CONTENT LANGUAGE AND INTEGRATED LEARNING (CLIL) : THE END OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING PROFESSION?

HAS CLIL NO THEORY? By Bracchitta Much has been said about Content Language & Integrated Learning (CLIL) to date, yet no one has address the significant threat it may pose to the profession as a whole in the coming years. As it continues to spread from continent to continent, it has not remained unchallenged and has come up against some fierce opposition on the ground- yet none so big as to diminish its unstoppable continuing trend. Governments have begun adopting an ever increasing number of policies to ensure its implementation in a wide range of schools. The European Union is now holding the highest number of CLIL institutions within its borders and yet has also met with the least resistance to the programme. But what in fact is it that makes CLIL so attractive as a language learning methodology? What are the hidden secrets of its success? The current paper posits to answer these questions as well as providing some less comfortable predictions for those still engaged in the profession. This paper aims to provide a twofold, yet contrasting vision of CLIL as firstly a phenomenon that requires some theoretical underpinning if its success is ever to be explained- and secondly, as a warning to all English Language teachers of the hidden consequences that will inevitably emerge once the successes of CLIL actually begin to take effect. Marcos

THE BACKGROUND TO CLIL CLIL obviously did not spring up overnight nor was it a product of a single cause. In many ways, CLIL actually begins to appear on the surface of the English language teaching profession more as a necessity than a new trendas if scientifically manufactured by the pioneers of modern pedagogy. In this sense, it essentially lacks any theoretical underpinning from its very start and appears in the classrooms resolving practical, not theoreticalinnovations. In many ways, CLIL was sublimely present from the onset and only later took on a name and certain methodological notions of its own. But its existence owes more to the consequences of a political and commercial unification of Europe than to anything which might have sprung from the base upwards. It is essentially a product of European integration from the top
1

down, more than any phenomenon which might have sprung up inversly. Prior references to anything resembling CLIL had been known before chiefly in the form of the Canadian Immersion practices of the 1960s onwards. Within two decades, the idea had caught

Map showing the spread of CLIL around Europe up until 2009. Europe by surprise as the first trends of political and commercial integration begin to surface there. It is in fact Finland that initiates the CLIL offensive with full government backing in the early 1980s and was soon to be followed by Spain when itself joins Europe in 1986. Interestingly, both countries stand ala par with others in the region where more than one official language was actually spoken. Unlike France or Italy for example which had relatively inexistent use of regional dialects, the case of Spain, Luxemburg and Switzerland in particular which all dealt with more than one language officially, embraced CLIL with increased passion. Amongst the Basque,
2

Catalan and other official languages of Spain; and the use of German, French and English in Switzerland and others CLIL resolves these linguistic plethoras by installing the English-only classroom throughout schools and across all subject areas. CLIL essentially unified the language medium in cross-cultural and multilanguage circles around Europe with the advent of globalization in the 1980s. It served as a welcomed solution to multilingual settings which had prior to it found less of a common ground to gather around. Hence Finland and Spain particularly make a real point of diffusing political tensions created by the choice of local languages to be used in schools. CLIL in this sense took it upon itself to resolve political, even nationalist tendencies by becoming a political tool as a common linguistic reference for all identities. CLIL is on the official curriculum of 21 European countries to date. The spread of CLIL today certainly hasnt ceased, on the contrary, it has began to colonize newer fertile territories in Asia and Latin-america as well as some parts of the Middle East. But the further its tentacles spread from its own epicentre, however, the greater the resistance to it. In regions that have had no political and cultural dominance by English-speaking powers, or where there has been a direct resistance to them in the form of anticolonialism, the rejection of such a model are easy to understand. In these cases, the English language is seen as little else than the symbolism of colonial powers. Imposing this language on secondary as well as primary school children, in supposed disrespect of native cultures and languages has in some cases taken the matter to the streets in the form of mass protests. Such was the case for example in Malaysia where parents took to the streets in organized anti-CLIL demonstrations which basically were attempting to reclaim the loss of their natural cultural identities. Through the specific concern of content learning through the English medium, these protesters might have been forgiven for being unaware that their ultimate reservations were with globalization as a whole. Such is the current stage in which CLIL has been asked to operate. It functions in an increasingly globalized world which is quickly narrowing all other possibilities other than English into its lingua franca framework. For businesses and many other enterprises to function in the up-coming world, English has had to exert its omnipresence firmly and securely.

ALL PREVIOUS ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING APPROACHES ARE NATURALLY DEVELOPING INTO CLIL

Methodologically speaking, CLIL has not necessarily experienced gigantic developmental strides within its own lifespan. It has, on the contrary, being somewhat static in terms of methodological innovation and yet its implementation has revolutionized the field like no other in the entire history of English-language teaching. The background to CLIL as an ELT methodology has to be traced back to at least half a century of experimentation with different approaches. The diagram below shows four key stages of methodological development ranging from traditional teacher centred approaches of the 1950s; through to language centred approaches (grammar) of the 1960s onwards; then on to communicative approaches (activity based) of the 70s and 80s; and finally onto integrative content based approaches (CLIL) currently in practice.

