiserandHel-enKeller.AcenturyagotheGermanromanticpoet,HeinrichHeine (December13,1797–February17,1856)hadsaidthatwhereoneburnsbooks,onewillsoonburnpeople.The Nazis employed the same approach to censor films. Germans could onlywatch filmswhich concentratedon specific topics: The Jews,Hitler’smight, the correctwayof life forGerman children andmembers of the Nazi party.Moreover, as German authorities werepreparing theirnation for theSecondWorldWar, theywantedthemtowatch filmswhichshowedthatGermans,who lived in thecountriesofEasternEuropewere ill-treated.“Tar-zan” filmswere forbidden as the heroes and heroineswere barely dressed. Serious filmswithpoliticalcontentwereavoided.GoebbelschoselightentertainmentfilmslikecomediesbecausehebelievedthattheyshowedalighteraspectofGermany.Additionally, in August every year (from1933 to 1938) huge rallieswere organised in theNurebergarenawhereupto400.000peoplegatheredtolistentoHitler’sspeechandwatchtheparadeoftheGermanarmy.Thesedisplaysweretwice(1934and1937)heldatnightina brightly lit stadium. They were called the Cathedral of Light Presentation. The stadiumlightscouldbeseenasfaras100kilometresaway.


86

APPENDIX2Thestudents’questionnaireIntroductionGardner(1999)supportedtheviewthatinsteadofaunifiedIntelligence,ourbrainconsistsof several typesof Intelligencesandeachoneofushasa combinationof them.So,everylesson should cater for all types of Intelligences in order to benefit all students. Mylona(2012)resembledourmultipleintelligencestopeoplewholiveinthesameblockofflatsindifferentappartments,though.Answer the followingquestions so thatwecan findoutwhich typesof intelligencesaredevelopedinaCLILlessonYouropinionaboutaClILlessonPleasereadthefollowingstatementscarefullyandmarkwithaP (onlyonebox)theonethatbestexpressesyouropinion. ACLILlessonhelpsyoutolearnbetterbecauseyou…..

1.Workonyourown(ΙntrapersonalIntelligence)

StronglyAgree

Agree Neither AgreenorDisagree

Disagree StronglyDisagree

2.Listentosongs,music,rhythm(ΜusicalΙntelligence)

StronglyAgree



3.Improveyouruseoflanguage-linguisticabilitylinguisticcompetence(LinguisticIntelligence)

StronglyAgree



4. Move and touch things during Role playing(KinaestheticIntelligence)

StronglyAgree



5. Use pictures- see things in order to learn –acquire knowledge of the space (Visual- spatialIntelligence)

StronglyAgree



6.Make comparisons, try to find interrelations,improveyourcriticalthinking(Logical-mathematicalIntelligence)

StronglyAgree



7.Work with other students in pairs or groups(InterpersonalIntelligence)

StronglyAgree



8.Relatecontenttonatureandculture(Natural-isticIntelligence).

StronglyAgree




87

9.Useofdifferentkindsofmaterials(audio,visu-al,kinasthaetic) -differentiatedmaterials (video,internetextracts,etc.)promotesallMultiple In-telligences

Strong-lyAgree



Dr.AlexandraAnastasiadou([email protected])holdsaB.A.inEnglishLanguageandLiteratureandaB.A.inthePedagogicalDepartmentfor

PrimaryEducationfromAristotleUniversity,anM.Ed.inTESOLfromtheHellenicOpenUniversity,anM.AinCognitiveDevelopmentfromthe

PedagogicalDepartmentofWesternMacedoniaandaPh.D.inAppliedLinguisticsfromAristotleUniversity.SheworksasastateschooladvisorintheRegionalDirectorateofEducationforCentralMacedoniaandasadissertationsupervisorinthepostgraduateprogrammeoftheHellenic

OpenUniversity.HerresearchinterestsincludeTeachingwriting,Teach-ingyounglearners,Curriculumdesign,TeacherTraining,Criticalliteracy,

CLIL.

Dr.KonstantinaIliopoulou([email protected])holdsaB.A.inGreekLanguageandLiterature,anM.A.inTheoreticalLinguisticsandaPh.D.inAppliedLinguistics,fromAristotleUniversity.SheworksasaTeacherintheExperimentalSchoolofAristotleUniversityandasadissertationsu-

pervisorinthepostgraduateprogrammeoftheUniversityofNicosia.ShehasbeenanexternalscientificassociateoftheCentreofGreekLanguage

(MinistryofEducation)since2005.HerresearchinterestsincludeAs-sessingGreekasanL2,TeachingL2inyounglearners,Interculturaledu-

cation,AssessingWriting,Criticalliteracy,CLIL.


TowardanUnderstandingofContentandLanguageIntegratedLearningAssessment(CLILA)inPrimarySchoolClasses:ACaseStudy

Προςτηνκατανόησητηςαξιολόγησης,στοπλαίσιοτηςΟλοκληρωμένηςΕκμάθησηςΠεριεχομένουκαιΓλώσσαςσετάξειςτουΔημοτικούσχολείου:μιαΜελέτηΠερίπτωσης

MakrinaZAFIRIandKetiZOUGANELIThis article focuses on the assessment of students’ learning in a Content and LanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL)contextandpresentsthefindingsofacase-studyconducted inaPrimarySchoolinGreece,wheresubjectsfromthegeneralcurriculumaretaughtinEnglish,byEFLteachers.Basedontheresultsofaqualitativeexploratorystudy,thearticleprovidesevidenceoftheteachers’practicesfortheassessmentofstudents’knowledge,abilitiesandunderstanding. In the context of the article, the basic theoretical assumptions whichunderpin CLIL are presented and assessment is discussed as an integral part of languageteachingandlearningandasanactofsafeguardingthattheaimsofteachingaremonitoredandachieved.AssessmentinCLILforyounglearnersispresentedanddiscussedasaprocesswhich should account for the goals and objectives of two different areas (content andlanguage)andat thesametimeretain theprinciplesofvalidity, reliabilityandappropriacyfor the young learners’ context. The article concludes with suggestions towards thedevelopmentofanassessmentframeworkwhichencompassesCLILassessmentandmethodsthatexploitexistingresourcesinGreeceandinEurope.

�Το παρόν άρθρο εστιάζει στην αξιολόγηση της μάθησης των μαθητών που διδάσκονταιΑγγλικά μέσω της μεθόδου της “Ολοκληρωμένης Εκμάθησης Περιεχομένου και Γλώσσας”(CLIL).ΠαρουσιάζονταιταευρήματαμιαςμελέτηςπερίπτωσηςπουδιενεργήθηκεσεσχολείοΠρωτοβάθμιας εκπαίδευσης στην Ελλάδα, όπου μαθήματα του γενικού αναλυτικούπρογράμματος διδάσκονται στα Αγγλικά, από εκπαιδευτικούς της Αγγλικής ως ξένηςγλώσσας.Μεβάσητααποτελέσματαμιαςποιοτικήςπιλοτικήςμελέτης,στοάρθροδίνονταιπαραδείγματα των πρακτικών που εφαρμόζουν οι εκπαιδευτικοί για την αξιολόγηση τηςγνώσης,τωνικανοτήτωνκαιτηςκατανόησηςτωνμαθητώντους.ΣτοάρθροπαρουσιάζονταιοιβασικέςθεωρητικέςυποθέσειςπουδιαμορφώνουντουπόβαθρογιατημέθοδοCLILκαι

ZafiriandZouganeli/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning8/1(2017)88-109

89

συζητάει την αξιολόγηση ως αναπόσπαστο μέρος της διδασκαλίας της γλώσσας και τηςεκμάθησήςτης,καθώςκαιωςδράσημέσωτηςοποίαςδιασφαλίζεταιηπαρακολούθησητηςεπίτευξηςτωνστόχωντηςδιδασκαλίας.Ηαξιολόγησητωνμικρώνμαθητών,στοπλαίσιοτηςCLIL, παρουσιάζεται και συζητείται ως μια διαδικασία κατά την οποία πρέπει ναλαμβάνονταιυπόψηοισκοποίκαιοιστόχοιδύοδιαφορετικώνπεριοχών(τουπεριεχομένουκαιτηςγλώσσας),ενώπαράλληλαδιατηρούνταιοιαρχέςτηςεγκυρότητας,τηςαξιοπιστίαςκαι της καταλληλότητας για το συγκεκριμένο πλαίσιο διδασκαλάις σε μικρούς μαθητές.Τέλος, γίνονται προτάσεις για την ανάπτυξη ενός πλαισίου αξιολόγησης το οποίο ναπερικλείει την αξιολόγηση στο πλαίσιο της CLIL με μεθόδους που αξιοποιούν τιςυπάρχουσεςπηγέςστηνΕλλάδακαιστοεξωτερικό.Keywords:Αssessment,CLIL,younglearners,primaryschool,L2learning.1.IntroductionContent and Language Integrated Learning (henceforth CLIL) has been introduced as ameanstoachievethe1+2policyaimputforwardinthe1995WhitePaperonEducationandTrainingbytheEuropeanCommission,i.e.thatallEUcitizensshouldmastertwocommunitylanguagesinadditiontotheirmothertongue”(Nikula,etal.,2013,pp.70-71).Thisneedfora‘multilingualEuropeansociety’orthe“[…]willingnesstocommunicate(WTC)intheL2[…]”and“[…] thesocialnatureofL2acquisition […]”,asDörnyei (2001,p.51)names it,has ledmany European counties to reevaluate and reform their foreign language curricula in anattempt to “ […] nurture a feel good and can do attitude towards language learning ingeneral” (Marsh, 2000, p. 10), thus improving students’ language proficiency. There arescientistsandteacherswhostronglybelieve that theadvantagesof theapplicationofCLILaremanymorecomparedtothedisadvantages,morespecifically[…]thefactthatCLILisstillincreasinginpopularityasaneducationalmeasuresuggeststhatitsaimsmustbeimportanttomanypeoplearoundtheglobe”(Dalton-Puffer&Smit ,2013,p.547).LasagabasterandLópez Beloqui (2015, p. 55) estimate that “[…] taking into account the prevailing need tolearnforeign languages inadditiontothemothertongue(s),CLILmaybecomeaneffectivewaytoengagestudentsinlanguagelearning”.The development of CLIL over the past decade is dynamically manifested in primary andsecondary education. The final report of the European Survey on Language Competences(ESLC)(2012,p.174)1showsthatCLILisoffered,mostoften,insecondaryeducationschoolsin Belgium, Estonia and Malta and least often in schools in Croatia, France and Greece.AnalysisofthedataforGreece,whichappearsintheNationalReport(Dendrinosetal,2013,p.97)2,showsthatthepercentageofthesampledsecondaryeducationschoolswhichoffer

1TheEuropeanSurveyonLanguageCompetences(ESLC)wasdesignedtocollect informationaboutthe foreign language proficiency of students in the last grade of lower secondary education in 16countries which provided a sample of 54,000 students. The survey comprised language tests andquestionnaireswhichprovidedcontextualinformation.2Greece participated in the ESLCwith 112 lower secondary education schools and a sample 1,594studentsofEnglishand1,378studentsofFrench.TheNationalReportincludesadetailedanalysisofthe languagetestresultsandthedatafromthecontextualquestionnairesaswellasadiscussionofthefindingsandrecommendationsforpolicymeasuresatanin-countrylevel.


90

CLIL is very low. In Primary education, CLIL provision is favourably discussed as a meanstowardsanearlystarttoreinforcinglanguagelearningthroughcontentteachingwhichlinkstopicsacrossthecurriculumandincludesavarietyofsubjects(Massleretal.,2014,p.138).At a classroom level, practitioners oftenwonderwhat CLIL really is andwhat it demandsfromthem.Doteachersrestrainthemselvesfromapplyingitbecausetheyseethemselvesasforeignlanguageexpertsnotcontentexperts,sotheyfeelunsafeapplyingsomethingwhichthey themselves have not mastered or do they apply CLIL because it is in vogue? Mostimportantly,whatis itthatCLILofferstostudentsandhowcantheCLILstudents’progressbe measured? Assessment of the outcomes of CLIL instruction to students’ progress andachievementappearsasa“thorny” issue,duetothedual focusof themethodoncontentand language which requires consideration of the goals of two different subject areasincludingknowledge,skills,competencesandattitudesforbothlanguageandcontent.The present article deals with the issue of assessment of students’ progress in CLIL andpresentstheassessmentpracticesoffourEFLteacherswhoimplementedCLILattheThird(3rd)ModelExperimentalPrimarySchoolofThessalonikiinGreece.Itreferstoanexploratoryqualitativestudywhichaims,ontheonehand,toprovideinsightsintowhen,whyandhowEFLteachersintegrateassessmentinCLILand,ontheother,toproposesuggestionstowardsthe development of an assessment framework which encompasses assessment, andmethods,whichexploitexistingresources.2.TheoreticalconsiderationsaboutCLILIn educational settings, CLIL is rapidly establishing itself as a new educational approachwhichpromoteslearninginnovationinteachingmethods.AsCoyle,HolmesandKing(2009,p.6)pointout,“It[CLIL]encompassesavarietyofteachingmethodsandcurriculummodelsand can be adapted to the age, ability, needs and interests of the learners”, in this waymakingCLILavery‘studentfriendlytool’forlanguageteachingandlearning.The CLIL method broaches the subject of foreign language teaching and learning usingcontentsubjects,butit isnotonlythat.InCLIL, languagelearningandcontentlearningaretightly interwoven and integrated and neither seems to dominate the other even thoughgreateremphasismaybeplacedmoreononeandlessontheotherataparticularpointintimewhenthereisaspecificneed.AccordingtoDalton-PufferandSmit(2013,p.546),“CLILcanbeseenasaforeignlanguageenrichmentmeasurepackagedintocontentteaching”.The theoretical framework for the implementationofCLIL, inprimaryeducation,hasbeenshapedbytheorieswhichpertainforeignandsecondlanguageteachingandhaveinfluencedrelevant pedagogies. An insightful discussion of the impact of Krashen’s ComprehensibleInputHypothesis,Swain’sOutputHypothesisandLong’sInteractionTheoryispresentedbyMattheoudakisetal(2013,p.218),whoalsodiscusstheroleofcognitiveandconstructivistlearning theories in the development of a “robust” theoretical base for CLIL. AdditionalsupportisofferedbyKiely(2011,p.27)withreferencetotask-basedlearning,advocatedbyCommunicative Language Teaching. He presents it as an approach,which provides “[…] adegree of conceptual fit between communicative language teaching and the pedagogy ofothersubjects”butincorporatestheriskofprioritisinglanguagedevelopmentovercontent


91

knowledge. Inorderto facilitateparitybetween languageandcontentKiely (ibid)suggeststhatthe4Cs(Content,Cognition,CommunicationandCulture), frameworkcoinedbyCoyle(2007)hastobeconsidered.Throughthe4Cs,learnersconstructtheirknowledgeandskillsaswell as their identity as learners, in a context culturally shaped by two languages. Thisenhancestheirunderstandingofbothownandothercultures(seealso,Korosidou&Griva,2013),andpromotestheircommunicativeabilities,socialskillsandmotivationto learntheforeignlanguage.From a socio-cultural perspective foreign language learning for primary school studentsinvolves the process of socialization. A child learning English, for example, does not onlylearngrammarandstructure.Awiderangeofknowledgeandskillsarealsodevelopedsuchas“learninghowtomakemeaningforcommunication”,“learningthediscourseof theEFLclassroom”or“learningthediscourseofcontentareasofthecurriculum”.Focusingonthechildren’sneed“tolearnthespecificdiscoursesofsubjectcontentareassuchasscienceandsocialstudies”,McKay(2006)stresses:

“Younglearnersarealreadyengagingatanearlyagewithbeginningversionsofdiscourseofspecificcontentareas[…]astheyprogressthroughtheelementaryyears,thecontentareasbecomemorespecialized,andthelanguageusedtotalkabout the content becomes more linguistically complex and academicallydemanding.”(McKay,2006,p.33)

In relation to theabove Johnstone (2000) introduces thenotionof “embeddedness in theflow of events” and suggests that in the primary classroom the learners’ knowledge andexperience,gainedthroughsubjectsacrossthecurriculum,canbelinkedtoforeignlanguageandappear in activitieswhichencourage learners to “draw”knowledge form their L1andexpanditthroughtoL2.

“This natural flowof events inwhich the foreign language pops in and out ofrelevantclassroomactivity reflectsaviewof theelementaryschoolcurriculuminwhichtheuniverseofchildren’sknowledgeisnotdividedintodiscreteareascalled“subjects”butisorganisedmoreholisticallyintobroaderareasthatallowchildren to integrate a variety of different experiences.” (Johnstone, 2000,p.129).

