Sign in

Register

Go to:

Guardian Unlimited home

News Sport Comment Culture Business Money Life & style Travel Environment TV Video Data Mobile Offers Jobs
News
Guardian
Home
Free trial Gift offer
Guardian Monthly Games
Email services
Outlook Students Learning English Guardian Abroad Contact us Other publications

Adding language without

taking away

Information
Four week free trial
Contact us
Customer service
Email services
FAQ

Where English has been imposed as the language

of instruction the result has often been failure. The
way forward is a sensitive and collaborative
integration of language and content, argues David
Marsh
Guardian Weekly
There is a marked difference between teaching in English
and teaching through English. Globally, teaching in
English is spreading like wildfire from primary to higher
education. Meanwhile teaching through English is steadily
developing as an educational methodology, particularly in
Europe.
Content and Language Integrated Learning (Clil) involves
integration of language teaching into the learning of
other subjects. Clil invites confusion as it does
controversy. Much of this derives from misunderstanding
the apparently subtle, yet fundamental difference
between "in" and "through".
Caustically referred to as the language of instruction, if
not occasionally destruction, adoption of English as the
medium of learning is responsible for widespread school
wastage in various continents. From Africa to Asia, from
Bolivia to Brunei, the use of a foreign language as the
medium of instruction is directly linked to educational
exclusion.
Medium of instruction language problems are by no
means exclusive to some continents more than others.
These issues span the world. Teaching in English, without
adoption of appropriate language-sensitive curricula and
methodologies, inevitably leads to confusion, despair and
high drop-out rates.
Clil, as in teaching through English, always involves dualfocused aims. In a Clil class, attention is simultaneously
given to both topic and language. Colloquially described
as using languages to learn and learning to use
languages, it can be viewed as the next phase of the
1970s' communicative revolution. Clil is not new.
Although the term was adopted in the 1990s, successful
implementation of such dual-focused learning stretches
back many decades. Clil is a generic term, which covers
some 20 or more educational approaches. Although
these differ in terminology (immersion, languages across
the curriculum, bilingual education, etc), they share
certain common methodologies. Clil was introduced as
an inclusive "umbrella" term by which to capture and
further develop these.
What is new about Clil is that it is cascading into
mainstream education, having previously been found
only in special regions, or elite forms of education. In

Go

addition, there is now greater understanding of the

cognitive and development advantages of this type of
education. But for these successes to be achieved,
teaching through English requires much more than just
teaching in English.
The essence of Clil is in integration. The methods used in
the classroom depend on a set of core variables. These
are interwoven into the curriculum, and realised through
classroom practice. They revolve around the type of
subject learnt, the cognitive demands involved, and the
pupils' linguistic load. But there are others linked to the
educational environment. Is it Ethiopia, where policy
makes English an educational lingua franca such that
secondary students learn subjects in English? Or is it England, where Clil is used to achieve the added value of
enhanced foreign language competence? The reasons
for introducing Clil are diverse but the core chemistry is
methodological.
When Clil is incorporated into the curriculum, language
takes its position at the centre of the whole educational
enterprise. All teachers take responsibility for nurturing
its development in the classroom. This is because
successful language acquisition depends on the amount,
quality and richness of input. Yet not all input becomes
intake. And if there is limited intake then there will be
equally limited opportun-ities for output, which is the
realisation of meaningful language usage. In successful
examples of Clil all teachers consider themselves to be
responsible for language development to a greater or
lesser extent, even if the language focus is very, very
small indeed.
Clil does not necessarily correlate with the maximum
exposure hypothesis (the more you have the better you
become). This has been an erroneous assumption in the
introduction of teaching in English. A small amount of
learning through a foreign language can go a long way
towards achieving various positive outcomes. This could
be as simple, yet as import-ant, as developing language
learner self-confidence. It can also be found through
tapping into preferred language learning styles for which
there is often too little time available in formal language
lessons.
Clil presents an opportunity and a threat to accepted
ELT practice. The so-called communicative dimension of
language teaching, where the language is treated as a
functional tool rather than the explicit object of study, is
now moving into the realm of subject teaching. Often
involving few contact hours where students learn
appropriate topics, rather than whole subjects, Clil
complements parallel formal language instruction.
This has direct implications that are likely to impact on
different types of ELT practitioners. One feature of Clil
teacher competence relates to good understanding of
the major first language of the environment. In this
respect, the non-native speaker of English is emerging as
a particularly successful Clil teacher. The role of the
native speaker EFL teacher, if monolingual and employed
to encourage language practice, is likely to be
undermined.
Some have asked if Clil is the trojan horse that is
carrying English ever deeper into the European national
educational systems. Accepting the metaphor, others
see it as a means of driving even better teaching and
learning practice into the heart of education. The debate
is active and the ELT -practitioner needs to ensure that
she is not sidelined. Such a sea-change in educational
philosophy offers opportunities for enhancing
professional performance.
Formal language teaching is part of the Clil approach, so
language teachers who re-position their teaching

philosophy according to the new demands could, in fact,

become conductors of the orchestra within the new
language learning framework. There is potential here for
ELT practitioners to regenerate their profession, but, by
not recognising the impact of Clil, they also run the risk
of missing opportunities.
In addition to internationalisation, there are various
catalysts behind this contemporary Clil cascade. One of
these is increasingly widespread access to the
converging technologies. The mindset orientation of
Generation Y (born 1982-2001) is particularly focused
on immediacy as in "learn as you use, use as you learn not learn now, use later". Generation C (2002-2025) will
be even more influenced by early experience of
integrated media, curricula and practice.
Another concerns cultural shifts in the teaching
profession. Generation Y, increasingly at ease with
mobility, foreign languages and with a preference for
learning by doing will shortly be appearing as teachers in
schools. These teachers will have even greater capacity
for Clil.
Globally, other drivers exist, ranging from interest in the
value of cross-curricular approaches, through to an
increasing tendency towards market-oriented
educational culture. Although there are substantial
differences in application globally, there are core
methodological and theoretical issues common to
different regions.
Teaching in English can easily lead to language problems.
Teaching through English can unleash language potential.
These are early days in the emergence of Clil. If the European models continue to take root, and be justified
through the types of research now being published,
there could be a positive knock-on effect globally. It is
clear that dual-focused Clil methodol-ogies have
immense potential in easing the language burden in
certain countries, as in enhancing language learning in
others.
David Marsh, of the University of Jyvskyl, Finland, is a
leading expert on Clil in Europe
You can also send send us your comments about Clil and
English medium and we will add these to a feedback
section clil.debate@guardian.co.uk
Go back to the Clil Debate main page

Privacy policy | Terms & conditions | Advertising guide | A-Z index | Inside guardian.co.uk | About this site
Join our dating site today
guardian.co.uk Guardian News and Media Limited 2011