Fusing Theory and Practice: the CLIL Portfolio
Towards a Theory of Practice for CLIL
Pedagogy
comes from the ancient Greek: ‘paidos’ (child) and ‘ágo’ (lead). In ancient
Greece, it referred to the slave that led the children to the school or the
gym. (www.wikipedia.org
(Access date 14 Feb. 2009)
It has
evolved through the centuries and it has been an object of study by many
pedagogues, who have given hundreds of definitions. Some have considered it a science; others, an art.
According to Gomez (2007), the concept of pedagogy addresses both children and
adults because our society every time has more training organizations. It has
its own principles and methods and it is evolving as well as society is.
In my opinion, pedagogy is the group of theories,
methods and strategies that instructors use in order to help the learner to
construct own knowledge, no matter if he/she is a child or an adult. The
success of the instructors is choosing the best tools that will suit a certain
learner. It includes both formal and informal learning and it is a term that
should evolve to fit the changes of our society.
In
such a changing and demanding society, adopting a CLIL-pedagogy in my classroom
will allow my pupils not only to learn a foreign language, but also to develop thinking skills that will help them learn
and manage by themselves. Many times, as teachers, we complain that our pupils
do not have the ability to think, but we do not change our methodology of
teaching. We also complain that they are not very competent using languages,
but few make language learning functional. Doing CLIL, we have the opportunity to
integrate content and learning and to prepare our pupils for their future life.
Furthermore, the new curriculum of the Generalitat de Catalunya intends to
incentivise a methodology which stresses the development of thinking skills or
as they are called in the curriculum ‘transferable competences’.
Nevertheless,
different approaches to develop content and language learning have been developed,
from the bilingual models in Canada and USA to bilingualism models in European
countries such as Luxembourg and Malta. Moreover, the European Commission and
the Council of Europe have met several times to discuss this issue and to establish
a common basis for all these countries. But as Coyle (2007) points out, this is
difficult due to the diversity of our countries in terms of socio-political
aspects, languages and culture.
This
diversity leads to different practices of CLIL:
‘different models and their
constituent dimensions have contributed to the emergence of a range of methods,
materials and curriculum organisation’ (Coyle,2007:pp.
6)
A
CLIL-specific pedagogy would help to make more understandable what we mean by
CLIL and what it implies in terms of content and language and the way we have
to teach it as well as planning and assessing both content and language.
The
4Cs conceptual framework suggested by Coyle
‘focuses on the interrelationship between content
(subject matter), communication (language), cognition (learning and thinking)
and culture (social awareness of self and ‘otherness’)’
(Coyle, 2007: p. 8).
This framework is a learner-centred approach
in which the learner constructs his/her own knowledge at the same time as he/she
is developing thinking skills. In addition, the learning situations help the
learners to acquire the language through which they are learning the content.
This implies that the teacher has to plan the subject matter thoroughly, the
language, the learning and thinking processes as well as culture.
If
CLIL is to be effective, it must challenge learners to think so that they can
construct their knowledge. Bloom’s taxonomy offers the opportunity to build and
use knowledge from a lower to a higher level. He created two categories of
thinking skills: lower order (remembering, understanding, applying) and higher
order (analysing, evaluating, creating). But CLIL is a way to create knowledge
and to improve language skills at the same time. So, if the language is the tool learners will
use to construct their knowledge, teachers must find a balance between the
language and the cognitive demands:
‘CLIL teachers are encouraged to use an adaptation of
Cummins’ matrix (..) Cummins’ matrix states that “where the language level of
the learners is lower than their cognitive level, then the learning environment
must account for this mismatch through ensuring accessibility through language’
(Coyle, 2006: p. 20).
In
other words, when the learning activity demands a higher cognitive level, then
the language should have a lower linguistic demand to enable the learners to
achieve the cognitive demand. Although you can aim to move to the quadrant
where there is a higher demand on both language and cognition.
As
for the language, we need to plan the language
of i.e. the language that learners will need to understand the concepts of
the topic, the language for i.e. the language needed to be able
to communicate in a foreign language and the language through i.e. the language that will emerge in the learning
context.
