CLIL in FL communication

Introduction

Part 1.Theoretical implications of using CLIL in FL communication.

1.1. Development of CLIL. Notions, dimensions and outcomes.

1.2. Dual focus of CLIL: Content in CLIL. Language in CLIL.

1.3.  CLIL: A multifaceted learning environment that strengthens motivation and enhances the development of mental processes.  

Part 2.Intercultural aspects of using CLIL in teaching FL communication.

2.1. Competences and CLIL.

2.2. CLIL and interactive technologies.

2.3. Learning strategies in CLIL.

2.4. Teacher-learner relationship in CLIL.

Part 3. Practical implementation of CLIL.

3.1. CLIL: History and language.

3.2. CLIL: Geography and language.

3.3. CLIL: Literature and language.

Conclusion

                                                          Introduction

Actuality of work. Recently, the market of educational technologies abounds with various methods of FLT, and a question of a technique used in training becomes more and more actual. Obviously, there were big changes in methods of teaching English at the end of the XX century. Earlier all priorities were given to grammar, mechanical mastering a lexical material, reading and translation, and tasks were monotonous (reading and translation of the text, storing of new words, retelling, exercises in the text), recently, studying of language had become more functional. Huge number of experts in different areas of science, culture, business, equipment and other areas of activity, demanded training in foreign languages as to an instrument of production. They are not interested neither  in the theory, nor history of English language.  It is required exclusively functionally, for usage in different spheres of social life, as means of real communication with people from other countries. Teaching language has gained applied character, while earlier it was rather abstract and theoretical.

Considering modern techniques of FLT, we will see that the list significantly extended and includes communicative, project based, intensive, activity based and distance technique. The communicative technique becomes prevailing, since it satisfies inquiries of learners, and directed on possibility of communication. Among four language aspects, on which any language is trained (reading, writing, speaking and listening), attention is paid to speaking and perception (listening) the most.

However, it should be noted that the communicative method is intended not only for a small talk. Those who wants to be a professional in concrete area, regularly read publications on the subject in foreign editions. Possessing a big lexicon, they easily are guided in the text, but supporting conversation with the foreign colleague on the same subject required them to make enormous efforts.

Due to abovementioned facts, there was such term as an integrated approach to training in a foreign language (Integrated Teaching Approach). However, the concept of the ITA is suggested variously by different authors. According to one group of scholars, it is "integration of functional and methodical aspects of FLT". Others consider that a basis of the ITA is "the communicative technique with integration of practical bases and classical methods".

In the last 20-30 years much attention has been paid to FLT at earlier age. When teaching 5-10-years old children is used the technique of primary education, which has functional aspect, i.e. children study, carrying out various actions. The same approach can be used in teaching older children, when formal and functional aspects of language are integrated, and learners use language for mastering and learn to use the language, i.e. the foreign language is used for production of any functional task.

Mr. Peeter Mehisto mentioned one of his hottest new projects in Kazakhstan. He has had recently worked as an independent consultant with Cambridge International Examinations and the Autonomous Educational Organisation, Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (AEO-NIS) in Kazakhstan. AEO-NIS is working in a highly systematic manner to establish a network of trilingual schools where Kazakh, Russian and English are used as media of instruction.   
 
AEO-NIS supports schools: by organising professional development for teachers and managers/leaders; by developing curricula and learning materials; by commissioning independent research into student achievement and programme management; by creating for a for discussion; by developing public information materials; and, by managing knowledge from the entire programme development process.  
 
To achieve its goals AEO-NIS has been working with numerous Kazakh and international partners. International partners include Cambridge University, John Hopkins University, Pennsylvania State University and Cito.

This kind of integration satisfies learners' inquiries, who interested in applied aspect of a foreign language, and here Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) represents a great interest.

The object of this research work is the process of teaching/learning a foreign language.

The subject of paper is a method of formation of Intercultural Communicative Competence on the basis of Content and Language Integrated Learning technology in secondary school.

The aim of diploma paper is to analyze, describe and expose different aspects of CLIL technology in the field of teaching and learning a foreign language in secondary school. The aim of research has distinguished the following tasks, such as examining the dual focus of CLIL, and its implications; to describe the difficulties and challenges of the CLIL technology implementing in secondary school.

The primary objective of this paper is to articulate the development of Content and Language Integrated  Learning  (CLIL)  as an educational approach  which brings together complementary educational  initiatives  and socio-political requirements. The period 1990-2012 has seen considerable changes in Kazakhstany society and demands for change  in respective  educational  systems. Through selected  reports this work tracks certain  features of  these developments as  they affect curricular integration in respect to languages and non-language subjects.

