Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
HOW ENCOURAGING ARE THE EFFECTS OF CLIL INSTRUCTION?
Teresa Navé[email protected]
www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves
Comillas 21 June, 2010
U
B
U
BB
UUNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA
T. Navés [email protected] Dpt. Anglès. Facultat de FilologiaTel. (34) 93 403 58 66 Fax (34) 93 317 12 49
Comillas, June 2010
• I. Successful Content and Language Integrated Programmes in North America: Immersion, CBI and BE
• II. Current research on CLIL in Europe: GRAL research www.ub.edu/GRAL/
• III. Characteristics of Successful CLIL programmes
I. How Successful have Content-based, Bilingual Education and Immersion Programmes been?
by T. Navés [email protected]/GRAL/Naves
TWI
Two-way immersion (TWI) has been identified as the most effective program model for language minority learners in the long term (Collier & Thomas, 2004; Lindholm-Leary & Borsato, 2006; Lindholm-Leary & Howard, 2008; Rolstad et al., 2005; Slavin & Cheung, 2005; Thomas & Collier, 1997; 2002).
ELLs’ Long-term Achievement on Standardized Tests in English Reading Compared Across Six Program Models
Source: Thomas & Collier, 1997
Average and Highest Group Long-term Achievement of Former ELLs in 11th Grade by Elementary Program Type
Source: Thomas & Collier, 1997
Research Findings (Lindholm-Leary, 2007)
• ELLs in 90:10 programs attain the same levels of proficiency in English and the same or higher standards of achievement in reading/language arts and math (measured in English) as ELLs in 50:50 programs. Thus, more exposure to instructional time in English does not lead to an improvement in English language proficiency or academic achievement.
Research Findings
Bilingual students display greater facility in learning a third language than monolinguals (Cenoz, 2004; Cenoz & Valencia, 1994; Sanz, 2000).
Third language learners in immersion settings, who are literate in their L1, evidence a language learning advantage relative to third language learners who are not. Moreover, this advantage exists regardless of oral proficiency in L1, SES, or the degree of distance between the two languages, e.g., Spanish-English vs. Mandarin- English (Swain, Lapkin, Rowen, & Hart, 1990).
4 Genaralizations from immersion programmes
• First, in order to obtain expected levels of achievement in the subjects taught via the second language, ‘threshold levels’ of L2 skills need to be reached
• Second, while early total immersion students consistently performed as well as their monolingual, English-instructed peers on content-subject tests, early partial immersion students did not.
4 Genaralizations from immersion programmes
• Third, although the early total immersion programme was considered to be the one which would most threaten the development of first language skills, results of empirical research show that this is not the case.
• In the short run, after just two or three years, immersion students lag behind their non-immersion peers in some aspects of English. After that, however, immersion children perform as well as, or better than, their English-educated peers in all aspects of English language skills [in the long run].
4 Genaralizations from immersion programmes• Fourth, in general, early and late French
immersion students have similar levels of writing skills in French, with both groups performing less well than their francophone peers.
• Immersion weaknesses clearly relate to deficits in their grammatical competence and vocabulary knowledge, rather than to discourse aspects of performance. Speaking is the weakest of the four skill areas for immersion students.
US: CBI & BE• In the US, the integration of content and
language has a long tradition both in what is usually known as Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and in Bilingual Education Programmes (BE).
• Although Bilingual Education programmes are still controversial for politicians and the media, when properly implemented, research has clearly shown that they are at least as efficient as non-bilingual programmes, if not more so.
US: CBI & BE• Willig’s (1985) meta-analysis indicated that bilingual
education programmes significantly enhanced academic achievement in comparison with English instructional programmes.
• In general, research in the US shows that bilingual education, when well implemented, is the most effective way to enable speakers of languages other than English to learn both English and academic subjects(Cummins, 1984; García, forthcoming; Krashen, 1991, 1997; Swain & Lapkin, 1982)
US: CBI & BE• Thomas and Collier (1997) conclude that at the
elementary level two-way bilingual education is the best programme because students develop academic and second language proficiency as well as cognitive understanding through their first language.