According to a case study of two bilingual students learning English as L3 (Papalexatou,2013), Johnstone’s notion can expand to having the subjects use all languagesinterchangeably. Following Brown’s principles of learning, in the above study, there havebeenseveralinstancesofactivitiesrelevanttothelearners’intereststhatbuiltonpreviouslearningandcontributedto‘meaningfullearning’,indicating,inthisway,thatsuchlearnersdrew knowledge from various experiences and attributed specific roles to differentindividualsindifferentsituations.Whenengaged inCLIL, students, sometimes,have to respond to contentmeaningmakingneeds which are beyond their present state of knowledge in the foreign language. Forexample,a childmaybeable to communicateeffectivelywith the teacherorpeers in thelanguageclassroom,butmayfinditdifficulttouseinL1specificterminologyrelatedtothesubject taught in L2. Research frombilingual settings (Cummins, 1987, 2000 inKiely (ibid)


92

and in Mattheoudakis et al., 2013; Papalexatou & Zorbas, 2015a; Papalexatou & Zorbas,2015b; Papalexatou & Zorbas, 2015c; Zorbas, Papalexatou & Griva, 2016) stresses thedistinctionbetweenbasicinterpersonalcommunicationskills(BICS)andcognitiveacademiclanguageproficiency (CALP) andhighlights the contributionof CLIL to thedevelopmentofstudents’criticalthinkingandmeaningfuluseoftheforeignlanguage.WithreferencetotheCALP component of languageproficiency, Papalexatou (2013, p. 21) argues that “minoritychildren,inparticular,musthavethecommonunderlyingproficiencywelldevelopedbeforeenteringtheclassroom,inordertocopewithcurriculumprocesses”.ThisisinlinewithKiely(ibid)whomakesan interestingpointabout the roleof the students’ L1particularlywhenCLILisimplementedinprimaryeducation:

“AkeystrategyinmeetingtheCALPchallengeiscontinuingdevelopmentofthepupil’sfirstlanguage,specificallyintermsofthesubjectlanguageused,inordertounderstandandexplainsubjectconceptsandprocesses[...]sothatpupilsareabletodiscusstheirsubjectlearninginL1withparentsandcarersattheendofeachdayandinL2inclassroomorformalassessmentcontexts.”(Kiely,2011,p.30)

Commentingon thechanging roleof the first language inCLILhegoeson tosuggest that,recently, L1 implementation is enhanced “for a range of reasons from ensuring subjectcomprehensiontofacilitatingflexibleandcreativeworkintheclassrooms”.Inthesamevein,PapalexatouandZorbas(2015b)andZorbaset.al(2016)suggestthatteachersshouldhelpchildrenretaintheirL1,bycommunicatingmessagesaboutthevalueof learningforeignoradditional languages; thus, highlighting the intellectual and linguistic valueofbilingualism.Students are the ones to provide teachers with a ‘knowledge bank’ which the latter canmakeuseof by linking various topics to students’ personal experiences inorder to enrichtheir classrooms both culturally and linguistically. This is also in line with Stathopoulou(2015)who suggests thatwhen teachers facilitate the use of themother tongue or otherlanguages, brought into the classroom by the students, the latter are encouraged tounderstand that therecanbedifferent levelsofproficiency indifferent languages,used indifferentsituationsandforavarietyofpurposes.3.Assessmentinyounglearners’languagelearningTeaching is inextricably linked to assessment,which is ameans for the documentation ofknowledge, skills, attitudes and beliefs and is usually carried out in a measurable way.DefinedbyGenesee(2001,p.145)as“[...]thatpartofevaluationthatincludesthecollectionandanalysis of information about student learning” assessment focusesonunderstandingstudentperformance inclass, identifyingstudents’ specificneeds,monitoring the teachingprocessandprovidinginformationaboutindividualstudents’progress.Assessmenthappensinclasscontinuallyandisusuallydiscussedintermsofthepurposeandthe use of information that is provided through its processes. In the classroom itmay beformative and summative. Formative assessment is carried out as part of the teachingprocess,andiscentraltoeffectiveteaching.Itisalsolinkedtothenotionof“assessmentforlearning”(Black&William,1998,inMcKay2006,p.140)andincludesabroadrangeoftoolsfor information gathering, such as self-assessment, peer assessment, performance


93

assessmentandportfolioassessment.Theinformationgatheredfromformativeassessmentmay complement the input for summative assessment. Summative assessment aims toassesswhathasbeenlearnedattheendofaunitoraperiodofstudy.Itmaybeconstructedbytheteacher,asasetoftasksimplementedintheclassroomormaycomeintheformofaformal test. Its outcomes are used to report to others (e.g. parents) about the individuallearner’s achievement, for scoring purposes and/or for promotion to the next grade.Summativeassessmentisnotafeedbackoftheteachingprocess.Onthecontrary,itishigh-stakes and can have an adverse “wash back effect” to the young learners’ motivation toparticipateinthelanguageclassroom.Despite the general tendency to define classroom based formative assessment as low-stakes,incomparisontohigh-stakestesting,Rea-Dickins(2000,p.237)warnsusthat“theremaybecaseswhenhigh-stakesdecisionsaremadeonthebasisofastudent’sperformanceinclass,whichwillnegatively influencetheattentionthestudentgets fromtheteacherorprovision of assistance”. Therefore, when developing formative assessment activitiesteachershavetopaycloseattentiontotheaimsofassessmentaswellastohowtheseaimswill be achieved and how the assessment results will be interpreted and communicated.Formativeassessmentisfrequentlyanadditionalelementofavalidandreliableassessmentplan.Anassessmentisvalidwhenitmeasureswhatitclaimstomeasure.Reliabilityreferstotheextent towhichanassessment is consistent.As formativeassessment concerns improvinglearningandisembeddedintheclassroomthereisreconsiderationofthewayvalidityandreliability are examined in classroom based assessment according toMcKay (2006).Morespecifically, she (ibid: 116-117) suggests, that validity and reliability should be“contextualised in the realities of formative assessment in the classroom” and goes on toencourage teachers to “keep a close eye on the characteristics of usefulness as they goabout their formative assessment”. The idea of teachers’ self-inquiry when deciding on aformative assessment schedule, as implied by McKay, is discussed under the notion of“Fairness”or“Equity”byCameron(2001,p.226).Morespecifically,shementionsthat(ibid:226):“Equityprinciplesrequirethatchildrenaregivenplentyofchancestoshowwhattheycandoandthattheirlanguagelearningisassessedthroughmultiplemethods”.Theissuesraisedsofar,reflecttheoreticalunderpinningstoassessmentinforeignlanguagelearningandaddresstheneedtoformthebaseforassessmentinthecontextofCLIL.

4.AssessmentinCLILThe dual focus of CLIL on content and language implies, for language teachers, that theyhave to teach academic content which they themselves may not have mastered.Consequently,teachersareexpectedtoassessstudents’developmentoflanguageskillsandcomprehension of the content of the subject matter. Assessing content bears thecharacteristics of assessing non-language subjects and differs from themodes adopted toassess language proficiency. Usually tests in nature, the latter measure linguistic andcommunicative competence as well as accuracy, thus focusing on basic language skillsnecessarytorespondtoeverydaysocialcommunicationneeds(BICS)ascoinedbyCummins(ibid)intheBICS/CALPdistinction.CLIL,however,involvesacademiclanguage(CALP)found


94

in subjects and requires use of language in a specific, formal context which does notresemblethewaylanguageisusedforcommunicationinsocialinformalcontexts.Students,whomay be fluent speakers and whomay have developed interpersonal communicationskills, may not be equally proficient in their academic skills, which demand cognitiveprocessesandtakelongertodevelop.ItispointedoutthatinCLILtheforeignlanguageisthemediumformasteringcontent(Coyleet al., 2010) therefore both in teaching and in assessment, content must be the focus.Integrating assessment of language and content is a crucial issue, which teachers whoimplementCLILhavetomanage.TheissueofintegratingcontentknowledgewithlanguagecompetenceinassessmentisbroacheduponbyShort(1993,pp.629-630)who,referringtosecondarybilingualcontexts,suggeststhatsometypesofassessment instruments,suchasreadingcomprehensionandwriting,involvebothcontentknowledgeandlanguageskills.Atthesametime,shehighlights theproblemthatarises for theteacherabouthowtoassesseachelementseparately.Thesituation isnotdifferent inEFLcontextsanditbecomesmorecomplicatedwithyounglearnersinvolvedinCLILinthefirstyearsofprimaryeducation.Thesechildrenarestillintheprocessofdevelopingtheirfirstlanguage(L1)andtheymayfacedifficultiesinunderstandingspecial discourse related to the content of different subject areas such as history,environmental studiesorphysicaleducation,and furthermore in communicatingusing theappropriatediscoursepatternsintheforeignlanguage(L2).Teachersshouldaccountforthiswhen devising assessment tasks as well as when providing feedback about progress incontentknowledge.ThesuggestionmadebyKiely(ibid)thatabilingual(L1andL2)approachto CLIL assessment can be adopted in order to ensure a balance between subject andlanguage seems to find fertile ground. According to the suggestedmodel, each child canchoosewhethertouseL1orL2whenspeakingorwritingaboutcontentconcepts.The idea of allowing alternation of languages, for purposes ofmonitoring comprehensionduring assessment, is critically discussed by Coyle (ibid, p. 118) as a problematic one “forbothpracticalandpedagogicalreasons”.Onapracticallevel,itcanfailbecausetheinputforcontenthasbeenprovidedthroughtheCLILlanguage,soitmaybeunknownintheL1.OnapedagogicallevelitfailstoadheretothebasicaimofCLILwhichis“tobuildcapacitytocopefully in an additional language, which includes finding strategies to communicate anddevelopingthinkingasfaraspossibleinthatlanguage.”Itcouldbearguedhere,thatabalancedcombinationofL1andL2useinCLILcreates,forthestudents,aframeworkof“translanguaging”.ThedevelopmentofsuchaframeworkthroughFL programmes that support linguistic diversity and promote inter-/pluriculturalcompetence, as well as plurilingual competences, in other words “[…] competences in anumberof languages fromdesireornecessity, inorder tomeet theneedtocommunicatewithothers[…](Coste,Moore&Zarate,2009,p.17),including“translanguagingskills”whicharestronglysuggestedbyStathopoulou (ibid,p.214).Morespecificallysheexplains that intoday’smultilingualcontexts,beingabletocopewithmultipleinterculturalexperiencesandtomediateeffectivelyseemtobeaprerequisiteforanindividual’ssuccessfulparticipationinsuchcontexts.


95

ItisuptotheteacherstodecidewhichapproachtoCLILwillbeadoptedbutwhatneedstobe stressed is that each approach requires an appropriate strategy to assessment.Whenplanningassessment in the contextofCLIL, thematerials, the teaching and learning aims,the teachingmethod, the instrumentsofassessmentandaboveall thestudents’ cognitiveandlanguagelevelhavetobeconsideredcarefully.5.Thestudy5.1.TheaimsofthestudyThepresentstudy(conductedintheschoolyear12015-2016)focusedonthecaseofthe3rdExperimental Primary School of Evosmos in Thessaloniki and investigated the studentassessmentmethodsandpracticesfollowedbyEFLteacherswhoimplementedCLILthroughteaching a curriculum subject, other than the foreign language, to students who learnEnglish as part of their curricular studies. The aim was to provide baseline data on CLILclassroomassessment,withinthecontextofyounglearners.Asnopreviousempiricalstudyof this nature had been conducted at the time, this was an exploratory study (Check &Schutt,2012,p.11)whichattemptedtolaythegroundworkforfuturestudiesintheareaofCLILassessmentinprimaryeducationinGreece.Thecase-studywasbasedonthefollowingresearchquestions:

• WhenandhowdoCLILteachersplanlearnerassessment?• DoCLILteachersfocuslearnerassessmentoncontentoronlanguage?• Whatisassessed,inwhatwaysandthroughwhattools?• WhatistheroleofL1inCLILLassessment?• Howaretheoutcomesofassessment‘puttogether’,expressedand

communicated?5.2.MethodologyofthestudyInthecontextofthestudybothquantitativeandqualitativedatawascollectedinordertosafeguardvalidityofthestudy(Cohen&Manion,1997).Inparticular,onlinequestionnaires,inGreek,wereadministeredtoCLILteachers,throughwhichdataconcerningthecontext,aswell as the teachers’ experience in CLIL instruction were collected. The researchmethodology involved mainly face-to-face semi-structured interviews in order to collectdirect and accurate information and to identify variables in the teachers’ assessmentpurposesandpractices.Additionally,non-participantobservationoftwoclassestookplace,inordertofacilitateclarificationoftheteachingprocessandtheassessmentpracticesusedduringtheCLILsessions.Overall, four teachers participated in the case - study, three female and one male, allqualified EFL teachers, who implemented CLIL lessons for two hours perweek, to classesrangingfromgradethreetogradesix(Table1).


96

5.3.Presentationandanalysisofthedata5.3.1.ThecontextforCLILimplementationThe 3rd Experimental Primary School of Evosmos, which is supervised by the School ofEnglish,AristotleUniverstiyofThessaloniki,istheonlypublicschoolinGreecethatprovidesintensiveEnglishlanguageinstructionfromthefirstgrade(seeTable1)andonewhereCLILwasintroducedin2010,onapilotbasis,andhassinceexpanded(Mattheoudakisetal,ibid,p.223).EFLteachers

CLILsubjectarea Classlevel CLILtaughthoursperweek

EFLtaughthoursperweek

T1 History 3rdgrade(sections1&2) 2

8

4thgrade 2 8

T2 Environmentaleducation

3rdgrade

2

8

T3 ReligiousEducation

5thgrade 2 8

6thgrade 2 8

T4

Environmentaleducation

4thgrade 2 8

Geography

5thgrade 2 8

Table1:CLILsubjects,classlevelandteachingtimeandlearners’exposuretoEFL.

Analysisof thedatadrawn fromthecontextualquestionnaire showthat theCLIL teacherswere given some training before the introduction of the project, but most of theirknowledgewastheoutcomeofselfstudyandcooperationwiththecontentteachersaswellas other EFL teachers who also teach CLIL classes. According to their responses, CLILinstructionintheirclassesfocusesmainlyonprovidingknowledgeofthesubjectmatterandonpromotingL2skillsandcommunication.Theyalsoinvolved,intheiraims,developmentofintercultural awareness and self-knowledge.CLIL teachers also reported co-operationwiththecontentteacherandotherlanguageteachersforthedevelopmentoftheCLILsyllabusinorder to exchange teaching ideas and suggestions concerning the evaluation of the CLILproject.During the interviews, CLIL teachers explained that they designed the CLIL syllabus anddeveloped their own material, taking into consideration the educational goal and thelearning aims of the respective subject area, as they are described in the primary schoolcurriculum. They stressed that this was a laborious task and highlighted the need forresources.Theirsyllabusdesigndidnotincludeassessmentasadistinctareaofconcernnorthedevelopmentofasetofguidingassessmentprinciplesorcriteria.For the needs of syllabus development, CLIL teachers selected, from the course books,written in Greek, areas which could be adapted into English, so that the languagemeets


97

theirlearners’levelinL2orareasinwhichthecontentimplieduseofspecifictothesubjectvocabularytolearn:

“[…]atthebeginningIhada lookatthebookandthesyllabussuggestedbytheministry, and I saw that some of the things could be left out.My syllabus wasdesignedonthebasisofwhat Ican leaveout.But Iseethatduringtheyearyouhavetobeflexibleandreorganizeaccordingtotheneedsofthestudents”.“I chose from the book chapters that includedmore scientific terminology and Ilookedatthedescriptionandtheaimsfromtheministry,whatthebookincluded[…]”

Occasionally,thepriorityforselectingcontentconcerneditscompatibilitywiththeteacher’sknowledge,aswellastheresourcesavailableandtheestimatedgainsforthelearners:

“[…]thereareinstancesinthesechapterswithinformationthatevenIdon’tknow.Idecided todo thingsaboutGreece,because itwouldbemoremotivatingand Ihavelotsofpicturestoshowthem,thevocabularyisalsoverygood,becausetheywillfinditsometimeinthefutureintheirEnglishclasses”.

The practice of ‘teachermade teachingmaterials for CLIL’ appears common inmany EFLcontexts.SteiertandMassler(2011,p.100),presentinganexamplefromrelevantpracticeinthe context of the PROCLIL project, refers to it as a challenging task because it raisesdemands for the systematic correlation and integration of content and language learningwiththeselectionoftextsandinformationaswellastheirmethodologicaldesignfromthebeginning.AllteachersinthisstudyreportedtousebothprintedmaterialandICTapplicationsintheirCLILclassesandstressedthatmultimodality in resources (alsoseeDemace&Zafiri,2010),facilitatedtheirteachingandincreasedlearnermotivationandtheirparticipation.Carefullyselected materials in CLIL instruction help the integration of content and language andaccording to Guerrini (undated: 82) they can be scaffolding tools for learning. ICTapplications,inparticular,connecttheCLILclassroomtothestudents’everydayrealitiesandpracticesandfacilitatethedevelopmentofdigitalliteracyskills.Inthecontextofthepresentstudy, ICT was also reported as a means towards the enhancement of the teachers’opportunities for assessment of the teaching process and of the learning processes andoutcomes.5.3.2.Learnerassessment5.3.2.1.TypesandpurposeofassessmentCLIL teachers in our study claimed to adopt classroom formative assessment in order tocollectinformationaboutthestudents’learningandtheteachingprocedure:“Thechildren’sanswersshowmewherewestand.Howmuchofthecontenthasbeenassimilated”.ThemainareasassessedformallyarecontentknowledgeaswellascompetencesinL2,useofL2forcommunicationpurposesincludingthepurposesofreceptionandproductionofthe


98

writtenformof languageanddevelopmentofmediationskills.Summativeassessmentwasalsoreportedasameanstowardsassessingthestudents’progressincontentknowledgeattheendofa semesterorat theendof theyear.All teachers in thiscase-studyclaimedtokeepabalancebetweenassessingcontentknowledgeandL2development.Accordingtothequestionnaire findings students are assessed during every class formatively and after theendofateachingunit,throughatest.Theteacherusuallyassessesstudents’understandingof the content, during the class, and they are also given opportunities for self and peerassessment.5.3.2.2.AssessmenttasksandtechniquesDuring the process of devising assessment tasks to check comprehension of content, aseriouspointof concern seems tobe theCLIL students’ levelof competence in L2.As theCLILteachersinthisstudywereEFLpractitioners,theywereawareoftheprogressionoftheL2 level of their CLIL students throughout the school year, so they adjusted the level ofdifficulty of their formative assessment activities and tasks, accordingly. The teacher ofHistoryatgradethreeexplained:

“In the third grade,whenwe startHistory theyhaven’t completed their phonicsbooks,whichteachthemreadingandwriting,soIcan’tdomuchasfarasreadingcontent is concerned. So the first test they are taking after the first unit inMythology,whichisaboutthecreationoftheworld,isatestinwhichtheyhavetoputpicturesintherightorder,sothatIknowthattheyknowwhatcamefirstandwhatfollowed.AsthelessonsproceedandtheydeveloptheirphonicsIgivethemsimplematchingtasks[….]”.

Atthebeginningofgradethree,studentshaddevelopedonlyaural/oralskillsinL2andwerefamiliarwith identifying factsandcharacterspresented inpictures.So, theyworkedonanordering activity which enabled them to show their knowledge of the content withoutrequiring L2 production. Sometime later in the year, they were given amatching activity(Figure1) that required readingat theword level,which theyhaddeveloped inL2. Italsocombinedimageandlanguagewhichfacilitatedscaffoldingofbothinputandoutput.


99

Figure1:Apicture–wordmatchingactivityinHistory-gradethree

In Environmental Studies, in grade three, at the beginning stages of CLIL instruction,comprehension of content and L2 development were checked through arts and crafts.Students were given a map of Greece and, guided by the teacher, had to colour thegeographicalfeatures.

“[….] theyhad tocolour themountainsbrown, the lakesand the riversblue, theislands red. The instructions were read to them [….] and I checked theircomprehensionofthewords“islands”[...]“mountains”,“plains”.

Additionally,theyweregivenablackandwhitepictureofamountainwithtrees,bushesanda riverandwereasked tocolour it and thenpresent it to theclass. Lateron,as students’literacy skills in L2 advanced, they worked on reading comprehension activities whichintegratedknowledgeofthecontentandlanguage(Figure2andFigure3).