Methods of research were used to realize given tasks:

1. Interpretation of pedagogical and methodological literature;

2. Analysis and synthesis of experiments and experiences of foreign scholars;

3. Critical study of the literature on the problems of implementation of CLIL;

4. Generalization scientists advanced experiences in the given field of study.

Methodological basis. The work of the following authors were used to realize the basic objectives of the diploma paper : Laletina L.T., Marsh D., Kunanbayeva S.S, Pistorio M.I., Bentley K., Vlachos K., Luksha T.G., Gerakopoulou O., etc.

The scientific novelty of the work is determined by the attempt to study CLIL technology, the ways and problems in its implementation, since teaching/learning a foreign language through integration of language and content is still new technology in methodology of FLT, especially the usage of the technology in secondary schools of Kazakhstan.

The theoretical significance of the diploma paper lies in the attempt to throw the light on the study of CLIL. In this work is given range of characteristics and features of CLIL to clarify the importance and ways of implementing CLIL. Also to clarify that the CLIL approach is more effective means of language learning that intensive language programmes.

The practical significance lies on that the scientific structure can be used during the seminar on methodology of teaching English as FL and teaching subjects through English.

The paper consists of an introduction, three parts, conclusion, references and appendix.

Part 1.Theoretical implications of using CLIL in FL communication.

1.1. Development of CLIL. Notions, dimensions and outcomes.

There is a variety of theories related to teaching and learning a foreign language. Their analyses proved information about the way people the language in general, as well as methods that are most suitable for teaching the language successfully. As the theory of scaffolding is highly related to interaction and a socio-cultural view of language, there will be a reference to the communicative approaches on which teaching and learning of a foreign language are based in our days.

The Communicative Approach

Changes in socio-political scenery of Europe and North America in the early 1970's (for example, high immigration and population movement) led to linguistic and pedagogical changes as well. Classes adopted a more communicative behaviour, with interaction being the central point of language teaching and learning. The focus was now on the learner and notions such as "negotiation of meaning" came to the surface. All these elements are the concrete characteristics of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), an approach with significant implications for the science of language pedagogy among others. According to Savignon, "communicative language teaching derives from a multidisciplinary perspective that includes, at the least, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, sociology and educational research"[1savignon].

Basic in CLT is the theory of Communicative Competence introduced by sociolinguist Dell Hymes. Hymes developed this theory as an answer to Chomsky's idea of linguistic competence. In his theory Chomsky made a distinction between "competence, speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language" and "performance, the actual use of language in concrete situations", considering the first an innate process [2 Chomsky]. Hymes, on the other hand, spoke about learner's competence to combine grammatical and socio-cultural knowledge as well.

This theory was further enhanced by Canale and Swain, who stressed the division of communicative competence into strategic, grammatical and sociolinguistic. This division did not underestimate the importance of grammar, it just put grammatical competence into a more widely defined communicative competence model [1]. Later on, discourse competence was added to comprise with the other three components of learner's communicative competence [1]. Today CLT includes a variety of activities, games, use of songs and movies, use of the internet, among others, so that the learner will be able to expand most effectively his/her communicative competence of a FL.

The Natural Approach

The Natural Approach was developed in 1977 by a teacher, Tracy Terrell, in cooperation with the famous linguist, Stephen Krashen.  Their communicative views on teaching and learning FL immediately found many supporters. Terrell and Krashen claimed that there is a natural way of learning foreign language. In the field of language acquisition, Krashen distinguishes between the terms acquisition a language and learning a language. He asserts that the competence of acquiring a language is a subconscious process that applies both to children and adults, while the learning of a language, is a conscious procedure that is accompanied by a series of rules. Krashen developed five hypotheses and characterize FL acquisition. He talked about "the acquisition/learning distinction" which was previously explained, the "monitor hypothesis", which refers to the way the already acquired input is monitored by learning and "the natural order hypothesis", which claims that there is an order in the way grammar rules are learned. Furthermore, the idea that language is better acquired if it is offered one level beyond

the existing linguistic level of the learner belongs to the "input hypothesis", while "the affective filter hypothesis" posits the FL acquisition is affected by different factors, as for example, of the psychological state of learner. Krashen's views, although they were questioned by many scholars, have highly contributed to FL teaching and learning and "influenced the development of integrated instruction at all levels", as it will be discussed immediately after [3Crandall].