Diagram showing the four development for EL teaching.

key

stages

of

methodological

Each stage necessarily saturates the latter as more effective ways of empowering learners with the tools that maximize their potentials are sought. There is an evident transition from passive to active learning throughout the four stages and with it the role of the teacher has been radically altered too. Whilst the learning process was chiefly a descriptive matter presented by the teacher in its entirety during the earlier stages, current approaches focus on student activity in interactive involvement with other learner-students. The role of the teacher here is reduced to monitoring the activities the students have before them and ensuring almost free production of the target language. In trying to seek the causes of why CLIL accounts for such effective L2 acquisition it is important to pay attention to the focus point of lessons in each of the four stages. By far the most noticeable phenomenon is the distinct reduction of teacher involvement within the learning process. The specific objective of English language acquisition is nevertheless kept in CLIL, albeit subtly. So even if no explicit EL teaching is carried out, the linguistic objectives of the learners remain nevertheless intact. The CLIL population has undoubtedly being tested on their acquisition levels of English. Interestingly, results have shed levels a la par with- or even superseding- L2 competences acquired via formal instruction. However, there remains relatively little theory to accompany these results. Though widespread in its newsworthiness, CLIL has managed to slip by announcing greater successes than it has been able to justify theoretically. As we have said earlier, however, it is not the result of methodological experimentation but an empirical grass-root response to changes occurring above at the superstructure level. CLIL has been forced into life by external conditioning, in other words, it has not being conceived as a manufactured product of educators and planners. Whilst looking at some of the precursors to CLIL may indeed prove interesting, it is whilst looking deeper into CLIL itself that some of the answers to its success may be sought. In the following section, we shall aim to address these successes from the point of view of classroom dynamics on the one hand, and from psycholinguistic perspectives which have much to say about effective learning in general.
5

ACCOUNTING FOR CLIL SUCCESSES S

Even after close inspection, it might still be altogether impossible to reach a resounding resolution as to CLILs success. Moreover, to attribute it to a single cause would be equally erroneous. What seems a better option in that sense therefore, is to arrive at a conclusion from a number of different perspectives. The plight is further alleviated when these causes are classified as ones derived from a natural need of methodological innovation, or as a consequence of a more global picture to include the consolidation of global markets and the redrawing of political frontiers. Whilst many might prefer to view CLILs success as an offspring of the general success of globalization, others will need to focus in on the methodology and speak of active student engagement, culturally relevant teaching materials, task-based learning, student to student interactions and the many other motifs that could account for the apparent wave of success the methodology is having. Amongst one of the most poignant underpinnings surrounding this success story comes not from the theories of language learning as such, but from broader notions like the theories of learning themselves.

SOME INPUT FROM PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

Psycholinguists have been experimenting with theories of learning and of language acquisition in particular for a good number of years now. One of the most fascinating results that emerged was the distinction between explicit and implicit learning. The notions differ radically in that one essentially entails the learning process as a conscious, deliberate or intentional one (Ellis, R.S. 2001), whilst the other sees it as an unconscious, unintended strategy that is unaware of the acquisition of knowledge, or of language in this case (Schmidt, 1990). For a more detailed reading on implicitness as a whole, refer to Williams, J. 2009.
6

The role of explicit and implicit learning strategies has been all to evident in the history of approaches leading up to CLIL. The point remains that as more effective language learning strategies come into place, so have implicit strategies taken over explicit ones as learning paradigms. Whilst in the past the focus of the English language learning class might have been on aspects of grammar, today the emphasis lies more on content and subject matter than on the rules of language for example. So if the focus is not on the language itself, then it may be regarded as implicit acquisition of linguistic skills. CLIL is precisely that, the acquisition of linguistic skills without being aware of the process or, as has so often been described, learning without intent.

The shift from explicit to implicit learning strategies as contrasted by classroom methodology.

CLIL therefore gains enormous credit by using implicit learning strategies. Considerably less was gained from grammar rule drilling and memorization,
7

and more so was gained from activity based or communicative approaches. However, all except CLIL, exert some level of explicitness during the teaching process. CLIL is so focused on the other to mean the content (be it mathematics/geography/music/science or any other) that focusing on the English used to teach it defies the chief objective in the first place. If implicit knowledge tests can assert that learning can take place more effectively without conscious involvement and interference, the same can easily be held true when applied to the acquisition of linguistic knowledge. 1 Psycholinguistic experiments to that effect have been designed and are continuously emerging. Paradis (2004) has conducted a number of interesting experiments which have focused on dual-tasking and multisystems learning. The thrust of results here are that performance may actually be enhanced when multitasking or dual-tasking. These findings indirectly support implicitness as they are conducive to defocusing strategies away from the object of study. By the same token, the closer the learning experience comes to automated motor-sensory activity, the easier with which the learning goal is achieved. (Lightbrown.P.M & Spada, N. 2006). Hence driving, cycling and even walking are all best done without the conscious interference so often present in the early stages of language learning.

To summarize this section, we can say that there are two concurrent phenomena working alongside each other during the language acquisition cycle. Firstly, the move away from traditional methodologies has began to distance the teacher from the leading role in the classroom into a fuzzy background. Secondly, the introduction of a standardized medium through which to teach all subject has taken much of the weight off the conscious learning mechanisms which have been shown to hinder the learning processnot enhance it. Given the above, certain predictions may be made with regards to the role of EL teachers in the future. In fact, if the emphasis currently lies in creating a bilingual environment from the onset, does not the role hence the EL teacher as a active player in the process- find themselves defaulted to extinction? Does the EL teacher really have a role at all in the post-CLIL environment?
1

A number of experiments were carried out at the Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics at the University of Cambridge between 2005-2007 which compared the acquisition of musical and linguistic syntax. These experiments showed how the acquisition of syntactical structures from both domains was actually aided by implicitness.

CLIL: THE END OF THE ROAD FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHERS?

Both the historical perspective of EL teaching approaches and the recent discoveries within the theories of learning favouring learning without intent, paint a rather bleak picture for the future of EL teachers as a whole. The post-CLIL era doesnt by definition need EL teachers at all! Even if no one can precisely predict when these changes might begin to occur, what is undeniably true is that the mere function of a teacher specialized in L2 English is almost wiped out by CLIL, If the EL teacher had already been pushed to the back of the class by the communicative approach, CLIL stops short of kicking him/her out it altogether. In essence, the responsibility of teaching L2 English will be transferred to content teachers which will have themselves learnt off other content teachers. This process might well take a number of years to be widespread, but there seems to be increasing environmental pressure to walk this road and adopt CLIL. Many might argue to the contrary, preferring to see CLIL as an important phase but one unable to shift the mainstream paradigms of EL teaching and learning. I will choose to differ- as I believe it is only a question of time before the whole network of schools are joined and governments are seen as complying to the expected norms. In the meantime, we can expect the bulk of English language teachers begin to shrink once the real effects of CLIL become apparent. Many EL teachers caught up in the turmoil of change will undoubtedly reinvent themselves as content teachers, chose a subsidiary activity within the field, or more drastically, leave the profession altogether.

CONCLUSIONS It is evident that whatever stance is taken with respect of CLIL, none can chose to ignore it completely. It constitutes the deepest and most significant change to the profession, as well as to all ELT methodologies to date. CLIL, will have its lovers and its detractors therefore, as has been seen from the continual coverage it still enjoys on the one hand, to the scenes of anti-CLIL demonstrations on the streets of Malaysia, on the other. Understandingly, they were vowing not to lose their national and regional identities through the disappearance of their mother tongue as a medium of instruction in local
9

schools. During the last 30 to 40 years we have witnessed the most wide ranging transformations within the English Language teaching profession. Teacher roles have been turned on their heads and methodologies have all but contrasted each other to the extent of becoming diametrically opposed examples of each other. Student roles have gone the full circle too from entirely passive, non-interactive ones, to dynamically driven active ones with interactions at a number of different levels. CLILs cognitive dimension is again unprecedented from the point of view of its psychological resources. As a model that functions exclusively on the back of implicit learning techniques, it posited with strengths that have been attested by experts in its sister field. CLIL has began to produce near native bilinguals that can also hope to achieve significant strides in the domains of cognition and cultural sensitivity. Students exposure to other cultures through multicultural teaching materials and aids cannot but enhance their overall awareness of the world around them. CLIL is, at least for the time being, a one-way street the world has decided to walk down. If it is ever to be replaced, it will have to be done so by an even more efficient model of language learning. It is otherwise here to stay for some time. At least, that is, whilst English is still kept as the worlds lingua franca for most modern needs. It is most likely that the CLIL epidemic shall continue to spread around the globe for some time to come. Alongside it, new generations of bilingual school graduates shall enter the labour market thanking they spent their formative years under a CLIL umbrella...or will they? Might they not miss having been taught about their own identities in their own mother tongues? Bibliography: Lightbrown.P.M & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learnt. Oxford: OUP. Ellis, R.S. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning. Randall, M. (2007). Memory, psychology and second language learning. Amsterdam. John Benjamins.
10

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11 Williams, J. (In press.-2009) Implicit Learning. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Marcos Bracchitta, Cert. TEFL (Lon), Dip(Lon), BA English Literature (Lon), MA English Language(Sussex), Mphil English and Applied Linguistics (Cambridge, UK), works as a Language Consultant, Teacher, Teacher Trainer, (English/Spanish) in Europe, Latin America and the Middle East.

11