Figure2:ATrue-Falsereadingactivity

Figure3:Amultiplechoicereadingactivity


100

Theteacher’sprocessofgradingthedifficultyandvaryingthetypeoftheactivitiesaccordingtothestudents’cognitivedevelopmentreflectstheideaof“embeddeness”andtheeffortto“warm-up” in terms of the topic, the ideas and the language that students will need(Johnstone,ibid)inordertorespondtotherequirementsoftheirtasks.Italsoprovidedthecontextforfairassessment.CLIL teachers of grade three also referred to summative feedback, collected throughactivities,whichweregivenasmid-yeartestsandinvolvedproductionofwrittenlanguageinorder to test content knowledge. The tests were marked and the results werecommunicated to the students and were available for their parents. According to theteacherofEnvironmentalEducationthemid-yeartestaimedatrevisingcontentknowledgeandexpectedfromstudents“[…]towritesomesentences fromthetextwhichtheyhadtostudyathome”inordertorespondtoopenendedquestionssuchas:“Whatdoweneedtodo in order to help the planet?” to which the expected answer was: “we need to saveenergy”. The teacher explained that some students had difficulty in forming completesentences and some others provided answers such as: “save energy”, “turn the computeroff” or “plant more plants”. All these answers were accepted as correct because theyprovided evidence that students had understood the question and had transferredinformation from the subject matter. The students’ answers contained spelling errors,which,however,didnotaffecttheirfinalmark.Astheteacherpointedoutallanswerswereaccepted“aslongasIcouldunderstandthatthey[thestudents]comprehendedthequestionandtheiranswergavemewhatIwanted[…]theinformationImean”.Although this activity functioned as a progress test, which provided a mark, the teacherhighlighted its formative value in helping learners to focus on content information andlanguage.Namely,shedescribedapost-testprocessduringwhichtheclasswentthroughthe answers to the test questions and reviewed language. Coyle (ibid: 2010, p.120)introducestheterm“languageclinic”anddescribesthisprocessofreflectinguponlanguageandcontentas“anecessarysteptosupportbettercommunicationofcontent”.Shesuggeststhatitisausefulversionofcorrectivefeedback“whichunderminescontentconfidence”.AnactivityinHistory(Figure3)giventogradethreelearnersattheendoftheyear,inordertocollectsummativefeedback,isindicativeoftheCLILteacher’smonitoringoftheprogressofL2competencesaswellasoftheeffortmadeinordertoscaffoldcontentknowledgesothatchildrenwillfeelselfsecure.

Figure3:ActivityinHistory–gradethree


101

The activity was based on the production of written discourse and focused on thecomposition of a personal booklet for each student which involved pictures given by theteacherononeof theheroes studiedwithin thesubjectmatterofGreekMythology.Eachstudent had to provide content information in L2 using knowledge gained through CLILHistory and through subjects from the general curriculum. The format of the assessmenttaskfacilitatedthegenerationof ideasandstimulatedinformationaboutthecontentthus,allowinglearnerstorespondinthemostdirectway,accordingtotheirL2capacity.AsisclearlycoinedbyCoyle(ibid2010,p.123)“suchformatactivatesandorganizesthinkingto support maximum demonstration of knowledge, thus forming part of the process ofworkingwithinastudent’szoneofproximaldevelopment”.Inthistest,theexpectedoutputwas quite demanding for the learners as concerns their L2 competency. The CLIL teacherexplained that although accuracy in L2 is expected from the students at the end of theschool year, keeping a balance between testing knowledge of the content and examininglanguageskillsisthekeypriority:“I’mlenientasfaraslanguageisconcerned.Aslongasyoucanmakeoutthemeaning[…]”.Teacher-learnerinteractionwasatechniqueadoptedsoastoacquireformativefeedbackonthestudents’understandingofthecontent.AstheCLILteacherofEnvironmentalEducationinthethirdgradecomments:“BecauseupuntilChristmas,theycouldn’treadorwrite[...],ineveryclass, Iaskedthemquestions,differentquestionsfromwhatwehadcovered,uptoapoint,andIcheckedtheircomprehension.Referring to teacher-learner interaction Coyle (2007, p.556) argues that it is a meanstowards engaging learners cognitively and it generates new language use. Classroomobservation, in the present case-study, provided evidence of questioning as a formativeassessmentstrategyandalsoofstrategiessuchasfocusingoncontent, inordertoidentifycontent words, and elaboration when the teacher noticed that some students had notunderstood a word, a question or what was required by a task. Such strategies are alsoincluded in the findings of Tsagari and Michaeloudes (2013) who researched on theformative assessment patterns adopted by CLIL primary school teachers in Cyprus andconcluded that ‘questioning’ was the main strategy teachers used to assess content andlanguage.Itwasusedtomotivatelearnersandencouragethemtousethetargetlanguage.“Understandability”, that is the degree to which students have understood content, ismentionedas themainassessment criterion,by theCLIL teachers, in this study.A secondonereferstotheabilitytounderstandandusethespecific languageorterminologythatisincludedintheCLILcontentareas.Asathirdgradeteachercomments:“[…]iftheymanagedtounderstand the terminology”.At the levelof input facilitatingunderstandingof contentspecific language was practiced through teacher simplifications and interaction, ascommentedearlierinthissection.The issue of language output appropriate to the subject matter was raised by anotherteacher:“[…]theaimisnot if theywritecorrectEnglish,butafterall it isscience languagethattheyaretryingtouse,sotheyshouldberewardedforthat,theyshouldbeencouraged[…]”.


102

Therefore,assessmentoflanguageandliteracyincontentareasinvolvesassessmentofthelearners’ ability to use the language specific to each subject and, what ismore, to use itappropriately for the purpose of the text and the context of communication. As childrenprogressfurtherintothecontentareatherequirementforlanguageappropriacyincreases.Withupperlevelgrades(i.e.fiveandsix)thecomplexityand/orsensitivityofthecontentaswell as the aims set by theCLIL syllabus also affect theCLIL teacher’s choices for studentassessment. For example, in the context of Religious Instruction the CLIL teacherincorporated“Life skills”among theeducationalaims.This seems tohave influencedboththe type of assessment and the way through which assessment feedback was collected:“Let’s not forget that they are learning life skills and that I’m an English teacher. I’minterestedinthelanguage,thisspeciallanguagewhichisacademiclanguage,inasense.[…]So,Ihavetoexplain.[…]WhatIdoisgivethemexamplesfromlife.[…]theywatchvideos[…]thenwetalkaboutotherreligions”.Theteacherdescribedavisittoaworshipplaceandexplainedthatthestudentsspokewithpeople and learned about differences, to conclude: “There is an amazing amount ofinformationthattheypickedup.Howdoyouassessthat?Well,youcomebacktoclassandhaveadiscussion.[…]wedrawideamapssometimesandIseeiftheyhaveunderstoodthelinkbetweenideasandpractices”.The interactionandelaborationofsubjectmattercontent, ideasandmeanings,as impliedbytheaforementionedprocedures,actasascaffoldingassessmentprocesswhichprovidesformativefeedbackandstimulatesparticipation,interestandthegenerationofknowledge.5.3.2.3.CLILassessmentandprojectworkTeachers in our study referred to project work which they use in order to assess bothcontentandlanguage.Theystressedthecontributionofprojectworkinassessingoutputina differentiated manner, which allows each learner to show what has been learnedaccordingtohisorhercognitivedevelopmentandlanguageabilities.Referring to project work3, at grade five, on the theme “Love your neighbor” the CLILteacherofReligiousInstructionscommented:“Themorecompetentstudentsmadeacomicstripwithalotoflanguage[…]astudentwho’sexcellentatdrawingmadeabeautifulpicturewithsomelanguage.Icouldseethatshehadgraspedthebasicideaandshehadsomebasiclanguage.ThisiswhatIexpectedfromher”.Similarly,gradefivestudentsdemonstratedtheircontentknowledgeinGeographythroughprojects4 which they elaborated upon individually or in groups. These projects provideabundantformativefeedbackaboutthestudents’learningofthecontentandtheirskillsinusinglanguagespecificformsinordertodescribeobjectsorfacts.

3thoseinterestedcanseethestudents’projectsuploadedontheschoolwebsite,at:http://padlet.com/nkdimos/Godislove.4thoseinterestedcanseethestudents’projectsuploadedontheschoolwebsite,at:http://padlet.com/ziakaioa/meet-Greece.


103

Assessingstudentknowledgeandlanguagedevelopmentthroughprojectworkinformstheteacher about cognitive strategies andbehaviourswhich are involved in learning and alsohelpstomakeinstructionmoreresponsivetothelearners’needs.5.3.2.4.CLILassessmentandL1vs.L2In a CLIL context, it is sometimes necessary tomingle L1 and L2 in assessment tasks andactivitiesinordertohelpstudents,whoseL2isnotsufficienttoexpresscontentknowledge,toprovideevidenceoftheirprogress.Tothisend,anactivityinHistoryconstructedforgradefour learners(Figure4),presentedits instructionsinGreek(L1),sothattheinput languagewouldnotbeabarrier.Similarly, thepriority to encourage learners,whose L2 skills are not sufficient, to produceoraloutputrelevanttothecontentinL1isstressedbytheteacherofReligiousInstructions:“Ifyouneed[…]youcansayitinGreek,butIwanttohearwhatyouthinkaboutit”.Theteacherexplainedthat inmixedabilityclasses,slowerstudentsbecameintimidatedbytheir classmateswhowere acquaintedmuch earlierwith the CLILmethodology andwereeager to communicate in L2. In linewith the teacher inour study,Massler (2011,pp.121-122), drawing from research and experience gained from the PROCLIL, EU funded projectclearlystates:

Figure4:ActivityinHistory-gradefour(source:Koutalakidou,2014)

“[...] in case students lack adequate L2 skills to do so, (show what they havelearned in L2) they should either be supported to respond through non-verbalmeans or allowed to use their L1. Sometimes a mixture of L1 and L2 may beallowedinorderforthestudentstoexpresstheircontentknowledgeandsoasnotto putweaker students at a disadvantage.Overall, it could be argued that pre-primary and primary school children in CLIL programmes should be allowed tochoose the language in which they respond to an assessment task [...]the


104

information provided to the teacher by the student’s choice of language canprovidevaluableinformationastotheirforeignlanguagecompetence”.

5.3.2.5.ICTandCLILassessmentCLILteachers, inourcase-study,claimedtomakeuseoftheopportunitiesthat ICToffersfor raising students’motivation towork on and explore the subjectmatter aswell as forfacilitating teachers tomonitor and assess their teaching: “Learner assessment […] comeseverystepof thewayactually. Iusea lotof ICT tools. Iusea lotofgamesand Iuse thembothtogivepractice,opportunityforpracticeforthestudents,butalsoasfeedbackformetoseewhatstudentsunderstand,whatIneedtorevise,whatIneedtogooveragain[…]”.The teacher also pointed out that interactive games in educational platforms motivatedlearners to use their knowledge of the CLIL content area in order to proceed to anothergameordoacrossword:“….theyhavetoanswerquestions(basedoncontent)beforetheygettoplay”.Thechallengeofprovidinganappropriateanswerledtothelearners’reflectionupon content knowledge and raised their awareness of their progress. Thus, they wereinformally involved in a process of self-assessment. Interactive games in educationalplatformswerealsobeencommenteduponasusefulsourcesoffeedbackaboutwhenandhowmanytimesstudentsplayedagameandtheirscores.Thesamegames,playedinclasscanshow“[…]howtheyworkedathomeandhowwelltheyknowtheirmaterial”.Moreover,aselectronicgamescanbeplayedathome,parentswereabletoseewhattheirchildrenhadlearnedandcouldfollowtheirprogress.6.Discussionofthestudy’sfindingsandsuggestionsforfurtherpracticeGenerally,theteachersinthisstudymakeaclearefforttointegratecontentandlanguageintheirassessmentpractices.Theyuseformativeassessmentasacontinuousprocesswhichisinherentintheirteachingprocess,islinkedtolearningandtoeducationalgoalsandappearsastheoutcomeofinteractionbetweentheteacherandthelearnersorthelearnersandthelearning content. Summative assessment occurs in the form of teacher made tests, themarks of which are communicated to the students and to their parents together withgeneral comments about the students’ overall performance. Thus, tests have both asummativeandaformativefunction.McKay(2006,p.68)pointsoutthedistinctionbetweenformativeandsummativeassessmentis“blurred”fortheteachers.Itcanbearguedthattheassessmentpractices,recorded inthecontextofthisexploratorystudy,donotappearaspartofanassessmentschedule,whichwouldlinktotheaimsofthesyllabus and would incorporate clearly defined criteria for student performance andprogressandavarietyoftypesofassessmentandmoreparticularlyalternativeassessment.Such a schedule would reinforce validity and reliability of the formative and summativeassessmentprocesses.Anexampleofassessmentcriteria,whichisseparateforcontentandlanguage,isprovidedbyCalabreseandRampone(2009)ontheTheme“Growing”(Table2).ThesecriteriaarepresentedintheformofCanDoStatements.


105

Theme:GrowingContentcriteria LanguagecriteriaAftercompletingtheunit,studentswillbeableto:

• Distinguish living things from non-livingones

• Identify the characteristics of livingthings

• Sort and classify according to chosencriteria

• Identifyanddescribelivingthingsinaworkofart

After completing the unit, students will be ableto:

• saywhatlivingthingscando• saywhatnon-livingthingscannotdo• recognisesimplewordsandmatchthem

withpictures• describe and complete a picture

accordingtoinstructions• usecontentspecificlanguage

Table2:Anexampleofassessmentcriteria

Suchcriteria canbeorganised inaone-sheet tableofdescriptors thatwillbeusedby theteacher forboth formativeandsummativeassessment.The tableshould involveacolumnfor the teacher’s rating, which can be presented through expressions such as ‘very well’,‘well’,‘unsatisfactory’.It was quite clear, by the teachers’ stance in this study that they strongly believed inalternativeassessmentandpracticedit informally.Alternativeassessmenttechniquesofferadvantages, since they canhelpmeet theneedsof various learning styles, involve criteriawhichprovidedetailedfeedbackofwhatstudentscandoandallowstudentinvolvementinselfand/orpeerassessment.A self assessment instrument on the Theme “Growing”, presented above, could entaildescriptors similar to the ones for the teacher, which have been adapted linguistically tomeettheneedsandunderstandingofyounglearners(Table3).WHATICANDO Icanclassifyanimalsaccordingtothecharacteristicswhichtheyhaveincommon.

Icanidentifysimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenanimals. IcandescribesomeanimalsinEnglish. IcansayinEnglishwhatanimalseat. IcansaythenamesofsomeanimalandtheiryoungonesinEnglish. Icanputpicturesandphrasesinordertoshowthegrowthprocessofafrogorabutterfly.

Icanwriteacomicstoryaboutthegrowthprocessofafrog. Icantellstoriesaboutanimals.

Table3:Exampleofcontentandlanguagedescriptorsforselfassessment

Portfolio assessment can also be used as a tool of alternative assessment for summativeassessment purposes. A student’s portfolio usually involves samples fromhis or herworkovertheyearaswellastestsandself-assessmentforms.


106

Ananswertowardsaframeworkforassessment,whichintegratescontentandlanguage,isattempted by Barbero (2012, p.42). It is based onMohan’s (1986) knowledge frameworkwhichconsidersknowledgeinrelationtolanguageatthelevelsof:1)classification/concepts2) principles/processes 3) evaluation/creation and their language manifestations: 1)description 2) sequence 3) choices. Additionally, this “conceptual” framework involvesthinking skills in the formof lower-orderprocessing (e.g.defining, identifying) andhigher-orderprocessing(e.g.explaining,hypothesizing).The development of frameworks for content and language assessment needs furtherresearchinordertoassistteachers’understandingofthediscoursefeaturesofcontenttasksandtoenhancethevalidityandreliabilityofassessment.7.ConcludingRemarksThis study focused upon the assessment of students’ learning in a Content and LanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL)andpresentsthefindingsofacase-studyconductedattheThird(3rd) Model Experimental Primary School of Thessaloniki in Greece. The teachers of theaforementioned school designed their CLIL syllabus and developed their own material,taking into consideration the educational goals and the learning aims of the respectivesubjectarea,asthisisdescribedintheprimaryschoolcurriculum.They,also,madeaclearefforttointegratecontentandlanguageintheirassessmentpractices.Theyusedformativeassessmentasacontinuousprocesswhichwasinherentintheirteachingprocess,waslinkedto learning and to their educational goals and appeared as the outcome of interactionbetweentheteacherandthelearnersorthelearnersandthelearningcontent.Summativeassessment occurred in the form of teacher made tests, the marks of which werecommunicatedtothestudentsandtotheirparentstogetherwithgeneralcommentsonthestudents’overallperformance.Thus,testshadbothasummativeandaformativefunction.However,theCLILsyllabusdesigndidnotincludeassessmentasadistinctareaofconcern,nordiditforeseethedevelopmentofasetofguidingassessmentprinciplesorcriteria.Itcanbearguedthattheassessmentpractices,recordedinthecontextofthisexploratorystudy,donotappearaspartofanassessmentschedulewhichwouldlinktotheaimsofthesyllabusandwould incorporateclearlydefinedcriteriaforstudentperformanceandprogressandavarietyoftypesofassessmentandtheparticularlyalternativeassessment.Suchaschedulewould reinforce validity and reliability of the formative and summative assessmentprocesses.Thedatacollectedfromthisstudyclearlyshowsthat,assessmentinthecontextofCLILisachallengefortheteacherswhoareobligedtodeveloptheirownmaterialsratherthanhaveaccesstomaterialsdesignedforCLILinstruction.Moreover,thedevelopmentofframeworksfor content and language assessment needs further research in order to assist teachers’understanding of the discourse features of content tasks and to enhance the validity andreliabilityofassessment.Nevertheless, this isa small-scalestudy,anddespite thepositive feedbackof the teacherswhoparticipated, it is necessary thatmore researchbe conducted in the field,withmore


107

teachersapplyingtheCLILanditsassessmentintheirteachingprocess,beforewecancometoanysafeconclusions. ReferencesBarbero, T. (2012). ‘Assessment Tools and Practices in CLIL’. In F. Quartapelle (Ed.),

Assessment and Evaluation in CLIL. Como: Ibis. Retrieved on 18 May 2015 from:www.aeclil.net.

Black,P.&William,D.(1998).‘Assessmentandclassroomlearning’.AssessmentinEducation,5/1:1-74.

Calabrese, I. & Rampone, S. (2009). Cross-Curricular Resources.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Cameron,L.(2001).TeachingLanguagestoYoungLearners.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Check,J.&Schutt,R.K.(2012).ResearchMethodsinEducation.London:Sage.Cohen,L.&Manion,L.(1997).ResearchMethodsinEducation.London:Routledge.Coste,D.,Moore,D.&Zarate,G. (2009).PlurilingualandPluriculturalcompetence.Studies

towards a Common European Framework of Reference for language learning andteaching. Language Policy Division, Strasbourg. Retrieved on 8 October 2015 fromwww.coe.int/lang.

Coyle,D.(2007).‘ContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning:TowardsaConnectedResearchAgenda for CLIL Pedagogies’. The International Journal of Bilingual Education andBilingualism,10/5:543-562.

Coyle, D., Holmes, B. & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum – CLIL NationalStatementandGuidelines.U.K:TheLanguagesCompany.

Coyle,D.,Hood,P.&Marsh,D.(2010).CLIL:Contentandlanguageintegratedlearning.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Cummins,J.(1987).‘Bilingualism.Languageproficiencyandmetalinguisticdevelopment’.InP. Homel,M. Palij, & D. Aaronson (Eds), Childhood Bilingualism: Aspects of Linguistic,cognitiveandsocialdevelopment.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum,57-73.

Cummins,J.(2000).Language,PowerandPedagogy.Clevendon,UK:MultingualMatters.Demace,M.&Zafiri,M.(2010).‘TeachingEnglishand Interculturalism inGreekSchools’.In

L. Grozdariova & M. Pipeva (Eds),Discourses of Globalization. Selected papers of the13th International Conference of the Bulgarian Society for British Studies. SofiaUniversity"St.KlimentOhridski,97-106.

Dendrinos, B., Zouganeli, K. & Karavas, E. (2012). Foreign Language Learning in GreekSchools:EuropeanSurveyonLanguageCompetences.Athens:NationalandKapodistrianUniversity of Athens. Retrieved on 10 December 2015 fromhttp://www.rcel.enl.uoa.gr/fileadmin/rcel.enl.uoa.gr/uploads/images/ESLC_EN_WEB.pdf.

Dörnyei,Z. (2001). ‘Newthemesandapproaches insecond languagemotivationresearch’.AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics,21:43-59.

European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and training. Teaching andlearning: Towards the learning society. Retrieved on the 23 June 2015 fromhttp://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdf.

European Union. (2012). First European Survey on Language Competences: Final Report.Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion.


108

Genesee, F. (2001). ‘Evaluation’. In K. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds), The Cambridge Guide toTeaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,144-150.

Guerrini,M.C.(undated).‘CLILMaterialsasScaffoldstoLearning’.CLILPractice:Perspectivesfrom the Field. Spain: Richmond Publishing. Retrieved on 10-12-2015 fromhttp://www.icpj.eu/?id10.Accessedon10Dec.2015.

Kiely,R.(2009).‘CLIL-Thequestionofassessment’.Retrievedon18-7-2015from:http://www.developingteachers.net/articles_tchtraining/clil1_richard.htm.

Kiely, R. (2011). ‘CLIL-History and background’. In S, Ioannou-Georgiou& P. Pavlou (Eds.).Guidelines forCLIL Implementation inPrimaryandPre-primaryEducation.Retrievedon10-12-2015from:http://www.proclil.org.

Korosidou, E. & Griva, E. (2013). ‘My country in Europe: A Content-based Project forTeaching English as a Foreign Language to Young Learners’. Journal of LanguageTeachingandResearch.AcademyPublisher,Finland,4/2:229-243.

Koutaladidou,B. (2014). ‘An indicativeadaptationofhistoryactivities -exercises in the4thgrade of primary school’. Retrieved on 10-12-2015 from:http://clil.web.auth.gr/?page_id=86(TranslationfromGreek).

Lasagabaster, D. (2011). ‘English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFLsettings’.InnovationinLanguageLearningandTeaching,5:3-18.

Lasagabaster,D.&LópezBeloqui,R. (2015). ‘The ImpactofTypeofApproach (CLILVersusEFL) and Methodology (Book-Based Versus Project Work) on Motivation’. PortaLinguarum,23:41-57.

McKay, P. (2006). Assessing Young Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Marsh, D. (2000). Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages. Finland:UniversityofJyväskylä.

Massler,U.(2011).‘AssessmentinCLIL’.InS.Ioannou-Georgiou&P.Pavlou(Eds),GuidelinesforCLIL Implementation inPrimaryandPre-primaryEducation.Retrievedon18-7-2015from:http://www.proclil.org.

Massler,U.,Stotz,D.&Queisser,C.(2014).‘AssessmentinstrumentsforprimaryCLIL:theconceptualizationandevaluationoftesttasks’.TheLanguageLearningJournal,42/2:137-150.

Mattheoudakis,M.,Alexiou,T.&Laskaridou,C.(2013).‘ToCLILornottoCLIL?ThecaseoftheExperimentalPrimary School inEvosmos’.MajorTrends inTheoreticalandAppliedLinguistics.SelectedPapers,3:215-233.

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and languageintegratedlearninginbilingualandmultilingualeducation.Oxford,UK:Macmillan.

Mohan,B.(1986).LanguageandContent.NewYork:Addison-WessleyPublishingCompany.Nikula,T.,C.Dulton-Puffer&Llinares,A. (2013). ‘CLILClassroomDiscourse.Research from

Europe’.JournalofImmersionandContent-BasedLanguageEducation,1/1:70-100.Papalexatou, E. (2013). ‘Bilingual students in the public primary education context in

Greece’.UnpublishedM.Eddissertation.Patras:HellenicOpenUniversity.Papalexatou,E.&Zorbas,V.(2015a).‘Bilingualstudentsintheprimaryeducationcontextin

Greece:AdeterrentfortheGreekeducationallandscapeorachanceforimprovement?’RethinkingLanguage,Diversity,andEducationConferenceProceedings.

Papalexatou,E.&Zorbas,V.(2015b).‘Towardsgradualfirstlanguage(L1)attrition?’:Cross-linguisticchoicesoftwobilingualstudentslearningEnglish(L3)’.InL.Bash&G.Nikolaou


109

(Eds),CulturalDiversity,EquityandInclusion:InterculturalEducationin21stcenturyandbeyond.InternationalAssociationforInterculturalEducation.

Papalexatou,E&Zorbas,V. (2015c). ‘FusinganL1 identity intoanL3context: ImplicationsforforeignlanguagepedagogyinGreece’.InJ.Spinthourakis&V.Zorbas(Eds.)\CiCea/CiCe Jean Monnet Network Conference: Identity in times of Crisis, Globalization andDiversity:ResearchandPractice.

Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall: identifying processes of classroomassessment’.LanguageTesting,18/4:429-62.

Short,D.(1993).‘AssessingIntegratedLanguageandContentInstruction’.TESOLQuarterly,27/4:627-656.

Stathopoulou, M. (2015). Cross-Language Mediation in Foreign Language Teaching andTesting.Bristol:MultilingualMatters.

Steiert,C.&Massler,U.(2011).‘GuidelinesforEvaluatingandDevelopingCLILMaterials’.InS. Georgiou& P. Pavlou (Eds),Guidelines for CLIL Implementation in Primary and Pre-PrimaryEducation.Retrievedon15-5-2015fromwww.proclil.org.

Tsagari, D. & Michaeloudes, G. (2013) ‘Formative assessment patterns in CLIL primaryschoolsinCyprus’.InD.Tsagari,S.Papadima-Sophocleous&S.Ioannou-Georgiou(Eds),InternationalExperiencesinLanguageTestingandAssessment.FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang,75-93.

Zorbas, V., Papalexatou, E. & Griva, E. (2016). ‘Νεοαφιχθέντα παιδιά μεταναστών στοΕλληνικό Δημόσιο Σχολείο: Εκτιμήσεις, πολιτικές προσέγγισης και αντιμετώπιση τηςυπάρχουσας κατάστασης’. Καλλιεργώντας τις δεξιότητες του εκπαιδευτικού. Athens,Greece:MinistryofEducationPress.

DrMakrinaZafiri(m_nzafiri@yahoo,gr)holdsaPhDinFirstandSecondLanguageTeachingfromtheUniversityofPatra,anMAinTheoreticalandAppliedLinguisticsfromtheAristotleUniversityofThessaloniki,asecond

MAinStudiesinEducationfromtheOpenUniversityofGreeceandathirdMAinthefieldofSociology,PhilosophyandHistoryofLaw,from

theAristotleUniversityofThessaloniki.Shehastwodegrees,oneinLawandaseconddegreeinEnglishLanguageandLiterature,bothfromtheAristotleUniversityofThessaloniki.ShehasworkedwithstudentsofalllanguagelevelsandagegroupsandiscurrentlyworkingasapermanentESP/EAPlanguageteacherattheUniversityofThessalyinGreece.ShealsoteachesattheOpenUniversityofGreeceandmorespecificallyfor

theprogram‘MasterinEducationinTeachingEnglishtoSpeakersofOtherLanguages’andtrainsteachersofotherdisciplinesinASPAITE.

KetiZouganeliwasanexperiencedEFLteacher,TeacherTrainerand

educationalresearcher.SheheldaBAinEnglishLanguageandLiteraturefromtheUniversityofAthensandanMAinTeachingEnglishtoYoungLearnersfromtheUniversityofWarwickinEngland.HermaininterestswereinthetrainingofteachersofEnglishandherpublicationsreferred

toissuesofdidacticsandassessment.KetipassedawayinSeptember2016.


SketchingtheProfileoftheCLILInstructorinGreece

ΣκιαγραφώνταςτοπροφίλτουεκπαιδευτικούπουεφαρμόζειτημέθοδοCLILστηνΕλλάδα

MarinaMATTHEOUDAKISandThomaïALEXIOU

ThepresentpaperaimstosketchtheprofileofCLILinstructorinGreece.BycontrasttomostEuropeancountrieswhereCLILinstructorsaremostlygeneralistsorsubjectteachers,inGreeceCLILinstructionhasbeenassignedeithertospecialistforeignlanguageteachersortoteamsofforeignlanguageandsubjectteachers.AftertherecentpilotimplementationofCLILinstructioninGreekstateschools,weinterviewedEnglishlanguageteachers,generalistteachersandsubjectteacherswhowereinvolvedinCLILteaching,either inprimaryor insecondaryschools.Basedontheanalysisofthe interviewdata,wearegoingtosketchtheprofileoftheCLILinstructorinGreeceandwearegoingtodiscusstheimplicationsforteachereducationprogrammes.

�ΗπαρούσαεργασίαέχειωςστόχονασκιαγραφήσειτοπροφίλτουεκπαιδευτικούτηςCLILστηνΕλλάδα.Σε αντίθεση με τις περισσότερες ευρωπαϊκές χώρες, όπου οι εκπαιδευτικοί της CLIL είναι κυρίωςεκπαιδευτικοίτωνγνωστικώναντικειμένων,στηνΕλλάδαηδιδασκαλίατηςCLILέχειανατεθείείτεσεεξειδικευμένους εκπαιδευτικούς ξένων γλωσσών ή στηρίζεται στη συνεργασία εκπαιδευτικών ξένωνγλωσσώνκαιεκπαιδευτικώντωνγνωστικώναντικειμένων.Μετάτηνπρόσφατηπιλοτικήεφαρμογήτηςδιδασκαλίας CLIL στα ελληνικά δημόσια σχολεία, διεξήγαμε συνεντεύξεις με καθηγητές αγγλικήςγλώσσας,δασκάλουςκαικαθηγητέςγνωστικώναντικειμένωνπουσυμμετείχανστηδιδασκαλίατηςCLIL,είτεστηνπρωτοβάθμιαήστηδευτεροβάθμιαεκπαίδευση.Μεβάσητηνανάλυσητωνδεδομένωντωνσυνεντεύξεων, θα σκιαγραφήσουμε το προφίλ του εκπαιδευτικού της CLIL στην Ελλάδα, και θασυζητήσουμετιςεπιπτώσειςγιαπρογράμματαεκπαίδευσηςτωνεκπαιδευτικών.Keywords:CLILinstructor,primaryschool,secondaryschool,EFLteacher,subjectteacher,Greece.

MattheoudakisandAlexiou/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning8/1(2017)110-124

111

1.IntroductionContentandLanguage IntegratedLearning(CLIL) isanumbrella termthathasbeenusedtorefertoaricharrayofcontent-basedapproaches to languageeducation. In themajorityof thoseapproaches,alanguage other than the language of the curriculum is used to teach school subjects other than thelanguage lessons themselves (Eurydice, 2006; Wolff, 2002). This covers cases of foreign, regional orminoritylanguages.Theteachingofaforeignlanguagethroughcontentisdefinitelynotnewinthefieldof language teaching. CLIL is in fact the European version of content-based instruction (CBI), usuallyassociatedwiththeCanadianimmersionprogrammes,whichstartedin1965(Cenoz,2015;Zaga,2004).The overriding conclusion from studies carried out in the Canadian educational contexts is that theintegrationofL2withcontentmatterismoreeffectivethanL2instructioninisolation(Genesee,1994,as cited in Pérez-Cañado, 2012). The integration of content and language is based on the idea thatlanguagesarenotlearnedfirstandthenusedbutthattheyarelearnedbybeingused(seeGenesee&Lindholm-Leary,2013).CLILhasbeenwelcomedbyschoolsandpolicymakersinEuropeasaconvenientsolutiontotheproblemofachieving thebestpossible learningoutcomeswithin theconstraintsof the school curriculum.Thismethod allows language instruction to become more intensive, since it adds further input to thatprovidedintheregularforeignlanguageclasses,withouthoweveroverloadingtheschooltimetable.Inthisrespect,CLILcanbeeffectivelyimplementedwithseveralforeignlanguages–evenwithinthesameeducationalsetting–andthuspromoteplurilingualism(cf.Lasagabaster&Huguet,2007;WhitePaper,1995).TodayCLILisclearlyregardedonthepoliticallevelasthemainstrategyforcreatingamultilingualpopulationinEurope.TheEUhasofficiallyrecognizeditspotentialinpromotingmultilingualismandthisisobvious in importantpolicydocuments issued thepast15years (e.g.EuropeanCommission,2008).Also, several CLIL projects have been funded by the Council of Europe aiming to support teachertraining,materialsdevelopment,researchanddissemination.CLILisimplementednowadaysatalleducationallevels;preschool,primaryschool,secondaryschoolandhigher education. It is a flexible approach and has been variously adapted to serve the needs of thedifferent educational and cultural contexts where it has been adopted (see also Lasagabaster, 2008;Wolff, 2002). Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010) have referred to this ‘transferability’ of CLIL acrosseducational and cultural contexts as one of the reasons for its success. Coyle (2007) claims that thisflexibilityisbothitsstrengthandpotentialweakness.Itsstrengthliesintheintegrationofbothcontentandlanguagelearninginvaried,dynamicenvironmentswhileitspotentialweaknessliesinthelackofarobust frameworkwith clear aims and projected outcomes (Coyle, 2007, see also Ioannou-Georgiou,2012).Themajorinnovationofthemethodistheemphasisitplacesonthebalanceddevelopmentoflearners’proficiencyinboththenon-languagesubjectandthelanguageinwhichthisistaught.Thishowevermayprove its greatest challenge as well. Achieving this twofold aim calls for the development of aninstructionalapproach,whichpromotes the teachingof thecontent subjectnot ina foreign languagebutwithandthroughaforeignlanguage.SuchanapproachrequiresthatCLILteachersshouldtakeintoconsideration not only how languages are learned and taught but the educational process in general(Eurydice, 2006). Thismultifaceted kindof knowledgehas important implications for theprofessionalidentityof theCLIL instructorandthequestionthat is raised iswhether thisshouldbeacontentoralanguage teacher (Habte-Gabr, 2009). Although a lot has beenwritten about CLIL implementation invariousEuropeancountriesandits linguisticandcognitivegainsforlearnersofvariousages,verylittle


112

has been written about the profile of CLIL instructors (Escobar Urmeneta, 2013 being a recentexception).ThepresentpaperaimstolookintotheprofileofCLILinstructorsinGreeceasthishasbeenshapedthroughtherecentCLILexperiencesinGreekprimaryandsecondaryeducation.

2.CLILinGreeceAccordingtoEurydice(2012,p.39),

“In nearly all European countries, certain schools offer a form of education provision,according to which, non-language subjects are taught either through two differentlanguages,orthroughasinglelanguagewhichis‘foreign’accordingtothecurriculum.Thisisknownascontentandlanguageintegratedlearning.OnlyDenmark,Greece,IcelandandTurkeydonotmakethiskindofprovision”.

ThiswasindeedverymuchthecaseinGreeceuntil2010whenCLILstartedontheleveloflocalgrass-roots activity with the introduction of some CLIL instruction in a particular state primary school inThessaloniki (3rdPrimarySchool:ExperimentalSchoolofEvosmos,supervisedbytheSchoolofEnglish,Aristotle University). This started as a pilot project and for the last 6 years CLIL has been expandingcontinuouslywithintheschoolcurriculum.Currently, theschool isunique inGreecewithregardto itsCLILprogramme.Ithasdevelopedawell-structuredCLILcurriculumthatrunsthroughgrades1to6.TheschoolsubjectsthatareofferedthroughCLILvaryaccordingtothegrade:PhysicalEducationandArtsforfirstandsecondgraders,HistoryandEnvironmentalStudiesforthirdandfourthgraders,Geography,Science,ITandReligiousEducationforfifthandsixthgraders.TheCLILprogrammerunsinparallelwithanintensiveEFLprogrammewhichcoversgrades1to6andprovides5hoursofEFLinstructiontolowergradesand8hourstogrades3to6.Duringthelastcoupleofyears,CLILhasalsoexpandedwithinthebordersofthecountryasabottom-upprocessthankstotheinitiativetakenbytheSchoolofEnglish,AristotleUniversity,someschooladvisorsaswellasthe invaluablehelpandsupportofagroupofCLILteachersworkingatthe3rdExperimentalPrimaryschoolofEvosmos. It iscurrentlypracticedonapilotbasis in fewprimaryschoolsbutalso insome junior and senior experimental high schools in variousGreek cities. Although todate therehasbeennoofficialrecognitionofCLILasamethodofteachinginGreekstateschools,wecannotignoretheenthusiasmandthemotivationofteacherswithvariousbackgroundsandtypesofexpertisewhodecidetoexperimentwiththismethodandinvesttimeandeffortinordertotrainthemselvesandpracticeiteffectively. The Greek case sounds very similar to the Italian one, where, as Infante, Benvenuti andLastrucci claim (2009), CLIL has managed to flourish thanks to the initiatives taken by particularindividualsworkinginsomeItalianeducationalinstitutions.

3.TheCLILinstructorThere is no single blueprint of CLIL that could be applied in different countries and “nomodel is forexport”(Beardsmore,1993,p.39);consequentlythereisnotasingleCLILinstructorprofilethatwouldapplyinallCLILcontexts.InmostEuropeancountriesteachersdonotneedspecialqualificationstoworkinCLIL-typeprovision(Eurydice,2008)buttheyarenormallynon-nativespeakersofthetargetlanguageand are usually content rather than foreign language educators (Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013). Suchchoicesareobviously related to localpolicies but also towell establishedpractices inmostEuropeancountrieswhere,atleastinprimaryeducation,languagesareusuallytaughtbythegeneralistteachers.