Content-based instruction

Under the umbrella of Communicative Language Teaching lies the approach of Content-based instruction. CBI is defined is the integration of content and language in FL teaching  and learning with special emphasis on the subject matter. "CBI is a teaching method that emphasizes learning about something rather than learning about language" [4davies]. Although, the idea of integrating content and language existed many years ago, for example in immersion in Canada and the USA, it has been in the last few years that this new approach applies in the FL classes of other countries' as well.

In CBI classes the focus is mainly on the content area rather than on the language. Genesee observes that "language serves as a vehicle for discussions of academic matters and is only a secondary focus of instructional attention" [5]. However, the acquisition of language come forth from the constant contact of the learner with language as s/he is taught the subject matter, but at the same time learns and practices in the target language. "They (the students) learn about this subject (a subject they are interested in) using the language they are trying to learn, rather than their native language, as a tool for developing knowledge and so they develop their linguistic ability in the target language" [6 Peachey]. Cummins, Grabe and Stoller claim that CBI is supported by Krashen's comprehensible input hypothesis which, as Krashen and Terrell state, says that "we acquire by understanding a language a bit beyond our current level of competence. This is done with the help of context". The academic input as new material to be learned, offers to the student the opportunity to practice and acquire a language in a level above the comprehension level s/he already has. On this topic Snow, Met and Genesee argue that there is more effective language acquisition when language learned in meaningful and important situations for communication, such as the subject matter content offered at school. The main point is that the integration of content and language in CBI offers to the student along with the content knowledge also the opportunity for the FL acquisition in a communicative environment that s/he might not find in a class  of a solid language instruction. In the last years a variety of content-based approaches have been issued for more effective language pedagogy, such as sheltered content instruction, sustained content teaching, theme based, adjust language instruction, and content and language integrated learning.

Definitions

The entry of Content and Language Integrated Learning in the educational system of the European schools started as a prerequisite in order to assist the scheme of multilingualism that characterizes the European Union. On this go, the parallel teaching of language and subject matter in a language different from the mother tongue was proposed. In 2006 a report on the European Union’s educational system on bilingualism was issued defining CLIL as follows:

"The acronym CLIL is used as a generic term to describe all types of provision in which a second language (a foreign, regional or minority language and/or another official state language) is used to teach certain subjects in the curriculum other than the language lessons themselves" [7Eurydice]

There is not a limitation in the second language chosen for instruction in CLIL. Due to the internalization and expansion of the English language, though, most students in the European schools that attend a CLIL programme are instructed in English. However, there are some cases in which a regional or minority language has been selected. Besides, one of the scopes of the European Committee is the preservation of languages, especially the minority ones, and the promotion of multilingualism at the same time. The integration of content and language was again chosen as the most adequate educational paradigm. CBI and immersion programmes had already built the ground for the integration of content and language teaching and learning in the school curriculum. Pérez-Vidal (2009: 6) explains that “CLIL is essentially the natural development of communicative approaches, updated with the incorporation of the effects of recent developments” and on the go, she sets three factors that seem to have strengthened the emergence of CLIL:

Factor 1: The European Union political project and increasing globalisation and mobility, which Union policies promote.

Mobility of young people in the European Union became an important feature for the expansion of multilingualism and cross-cultural attitudes. Mobility was expressed through exchange programmes such as Erasmus, Comenius and Leonardo, among others.

Factor 2: New pedagogical insights such as the key role played by individual differences, attitude and motivation in the development of autonomy in language learning.

The new pedagogical perspectives created teaching strategies which set as target the language learner’s autonomy that is translated as the learner’s development of cognitive and linguistic abilities in order to become responsible for his/her own learning.

Factor 3: Technological progress.

The incorporation of new technologies in language education, firstly with Computer Assisted Learning (CALL) and later on with Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), contributed to the development of CLIL which, as a modern approach to language learning, depends on new technologies for the promotion of the language learner’s autonomy.

Content  and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)-is a dual-focused educational  approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of content and language with the objective of promoting both content and language mastery to pre-defined levels. Since  1990 CLIL has emerged as an example of interdisciplinary educational  convergence that requires multi-faceted research approaches  (Coyle,2007; Dalton-Puffer & Smit 2007;Lyster2007; Mehisto 2011; Bonnet 2012). Eurydice observes that: "One  of  the first pieces  of legislation  regarding cooperation in CLIL is the 1995 Resolution of the Council. It refers to the promotion of innovative methods and, in particular, to the teaching of classes in a foreign language for disciplines other than languages, providing bilingual teaching". 

