Content and Language Integrated Learning

I am going to talk about CLIL, which is the abbreviation for Content and Language Integrated Learning. And very briefly, that's an approach to language teaching where content which is non-language related content-- so it might be history or geography-- is taught through a foreign language for the students. 

So why would people like to use CLIL? Well, one of the reasons is that it's a way of expanding meaning-based instruction. So we make use of the content of non-language classes. So you've got geography or business studies. And you can use their concepts and topics and meanings. And in that way, you really extend the objects of real communication.

It's also, in a way, an extension of task-based language teaching and communicative language teaching. You've got one huge communicative task, which is learning the content of a different subject. And that can be used through the L2 gain authentic communication.

 Another issue is that we've got a situation where there are learner groups who are often seen as people who are not interested in learning languages. Because they might not like what's typically taught in the foreign language classroom. And they might be more interested, for instance, in learning science through English. 

And politically, there's also been the reason to say, Europe is multilingual. European Union is multilingual. And language teaching approaches had to be diversified to increase the language competence of EU citizens.

I would like to add here some comments given by other people too:

A.M: My current school requires us to use CLIL in our classes. We have had very little introduction/training based around it and this has had quite a negative impact on my teaching confidence. I am a secondary trained teacher who has spent the last 8 years teaching the National Curriculum. I have no formal language teaching training or experience and this is something which I am finding extremely difficult. In addition, all 22 of my students have very little knowledge of English so I rely on my TA to interpret their comments, questions, ideas (as well as mine). All the research we have been presented with highlights that in order for CLIL to work best, the teacher and students should share a common language (L1) and the teacher should be bilingual. I agree with this and think that students would benefit the most in a classroom like this.

S.M.: I integrate CLIL in my English lessons by working along with my fellow teachers. For example, if the history teacher is doing the Industrial Revolution, what I'd do to support him whilst giving students the chance to enhance their English is to read some Dickens to them, watch a video about the London tube and they do a research on Queen Victoria and the Victorian era by playing a board game where students have to recall and explain what they've learnt in the history lesson - in English!. We then speak about the role of women in the Victorian era, and the role of women now etc etc... Of course it takes time and it requires that teachers co-operate. It's more difficult to put in practice for teachers who see their students once a week only and they're asked to focus on language functions only.

A.B.:

in Pakistan, we are using CLIL unconsciously, without knowing too much about it .according to my experience, it is neither helpful in language learning nor in explaining other subjects.

O.K.: Hello! I work in PLS so I only have English on my English lessons but I know that in our schools teachers do CLIL and it is really interesting. Two teachers cooperate and make a lesson for example of Biology in English. It is challenging but I am sure children like it. I think it is a very sensible method because students understand that they need English not only on their English lessons but in real life; such method widens the world perception and it can be a good motivation to study English and to use it in your life. I like it very much.

I.D.: I start feeling sick when I hear about teaching in schools using other languages but native language of certain country. In our country we have horrible experience forcing all students to to study in one particular language. You can't imagine how hard it is for students to understand science, history or other subjects not using their L1. They start loosing interest in a subject,,. There are many other ways to learn English. Learn from the mistakes of other countries.

P.M.: I often think of the positives about teaching other content to students (outside of grammar and syntax). The idea that I could teach history, or social sciences in English to ESL learners is appealing. In my classroom, I often incorporate mini lessons on these topics. I've even sat in social sciences classes in a school in Denmark with a Danish teacher teaching in English to Mexican students about the Danish social welfare system. The other class they attended was on philosophy, also taught in English by a Danish teacher to Mexican students. The experience was great and would be great if I could teach much more in the same way.

Thinking on the negatives though, I always wonder what happens when we reduce world languages to only a controlling, dominant few? What happens to diversity? What happens to culture? What happens to identity? I don't there are simple outcomes.

I'll keep teaching English and inevitably, through my actions, will push this conundrum forward because , despite the drawbacks, I that coalescing our communication around a dominant language is also inevitable as globalization accelerates.

You can learn more if you sign in for free courses on Future Learn: 

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/understanding-language/11/todo/56788