• These advantages are not evident until the sixth grade. Students who are in educational programmes that provide extended instruction in their native language outperform students who only receive short- term instruction in their native language (Genesee et al., 2006).
Late-exit > Early-exit BE programmes• In a large-scale evaluation of bilingual education
programmes in the United States, the developmental progress of Spanish (L1) and English (L2) in Spanish-speaking children provided support for this claim.
• While Grade 3 Spanish-speaking students in English- only/ early-exit bilingual education programmes were far from grade norms in English academic achievement, Grade 6 students in late-exit bilingual programmes were beginning to approach grade norms (Ramirez et al., 1991)
Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)
Oral proficiency 3-5 years Academic proficiency 4-7 years
• Similarly, in an analysis of data from two California school districts considered to be the most successful in teaching English to limited English proficient students, Hakuta and his colleagues (Hakuta et al., 2000) showed that while oral proficiency takes three to five years to develop, academic English proficiency can take four to seven years. Similar findings have been reported for Finnish immigrant children in Sweden (Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa, 1976), for immigrant children in English-speaking Canadian schools (Cummins, 1981) and elsewhere.
Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)
Cummins: BISC vs CALP• Cummins’s (1979) distinction between ‘basic
interpersonal communication skills’ (BICS) and ‘cognitive academic language proficiency’ (CALP) was developed in an effort: to draw educators’ attention to these data and to warn against premature exit of ELL [English language learning] students (in the United States) from bilingual to mainstream English-only programs on the basis of attainment of surface level fluency in English.
• In other words, the distinction highlighted the fact that educators’ conflating of these aspects of proficiency was a major factor in the creation of academic difficulties for bilingual students. (Cummins, 2000: 58)
Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)
Findings• While most majority language children in immersion
education are likely to develop academic proficiency in their L1 as well as in their L2,
• in transitional bilingual education settings, there is often evidence that children fail to develop academic proficiency in either language. – Conversational L1 skills may be maintained in the absence of L1
schooling, but high-level literacy skills usually are not developed (Taylor et al., 2000; Wright et al., 2000).
– Furthermore, after years of education in their L2, many children in transitional bilingual programmes have not developed academic proficiency in the L2 either. This is by no means a universal finding.
– Students in transitional bilingual education programmes in which sufficient support is given to both languages may acquire CALP in their L1 as well as their L2 (Thomas & Collier, 1995).
Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)
END OF PART I
Thank you very much
Muchas gracias
Moltes gràcies
Eskerrik asko
Mahalo
II. HOW ENCOURAGING ARE THE EFFECTS OF CLIL INSTRUCTION?
Teresa Navé[email protected]
www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves
Comillas 21 June, 2010
CLIL – AICLE• The subject matter or part of the subject
matter is taught via a foreign language with a two-fold objective: the learning of those contents and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language (Marsh, 1999:27)
• CLIL methodology provides plenty of real and meaningful input to learners and raises their overall proficiency in the target language (Coyle, 2002:258).
CLIL features• Following SLA research, CLIL may fulfill what
is necessary for successful learning of a SL (Muñoz, 2007; De Graaff, 2007):– Real World language– Highly contextualised– Enough Comprehensible Input– Interaction– Cognitively demanding tasks– Meaningful learning– Pushed output– Purpose
Empirical Research on CLIL
• Writing Performance:– Ackerl (2006) Carrilero(2009); Miret (2009)– Huttner et al (2006) Lasagabaster (2008)– Loranc-Paszylk(2009) Navés and Victori (2010)
• English Proficiency :– Admiraal et al.(2006) Jiménez et al.(2006)– Kasper (1997) Lasagabaster (2008)– Navés and Victori (2010) Ruiz de Zarobe and
Jiménez– Villarreal Olaizola et al (2009) Navés (in press)
PreviousPrevious ResearchResearch onon CLIL & CLIL & WritingWriting
• Muñoz and Navés (2007) Overview of empirical studies show a 2 year advantage for CLIL learners.