The European Commission White Paper which followed this in 1995 also noted that mainstream schools (Secondary) should consider teaching subjects in the first foreign language of the school, as in the ‘European Schools’ which exist primarily to serve the children of personnel working for the European Institutions. From 1995 to the present, European programmes, educational  legislative actions and other drivers such as professional initiatives have resulted in CLIL further establishing itself in education. "The debate on CLIL is very much alive. Fresh initiatives to promote this still novel methodological  approach will be undertaken in  the  years ahead, probably within the next generation of education and training programmes  for 2007-2013 (Eurydice 2006:8). This has been the case, and  the extent  to which the position of CLIL has changed  since the full European study carried out by Eurydice in 2005-2006 is to be  found in a follow-up study to be reported in 2012. 

Baetens Beardsmore observes  that, "the social situation in each country in general and decisions in educational policy in particular always have an effect, so there is no single blueprint of content and language integration that could be applied in the same  way  in different  countries – no model  is for export".   

In 2006, Eurydice  found  that the provision of  CLIL could be found  in the majority of  European  member  states. The length of  experience varies considerably, as does the means by which CLIL was introduced. The status of languages used is complex to determine  because of a range of terms  being used to  designate CLIL-type provision. National, regional, heritage languages may be taught  using  an integrative method, but termed in different ways. The most notable issue relates to terms like bilingual education and immersion. The  levels of education are the most commonly reported but this does not include  pre-schooling,  which,  in turn, may not  be  administrated  by regional educational  administrative  infrastructure.  Whilst  most  activity  is  reported at Secondary level the emergence of integrated methodologies at earlier  stages  remains  commonplace  (Eurydice  2006:  20).  The  organisation and evaluation  of  CLIL  across  Europe varies considerably from use of language tests, tests  on languages  and  other  subjects, a  combination of  both, and open systems where students are allocated places in CLIL streams according  to application and availability. The subjects taught depend largely on educational sector with creative subjects and environmental sciences prominent at primary level, and science and social science being  reported as common  to secondary level (Eurydice 2006: 24).

Dimensions and outcomes

Working towards a cohesive conceptual tool, and influenced by the early work of Mohan and his Knowledge Framework (1986), Coyle (1999) developed the 4Cs Framework (Figure 1). This Framework differs from the standards-based world languages education strategy Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (1999) published by ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages), which focuses on the language curriculum. Although some interesting links can be made (e.g. communication, cultures and connections), there is a difference in emphasis since the starting point is language education. The 4Cs framework for CLIL starts with content (such as subject matter, themes, cross-curricular approaches) and focuses on the interrelationship between content (subject matter), communication (language), cognition (thinking) and culture (awareness of self and ‘otherness’) to build on the synergies of integrating learning (content and cognition) and language learning (communication and cultures). It unites learning theories, language learning theories and intercultural understanding:

1. Subject matter is not only about acquiring knowledge and skills, it is about the learner constructing his/her own knowledge and developing skills (Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978);

2. Acquiring subject knowledge, skills and understanding is related to learning and thinking (cognition). To enable the learner to construct an understanding of the subject matter, the linguistic demands of its content must be analysed and made accessible (Met, 1998); 
3. Thinking processes (cognition) need to be analysed for their linguistic demands (Bloom, 1984; McGuiness, 1999); 
4. Language needs to be learned in context, learning through the language, reconstructing the subject themes and their related cognitive processes e.g. language intake/output (Krashen, 1985; Swain, 2000); 
5. Interaction in the learning context is fundamental to learning. This has implications when the learning context operates through L2 (Pica, 1991; van Lier, 1996); 
6. The relationship between cultures and languages is complex. Intercultural awareness and learning is fundamental to CLIL (Byram, Nicols, and Stevens, 2001). 
The 4Cs Framework holds that it is through progression in knowledge, skills and understanding of the subject matter, engagement in associated cognitive processing, interaction in a communicative context, developing appropriate language knowledge and skills as well as acquiring a deepening intercultural awareness through the positioning of self and ‘otherness’, that effective CLIL takes place whatever the model. From this perspective, CLIL involves learning to use language appropriately whilst using language to learn effectively. The 4Cs Framework is a tool for mapping out CLIL activities and for maximising potential in any model, at any level and any age.

Figure 1.

CLIL Dimensions and Focuses

In the CLIL Compendium there are 5 dimensions based on issues relating to culture, environment, language content and learning. Each of these includes a number of focus points realized differently according to 3 major factors: age-range of learners, socio-linguistic environment, and degree of exposure to CLIL.

