Kathmandu University, School of Education
Understanding CLIL
CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is “a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language” (Mehisto, Marsh & Frigols, 2008:9). In practical terms, this means that a curricular subject, such as geography, mathematics or any other generally non-linguistic subject, is taught and learnt through the medium of a foreign language.
The European Commission, which is strongly supporting the introduction of CLIL in secondary schools, sees in CLIL the opportunity for greater “exposure to the language without requiring extra time in the curriculum” (Commission of the European Communities, 2003:8) and a way of improving the otherwise generally poor results of language teaching.
Approaches to CLIL: Strong vs. Weak
Ball (n.d) describes two possible approaches to CLIL that form a continuum of practice:
- The “Strong” or “Content-Driven” Approach: Considered by some as the only true possibility (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010:1). The syllabus depends solely on specific subject content. There is no language grading; language is introduced "just in time" as necessary for the study tasks.
- The “Weak” or “Language-Driven” Approach: Accounts for traditional language grading, modifying content and tasks to suit the learners' current language level.
In practice, research shows CLIL can take various forms along this continuum, influenced by "intensity" (lessons per week) and "duration" (short or long-term) (Mehisto et al., 2008:12).
The Professional Identity & Methodological Challenge
The integration of both content and language brings the identity of the teacher and their competencies to the forefront. Generally, content teachers may not be proficient in the target language, while language teachers may lack subject expertise. At the secondary level, these difficulties are particularly high.
Both language and content teachers can encounter problems with methodology (Deller & Price, 2007:6,7) since three types must be integrated: the methodology of the specific subject, the methodology of language teaching, and the specific methodology associated with CLIL.
To be successful, a CLIL course is built around "learning by doing" (acting, observing, and reflecting). This involves:
- Comprehensible Input: Exposure to language that is understandable due to context, but slightly above the learner's current competence (Krashen, 2002).
- Comprehensible Output: Pushing learners from semantic into syntactic processing by requiring them to encode messages (Swain, 1996; Dalton-Puffer, 2007:261).
The 4Cs Framework and The Role of Language
CLIL belongs to the tradition of the Communicative Approach and finds its identity in the 4Cs framework (Coyle et al., 2010):
1. Content (Subject Matter)
2. Cognition (Learning and Thinking)
3. Communication (Language Learning and Using)
4. Culture (Intercultural Understanding)
BICS, CALP, and Translanguaging
Research into Content-Based Instruction supports the idea that second languages are best learned when focused on content mastery (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Students must develop two distinct types of proficiency:
| Category | Description (Cummins / Bentley) |
|---|---|
| BICS | Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills: Needed for social, conversational situations. |
| CALP | Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency: Abstract and formal language needed for academic study. |
| Language types | Language of, for, and through learning (Coyle et al, 2010). |
A Constructivist Approach for Cognitive Challenge
Learning content in a non-native language requires solving problems through both LOTS (Low-Order Thinking Skills: describing, classifying) and HOTS (High-Order Thinking Skills: analysing, interpreting) (Bentley, 2010:21).
To combat anxiety, the literature suggests focusing on short-term goals and supporting students within their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)—the distance between what they can achieve alone and under guidance (Vygotskij, 1978; Gibbons, 2009:15).
This necessitates a participatory approach where the teacher is a facilitator and manager of interaction rather than a mere "knower." Interaction should involve genuine discourse rather than simple evaluate-follow-up patterns.
Authenticity and Grading: The CLIL Matrix
Since ready-made materials are scarce, producing authentic texts is vital. Scaffolding and task grading must be balanced using the CLIL Matrix (adapted from Cummins by Coyle et al.):
| Quadrant | Linguistic Demands | Cognitive Demands | Focus/Step |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | LOW | LOW | Warm-up / Initial confidence |
| 2 | LOW | HIGH | Essential: Content learning without language barriers |
| 3 | HIGH | HIGH | Targeted progression for capable learners |
| 4 | HIGH | LOW | Transitory step: Learning essential language |
Integration is achieved through teacher-led brainstorming, group processing, and specific tasks like gap-fills or open questions tailored for laboratory or academic tasks.
The Challenge of Learning Assessment and Course Evaluation
Integrating the 4Cs creates testing complexities. Traditional tools often fail to distinguish between content and language proficiency (Hönig, 2010). While formal testing is required, scorers must consider both performance aspects. Scorer reliability is improved through co-teaching, but "face validity" remains a concern if failures cannot be clearly attributed to language or content.
Ideally, course evaluation should utilize Action-research (Wallace, 1998). Teachers can also use student questionnaires or maintain a teaching diary to record perceptions, problems, and progress, providing crucial feedback for future course planning.
Conclusion
Starting from the 2012-2013 academic year, the Italian State school system introduced CLIL in "Liceo Linguistico," eventually extending it to all secondary school fifth grades by 2014-2015. My teaching experience shows that CLIL renders language learning more authentic and produces better results by allowing students to use strengths in one field to compensate for difficulties in another.
In the long term, CLIL may well become successful common practice in formal education, provided that teachers are given opportunities for learning, experimenting, and collaborating.
References
- Alderson, C.J., Clapham, C. and Wall.D. (1995). Language Test Construction and Evaluation. Cambridge University Press.
- Ball, P. “How do you know if you are practising CLIL?” Onestopenglish.
- Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT Course CLIL Module. Cambridge: CUP.
- Commission of the European Communities (2003). Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity.
- Coyle, D., Hood, P., and Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
- Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms. John Benjamins.
- Deller, S. and Price, C. (2007). Teaching Other Subjects Through English. Oxford University Press.
- Gibbons, P. (2009). English Learners Academic Literacy and Thinking. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
- Hönig, I. (2010). Assessment in CLIL theoretical and empirical research. VDM Verlag.
- Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press.
- Krashen, S. (2002). Second language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.
- McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press.
- Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., and Frigols, M.J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Macmillan Publishers Limited.
- Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press.
- Swain, M. (1996). “Integrating language and content in immersion classrooms”, CMLR, 52, 4.
- Vygotskij, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
- Wallace, M.J. (1998). Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press.
- Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). “The role of tutoring in problem solving”, JCPP, 17.