• Lasagabaster (2008) and Navés and Victori(2010) CLIL provided an advantage between one and two grades in overall proficiency and Writing performance.
• Dalton-Puffer (2007) predicted CLIL would not have significant effects over productive skills.
Lasagabaster (2008)
• Compared the overall proficiency and the four language skills of three groups of CLIL and non- CLIL learners from grades 9 and 10 (N =198)
• at grade 10, CLIL learners significantly outperformed non-CLIL learners.
• 9th grade CLIL learners significantly outperformed non-CLIL learners from grade 10 in all the domains examined as well
Miret (2009) Results
MethodologyProficiency tests– Michigan 50-item MC grammar exam– 30-item Cloze (reading comprehension)– 50-word Dictation, – Listening comprehension.Timed-composition task (15’)- Accuracy: Error-free clauses and EFS- Fluency: Essay length, S, Cl- Syntactic Complexity: Subordinate clauses, ClxS- Lexical Variety: Giraud’s index, TTR, Types
Navés & Victori (2010) Study I
Study I. Proficiency Results
• CLIL 7th = Non-CLIL 9th & Non-CLIL 10th
• CLIL 8th > Non-CLIL 9th
Navés & Victori (2010) Study II
Results
• CLIL 5th = Non-CLIL 7th (fluency) • CLIL 7th = Non-CLIL 9th (syntacti
complexity• CLIL 9th > Non-CLIL 11th (syntactic
complexity)• CLIL 9th = Non-CLIL 12th (fluency), • CLIL 9th = Non-CLIL 12th (accuracy)
Summary
• when learners are at grades 7 and 9 and have received CLIL instruction they achieve a level equivalent to or even higher than learners a couple of grades ahead in many of the domains of a language examined.
Limitations
These promising results have, nevertheless, to be analysed with caution because
• the amount of hours of instruction of the CLIL groups was not kept constant,
• of the different types of schools involved • hours of instruction received.
Naves (2010, in press)
Results Study I
Results Study I
Study I Proficiency Results
• CLIL 5th > non-CLIL 5th
• CLIL 7th > non-CLIL 7th
• CLIL 9th > non-CLIL 9th
• CLIL 10th > non-CLIL 10th
in grammar, dictation and reading comprehension proficiency tests.
Study I Proficiency results
• CLIL 5th = non-CLIL 7th in dictation
• CLIL 7th > non-CLIL 9th & non-CLIL10th in the grammar and dictation proficiency tests
• CLIL 7th = non-CLIL 9th & non-CLIL10th in reading comprehension
• CLIL 9th > non-CLIL10th in the grammar, dictation and reading comprehension tests
Study II. Writing
Study II Results Fluency (Essay length)
Study II Results Syntactic Complexity (clauses x sentence)
Study II Results Lexical Complexity (Giraud’s index Word Variation)
Study II Results Accuracy (Percentage of Error Free Sentences)
• CLIL 5th and 7th = non-CLIL 7th and 9th
(fluency, lexical and syntactic complexity)
• CLIL 9th > non-CLIL 9th & non-CLIL 10th
(fluency syntactic complexity and lexical variety
• The present studies have analysed the overall English proficiency and writing proficiency of CLIL and non-CLIL learners in a foreign language context and have found that 5th and 7th grade CLIL learners did as well as learners two grades ahead in all the proficiency tests except listening comprehension and in all the writing domains examined except in accuracy.
• As de Muñoz (2007), De Graff (2007) and Navés (2009) argue, integrating content and language in CLIL, content-based, immersion, semi-immersion, and bilingual education programmes provide the conditions that applied linguistics in general and the field of second language acquisition in particular have long suggested need to be met for successful language learning to take place.