1. The Culture Dimension - CULTIX:

• Build intercultural knowledge and understanding;
• Develop intercultural communication skills;
• Learn about specific neighbouring countries/regions and/or minority groups;
• Introduce the wider cultural context;

2. The Environment Dimension- ENTIX

• Prepare for internationalization
• Access International Certification
• Enhance school profile

3. The Language Dimension-LANTIX

• Improve overall target language competence
• Develop oral communication skills
• Deepen awareness of both: mother tongue and target language
• Develop plurilingual interests and attitudes
• Introduce a target language

4. The Content Dimension

• Provide opportunities to study content through different perspectives
• Access subject-specific target language terminology
• Prepare for future studied and/or working life

5. The Learning Dimension

• Complement individual learning strategies
• Diversify methods and forms of classroom practice
• Increase learner motivation [Derived: Marsh & Langé, Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages]

Ball (2006) thinks that these dimensions are the basis for CLIL. Keeping in mind content and language imply both communication and knowledge, it is certain to consider these five dimensions provide a framework for the approach.

First, Culture dimension contributes to the growth of intercultural knowledge resulting in most of the cases in cultural understanding. Likewise, culture dimension helps to introduce wider cultural context, learning at the same time about specific neighboring countries, regions and minority groups. It emerges as a means to handle issues relating to regional-political conditions where even if cross-border contact has been minimal in the past, the future invites much greater contact. Colombia as multicultural and diverse as it is, offers a wide spectrum to assume a cultural position in regards to one´s own perception and the foreign language. CLIL is used to promote understanding and awareness through language-enhanced methodologies.

Second, regarding the Environment, CLIL prepares for internationalization which is nowadays one of the main goals of the educational system in Kazakhstan. The programme curriculum may be heavily influenced by specific environmental needs or opportunities identified in the institution. In the same way, thanks to this internationalization, there is an international certification access. Students have preparation for future studies or work that involves different languages, so they are ready to face any culture with all the necessary skills to take an exam in which their proficiency is valued. When integrating content and language, students have the opportunity to acquire both Basic Interpersonal Communications Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALPS) with the former being all the social language skills and the latter the language skills to cope with academic requirements (Cummins, 2000). Being able to communicate academically and socially opens new borders and encourages students to explore and travel around the world.

Third, in terms of Content, CLIL is seen as helping to provide opportunities to study content through different perspectives. Marsh et al (2001) claim that “Languages, and the cultures associated with them, sometimes reveal differing world-views that can be seen in the ways in which some content is taught.” One obvious example lies in how educational curricula in different countries may describe shared historical events. However, traditions in the different disciplines can lead to significantly diverse ways of approaching and understanding similar phenomena. CLIL enables learners to study through these different perspectives that can lead to achieving a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Tackling a topic from different perspectives undoubtedly fosters critical thinking and broadens students’ perspectives on different issues. The Content dimension even offers access to specific target language terminology. Students acquire new lexicon in order to understand concepts or express academic language accurately. CLIL is suitable for all levels of education, from elementary to graduate or vocational to professional education.

Fourth, Marsh (2001) affirms that in terms of Learning Dimension, CLIL complements individual learning strategies. CLIL is specifically geared to learner-centered methodologies that attempt to improve learning by giving attention to individuals’ needs in terms of social and thinking skills. One broad issue relates to how the brain processes information (Sousa, 2006). Recently, it has been posed relevant to how the brain learns; for instance, brain differences among boys and girls, different learning styles or even how the arts influence learning. Likewise, this Learning Dimension suggests that CLIL helps to increase learner motivation which is at the heart of all education. 

Lastly, in terms of Language Dimension, CLIL is a significant approach to improve overall target language competence. Using Marsh’s (2001) words, this is one of the most common reasons, both historically and more recently, for the introduction of CLIL. This focus stresses language competence in general and therefore includes reading, writing, speaking and listening skills. CLIL furthers the language experience through the integration of language and non-language teaching. In the same way, this Language dimension proposes that the practicing of oral skills can be done in a ‘utilitarian’ way that is to provide opportunities to use the language as a tool to communicate. This means that methods to be used are the ones that lead to a high degree of interaction within the class. In such cases, even if desirable it is not necessary for a teacher to have native-like competence in the target language; what it truly matters is the ability to interact and transmit knowledge by means of the target language.