Culture
does not mean learning about festivals, habits or about people. CLIL goes
further. As Coyle insists (2007), culture refers to understanding why and
respecting the cultural differences as well as the culture of content subjects,
which may also vary between countries. For this, pupils need to interact.
But
as Coyle (2006) states, CLIL practices will only be successful if the teaching
aims and learning outcomes are transparent and of quality. For this to happen,
they have to be linked to a theoretical basis.
The CLIL
framework leans on theories such as cognitivism and social constructivism.
Piaget’s
cognitivist contribution states that we learn by processes of assimilation and
accommodation. As Lefrançois (1994) explains these processes are not
independent, and all activities imply both. New knowledge can fit easily to the
learner’s previous knowledge (assimilation) but may actually restructure that
previous knowledge (accommodation) which occurs by a process of equilibration.
In order for this to happen, the learner must be motivated to learn.
In
addition, aspects such as learner’s maturation, active learning experiences and
social interaction must also be taken into account.
Social
constructivism highlights the importance of language in the development of
higher mental functions. Human beings are responsible for their own learning
and that this happens in contact with others (a relative, a teacher or a peer).
In this interaction language is very important because it is the one that makes
thought possible:
‘Since thinking
and language are closely linked (...) learners need to be able to talk about
what they are learning in order to know it better’
(Coyle, no date).
Vygotsky
also claimed that learning activities must be higher than the learner’s current
capacity. The area in which a learner can continue to learn with assistance was
defined as the zone of proximal development (Z.D.P.). He also stressed the
importance of culture:
‘Without culture, our intellectual functioning is limited
to apelike, elementary mental functions; given culture and language, we become
capable of higher mental functions involved in thinking, reasoning,
remembering, and so on’ (Lefrançois, 1996: p. 78)
Using
such a framework contributes to establish a CLIL-pedagogy which integrates
content and learning so that all teachers doing CLIL can know what they are
talking about. But because each country has a different socio-cultural
background and different educational policies, a variety of CLIL programmes
have emerged, what has led to a range of methods and strategies. Furthermore,
CLIL has been a very flexible concept and there have been different
interpretations. Establishing a basis also allows researchers to start from a
common point of view.
As teachers,
we should consider Piaget’s contribution and find out our children’s first
knowledge, so that the new concepts are not too distant from the old knowledge.
We also know that the more attractive the new topic is introduced the more motivated
children will be to learn. We must remember that language has an important role
since children learn better when they interact with others as well as to plan
activities that are in their Z.P.D. and scaffold them from easier to more
difficult.
We
know that as in first language acquisition, language is learnt when we expose
children to the language, but as Marsh (2001) reminds us it is by doing that
they learn the language. He adds that children learn a second language faster
because the learning environment is more natural.
We often forget that different children have different
learning-styles and we tend to plan only one type of tasks. We should plan a
variety of activities that adjust to our students’ different learning-styles.
We should also consider that the activities allow them
to develop thinking skills that will help them learn to learn.
To
summarise, when planning a CLIL lesson, we should start by drawing up a mind
map to take into account the 4Cs. We have to carefully scaffold the language
and the content so that we provide our pupils with the appropriate language
that allows them to think at the right level. The As tool (Analyse, Add and
Apply) can be very useful for this purpose. We have to analyse the language of
learning, to add the language needed to accomplish the tasks, answers
questions, talk and discuss and to apply to the lesson the thinking skills. By
doing this, they are more likely to succeed in the proposed activities and, as
teachers, we will make sure we take into account all these issues. These
activities should enable our pupils to work in their ZPD and as well as developing
thinking skills.
We
must also make sure that we provide our students with enough group/pairwork, so
that they can use the language to learn. This will help our pupils to interact
with others and extend their cultural base.
To
finish with, I would like to point out that it is very important that CLIL
teachers meet to discuss what we are doing and to share experiences, which will
enrich one another and not to keep our practices to ourselves.
Eva💖
Comments
Post a Comment