• These results are in line with those found by• Ruiz de Zarobe (2009), • Lasagabaster (2008),• García-Mayo (2009)
Limitations and Conclusions
• Limitations of these types of studies(See Muñoz & Navés, 2007)
• Research statistical significant differences vs. Relevant gains from an education and language perspective
End of Part II
Muchas graciasThank you very much
Moltes gràcies
Eskerrik asko
Mahalo
Navés, T. (2009). Effective Content and Language Integrated Programmes.In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Ed.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Navés, T. (2002). Successful CLIL Programmes in Navés, T. Muñoz, and C. Pavesi, M. Module 2: Second Language Acquisition for CLIL. In G. Langé & P. Bertaux (Eds.), The CLIL Professional Development Course (pp. 93-102). Milan: Ministero della' Istruzione della' Università e della Ricerca. Direzione Regionale per la Lombardia.
CBT/BE/IP/CLIL
PROGRAMMESVs.
CBT/BE/IP/CLIL APPROACHES & METHODOLOGIES
North America - EuropaC. BakerA. Cohen, O. GarcíaJ. Cummins, S. Krashen,M. MettB. Mohan, M. A. Snow,M. Swain
J . CenozD. Coley, F. Genesee, C. EscobarD. LasagabasterD. Marsh, C. MuñozNikula.D. Nunan, M. Pavesi, Y. Ruiz de ZarobeY. SmitR. Wittaker
USA (CA)CTB / BE
(ESL)
CANADA Immersion
(ESL)
UKBEMultiling(ESL)
UECLILAICLE(ELF-FL)
Catalonia,Basque Countr
Inmersión(SL)
North America vs. Europa
CANADA Inmersión
EUCLILAICLE
USA (CA)CTB / BE
UKBE
Catalonia,Basque C.Inmersión
ESL ESL ESL EFL/FL SL
LEAP LEAP
Immigrants Immigrants
Hispanos French Multiling
Heter Homog Homog Hom
EuropaNorth America
EU: Rationale and benefits NA: Research on efficient programmes
…in the last two decades, while in Europe and Asia the main emphasis is still on describing the rationale and benefits of implementing content and language integrated (CLIL) approaches and methodologies, in North America the emphasis has shifted to further investigating the characteristics of efficient immersion and bilingual education programmes. (Navés, in press)
EU: Rationale and benefits
The European Commission’s (2005) report on foreign language teaching and learning claims that an excellent way of making progress in a foreign language is “to use it for a purpose, so that the language becomes a tool rather than an end in itself.” (p. 9).
Programmes vs MethodologyAs important as CLIL teaching methodology may be, it is just one among many other features efficient CLIL programmes have in common. The one feature which all efficient CLIL programmes share is that they are PROGRAMMES of varying length which provide, nevertheless, a substantially greater and better exposure to the target language. (Navés, in press)
US: Research on Successful ProgrammesIn 1999, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA) funded the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) to identify 10 exemplary bilingual education programmes in schools in the US. After examining the programmes, IDRA identified the 25 common characteristics and criteria that were responsible for the success of the programmes. "Success" was operationally defined as evidence of academic achievement (compared to district and/or state standards) for LEP students in bilingual education programmes (IDRA, 2002). For IDRA Newsletter (2002) see also Robledo Montecel et al. (2002a, 2002b and 2004)
WHY CLIL /CTB/ BE/ IMMERSION?
1. The L1 factor. To help LEP students. (BE) (Krashen)
2. The transfer of literacy skills (BE, IP) (Cummins)3. The exposure factor. To increase SL and FL contact
hours (Inmersión & CLIL) (Muñoz, Cenoz, Nussbaum, Long)
4. The quality of the input. (Krashen, Cummins)5. Meaningful learning and FonF(Cummins, Long,
Doughty, Ellis)
WHY CLIL /CTB/ BE/ IMMERSION?
Most of the arguments in favour of CLIL come from SLA research and show that CLIL
(a) creates conditions for naturalistic language learning,
(b) provides a purpose for language use in the classroom,
(c) has a positive effect on language learning by putting the emphasis on meaning rather than form and
(d) drastically increases the amount of exposure to the target language
(Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2007; Muñoz 2007).
Characteristics of successful CLIL Programmes
1. RESPECT AND SUPPORT FOR LEARNERS’ L1 AND HOME CULTURE
1. SCLILP acknowledge and support learners’ home language and culture
2. At early stages learners may use their L1 3. Language arts (reading, writing...) are
introduced in L1 and at different stages.4. At early stages but also provide some
academic instruction in learners’L1.
2. TEACHER’S PROFILE: MULTILINGUAL AND BILINGUAL TEACHERS1. Most teachers are bilingual although in IM
programmes they only speak in the TLwhile showing understanding of learners’ L1 by responding appropriately and rephrasing learners’ remarks made in their L1.
2. Learners are allowed to use their home language at early stages
3. but they are requested to use L2 only at primary school
3. INTEGRATED DUAL LANGUAGE OPTIONAL PROGRAMMES.
• Target language instruction is not structured or of a pull-out nature but rather contextualized, integrated.
• Sheltered, in BE programmes• SCLILP are optional, not
imposed
4. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT
• Parental involvement is pivotal in any SCLILP
5. LEADERSHIP & JOINT EFFORT OF ALL PARTIES
• SCLILP require the joint effort of all parties involved: educational authorities, parents and teachers at both district and school level
• cooperation and leadership of educational authorities, administrators and teachers
6. LONG-TERM STABLE TEACHING STAFF Longevity and Stability
• One of the key factors to the success of these programmes is longevity which includes not only the continuity of the programme but also the stability of teaching teams.
7. TEACHERS’ PROFILE AND TRAINING
• Teacher training must be tailored to meet the specific needs of CLIL instruction
• Dually qualified teachers (in content and language)
8. HIGH EXPECTATIONS & STANDARDS
• Teachers have high expectations about learners’ performance and degree of academic achievement.
9. APPROPRIATE MATERIALS
• Oakes (2002) argues that there is a clear link between appropriate materials and curriculum and student academic outcome.
• Navés & Muñoz (1999) pointed out how important appropriate materials were for CLIL programmes to be successful.
• Mahone (1984) conducted a need analysis in the US to look at the appropriacy of existing materials used in BE. The picture which he described unfortunately still applies to many CLIL contexts in which there are not enough teaching materials available
10. CLIL METHODOLOGY
5. Strategies to improve comprehension of contentNumrich (1989) focuses on five strategies to
improve the comprehension of content in CLIL. • (1) predicting on the basis of prior knowledge, • (2) anticipating what will be read next, • (3) using statements to check comprehension of a
text during reading, • (4) analysing text organization by looking for
specific patterns, and • (5) classifying to facilitate comprehension of
similarities and differences.
de Graaff et al. (2007: 20) identified 5 main indicators for effective CLIL language teaching performance
(1) Teachers facilitate exposure to input at a (minimally) challenging level by selecting attractive authentic materials, adapting texts up to the level of the learners and scaffolding on the content and language level by active use of body language and visual aids.
(2) Teachers facilitate meaning-focussed processing by stimulating the learners to request new vocabulary items, check their meaning, use explicit and implicit types of corrective feedback on incorrect meaning identification, and practice through relevant speaking and writing assignments.
(3) Teachers facilitate form-focussed processing by giving examples, using recasts and confirmation checks, clarification requests and giving feedback (sometimes including peer feedback). No evidence was found of CLIL teachers providing explicit form-focused instruction, e.g. by explaining rules.
de Graaff et al. (2007: 20) identified 5 main indicators for effective CLIL language teaching performance
4) Teachers facilitate output production by encouraging learners’ reactions, working in different interactive formats and practising creative forms of oral (presentations, round tables, debates) and written (letters, surveys, articles, manuals) output production, suggesting communicatively feasible tasks, giving the learners enough time for task completion, encouraging learners to speak only in English, providing feedback on students’ incorrect language use and stimulating peer feedback.