Finally, these five dimensions build students’ profile and attitudes by being competent in the foreign language.  This focus often involves a learner being able to use a language for specific purposes while developing cultural, personal and social understanding. Marsh et al. (2001) pointed out that the dimensions are idealized and should not be viewed as standing alone, because they are usually heavily inter-related in CLIL practice. It is useful to distinguish the dimensions because it allows to identify the separate, yet inter-locking reasons why CLIL is implemented in diverse contexts.

The reasons for the implementation of CLIL in the European schools was launched in 2001 in a book called the Profiling European CLIL Classrooms – Languages Open Doors (Marsh et al, 2001) accompanied by the CLIL Compendium website, which contain the analysis of significant research that provides information on the effectiveness of CLIL in the school curriculum. Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala (2001) propose five dimensions and focuses of CLIL, which Pérez-Vidal (2009: 8-11)summarizes in three in the subsequent way:

1. Socio-cultural dimension: This dimension is related to the general vision hidden behind the unification of the European Union and the sharing of values which are accomplished through the exchange of cultural elements among its members and the learning of languages for better communication.

2. Educational / curricular dimension: The main idea in this dimension is the way knowledge is presented and introduced in the CLIL classroom. A socioconstructivist idea thus is suggested in which oral interaction and communication, a socio-constructivist type of learning, are considered the best methodology. On this issue, Do Coyle (2000) proposes the 4 Cs curriculum, i.e. Culture, Content, Cognition and Communication, explaining that, if these four elements are combined, successful learning will occur in the CLIL context.

3. Psycholinguistic and Language Acquisition dimension: This third dimension focuses on the linguistic acquisition that learners have when they attend a CLIL programme. CLIL puts more emphasis on the language acquisition than previous approaches of CLT. Factors that contribute to successful linguistic achievement are sufficient and meaningful exposure to input for more hours per week than the conventional language classes along with the students’ beneficial production of the language in the classroom setting as much as possible.

The general outcomes of the establishment of CLIL in the European school system may be reached from a pedagogical, linguistic and social perspective (Marsh et al, 2001). Schools re-organise their curriculum structure to be in accordance with the new European standards and support exchange programmes that promote communication and internalization. Teachers are trained on and become agents of new methodologies and technologies. They contribute to the students’ acquisition of knowledge in a basically socialized environment that prepares students to become competent and multilingual European citizens. Finally, students of CLIL courses gain in terms of content, develop their cognitive abilities and are more successful language learners as they acquire the second language more effectively than students of solid language instruction (Dalton-Puffer, 2008: 4).

1.2. Dual focus of CLIL: Content in CLIL. Language in CLIL.

CLIL is often implemented as a language pedagogy. The goal of the CLIL curriculum is effective competence in a second language. This has in the past been the situation in language maintenance projects, such as the teaching through Irish in English-speaking regions of Ireland in the 1950s and 1960s; and language imposition, where minority language users are educated in the dominant language. More recently, the basis of the communicative approach to language teaching owes much to the experience of people such as Henry Widdowson and Chris Brumfit teaching the school curriculum through English in contexts such as Bangladesh and Tanzania. For them the context of subject learning at school and college was the naturally communicative context in which language teaching and learning could be developed. Currently, as a response to the role of English in a globalised world, stakeholders such as parents, political leaders and employers are advocating the early integration of a second language – typically English – as core curriculum for the development of a 21st century workforce. An additional motivation for CLIL is the development and maintenance of multilingualism in contexts where dominant and minority languages co-exist (Serra 2007). CLIL has emerged as a viable strategy for achieving such goals in Europe and beyond. A major element of the rationale here is efficiency in learning: two fields of learning – a school subject and the target second language can be progressed at the same time. The language development, viewed in a communicative framework as a means of understanding and sharing ideas, takes place through exploring concepts.

The theoretical rationale for CLIL is particularly clear and persuasive where the focus in on the target language. Subject learning activities provide a meaning context for the language use, and learning interactions push the developing language resources. In addition the reduced focus on language forms may assist with engagement and confidence. However, good language teaching is not necessarily good content teaching. Merrill Swain articulates clearly the potential tension of education in a developing second language:

Content teaching needs to guide students’ progressive use of the full functional range of language, and to support their understanding of how language form is related to meaning in subject area material. 
(Swain 1998: 68)

For the subject teacher of science, geography, art, etc., there are two issues:  
1) the extent to which the essential knowledge and concepts can be learnt as well by all pupils in the CLIL language as in comparable mother tongue classrooms;  
2) the extent to which the same range of learning opportunities, including activities which develop enthusiasm, motivation and confidence can be engaged in the CLIL classroom as in comparable mother tongue classrooms.