113

Bycontrasttothosecountries,theCLILmodelinGreeceseemstogiveprioritytotheforeignlanguagespecialisationandqualificationsofCLIL instructors:As faras theprimaryeducation is concerned,CLILhasbeenimplementedmainlybyspecialistEnglishlanguageteachers,whileinsecondaryeducation,co-teachingbetweentheEnglishlanguageinstructorandthesubjectteacheristherule.ThesechoicesarerelatedtotheequalemphasiswewishtoplaceontheinstructionofboththeEnglishlanguageandthenon-languagesubject, thus tuning inwith the requirementsofCLIL framework.What ismore, foreignlanguage education has been for years a strong and important component of the Greek educationalsystemandassigningtheteachingofCLILsubjects(viz.schoolsubjectstaughtinandthroughEnglish)togeneralistteacherswouldobviouslyclashwithsuchtraditions.Onthewhole,teachers–bothL2andsubjectones–arenotusuallywillingtoimplementCLILteachingprogrammes (Infante et al., 2009). Of course one might claim that such reluctance can be justifiedbecauseoftherequireddualfocusonbothlanguageandsubject:theroleoftheCLILteacherdoesnotinvolvesimplyknowingtheL2andhavingknowledgeofaparticularsubjectarea,asMarsh(2002)hassuggested; the greatest challenge for CLIL teachers is the integration of the target languagewith thesubjectcontent(Snow1998citedin Infanteetal.,2009)andthesuccessfulbalancebetweenthetwo.Thus,CLIL teacher trainingneeds togobeyondthetrainingofa foreign languageteacheror thatofasubjectteacher(Wolff,2002).As the qualifications of teachers is very important for the effective implementation of any teachingprogramme,therequiredcompetences,skills,typesofknowledgeandperhapsbeliefsandattitudesofCLIL teachers need to go under themicroscope. AsMartin et al. (2007 cited in Bruning& Purrmann,2014)have suggested, ifweare interested in the sustainabilityanddevelopmentofCLIL, the trainingand professional development of CLIL teachers are of major importance. Of course, as CLIL isimplemented in various countrieswith different educational systems and cultural characteristics, thelocalcontextneedstobetakenintoconsiderationasitwillplaceitsowndemandsonCLILteachers.Greece,asalreadystated, isoneof the lastEuropeancountries toadoptCLILand teacherswhohavestarted implementingpilotCLILprogrammes in theGreekstateschoolsarenot toomany.Theycomefrom various areas of expertise and educational sectors but none of them holds any specific CLILqualifications.Althoughwearestillatthebeginningofthisenterprise,webelievethatweshouldtakestockinordertolookcloselyatthoseteachers’profileandelicittheirownviewsregardingtheirrecentCLIL experiences. Their answers are expected to inform the discussions about CLIL teachers’competences,skillsandattitudesandcontributetospecificsuggestionsregardingCLILteachertrainingprogrammes.

4.ThepresentstudyInoureffort to sketch theprofileof theCLIL instructor inGreece,wearegoing to carryaqualitativeanalysisofdatafrominterviewsgivenbyCLILinstructors(bothlanguageandsubjectspecialists)inthreestateschoolsinThessaloniki,Greece(1primaryand2secondaryschools).Onthebasisofthisanalysis,wearegoingtoarguethattrainingandsupportingtheCLILinstructorshouldbethecentralfocusofanyfuture planning in the area of CLIL instruction. Such training should aim to help CLIL practitionersdevelop in their students the ability to understand and acquire the content of school subjects in alanguage that is different from their native one (cf. Eurydice, 2006). To that aim, critical thinking,problemsolving,communicationandcollaborationshouldbeseenastheessentialskillstobepromoted(P21Partnershipfor21stCenturyLearning,2015).


114

5.ResearchmethodologyThepresentstudytookplacein2016.ItsmainaimwastosketchtheprofileofEFLandsubjectteacherswhohavetaughtCLILintheirclassroomsbothinstateprimaryandsecondaryschools.Weusedaqualitativeapproachandmoreprecisely,weconductedinterviews,as“qualitativeinterviewdata often gather more in-depth insights on participants’ attitudes, thoughts, and actions’’ (Kendall,2008citedinHarris&Brown,2010,p.1).Thistoolwasdeemednecessary,asinterviewis“anattempttounderstand theworld from the subjects’ points of view, to unfold themeaning of their experiences”(Kvale, 2008,p.1).Questionsposed to the teachers aimedat gaining insight into theCLIL experience,providingaCLILteacher’sprofilebutalsomappingthepatternofdifficultiesteachersandlearnersfaceinCLILclassrooms,astheseareperceivedbyCLILinstructorsthemselves.

5.1ParticipantsEight(8)CLILteachersparticipatedinourstudy:three(3)ofthemareEnglishlanguageteachersandone(1)isageneralistteacherworkingintheprimarysector;therestaretwo(2)Englishlanguageteachersand two (2) subject teachers (Maths and Physics) working in the secondary sector. The imbalancebetween English language teachers and subject teachers is to be expected, as English languageinstructors are nearly always involved in any type of CLIL instruction implemented in Greece in bothprimaryandsecondarysectors.Regardingtheprofileofthoseteachers,three(3)aremaleandfive(5)female; their age ranges between 40-50 years old and they all havemore than 20 years of teachingexperience.Withregardtotheireducationalbackground,theyareallholdersofapostgraduatedegree:Two English language teachers of the primary sector have an MA in the teaching of English as asecond/foreignlanguage;therestoftheparticipantsarePh.D.holders invariousfields.Asfarastheirexperience in CLIL instruction is concerned, teachers working in the primary sector have beenimplementingCLILforabout2-5yearsandpractitionersinthesecondarysectorforaround2years.

5.2ResearchinstrumentsSemistructuredinterviewswereusedinordertoelicitteachers’beliefsandviewstowardsCLILmethod.TheinterviewalsoaimedtohelpthosenoviceCLILteacherstoreflectupontheirrecentexperiencewithCLIL instruction and to consider the effect of this experience on their teaching practices. Participantswere also required to reflect upon the impact of the method on learners’ linguistic and cognitiveachievements.There were thirteen (13) questions in total; ten (10) of them referred to CLIL instruction from theteachers’ point of view and the last three (3)were concernedwith students’ linguistic and cognitivegains.Outofthe10questions,therewasone(1)thataddressedexclusivelyEFLteacherswhileall therestaddressedallCLILteachersinvolved.Theinterviewstartedwithintroductoryquestions,suchasthereasonsforgettinginvolvedinCLIL,theeffectiveness of CLIL compared to subject/EFL classes etc. Issues such as the role of the subject orlanguage teacher in CLIL classes, the impact of each teacher’s expertise in the class they taught, thequalifications needed to teach CLIL and the need for training in CLIL instructionwere raised. Severalquestions required teachers’ reflection on their CLIL experience, retrospective actions they might


115

consideraswellastheimpactoftheirCLILexperienceontheirEFLorsubjectteaching.Finally,teachersdiscussedthe learningaspectsofCLIL instruction; these includedbothcontentandL2gainsaswellascognitivegainsand, inparticular, thedevelopmentof learners’critical thinking,problemsolvingskills,etc.Eachparticipantwasseparately interviewedand interviewstookplaceeitherat theirschoolorattheuniversity.

6.ResultsandDiscussionBelowtheresultsarediscussedalongwiththequestionsfromtheinterviews1.1.WhydidyoudecidetogetinvolvedinCLILteaching?Formostteachers,CLILpresentedachallengeasitisaninnovativemethodandtheywerecuriousandwillingtoexperimentwiththeirteaching.Thesubjectteachersthoughtthat itwouldbeusefulforthestudents, while secondary school EFL teachers suggested that ‘the aim of teaching is different ascommunication becomes meaningful’. Another secondary school EFL teacher made reference to theactuallinguisticgains:‘With CLIL, I can give them, I can help them catch a glimpse of what academic language is, of whatsciencelanguageis,ofhowitisthattheycanuselanguageindifferentdisciplines;other,Imean,thanwhateveritisthathappensinthelanguageclassroom’.TheEFLteacherfromtheprimarysectorfeltthat‘itwasalsosomethingthatwouldbreakany‘boredom’thatcomesfromdoingsimilarthings’andothersagreedthatitwouldalsoenhancemotivation.Soapartfromthe teachers’open-mindedness that isneeded toembarkonCLIL,motivationandwillingness tomakethelessonmoreinterestingaregoodreasonsforadoptingCLILinstruction.2a.Fromthelanguageteacher’spointofview,whatwastaughtmoreeffectivelyduringyourCLILclassesascomparedtotheEFLclasses?Vocabularywasthoughteasierforteacherstodeliverandforlearnerstofigureout;especiallywiththeuseofvisualaids,suchaspictures,becausemostconceptswereconnectedtostudents’experiencesandtheirknowledgeoftheworld.Therefore,boththesignifierandthesignified(wordsandconcepts)wereeasytobestoredandrecalled.Moreover,anEFLteachermentionedthat lexicalchunksandcommongrammatical structures, such as ‘there is/are’, (animal) usually live…/… eat…’ were easily taughtinductivelyandlearnersproducedthemeffortlesslyforcommunicationpurposes.AdifferentEFLteacher interestinglypointedouttheaccumulativeeffectofCLILon learners’ languageuseandacademicdiscoursewhenthesamegroupofstudentshasbeenexposedtoCLILinstructionforlongerthanayearortwo:‘It’srewardingtoseelearnersslowlyspeedinguponcetheylearnhowto"manage"their learningandthematerial introduced.And it isreallysurprising,everysingleyear, toactuallyhearthemintegratingnewvocabularyintotheirspeechintheirattempttoanswerorposequestionsandseethembecoming

1Two of the subject teachers provided their answers in Greek; these have been translated into English by the authors.


116

subject-literatealongtheway.Theirabilitytouse,correctlyornot,inthebeginning,passivevoiceandwordssuchas"regulate","classify",toreplacestructures,suchas"it'sathing"with"it'sanorganism..."or "it's amixture of gases..., to adopt newdiscourse norms, and doing it quite spontaneously, neverceases to surpriseme. And the better they become at it, themore enthusiastic they get, since it isinitiallyconsideredaratherdifficultthingtodo.That'swhyIbelievethatacademicachievementinCLILclasses gives them a much greater sense of achievement and self-esteem which is very easilytransferabletoallothersubjects,whetherintheirmothertongueorforeignlanguage’.Languagelearningstrategieswerementionedbyhalftheteachers:‘…sincestudentsneedtorespondtohigherlinguisticdemandswithpoorlanguagemeans,theyresorttovariousstrategies;…studentswereencouragedtofindwaystogettheirmessagethrough’.AnotherEFLteacheremphasizedthatspeakingcanalsobeeffectivelydevelopedinCLILinstruction:‘IhadstudentswhosecompetencyinEnglish,andespeciallyinspokenEnglish,actuallyimproved;thishelpedmeandencouragedmeevenmore’.2b.Fromthesubjectteacher’spointofview,whatwastaughtmoreeffectivelyduringyourCLILclassesascomparedtoyourconventionalsubjectclasses?Subject teachers were more cautious when it came to the same question concerning their subjectclasses.Theprimaryschoolteacher,inparticular,said:‘I’mnotsureaboutthepossiblebenefitsforthesubjectmatterisolated.Icoulddiscusswithmorecertaintycomparativebenefits inmetacognitiveandaffectiveelements,though’.Inaddition,theMathteacherconcludedthat: ‘Themost interestingthing istheholisticapproachthatmaybeadoptedintheteachingofanysubject.Inmycase,studentshadthechancetoseeMathsinanewlightwithapplicationsandexamplesfromculturalelementsanddailylife’.WhatCLIL instructors’responses indicateistheircertaintyaboutthebenefitsofCLIL.ForEFLteachersthis concernsvocabulary,academicdiscourseandoral fluencyaswellas thedevelopmentof learningstrategies. For subject teachers, CLIL instruction impacts positively on the development of learners’metagognitiveskillsandaffectivestate.3.DoyouthinkthatthefactthatyourexpertiseisinEFLandnotthesubjectyoutaughtrestrictedyourlessonsortheexperienceingeneral?This question addressed exclusively the language teachers. Most of them claimed that this did nothappenalthoughtheymayhavebeen initiallyhesitant.Perhapsthemost informativeanswergiventothisquestion is the following: ‘I neverbelieved that a teacher is or should look like a "know-all" guy.Perhaps it isbecausethis is still theprimaryschoolweare talkingabout,andcontent iseasyandnotverycomplicated.However,Idobelievethatexploringasubjectalongwithyourlearners,forcesyoutoabandonanyideasof"power"andeveryoneistreatedasanequalinclass.Learnershavealwaysbeenverywilling to researchany "grey"areaswhere Ihonestlyadmittednoknowledge toaquestion theymighthavehadandenjoyedbringingbacktoclass informationtheyfound.Working"with"them,andco-searching,bringsanewbalancetotheclassroomandofferslearnersmoreopportunitiesandpower.Iactuallyenjoy,asmuchastheydo,whentheybringinformationthatIortheotherstudentsinclassdonotknow’.


117

AnotherEFLteacheracknowledgesthatthisnon-expertisedidnotrestrictherbutactuallyhelpedherinclass.Inparticularshestated:‘Ithelpedmefindwaystomakemyselfunderstoodincaseswhentherewasdifficultyinexplainingterms,suchas“hibernation”,“gulf”or“mainland”.ThefactthatIknewmylearners’languagecompetencelevelhelpedmeinthedesignandcreationofappropriatematerial,e.g.worksheets’.Therewerealsoonceagainaffectivegainsinthisprocess.OneEFLteacherinparticularstatedthat:‘Mylack of subject knowledge and expertise boosted the psychological state of learners; they were noteasilyembarrassedwhentheydidn’tknowsomething,sinceitwasobviousthatIdidnotknowseveralthingseither’.Judging fromtheanswersabove, itbecomesapparent thatEFL teachers’non-expertise in the subjecttaughtdidnotseemtocauseanyproblemsorlimittheeffectivenessoftheirlessons.Onthecontrary,this lackofexpertiseactuallyboosted learners’selfconfidenceandeventually increasedtheir learninggains.4.DoyouthinkthatafteryourCLILexperienceyouhavechangedthewayyouteachEFLoryoursubject?ThemajorityofEFL teachersbelieve that theirCLILexperiencehashadapositive impacton theirEFLteaching.Oneteachersuccinctlypointsoutthat: ‘Itransferredtechniquesthatworkedwell inmyCLILclasstomyEFLclassandIthinkit"revived"orenrichedmeasanEFLteacher’.SubjectteachersappeartohavebeengreatlyinfluencedbypracticingCLILandconsequentlytheyhavereconsideredthewaytheyapproachtheirsubject.Onesubjectteacherdescribedthisquiteaccuratelywhen he said: ‘I was depending too much on the safety of L1, thinking that learners understoodconceptsandphenomenabecausetheycouldrecognizethewordsphoneticallyevenwhen itcametoterminology.TheuseoftheEnglishlanguage‘forced’metogivemoreemphasisontheexplanationofwordsanddifferentiatemyteaching.Inaway,becauseoftheuseofanotherlanguagefortheteachingofmysubject,the‘transformation’ofacademictoschoolknowledgewasbetterachieved’.ICT integration, more careful selection of materials, use of authentic materials often related to adiscipline,moreinteractionandlesslecturingaresomeofthethingsthatteachersarenowbringinginclass,whilelearnersareperceivedtobemorepositiveandcooperative.5.WhatwastheroleofthelanguageteacherandtheroleofthecontentteacherinCLILclasses?MostoftheparticipantsseemtohaverealizedthatbothEFLandsubjectteachersareessentialpartsinthe CLIL instruction and they complement each other. This was especially true for subject teachers.‘Boththelanguageandthecontentteacherplayedtheroleofthedumbstudentontheotherteacher’ssubject triggering questions and activities and unlocking students’ active participation’. The primaryschool teacher, in particular, argued that: ‘Expertise doesn’t matter but the will to do research,experiment and change perspective to differentiated learning…. the teaching of subject through CLILfocusesonmethodology’.OneoftheEFLteachersintheprimaryschoolprovidesacleardistinctionbetweentherolesofsubjectandEFLteachers:‘TheroleofthelanguageteacheristomakesurethattheL2isusedandpronouncedproperly.Theroleof thecontent teacher is togive thenecessaryextra information for thesubjectas


118

such, in order for the knowledge conveyed to students to be complete in every aspect. The contentteachercanalsogivevaluablehelpwitharts-and-craftssuggestions,whichcanbeusedinclasstomakelearningmorevividandcreativeforkids’.Another EFL teacher describes the interaction between language and content and the cooperationbetweenherandtheMathsteacherinaveryillustrativeway:‘WhenwefirstenteredtheCLILlessons,Iwould,let’ssay,introducesometerminology,…someintroductoryterms,soIwouldgivethemlet’ssayalinguisticframeworkwithinwhichtheycouldwork.Andthenthemathematicianwouldactuallymoveon to introduce the content and the students would feel comfortable doing that. But as wemovedalong, and as we gotmore andmore experience, especially as co-teachers, what happened is that IoftenfoundmyselfcommentingontheMaths,onthecontent,andIoftenfoundmyfellowteacher,themathematician,helpingmeoutwiththelanguagecontent,withthelanguageaspect.So,we,sortof,inaway,sometimesswitchedroles,whichwasveryinterestingtosee’.Onadifferentnote,anotherEFLteacherarguesthatshedoesnotfeellikealanguageteacherinherCLILclasses.‘Ireallydon’tteachthetargetlanguage;Ijustuseit.What,however,myEFLorientationhelpsmewithisthewayIexplainunknownvocabularyorparaphrasetomakethingsclear’.6.DoyouthinkacontentoralanguageteacherismoreappropriatetoteachCLIL?ThemajorityoftheparticipantsseemtoagreethatbothteachersshouldcoexistintheCLILclassroom;however,EFLtrainingisofoverridingimportance.ThemostrepresentativeanswerisprovidedbyanEFLteacher:‘Ithastodowiththeskillsand,especially,thecommunicationskillsandthecollaborativeskillsofbothteachers. I thinkthat itwouldtakeareally,howwouldIput it,asubjectteacherwhohasgotsomehowlanguage-sometypeof languageawareness-andnotonly inEnglishofcourse;his levelofEnglishshouldbeverygood,butit’snotjustthat.Heshouldbeawareofhowlanguageworksandhowitisthatlanguagecanbelearnedbythestudents.That’snumberone.AlanguageteachercancopewithCLIL,especiallywiththingslikescienceetc.ifheisactuallyhelpedoutbyasubjectteacher,becauseyouneedtohaveamorein-depthknowledgeofwhatitisthatyou’reteaching.It’snotjustonthesurface.It’snotjustterminologythatyou’reteaching.Youareactuallyteachingthecontent.Soittakesaspecialkind of language teacher or a special kind possibly of subject teacher but I think that collaborationbetweenthetwoteachersworksbest’.AnotherEFLteacheractuallysuggestedthatallCLILteachersneedtoacquireEFLteachertrainingandthiswasaninterestingcomment:‘DespitethefactthatIbelievethattheaimofCLIListobeeventuallyimplementedbythecontentteacher,Ihavetoadmitthat,sofar,extremelyfew,ifany,areabletodosoeffectively.IhavecometobelievethatinorderforcontentteacherstobeabletodeliverCLILlessons,theyshouldhavesometraininginEFLaswell,or,incaseofalertprofessionals,theyshouldgothroughsomekindofcoachingfromEFL/CLILteachers(which,forme,isratheradisappointmenttorealise)’.Ingeneral,bothEFLandcontentteacherscometoaconsensusthatbothtypesofteachersneedtobepresentandtheyarebothequallynecessaryandvaluableaseachhassomethingtooffertotheclass.ThePhysics teacher, inparticular, claimed thatEFL teachersarebetterequipped for theCLILmethodandtheMathsteacherexplainedthatco-teachingisnecessarybecauseneithertheEFLteachernorthecontentteacherhasathoroughknowledgeofbothforeignlanguageandsubjectteachingmethodology.


119

7.InmostEuropeancountriesteachersdonotneedspecialqualificationstoworkinCLIL-typeprovision.Whatdoyouthinkarethebasicqualificationsthattheyneedtohave?BothEFLandcontentteachersagreethatalanguagecertificateatahighlevelofcompetenceisneeded(C2forcontentteachers).ForEFLteachers,thereshouldbesomesubjecttraining(i.e.Physics,Maths,etc.),particularlyifwearetalkingaboutsecondaryeducation,andforcontentteacherssometraininginEFL methodology (at the level of both pre-service and in-service training). A BA or MA in teachingmethodology and basic certification on the use of computers, knowledge of terminology are alsoconsideredimportantqualifications.8.Retrospectively,whatwouldyouhavedonedifferentlyintheCLILclassyoutaught?Various responses were given to this question: Most of the teachers referred to changes in theorganization, sequence and coherence of the thematic areas covered. Others mentioned that theywould have used more gamelike activities, experiential learning, systematic evaluation, and a morebalancedfocusbetweenlanguageandsubjectcontent.The Physics teacher said: ‘Perhaps more experimental demonstrations and realia exhibitions, bettercoordination with the EFL teacher, more accurate planning of each class session, less lecturing andsolvingofproblemsontheblackboardbytheteacher’.9.WhatshouldateacherconsiderbeforegettinginvolvedinaCLILclass?Participants suggest that prospectiveCLIL teachers should consider the changeof teaching focusCLILrequires,aswellastheskillstheyneedtodevelopinordertobeeffectiveCLILteachers. Inparticular,when planning the content of their lessons, they should consider the knowledge, skills, andunderstanding their students need to develop and not only the information to be conveyed. CLILteachersneedtotreatlanguageinterdisciplinarily.Thelanguageleveloftheteacherontheonehandisimportant; however, knowledgeof themethodology emerges as a vital asset aswell.Oneof the EFLteachersrightlysupportsthat‘....althoughthecontentteacherhastobesureofhis/hergoodlevelintheL2,theFLteacherhastoadoptanewmethodology,sinceCLILrequirestheteachingofasubjectotherthan the “Foreign Language”. So, for the FL teacher the challenge is greater as the focus of teachingshouldnotbeonthe languageassuch.Thismeansthattheexercisescreatedforconsolidationofthematerialorforassessmentneedtohaveadifferentorientation,somethingthattheFLteacherhasnotbeentrainedfor’.ThenumerousdifficultiesfacedbyaCLILteacheraremirroredinoneoftheEFLteacher’sresponse:‘Theteachershouldbeabletokeepupwiththehardwork,bothathomeandintheclassroom-CLILclasses,because thenumberof students, theirdifferent linguistic leveland thehigh linguisticdemandsof thelessonsarereallyexhaustive!’Otherparticipantsmentioned thatCLIL teachers shouldbe self-confident, persistent, cooperative andwilling to work long hours. They should have a positive attitude, lack inhibition and be ready to be‘exposed’.Accordingtooneofthesubjectteachers,theteacherhastodevoteampletimetomaterialdevelopment,toadaptingexistingsourcesandadjustingthesyllabustothelearners’needsandabilities;not the otherway around. In addition, prospective CLIL teachers need to bear inmind that they arecalledtosupporttheirlearnerspsychologically,esp.learnerswithlowlearningreadiness.


120

10.IsthereaneedfortrainingtheCLILinstructor?Themajorityoftheteachersbelievethattraining inCLIL is important.Thisagain isespeciallythecasewhen it comes to the content teachers. They mention the importance of ‘diffusion of effectivepractices’.Anothercontentteachercommentedonthefactthatalthoughteachersarewellacquaintedwith various teaching methods, approaches and techniques (e.g. connectionism, socioculturalapproaches, differentiated instruction, etc.), they often tend to stick to the prescribed syllabi andcoursebooks. According to the same teacher, CLIL instruction resolves this ‘clash’ between teachingmethodology and teaching by the book. What he suggests is that anyone who embarks on CLILinstruction needs to be encouraged and regularly supervised by a mentor, but not necessarily gothroughproperCLILtraining.One of the EFL teachers highlighted the different aspects of CLIL instruction: ‘I think that itwill helpthem….whenyoustudyalsoaboutCLILyouhavesomanydifferenttypesetc.,youknow,oneisboundtogetlostinthemethodology.Youneedtoseehowthisworksinpractice.Howthisworksinpracticeisbasicallythroughcollaboration;soyoueitherdoit intheclassroomoroutsidetheclassroom.[…]withthetrainingyougetsomesortofsenseofwhat it is,howit isthatasubjectcanactuallybetaughtsothatyoucanintegratethatwithlanguagelearningaswell’.TwoteachersalsomentionedthatwithCLILtrainingtherewillbemoreextroversionandteacherswouldgetmotivatedtogotoconferences,publishtheirworketc.Onlyoneteacherthoughtthattrainingisnotnecessary ‘as long as the teacher really understands the differences between a language and a CLILcourse’.11.CouldyoupinpointsomegainsthatyourstudentshadaftertheirinvolvementinCLIL?MostteachersputemphasisontheaffectivefactorsthatcomeintoplayafterCLIL.Accordingtothem,self-confidence is developed while learners’ autonomy is promoted. All agree that learners becomemorerisk-takers,participationincreaseswhilethesilentstudentsbecomemoremotivated.Evenweakerstudentswerefoundtogainmoreconfidenceandperformbetterastheyobservedthateventhe‘good’studentsinclassexperienceddifficultiesinexpressingthemselves.When it comes to linguistic gains, the development of academic language prevails as a response.AccordingtooneEFLteacher: ‘Anotherthing is thatmystudentscannowdealwithwhat Iwouldcall“academiclanguage”.[…]academiclanguage(inEnglish)israrelytaughtatschools’.The Physics Teacher referred to the development of terminology and academic language from thesubject’s point of view: ‘Learners became more “cosmopolitan” being exposed to the subject in itssource language, they “demystified” science getting to know the origin of the symbols used andobtaining alternative views of the subject in the different languages; they learned terminology byexperienceandnotbymemorizingvocabularyentries (sometermsanddefinitionsevenstuck in theirmindsandusedthemastheyinitiallyhadlearnedthemintheforeignlanguagewellafterCLILsessionshadbeencompleted’.All teachers observed that students started paying more attention to the message that had to beconveyed rather than to the form of the language used and thus were liberated from the stress of


121

making language errors. As the primary school teacher noted: ‘…they started correcting themselves,paraphrasingandsearchingforalternativewaysofconveyingthemessageintended’.CLIL is reported tohavean impacton theway learners viewnotonly languagebut also learning andteaching.ThisiswhatanEFLprimaryschoolteachersuggested:‘Whenitcomestothelanguageitself,itis not so much whether they understand more but the way they approach something they do notunderstand. While in the beginning they do not dare to make guesses and proceed on theirassumptions, towards the end they can "juggle" with unknown vocabulary/expressions/text. And (asthey say) they stop thinking that the teacher is theonlymeans for acquiring information/knowledge.However,theirrespectfortheteacherdoesnotlessen;quitetheopposite.I’veseenovertheyears,withmysixthclassstudents,thattheydoassesstheirownprogressandindependence,appreciateitandgiveyou,theteacher,morecreditforactuallyhelpingthemarrivethere.Yougetmorerespect,notless.’12.DoyouthinkthatviaCLILlanguages(oryoursubject)islearnedmoreeffectively?Mostparticipants respondedpositively to thisquestion; forexample the followingprimary schoolEFLteacher: ‘Yes, I dobelieve it, since it’smore inputas far as language is concerned. Theyare called toguess meanings and make associations that they normally do in their mother tongue. As far as mysubject is concerned (Environmental Studies), there are many people who object and say that kidsshouldknowtheterminologyinL1firstandnotintheL2.Basedonmybriefexperience,Ibelievethatthis is a unique experience for my learners because they can comprehend concepts that they willencountereventuallyinhigherclassesandsotheywillalsolearntheL1term.Fornow,though,Ibelievethat it is extraordinary the fact that thebasis of this knowledge is in a foreign languagewhich is notspokenoutsidetheclassroom.The learners’higher thinkingskillsareactivatedandthishelps them inthelongrun’.SimilarweretheviewsofthePhysicsteacherregardinghissubject:‘Yes,becauseoftheextraeffortthestudents feel compelled to put (due to the foreign language) and because of the extra activities andresources(videos,demonstrations,etc.)theteachermustemploy’.However,oneprimaryschoolEFLteacherwasmoreskepticalregardingthepurelylinguisticgainsofCLILinstruction. Sheactuallybrings forwardanddiscussesother typesofgains,equally importantbut lesseasilyidentifiable:‘I’mreallynotsure.IamcertainthatCLILdoeswonderswiththeirlearningstrategies,readinghabits,self-managementandself-esteem.However,Iwouldnotdaretoexpressabsoluteviewswith respect to language learning in itself. It surely has awashback effect, but I think it affects theirstrategiesandhabitsratherthanthelanguageitself’.13.CanyoumentionsomecognitivegainsthatyourstudentshaveaftertheirinvolvementinCLIL?Themajorityoftheparticipantsmentionedcriticalthinking,collaborationthroughworkonprojectsandpresentations, research skills, risk-taking, problem-solving and communication, among the cognitivegains of CLIL instruction. According to most of them, through CLIL instruction, learners developresourcefulness, theytry toviewatopic fromdifferentangles, theyreflectontheir lessonsandmakeassociationswithalreadyexistingknowledge,andtheyareeagertosharetheseexperiencesinclass.


122

AsoneoftheEFLteacherspinpoints: ‘I’veseenstudents"bloom"afterworkingonprojectswiththeirclassmates.Would thesamethinghappen if theprojectwas in theirmother tongue?Don'tknowbutratherdoubtit’.Another EFL teacher from the secondary school commented on the development of learners’metaliguistic gains. Sheobserved that inferencing skills develop and learners realise that they donotneedtoknoweachandeveryword ina text.Theyunderstandthat theycandomorethingswith thelanguage; theyshyaway fromtheABCD ‘multiplechoiceapproach’and theybecomecriticalwith thetext.The primary school teacher, the only generalist teacher who taught CLIL in this primary school,suggestedthat‘…learnersacquirecriticalthinkingastheytrytounderstandandassignmeaningtothenew concepts presented without actually knowing the words involved. Basically, this means thatlearnerscannotrelate theEnglishwordto itsGreektranslationequivalentbut instead theyare ledtoacquire a deep understanding of the content. What I found out is that the lesson planning in CLILinstructionisinevitablygearedtowardsthedevelopmentofcriticalthinking’.‘As to theproblemsolving skills’, according to the same teacher, ‘theseare skills that Sciences targetanyway since they base their methodology on observation-assumption-experimentation-conclusions.CLILinstructionpromotesthisprocedurebydefault,aslearnersareencouragedtodrawconclusionsbyobserving, hypothesizing and experimenting, since they lack the naïve reassurance that theirmothertongueprovidesthemwith’.7.ConclusionandfurtherrecommendationsThe recent pilot implementationof CLIL instruction inGreek state schools has created a new typeofschoolteacher,theCLILinstructor.EightCLILteachers(bothlanguageandsubjectspecialists)inprimaryandsecondaryschoolsinThessaloniki,Greece,participatedinthepresentstudy,whichaimedtosketchtheir profile and discuss their views, reflections and suggestions regarding their experiencewith thisinnovativeteachingmethod.All participants shared similar educational backgrounds, all being postgraduate degree holders, withsimilar length of teaching experience. Their expertise and professional context (primary or secondaryeducation)variedbutdespitethesedifferences,theirresponsesveryoftensharedcommonpatterns:Inparticular,allparticipantsagreedthatchallenge,curiosityandinterestforthisinnovativemethodwerethe main reasons behind their decision to embark on CLIL instruction. As to the learners’ gains, allparticipants focused on the important affective impact CLIL seems to have on learners since it helpsthem increase their motivation, confidence, self-management, and self-esteem. Additionally, mostteachers referred to the linguistic gains and, in particular, to the academic language learners acquirethrough CLIL as well as to the development of their speaking skills and oral fluency. What is moreimpressive,though,isteachers’referencetocognitiveandmetacognitivegains.Thisseemstobeaviewshared by all teachers in both primary and secondary education. Learners’ ability to think critically,tolerateambiguities,takeriskswhenguessingandinfermeaningsbasedonthecontextareonlysomeofthe skills learners are reported to develop after being taught through CLIL. Interestingly, as subjectteachersnoted,thelackofL1useinclass‘forced’learnerstoemployhigherorderthinkingskillsinordertoacquirethenewknowledge.Atthesametime,thislackofL1supportworkedbothwaysandequallyaffectedteachers’teachingchoices,sincetheycouldn’tdependanymore“onthesafetyofL1”andhad


123

to use alternative resources – besides linguistic ones – tomake the content comprehensible. Finally,withrespecttothequalificationsandskillsrequiredforCLILteaching,mostparticipants, languageandsubject teachers alike, pointed out the need for CLIL training focusing on both language and subjectteaching methodology. A relevant point is that all teachers agreed that CLIL instruction requiressystematic collaboration between EFL and subject teachers; EFL teachers lack the expertise inspecializedfields–especiallyinthecaseofsecondaryschoolsubjects–whereas,subjectteacherslackthemethodologyofteachinglanguagesandthus,theskillsrequiredforteachingtheirsubjectthroughandinaforeignlanguage.ThislastpointwasbroughtaboutbyseveralEFLteachers,sincetheyfeltthatsuchtrainingwouldenablecontentteachersnottoovercomethelanguagebarrier–this isadifferentissue–buttodeliverunknowninformationinaforeignlanguageeffectively.Basedonthisprolificinformationprovidedbytheparticipantsinourstudy,wewouldsuggestthatCLILprofessional development should aim to provide mainly methodological competence in interactiveteachingandlearningapproaches(BritishCouncil,2014).Thistrainingshouldbeintegratedinbothpre-serviceand in-serviceteachereducationprogrammes. Inasimilarvein,dualtrackspecializationsoratleast specialization in one subject through CLILmethodology for all teachers in pre-service educationprogrammes would allow the development of teachers’ CLIL competence and facilitate theimplementation of CLIL instruction. In this respect, the design of a CLIL competence frameworkembeddedintotheCEFRwouldprovideacommonframeworkofreferencetoallCLILtrainersandthiswouldimpactpositivelyonthepre-serviceandin-servicetrainingprogrammes.ReferencesBeardsmore,B.(1993).Europeanmodelsofbilingualeducation.MultilingualMatters.BritishCouncil(2014).CLILPolicyandPractice:Competence-basededucationforemployability,mobility

andgrowth.LakeComo,Italy.Brüning,C.I.&Purrmann,M-S. (2014). ‘CLILpedagogy inEurope:CLIL teachereducation inGermany’.

UtrechtStudiesinLanguageandCommunication,27:315-338.Cenoz,J.(2015).‘Content-basedinstructionandcontentandlanguageintegratedlearning:Thesameor

different?’Language,CultureandCurriculum,1/28:8-24.Coyle,D.(2007).’ContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning:TowardsaConnectedResearchAgendafor

CLILPedagogies’.InternationalJournalofBilingualEducationandBilingualism,10:543-562.Coyle, D., Hood, P.&Marsh, D. (2010).CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress.Dalton-Puffer, C. & Smit, U. (2013). ‘Content-and-language-integrated learning: A research agenda’.

LanguageTeaching,46/4:545-559.EscobarUrmeneta,C.(2013).‘LearningtobecomeaCLILteacher:Teaching,reflectionandprofessional

development’.InternationalJournalofBilingualEducationandBilingualism,16/3:334-353.Eurydice (2006).Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. European

Commission(Directorate-GeneralforEducationandCulture).Eurydice (2008). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. European Commission,

Directorate-GeneralforEducationandCulture.Eurydice(2012).KeydataoneducationinEurope.Brussels:Education,AudiovisualandCultureExecutive

Agency.Genesee, F. & Lindholm-Leary, K. (2013). ‘Two case studies of content-based language education’.

JournalofImmersionandContent-BasedLanguageEducation,1/1:3–33.


124

Habte-Gabr, E. (2009). ‘Maintaining professional identity in CLIL instruction’. Humanising LanguageTeaching,11/5.Retrievedon15April2015from:http://www.hltmag.co.uk/oct09.

Harris L.R.&Brown,G.T. (2010). ‘Mixing interviewandquestionnairemethods:Practical problems inaligningdata’.PracticalAssessment,Research&Evaluation,15/1:1-19.

InfanteD.,Benvenuto,G.&Lastrucci,E.(2009).‘TheeffectsofCLILfromtheperspectiveofexperiencedteachers’. InD.Marsh,P.Mehisto,D.Wolff,R.Aliaga, T.Asikainen,M. J. Frigols, S.Hughes,&G.Langé(Eds),CLILPractice:PerspectivesfromtheField.Jyväskylä:UniversityofJyväskylä,156–163.

Ioannou-Georgiou,S.(2012).‘ReviewingthepuzzleofCLIL’.ELTJournalSpecialIssue,66/4:495-504.Kvale, S. (2008).Interviews:An introductionofqualitative research interviewing. ThousandOaks: Sage

Publications,Inc.Lasagabaster, D. (2008). ‘Foreign language competence in content and language integrated learning

courses’.TheOpenAppliedLinguisticJournal,1:30-41.Lasagabaster,D.&Huguet,A.(2007).MultilingualisminEuropeanbilingualcontexts.Languageuseand

attitudes.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.Marsh,D. (2002) (Ed.).CLIL/EMILE–TheEuropeandimension:Actions, trendsand foresightpotential.

Strasbourg:EuropeanCommission.PérezCañado,M.L.(2012).‘CLILresearchinEurope:Past,present,andfuture’.InternationalJournalof

BilingualEducationandBilingualism,15/3:315-341.P21Partnershipfor21stCenturyLearning(2015).Retrievedon15Januaryfrom:http://www.p21.org.TheEuropeanqualificationsframeworkforlifelonglearning(2008).EuropeanCommissioneducationand

culture lifelong learning: Educationand trainingpolicies.Coordinationof lifelong learningpolicies.Belgium:EuropeanCommunities.

White paper on education and training (1995). Teaching and learning: Towards a learning society.Brussels:EuropeanCommissionWhitePapers.

Wolff, D. (2002).Content and Language Integrated Learning: An evaluation of theGermanapproach.Brussels:BrusselsUniversityPress.

Zaga,E. (2004). ‘I symvoli tonmathimatoneidikotitasstiglossikiagogi. Ididaskalia tisNeasEllinikisosdefteris glossas me emfasi sto periekhomeno ton gnostikon antikeimenvn toy AnalytikouProgrammatos’.[Thecontributionofschoolsubjectstolanguageeducation.TheteachingofModernGreek as a second languagewith a focus on the content of subjects of theNational Curriculum].Ph.D.Thesis.AristotleUniversityofThessaloniki.Thessaloniki:Enyaleioklirodotima.

MarinaMattheoudakis([email protected])isatenuredAssociateProfessorattheDepartmentofTheoreticalandAppliedLinguistics,SchoolofEnglish,Aristotle

UniversityofThessaloniki.SheholdsanM.A.inTEFLfromtheUniversityofBirmingham,U.K.andaPh.D.inAppliedLinguisticsfromtheAristotleUniversityof

Thessaloniki.Hermainresearchinterestslieintheareasofsecondlanguageacquisitionandteaching,CLIL,corporaandtheirapplications.

ThomaïAlexiou([email protected])isanAssistantProfessorattheDepartment

ofTheoreticalandAppliedLinguistics,SchoolofEnglish,AristotleUniversityofThessaloniki.SheholdsanM.A.inTEFLfromCanterburyChristChurchUniversity,

U.K.andaPh.D.inAppliedLinguisticsfromSwanseaUniversity,Wales,UK.Herexpertiseisonearlyforeignlanguagelearning,methodologyofteachinglanguages,

CLILandmaterialdevelopmentforveryyounglearners.


TheManyShadesofCLIL:ACaseStudyofCLILApplicationbyEnglishTeachersofVeryYoungLearners

ataGreekPrivateSchool

Οιπολλέςαποχρώσεις/σκιέςτουCLIL:ΜιαμελέτηπερίπτωσηςεφαρμογήςτηςCLILαπόεκπαιδευτικούςτης

ΑγγλικήςσεμικρούςμαθητέςσεέναΕλληνικόιδιωτικόσχολείο

EugeniaP.ISKOS,CamillaRALLSandSofiaGEGKIOUThis study hones in on the practices and perceptions of a group of English teachers in aprivate school in Greece through analysis of semi-structured interviews and journals withNVIVO7,aCAQDAStool.TheresearchwasconductedtoilluminatetheapplicationofCLILatveryyoungages,pre-kindergartentograde3.AlthoughthereisadiverseapplicationofCLILat these ages, there are is common ground more so because of the teacher and schoolapproach.FindingsalsoshowedthatteachersfindCLILtobeanintegralpartoftheirlessons.Barriers toCLIL for the teachersaremostlyaneed for collaborationwithothers, timeandplanning.

�Ηεργασίααυτήεστιάζειστιςπρακτικέςκαιστιςαντιλήψειςμιαςομάδαςεκπαιδευτικώντηςαγγλικής γλώσσας ενός ιδιωτικού σχολείου στην Ελλάδα μέσα από την ανάλυσησυνεντεύξεων και καταχωρήσεις ημερολογίων με τη χρήση NVIVO 7, ενός εργαλείου γιαποιοτικήανάλυση.ΗέρευναδιεξήχθηγιανααναδείξειτηνεφαρμογήτηςμεθόδουCLILσεπολύ μικρές ηλικίες, από το νηπιαγωγείο έως την 3η τάξη του δημοτικού. Παρόλο που ηεφαρμογή της CLIL γίνεται με διαφορετικό τρόπο σε αυτές τις ηλικίες, υπάρχουν κάποιακοινάστοιχείαλόγοτωνπροσεγγίσεωντωνδασκάλωνκαιτουσχολικούπεριβάλλοντος.Ταευρήματα κατέδειξαν πως οι εκπαιδευτικοί θεωρούν ότι η CLIL αποτελεί αναπόσπαστομέροςτωνμαθημάτωντους.ΑυτάπουθεωρούνεμπόδιαγιατηνεφαρμογήτηςCLILείναιηανάγκησυνεργασίεςμετουςσυναδέλφουςάλλωνειδικοτήτων,οχρόνοςκαιοσχεδιασμός.KeyWords:CLIL, very young learners, case-study, teacherperceptions, implementationofCLIL.

Iskos,RallsandGegkiou/ResearchPapersinLanguageTeachingandLearning8/1(2017)125-136

126

1.IntroductionThe learningof foreign languagesand their cultureshasbeena staple inEurope. Learningvarious disciplines in non-native languages has had amore rugged development since itsintroduction in the 1990s (a summary of the actions can be found in the document‘EuropeanCLILMilestones’).ThecultureandthedifferentstateeducationalsystemsaffecthowcontentareasfortheteachingofEnglish(CLIL)areapplied.Itmayinvolveusingnativelanguageteachersofasubjectmatterteachingaclassand/orspecificlessonsasinGermany(Vasquez, 2009) or teaching modules of certain content within language classes in Italy(Ranieri, 2013). In Spain other different examples of CLIL are taught. English teachers orclassroom teachersmay teach specialized content in amodular form to younger students(Muñoz & Navés, 2009). The teaching of CLIL can thus be found in a large continuum(Banegas,2012a).1.1 TheteachingofCLILinGreece1.1.1 ForeignLanguageTeachinginGreeceLearningEnglishisencouragedfromtheearlyyearsinGreece.Englishisarequiredsubjectfromgrade3regularscheduleorfromgrade1alldayschools(Dendrinosetal.,2013).StateschoolshaveEnglishclasses for3hoursperweek.PrivateschoolsoftenhavedailyEnglishclasses from pre-K. A second foreign language is introduced in the 5th grade of primaryschool. However, CLIL has not been officially implemented state-wide (Eurydice, 2006,2012).OpportunitiesforCLILremainrestrictedtohoursallocatedfortheteachingofforeignlanguages,withinisolatedprojectsorafter-schoolclasseswhengovernmentrestrictionsdonotapply.Insomeinstances,thereistheneedfortheprocurementofspecialpermissiontoteachforeignlanguages/CLILduringsetflexiblehoursduringtheweeklyschoolprogramthatarereservedforrevisionsormorein-depthstudyduringthecourseoftheweek.1.1.2 CLILinGreekSchoolsGreeceremainsoneofthecountrieswhichhavenotformallyadoptedsomeapplicationofCLIL(Eurydice,2012).Despitetheinstitutionalrigidity,afewschoolsinGreeceseemtohaveshylybegunsomeformofapplicationofCLIL.Experimentalschoolsstateschoolshavebeenat the forefront in applying aspects of CLIL. Experimental schools have a charter allowingthem to divert from the state educational program in order to pilot new educationalmethodsandcontent.TheteachingofCLILintheseschoolshasdelvedintovariouscontentareassuchasEnvironmentalStudies,history,geography,religiousstudiesandtheArts(seeKorosidou&Griva,2014;Papadopoulos&Griva,2014).MostCLILcourseshavehadlimitedexposuretimelastingfromafewdaystoashortperiodoftimewithfewexceptionssuchastheexperimentalschoolofEvosmoswhichhasintegratedaCLILstudiesprogramsfromthethirduntilthesixthgradeclass(Matheoudakisetal.,2014).Therehavebeensomeinstancesof secondary level state schools thathaveexploredCLIL indifferent subjectsand formats.The3rdHighSchoolofLarissaimplementedCLILwithinaclassprojectdealingwiththetopicofDemocracyusingbothanEnglishteacherandacontentteacherusingthenativelanguage(Kollatou, 2013). There was team teaching using both L1 (first language) and L2 (secondlanguage)languages.AnotherstateschoolinaprovinceofLarissataughtanEnvironmentalunit in English with the local Greek student population and a group of foreign exchangestudentsfromBelgium(Oikonomou,2012).InprivateschoolsthathaveGreekastheirmainlanguageofinstruction,therearenopublisheddataofhowCLIListaught.Frominformationonwebsites,CLILisseentobetaughtafter-school,inclubsorwithintheEnglishprogram.


127

MostofthepracticesconcerningCLILfrompublishedreports(Kollatou,2013;Korosidou&Griva, 2014; Matheoudakis et al, 2014; Oikonomou, 2012) have been limited to upperelementaryclassesandtosecondaryschoolstudents.CLILinlowergradespre-ktograde3hashadlittlepublishedimplementationinGreece.1.2 TeacherPerceptionsofCLIL1.2.1TrainingandKnowledgeCLILKnowledge and trainingof teachers involved in teachingCLIL is vital for creating a qualityprogram (Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011). Training for teachers in Greece in CLIL hasbeenlimitedtoLanguageConferencesandtrainingsessionsprovidedbytheGreekMinistryofEducationto itsstate teachers.According toGrivaetal. (2014)mostGreekandCypriotESLteachersperceivedthemselvesasinadequatelytrainedonCLIL.1.2.2ConfusionconcerningCLILTeachers have ambiguity concerning the aims and teaching of CLIL. Teachers inPokrivcakova’s study (2013) in Slovakia voiced concerns about what to assess, how topracticallyprepareforCLILclassesandhowtoteachinawaythatwasnotcompatiblewiththe local schools. Vasquez and Rubio (2010, p.49) note the differences between teachingcontentinaforeignlanguageandthroughaforeignlanguage.“Thismeansthatthecreativeuse of language could be the key to understanding, and use is not necessarily tied toaccuracy”.Finally,LasagabasterandSierra(2009)describetheconfusionthatteachersmayhavebetweenimmersionandCLILprogramsinSpain.1.3 CLILforveryYoungLearners

1.3.1EarlierStartsintheTeachingofEnglishThe teaching of English in Greece is being implemented at even earlier ages within thenationalGreekcurriculum.Thisalignswiththeliteraturefromaglobalperspective(Enever&Moon,2008)showingthatinternationallyparentsandgovernmentsareapplyingpressuretoinitiateEnglishatearlierages.AlthoughmostpublicschoolsinGreecebeginteachingEnglishatthethirdgradeofprimaryschool, ithasnowbeenpushedontothe1stgrade(Eurydice,2012).1.3.1BarrierstoCLILCLILrequiresknowledgeinaspecializedfieldalongwithknowledgeoftheEnglishlanguageand skills in engaging students to understand, use and apply vocabulary in a foreignlanguage within a specific content field (Coyle, 1999). Banegas (2012b) review of theliteraturepresentsbarrierstoteachingCLILfromatop-downapproachnotingadministratoraims and their lack of knowledge to teacherswhomay not understandwhat is expectedfrom them and their own lack of knowledge of English or content. In Greece, isolatedtraininghasbeenavailabletoteacherssuchassmallpilottrainingcoursesatspecificschools(e-CLILT,2008),butnotacomprehensivenationaleffort.


128

2.CaseStudy2.1AimofCaseStudyThisisacasestudyofthecharacteristicsofCLILencounteredintheEnglishdepartmentofaprivate school in Thessaloniki, Greece that teach to very young learners at the grades ofKindergartentograde3elementary.TheaimofthestudyistounderstandtheextentofCLILwithin theEnglishdepartmentand somequalitative characteristics thatare involved in itsteachingattheschool.AmajorpartoftheCLILattheschoolcameintheformofthenewlypilotedScienceTechnologyEngineeringandMath (STEM)programtaught inEnglish in thesecondgrade.2.2DescriptionoftheSTEMprogramThe STEM program involves the teaching of Sciences in a lab environment for 2 hours aweek, one ofwhich is in English and one inGreek. Both theGreek and the English STEMlessonplansaredesignedbytheEnglishteamteacherwhoholdsdualdegreesinEnglishandin theSciences.Thereare3classroomsectionswith3differentclassroomGreekteachers.TheclassroomteacherswiththeleadEnglishteachermetweeklytodiscussandrevisethelessonplansjointly.TheclasseswereheldatalabduringtheSTEMhours.TheEnglishSTEMclasswas under themain supervision of the English teacherwhile the classroom teacher,alsopresentinclass,playedasupportingrole.3.Methodology3.1CaseStudyDesignThis case study involved gaining descriptive data from two concurrent activities at theschool,EnglishteachingandSTEM.ThecasestudywasboundedbytheexperiencesofCLILwithin the English department which according to Merriam’s (2009) definition of casestudies is, “An in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system” (p.37). A mixedmethod approach was utilized in order to be able to view the processes and grasp theramifications involved in theapplicationofSTEMbytheEnglishdepartmentat theschool.ThreeformsofdatacollectionwereusedforthiscasestudyofteachingCLILatveryyounglearners.Theyincludedsemi-structuredinterviewsofthesixEnglishteachersinvolvedintheteachingofK-3grades,theuseofjournals/diariesfromtheEnglishSTEMteacherandfinallyexamplesoflessonplansinvolvedintheSTEMpartofthecasestudy.Theresearchquestionsdrewontheteachers’experienceandunderstandingofCLILandprovidedtheirperspectiveson CLIL. The journal entries of the STEM teacher focused on the description of herexperienceandherreactiontothepilotproject.Since,theSTEMteacherisalsooneofthecontributing researchers of this article, the collaborating researcher provided anobjectiveviewpointintheanalysisandwritingofthepaper(Tennietal,2003).Theinclusionofthelabhandouts to the students provides a secondary source to the journal entries in order totriangulatethedataavailableandprovidevaliditytotheresearch(Yin,2013).The teacher interviews were conducted in English during the months of April, May andOctober2015.TheSTEMpilotprogrambegan inSeptember2015, so thatqualitativedatabetween the months of September and December were provided. This data involvedpersonaljournalswrittenbytheSTEMteacherandthehandoutsprovidedforthestudentswithintheclassroom.


129

3.2DataAnalysisThe teacher interviews, the journals andall of thematerialprovided for theSTEMclasseswere imported intoNVIVO7,acomputer-assistedqualitativedataanalysis (CAQDAS) tool.Thesedocumentswereanalyzedusingcoding(Glaser&Strauss,1967).Codeswereusedtoformulate patternswithin the data and draw conclusions during a continuous process. AsdescribedinMilesandHuberman’s(2010)handbookofQualitativeDataAnalysis,theuseofcoding,reflections,observationsandcontinuousinputofinformation,“socialsystemmodelsmaythenbedeveloped,whichspecifytherelationshipswithindifferentphenomena”.4.Results4.1TheBreadthofCLILaccordingtotheEnglishTeachersattheSchoolTheEnglishteachersattheschoolhadavariedexperienceofusingCLILwithrespecttothecontentareasusedandtotheclassroomtimeallocatedtoCLIL.CLILspannedtherangeoftakinguppartofaclasshourtobeingyear-longcoursessuchasSTEM.TeacherscreatedCLILlessonsinacontinuum.Somelessonsfocusedoncontentinordertoexpandvocabularyandintroducestudentstocriticalthinkingskills,computers,cultureetc.“Also,withboth1stgradersandKindergartenkidswhenwedidseaanimals,weheardthewhale sounds and they tried to imitate them and spoke about their size and intelligencecompared to other sea animals. Then I showed them a book from the national historymuseumandsawtherealwhalethatwasondisplayincomparisontotheotheranimalsoftheforestorjungle”.“In3rdgradewedidaunitonplanets.Studentscreatedaplanetandlearnedhowtousecomputers”.Anotherteachermentioned:“Alsowetalkedaboutcultureandtaboos,tattoosandfashionaswellascuisineasasignofculture.Wesaidhowalltheseareinfluencedbytheregion,thelatitudeandthereligion”.Other lessons used content as a means to motivate learners into learning a grammarphenomenonortopracticespeakingskills.Thecontent,however,doesnotremainboundedby the language and can lead further to other kinds of understanding for the students.“Basedonthevocabularywehavelearnt(apple,mirror,basket,beautiful,girletc.) Imighttellorcreateastory(Snow-whiteandthe7Dwarfs)whichIrepeatforacoupleofdays[…]Thenwegettoactthesedialogues/expressionsout(herecomestheDramapart)”.“Wewillalsouseartsuchas inmy2ndgradeclasswhenwewerediscussingprepositionsofplace. Idid a speaking activity using a painting of Van Gogh’s bedroom. This led to students’curiositybythisformofartandtoviewinganddiscussingdifferentpainters”.The teachers in the examples above used different content areas of CLIL such as Art, theSciencesandtheSocialSciences inordertomotivatestudent interesteither intheEnglishlanguageortowardsanothercontentarea.Contentareassuchastheexampleontheplanetunitexpandedfurtherintootherareas.UsingCLILintheclassroomevenforisolatedlessonsallows teachers to enrich students into more areas that they could possible if the classremainedanEnglishlanguageclassinastrictersense.4.2IssuesinvolvedinTeachingCLILThe barrier that the teachers noted more prominently was one of organization andcurriculum focus. Language and age of students were considered secondary issues in theapplicationofCLILat suchyoungages.Most teachersstated thathavingproperlyplanned


130

forthelanguageabilityofthestudent,itwaspossibletoteachforcontenteventostudentswithlimitedlanguageability.Teachersconsideredtheirownunderstandingofcontent,thecurriculumandtimemoreoftenaslimitationstoteachingCLIL.

“Idon’t seeanybarriers. If you think through thegoalsof the childat the leveltheyare in.Youneedtothinkaboutwhatkindof languagegoalsyouhaveforaparticularlesson,thestudentabilities,studentattentionspanandaccommodateforallthese.Anythingispossibleifyouthinkitthrough”.“The curriculum and teacher knowledge of the content. The content area andtimelimitations[arebarrierstoteachingCLIL]”.

AdherencetoaspecificcurriculummaynotleavetimetoexploreCLILpossibilities.Theteachersattheschoolalsofeltmorecomfortablewithspecificcontentareasdependingon their educational and teaching experience. The subject areas that they felt lesscomfortablewithwere avoided, but not completely. Teacherswith a Science backgrounddelvedintominiCLILscienceunits.TeachershavingDance/MovementorTheatreexpertiseintegratedtheseelementsintotheirclassroom.Theycreatedplays,storiesormovementstoteachEnglish.