(5) Teachers facilitate the use of compensation strategies by stimulating students to overcome problems in language comprehension and language production, reflecting on use of compensation strategies, and scaffolding on-the-spot strategy use
Need to justify CLIL? Beliefs and prejudices
The defensive attitude that can be inferred from researchers’ need to justify, time and time again, the rationale and benefits of integrating language and subject content rather than further investigating the commonalities of efficient CLIL programmes may have to do with pressure from(a) folk beliefs and prejudices against
bilingualism and multilingualism and (b) political interests. (Navés, in press)
The debate on BE is political“I argue (...) that the debate on bilingual education must be considered in the political contexts for two reasons: first, the research findings on the effects of bilingual education are both abundant and clear; the common perception that research is either largely unavailable and/or inadequate is a myth generated by strong vested interests. The second reason for examining closely the political context of the issue is that the educational changes required to reverse the pattern of language minority group school failure are essentially political changes because they involve changes in the power relations between dominant and dominated groups”. (Cummins, 1995, p. 63 in Navés, in press)
THANK YOU. MUCHAS GRACIAS. MOLTES GRÀCIES. ESKERRIK ASKO. MAHALO.
I wish to express my thanks to the Catalan Department of Education for the pilot Barcelona content-based programme I co-ordinated with Margarita Ravera and Cristina Riera for four years (1994-1998). I would also like to thank David Marsh, Carmen Muñoz and Maria Pavesi for a very productive three-year European CLIL project (2000-2002). I am also deeply in debt with Ofelia García and James Purpura from Columbia University for having invited me to observe inspiring BE classes in NYC in fall 2007.
Terminology• CBT Content-based Teaching• BE Bilingual Education• Immersion• CLIL Content and Language Integrated
Learning– AICLE Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos y
Lenguas Extranjeras – AICLE Aprenentage Integrat de Continguts i
Llengües Estrangeres
• Content-based ESL is a method that integrates English-as-a-second- language instruction with subject matter instruction. The technique focuses not only on learning a second language, but using that language as a medium to learn mathematics, science, social studies, or other academic subjects. (Reilly, Tarey 1988)
• CONTENT-BASED LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION. In this approach-- also called integrated language and content instruction--ESL, bilingual, or foreign language teachers use instructional materials, learning tasks, and classroom techniques from academic content areas as the vehicle for developing language, content, cognitive, and study skills. The second language is used as the medium of instruction for mathematics, science, social studies, and other academic subjects. Instruction is usually given by a language teacher or by a combination of the language and content teachers.(Crandall, JoAnn , 1994)
CBT Back
The term bilingual education can refer to many different teaching approaches; terms such as "language submersion", "transitional bilingual education," "two-way Inmersión" and "maintenance bilingual education" refer to the various ways that curriculum content instruction (math, social studies, science) can be combined or integrated with English language instruction. Some approaches provide varying degrees of support in the students' native language, while others preserve and build on the students' native language skills as they learn English
(C. Sund 1999)Back
BE
CLIL• This approach involves learning subjects such as
history, geography and others, through an additional language.
(Marsh, 2000)• Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is
a general expression used to refer to any teaching of non-language subject through the medium of a second or foreign language (L2).
(Pavesi, 2001)Back
AICLE• Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos
Curriculares y Lenguas Extranjeras implica estudiar asignaturas como historia o ciencias naturales en una lengua distinta de la propia. AICLE resulta muy beneficioso tanto para el aprendizaje de otras lenguas (francés, inglés, ...) como para las asignaturas impartidas en dichas lenguas.
Navés, T. & Muñoz, C. 2000Back
References cited• Genesee, F. (1987) Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of
Immersion and Bilingual Education.Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.• Johnson, K. and Swain, M. (1997) Immersion Education: International
Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.• Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second
LanguageAcquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.• Met,M. (1994)Teaching content through a second language. In F.
Genesee (ed.) Educating Second Language Children: The Whole Child, the Whole Curriculum, the Whole Community (pp. 151–182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Snow,M.A., Met, M. and Genesee, F. (1989) A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language programs. TESOL Quarterly 23, 201–17