In contexts where teachers are implementing CLIL, there are many views on these issues. Research into and development of CLIL in many contexts however, focuses on process and achievements in language learning (Lasagabaster 2008). There are two reasons for this. First, the leaders and developers of CLIL initiatives tend to be second language teachers and researchers looking for novel ways of enhancing FL learning in schools. Second, the CLIL initiative is likely to be innovative in terms of the language of instruction. The subject learning is not itself the focus on curricular change, or a context of dissatisfaction with educational stakeholders. The assumption in CLIL is that the subject curriculum does not change.

This dual focus is a major challenge both for CLIL organisation at school and curriculum level, and for the work of the teaching in the CLIL classroom. This challenge is particularly important in assessment policy and practice.

If one considers the dual focus expressed in the previous paragraph, the term CLIL becomes an umbrella term to cover “learning through any language that is not the first language of the learner” (Ball, 2006). In consequence, the educational community needs to be aware that using a foreign language when teaching content incurs in language learning since structures, vocabulary, and pragmatics, among other linguistic features, are implicit in the topic being taught. CLIL entails teaching the foreign language while students learn subject – matter.  

Marsh (2003) adds that CLIL also includes procedure when it is implemented effectively. For instance, when students learn a subject; namely, history, geography and/or science through the medium of a foreign language; the foreign language acts as a vehicle for learning, thus educators plan integrating not only content and language but also procedures by stating how content will be addressed in such a way that it is meaningful for every learner, no matter their proficiency level. As a result, CLIL is also an instructional approach.

"Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) refers to any dual-focused educational context in which an additional language, thus not usually the first language of the learners involved, is used as a medium in the teaching and learning of non-language content. It is dual-focused because whereas attention may be predominantly on either subject-specific content or language, both are always accommodated " (Marsh, 2003, ELC Information Bulletin 9) .

CLIL is focused on interdisciplinary curriculum or cross curricular planning. In this regard, educators teaching English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI), Language Across the Curriculum (LAC), Content Based Instruction (CBI), Content Based Language Teaching (CBLT), English for Specific Purposes (ESP) or any form of Bilingual Education, are all applying CLIL. English has turned out to be the dominant language in our society, therefore a need for language and content integrated learning arises in order to prepare future professionals to face this changing world. This situation gives the learning of a foreign language the importance that it had never had before in the curriculum, as it provides innumerable advantages if we are to accompany the new trends in the world we are living in. Apprentices need to learn a language to confront the demands of a new society; the studied language may provide a better status and the possibility to use it for different needs. In order to show the use of language, learners may do cross curricular connections by doing project work, for example.

CLIL is generally defined as a pedagogical approach which has a dual (integrated) aim: learning of the subject matter (content) and learning of the (second/foreign/target) language used as the medium of instruction for the content.

CLIL is seen as a continuum or an „umbrella term” for all those approaches in which some form of specific and academic language support is offered to students in order to facilitate their learning of the content through that language.

Figure 2.

1.3. CLIL: A multifaceted learning environment that strengthens motivation and enhances the development of mental processes.  

CLIL targets at promoting the cultivation of positive attitudes towards learning by offering the students opportunities for using the target language naturally to expand their knowledge in various fields of study. Research in FL has shown that students are motivated when they use it as a tool for communication, and when they see the purpose for mastering a language (Vlachos, 2005 and 2006). In CLIL developing FL language skills has always a purpose: to use the FL to acquire non linguistic knowledge. Learning is dual focused and covers two broad educational areas: 1. Using FL to elaborate content, discover new information and expand non linguistic knowledge; and 2. Learning how to use the FL accurately and appropriately (Marsh, 2002). Since both educational areas are in need of equal attention, language learning is viewed as holistic, which implies that the target language is seen as the medium both of instruction and of learners’ communication. FL is perceived as the main means the learners use to explore the world. It is expected that language learning is realized in a context where students investigate, decode and understand the technological and cultural achievements as well as the existing values and attitudes that constitute modern societies. It is, therefore, felt that project work is fully compatible with CLIL, because when working with projects, students are offered the chance to explore media with information with a view to synthesizing products that exhibit the new knowledge they have acquired.