“Weusetheatreallthetimeinclasses.StudentsgetinfrontoftheclassandactoutpartsandusetheirspeakingskillsatthesametimeinEnglish.”“Idon’tusethescienceareasasmuchinclass,mostlyinthearts”.

However,thelanguageabilityofthestudentswasalsoabarrierattimes,becauseteachersattheschooldonotuseGreekintheclassroomsandthereisnoGreekteacherpresentthatcanhelpwithunderstanding.

“I think that sometimes it’s difficult to teach CLIL because of the language youhave touse (weonlyuseEnglish in theclassroom).Forexample, if youwant totalkabouttheplanetsandyourstudentsdon’tknowwhatorbitisintheirnativelanguageitisverychallengingforateachertotrytoexplainitinalanguagethatthestudentsarecurrentlylearning”.

CLILwas givendifferent interpretations by the teachers.One teacher did not believe thatshewasapplyingCLILattheschoolbasedonherunderstandingofit.

“Ihaven’tusedCLILinclassinthetruesense.Idon’tassignequalweighttobothcontentandEnglish.Idon’ttestthemonaspecificsubject.TheonlyexceptionisTheaterClub”.

Another teacher believed that she used CLIL constantly: “CLIL is not something new. Youalwaysuse contentand skills in the class. Youneed touseCLILwithwhatever you can toteachEnglishanddevelopalltheirskills.WeuseCLILonadailybasis”.The line between content and English becomes obscure. Are teachers concentrating onlanguageskills?Aretheyconcentratingonlearningaboutaspecificsubjectmatter?Attimescontent isavehicletoteachEnglishandatothertimes,English isused inorderto includeotherskillsandtoexpandstudenthorizons.


131

4.3CLILandSTEMTheSTEMcoursedifferedinstructuretothatoftheEnglishclassesintermsofimplementingCLIL. ItutilizedaGreekclassroomteacherthatattimesgavesomeinstructionsinGreekorinterjected to clarify either a concept or procedures. It involvedmore hands-on activitiesandgroupinvolvementwithintheclassroom.However,therewasduality inaimhere,too.ThisissimilartoGabillon’sandAilincai’s(2013)studyofScienceCLILlessonsinTahiti.Theyalsoexpressedtwoaims,bothcontentandlanguage.BoththecontentandtheEnglishwereimportantforthisSTEMcourse.Thebalanceastheteacherbelowexpresseswasnotalwayseasy.

“Therearetwogoalsintheclassforme,boththeEnglishandtheSciencecontentandattimesthereseemstobeaconflict.DoIturnawaysomestudentsbecauseoftheirinabilitytoexpressthemselvesinEnglishduringtheSTEMclass?IhavetoadmitthatImakesomejudgementcalls”.

4.3.1DescriptionoftheSTEMclassinEnglishThe STEM class in English often had a preceding STEM class in Greek (two of the threeclasses).Someofthescientificconceptswerealreadyintroduced,whentheEnglishteacherbegan her lessons. Studentswere given handouts describing the content and lab activity.However, the teacher went over the content not by reading the handout, but by askingquestions to the students, by demonstrating a principle to raise awareness or even bydrawingonthewhite-board.Theteacherexplains:

“Althoughwritteninformationwasgiventothestudents,duetotimeconstraints,it isn't read to them or they are not asked to read in class. I have chosen toprovidethemwiththematerialandallowthemleewaytogooveritontheirown.Iprefernot tospoil theirexperienceofexploringsciencebymaking it seemtoomuchlikeanEnglishclass.”

TheprecedingclassinGreekhadthebenefitofsettingthesceneforthestudentstofollowinEnglish(appendix1).Studentswerealreadyawareofsomeofthekeyissues,sothatlesstime was needed for explanations that may be difficult for the students to understand.Students in this classwerenot testedon theScientificor theEnglishcontentof theclass.Assessment was done orally or by completing follow-up questions on the handouts(appendix2).

“It helps having a task after the main activity for the students to practice thevocabularyorsomeofthelabconcepts”.ThecontentmaterialwasreviewedasaclassinEnglish,butalsoinGreekbytheclassroomteachers.

4.3.2ChallengesintheTeachingofaSTEMclassinEnglishTheclasspresentedchallengesduetothenatureoftheactivitiesrequiredasalabclassanddue to theyoungageand levelofEnglish that thestudentshad.Studentshad to learn tohandlelabequipment,workingroupsandfollowinstructions.Theyhadtolearnskillssuchas completing data tables, setting up and cleaning up lab stations. This required goodplanning and assistance from the classroom teachers. However, at times, even theclassroom teachers had difficulty helping because they also lacked knowledge of a lab


132

environment. Both the students and the teachers needed a period of adjustment to theclimateofamorehands-onteachingclassroom.The use of English as a medium in teaching the class seems to have been a secondaryconcern for the STEM teacherwith respect to acclimating the students in a lab classroomwithdifferentexpectations.

“Languagedoesnotseemthebiggestconcerninconductingtheclass.Ithinkthatoverseeing the smooth completion of the lab is themost critical point forme.Studentsbecometooexcitedandgetofftaskandarelearningtoworkingroups”.

Languageappearedtobeaproblemwhenstudentsaskedquestionsbeyondtheimmediatecontentandwantedtogainunderstanding thatextendedfromtheclassobjectives.There,theSTEMteacherfaceddifficultiesandhadtomakedecisionsonwhethertogiveintogivingsome feedback in Greek or explaining in English and accepting the limits of languageunderstanding.

“InacoupleofinstancesIhaveusedsomeGreekwordsinordernottolosesomestudents and keep them interested in the Sciences and in using their criticalthinking.Although IhavetheGreekclassroomteachers,becausesomeconceptsareunknowntothemaswell,theyareunabletohelpmeatthetime”.

Thecruxofthematterfortheteacherwasforstudentstogainameaningfulexperienceandto keep them engaged in the Scienceswhen their English level could not always supporttheminthisendeavor.4.3.3PracticesusedtoImproveTeachingSTEMinEnglishThe practices used by the teacher to improve understanding in the English STEM classinvolvedextralinguisticartifacts(Gabillon&Ailincai,2013)suchasimages,demonstrationsetc , careful planning of the content and the use of English involved and meeting withclassroomteacherstomaketheirassistancemoreproductiveinclass.

“TheEnglishlevelrequirescarefulplanningofwhatIsayandthekindsofwordsIuse to introduce topics. I simplify in the beginning some concepts and/or usedrawings on the board to help themunderstand”. Another teacher stated: “we(STEMandclassroomteachers)arrangedmeetingswiththemtoshowthemwhatistobedonebeforethelabbeginsandwhatbothpartsoftheSTEMclasswillbedoing.Labhandoutsaregivenaweekinadvancesothattheteachershavetimeto study the information and ask questions or evenhave time to get their ownideasonthecontent”.

The fact that the STEM teacher also taught 2nd grade English courses helped her inunderstandingthelevelofEnglishthatthestudentscouldfunctionat.Ithelpedinhoninginon specific terminology and content for the classroomandnot addingmore confusion byusing more complex classroom vocabulary. Key words on worksheets were highlighted,repeatedandrequiredinapplicationtaskssothatstudentslearnedthevocabularycrucialtounderstandingthecontent.TheSTEMteachernoted that carefulplanningof thecontentboth in termsof theEnglishused and age-appropriateness was crucial for learning in class. However, all parameters


133

werenotalwaysperfectlyplanned.Attimes,thelabstookmoretimethantheexpectedorstudents raised questions that were not easy to answer and be understood in English asseenbythejournalexcerptsbelow:

“IthinkthatIalsoneedtopacemyclassabitslowerbecauseIendupnotdoingeverything that I plan. It seems that it doesn't matter if I cover everything.Studentsneedsometimetodigestconceptsandtorevisethemtoo”.“InacoupleofinstancesIhaveusedsomeGreekwordsinordernottolosesomestudents and keep them interested in the Sciences and in using their criticalthinking”.

5.DiscussionThe implementation of CLIL had different interpretations at this lower elementary school.CLILspanneddifferenttimeintervalsfromsmallenrichmentlessonstofullcourses.CLILwasseen as a vehicle for not only learning content, but also language, culture, art and thesciences as seen through descriptions of CLIL activities in the interviews of the Englishteachers. The scope of CLIL also varied due to their different understanding of it. Someteachersused it almostdailyand some lessoftenorvery limited. Some teachersbelievedthatCLILprimarilyinvolvesacontentaimandnotalanguageaim.Othersseemedtoinvolveboth. CLIL is an approachnot clearly understoodbymany teachers as also seen from theliterature. (Massler,2012;Rowe&Coonan,2011).The teachersat theschoolknewof theterm,butnotallofitsramifications.CLILwasseenmoreasavehicletoenhancelearningoftheEnglishlanguagewithinthelowerElementaryEnglishteachers.However,theSTEMclasswasconsideredbothasanapproachtotheteachingofScience,butalsoofEnglish.Thisstemmedinparttothetimeallottedforthe teaching of content within the English courses. Within the English classes,communicative skills have a prioritywithin the course description. CLILmust find a spacesomewhere in-between. As Marsh (2012, p.229) points out, “CLIL is seen as providing aframework for best practice without imposing undue strain on either curriculum time orresources”.CLIL seems to bemore of a challenge for teachers than students. As one of the teachersdescribes:“Thereisacasethatthestudentswillgettooexcitedandimpatientaboutwhatitis tofollowbutthenagaintheresult iscompensatingastheywillhaveenjoyedthe lessonmoreandwillalsorememberandconquer the languagemoreeasilyandwith lesseffort.”StudentsenjoythemeaningtheyreceivewithCLILeveniftheymayhavesomedifficultiesattimeswiththelanguage.TheSTEMclass,ontheotherhand,hadlessofanEnglishfocusandmoreofacontentfocus.Both content and languagewere equally important. Itwas a collaborative effort betweenthe STEM English teacher and the Greek classroom teachers. The classroom teachersassistedwiththesmoothoperationoftheclassintermsoforganizationanduseofsomeL1directions.Theywerealsoeffective in settingsomeof thebasicconcepts inL1before theSTEM teacher entry and teaching in the English language. There were, though, issues ofcoordination and fine-tuning between them. Thiswas probably due to the novelty of thecourseboth in termsof thecontentand themethodology forall those involved.Teachingtwo sections alongside with similar, but not identical concepts is an innovative approachwhichhighlightstheversatilityofCLILinitsuse.


134

Thediversity inCLILprobablyalsostems in its lackof formalstatus inGreece.Atopdownencouragement of CLIL would more likely set standards to follow. Stakeholders in thegovernment and at schools need to see CLIL as an important aspect of learning foreignlanguagesand integrate it formally into the schoolsor isolated initiativesbecomeahit ormissevent.However,asIoannou-Georgiou(2012)pointsoutCLILisalsodependentonthespecific contextandperhapseach schoolandeach teacher requires specificmaterialsandapproachesthatarenecessaryfortheirparticularsituationandthesubsequentsupporttomeetthegoals.6.ConclusionThiscasestudypresentsuniqueinsightsintotherealitiesofpracticingCLILwithveryyounglearnerswithintheGreekeducationalsystem.IthighlightsthediversityofCLILappliedandthe potential uses that teachers find in it. It also raises the need for CLIL to gain amoreformalstandingwithintheeducationalsystemsoitdoesnotremainasanoptionalprogram,butgainscredencetobeintegratedinamoreorganizedandsystematicfashion.Although,the study involves six teachers, itprovidesauniquepictureofhowCLIL is appliedat veryyounglearnersandsomeofthechallengesitinvolves.ReferencesBanegas, D.L. (2012a). ‘CLIL teacher development: Challenges and experiences’. Latin

AmericanJournalofContent&LanguageIntegratedLearning,5/1:46-56.Banegas, D.L. (2012b). ‘Integrating content and language in English language teaching in

secondary education: Models, benefits, and challenges’. Studies in Second LanguageLearningandTeaching,2/1:111–136.

Coyle,D.(1999). ‘SupportingstudentsIcontentandlanguageintegratedlearningcontexts:planning for effective classrooms’. In J.Masih (Ed),Learning through foreign language:models,methodsandoutcomes.London:Centre for Informationon LanguageTeachingandResearch,46-62.

Coyle, D. (2009). ‘Promoting cultural diversity through intercultural understanding: A casestudyofCLILprofessionaldevelopmentatin-serviceandpre-servicelevels’.InC.Carrio-Pastor (Ed), Linguistic Insights: Studies in Language andCommunicationNumber.Bern:PeterLang,105-124.

Dendrinos, B., Zouganeli, K. & Karavas, E. (2013). ‘Foreign Language Learning in GreekSchools’. European Survey on Language Competencieshttp://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/ENL132/Session%2003%3A%20FL%20teaching//learning%20in%20Greece/ESLC_EN.pdf.

Enever, J.&Moon, J. (2009). ‘NewGlobalContexts for TeachingPrimaryELT:ChangeandChallenge’. In J. Enever, J. Moon & U. Raman (Eds.), Young Learner English LanguagePolicyandImplementation:InternationalPerspectives.Reading:IATEFL,5-23.

European CLIL Milestones. Available at: http://www.ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/html/CLIL_E_news.htm#milestones.

Eurydice (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe.Brussels:Eurydice.

Eurydice (2012). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe 2012. Brussels:Education,AudiovisualandCultureExecutiveAgency.

Gabillon,Z.&Ailincai,R.(2013).‘CLIL:AScienceLessonwithBreakthroughLevelYoungEFLLearners’.Education,3/3:168-177.


135

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967).The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies forQualitativeResearch.Chicago,IL:AldinePublishingCo.

Griva, E., Chostelidou,D.& Panteli, P. (2014). ‘Insider views of CLIL in Primary Education:Challenges and Experiences of EFL’. The International Journal for Innovation EducationandResearch,2/8:31-53.

Ioannou-Georgiou,S.(2012).‘ReviewingthepuzzleofCLIL’.ELTJournal,66/4:495-504.Ioannou-Georgiou,S.&Pavlou,P.(2011).GuidelinesforCLILimplementationinPrimaryand

Pre-primaryeducation.PROCLIL,Socrates-Comenius.Kollatou,M.(2013).‘ImplementationofCLILintheeducationalcontextofGreekSeniorHigh

Schools-AProposal’.EkpaideftikiEpikerotita,6:5-13.Korosidou, E. & Griva, E. (2014). ‘CLIL Approach in Primary Education: Learning about

Byzantine Art and Culture through a Foreign Language’. Study in English LanguageTeaching,2/2:240-257.

Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J.M. (2009). ‘Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFLClasses’.InternationalCLILResearchJournal.1/2:4-17.

Marsh, D. (2012). ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). A DevelopmentTrajectory’.ServiciodePublicacionesdelaUniversidaddeCórdoba.

Massler,U.(2012).‘PrimaryCLILandItsStakeholders:WhatChildren,ParentsandTeachersThink of the Potential Merits and Pitfalls of CLIL Modules in Primary Teaching’. TheInternationalJournalforInnovationEducationandResearch,1/4:36-46.

Matheodakis,M.,Alexiou,T.&Laskaridou,C.(2014).‘ToCLILornottoCLIL?Thecaseofthe3rd Experimental Primary School in Evosmos’.Major Trends in Theoretical and AppliedLinguistics: Selected Papers from the 20th Symposium from Theoretical and AppliedLinguistics,3:215-233.

Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. SanFrancisco:TheJossey-Bass.

Miles,M.&Huberman,A.(2010).AQualitativeDataAnalysis.London:Sage.Muñoz,C.&Navés,T.(2009).‘WindowsonCLILinSpain’.InA.Maljers,D.Marsh&D.Wolff

(Eds),Windows on CLIL European Centre forModern Languages. TheHague, EuropeanCentreforModernLanguages,160-165.

Oikonomou,K.(2013).‘ApplyingCLILinGreekSchools:NotesfromteachinginaprovincialHighSchool’.EkpedeftikosKyklos.1/2:122-135.

Papadopoulos,I&Griva,E.(2014).‘“LearningtheTracesofGreekCulture”:ACLILprojectforRaising Cultural Awareness and Developing L2 Skills’. The International Journal ofLearning,TeachingandEducationalResearch.8/1:76-92.

Pokrivcakova, S. (2013). ‘Quality Survey of Slovak Teachers’ Personal Views on ContentLanguage Integrated Learning (CLIL)’. International Journal of Liberal Arts and SocialScience.1/1:83-93.

Ranieri,T. (2013). ‘CrossthatbridgewhenyoucometoEnglish:CLILasanewchallenge inItaly’. The European Conference on Language Learning. Available at:http://iafor.org/archives/offprints/ECLL2013_0225.pdf.

Rowe,J.&Coonan,M.(2011).‘SomeforeignlanguageissuesinprimaryCLIL:theteacher’svoice’.LiverpoolHopeUniversity&UniversitatCa’Foscari.

Tenni, C., Smyth, A. & Boucher, C. (2003). ‘The Researcher as Autobiographer: AnalysingData Written by Oneself’. The Qualitative Report, V/1. Available at:http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-1/tenni.html.

Vasquez, G. (2009). ‘Models of CLIL: an Evaluation of its Status drawing on the Limits ofRealitiesandPerspectives’.RevistaEspanoladeLinguisticaAplicada:ModelsandPracticeinCLIL,95-111.

Yin, R. K. (2013).Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.


136

EugeniaP.Iskos([email protected])isanEnglishTeacheratAnatoliaElementarySchoolinThessaloniki,Greece.ShealsoteachesBiologicalSciences.ShehasaB.AdegreeinEnglishfromAristotleUniversityof

ThessalonikiandaB.SinbothMicrobiologyandGeneticsandCellBiology(GCB)fromtheUniversityofMinnesota-TwinCitieswithanM.Edin

CurriculumDesignalsofromtheUniversityofMinnesota.

CamillaRalls([email protected])isaretiredHeadElementaryEnglishDepartmentTeacher.Shehashadacareerspanning30yearsincluding

teachingintheUKasEnglishandSocialStudiesteachertoBritishCouncilCoordinatorteachertoheadingtheEnglishDepartmentatAnatolia

ElementarySchoolafterteachingatvariousgradelevelsandworkingwithvariousclubssuchasTheatre.SheholdsanMAfromtheUniversity

ofReadingintheUK.

SophiaGegiou([email protected])isanEnglishTeacher,andEnglishDepartmentCoordinatoratAnatoliaElementarySchoolinThessaloniki,Greece.HerstudiesareinthefieldofEarlyChildEducationinCanada,

andsheholdsanMAinEarlyChildhoodEducationfromSheffieldUniversity(U.K).

Documents

CLIL implementation in foreign language contexts