Since language learning is used for exploring new non linguistic knowledge, CLIL students are not just invited to study the linguistic system of the target language; they are required to move beyond linguistic competence and start reflecting on the content of the subject areas being studied and on the learning process, ‘thinking’ and ‘reflecting’ in the target language. Training the learners to ‘think’ in different languages (the mother tongue and the FL) promotes the development of their mental processes and conceptualization (Marsh, 2008). Viewing the world from different perspectives, being able to decode new information based on new thinking horizons, using frames of reference that have been enriched with elements taken from different cultures and value systems broaden the way students think and learn. They progressively become able to adopt learning strategies (cognitive, metacognitive, social etc.) that enable them to internalize and consolidate previously acquired information and look for new knowledge. It can, therefore, be asserted that except from linguistic competence, more competences and skills are expected to be developed through CLIL. As we explain next, pragmatic, sociolinguistic and strategic competence need to be enhanced in a CLIL learning environment.

It has long been felt that motivation may be an important  factor in the acquisition of a foreign or second language and with the “World English Project” as suggested by Graddol (2006 Pg 18) where “global English makes the transition from ‘foreign language’ to basic skill,” (ibid) the issue may even become crucial to successful EL teaching and learning. However much we discuss its importance it is not always easy to pin down what motivation actually is. Dörnyei (2001: 7) pertinently quotes Martin Covington on this point: “Motivation, like the concept of gravity, is easier to describe (in terms of its outward, observable effects) than it is to define.”

Certainly, it is easier to describe the outward signs as we have all registered them in their positive aspects and their negative aspects in countless classrooms all over the world. Not only this but the outward signs of, for example, always doing homework on time and arriving early and eager to class compared with finding the lesson boring and complaining about it impinge on classroom dynamics leading to successful or unsuccessful classroom practice no matter how diligent and experienced the individual teacher might be.

We are all cognizant with the theory of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, with Maslow’s pyramid, perhaps also with Jarvis’ theory of learning and Cambourne’s model of the Whole Language approach, not to mention Cummins and Fisher yet the concrete control of motivational aspects still eludes us in practice. Dörnyei (2001: 1) steers clear of trying to pin it down concisely by saying that motivation is: “ an abstract concept that we use to explain why people think and behave as they do. It is obvious that in this sense the term subsumes a whole range of motives – from financial incentives such as a raise in salary to idealistic beliefs such as the desire for freedom – that have very little in common except that they influence behaviour. Thus, "motivation' is best seen as a broad umbrella term that covers a variety of meanings."

But we need to harness the positive side of it if we are to make the best use of the restricted amount of time we usually  have in the EFL classroom. It may be more profitable to see motivation as connection or engagement and try to develop our own theory from the daily lived lives of our experiences within the classroom itself. This connection relates to any relationship in real life and is crucial to the desire to “ stay beside”, to “spend time with”, to “inhabit”, or to tacit knowledge ( Polanyi 1958) where one “lives IN the skills, or where one indwells only that to which one is committed; it has to do with passion.”. Ian Tudor in his article in HLT, Pilgrims magazine Jan 2004, says that connection “ involves students discovering a sense of personal meaningfulness in their language learning in one way or another.” Again, extremely abstract but clearly obvious if  it is seen through the holistic lens of the CLIL approach.

CLIL, Content and Language Integrated Learning, promotes connection because the fundamental philosophy is holistic and appeals to the needs of young learners. The five “tixes” of CLIL overlap, intertwine, and weave their way through the minds, the souls, and the bodies of the students in the charge of teachers worldwide. It may be considered a sophisticated extension of  TBL, of project work, of  LAC, of  bilingual immersion, of  EIL, of EGL. There are as many interpretations of CLIL as there are teachers who teach it. Without a doubt, for those who wish to move into a more global role as a  teacher of EFL, CLIL can be a solution. The authorities, however, must weigh up the pros and cons of this approach in their specific contexts.

The “tixes” include:

CULTIX- dealing with culture and intercultural communication and understanding ;

ENTIX- dealing with the environment ;

CONTIX - the content or subject matter;

LANTIX- the English language dimension;

LEARNTIX- awareness of "Learning to Learn", or learner training.

The method requires the teacher to comply with a number of approaches which are not necessarily routine in the EFL classroom. CLIL principles come from a number of sources. As Steve Darn, Izmir University of Economics, Turkey ( Teaching English BC) says  "all teachers are teachers of language" (The Bullock Report - A Language for Life, 1975) to the wide-ranging advantages of cross-curricular bilingual teaching in statements from the Content and Language Integrated Project (CLIP). The benefits of CLIL may be seen in terms of cultural awareness, internationalization, language competence, preparation for both study and working life, and increased motivation.

Some practitioners like to look at CLIL as composed of four  areas which are discrete in the planning but integrated in the teaching / learning process: