Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A Review
The chapter focuses on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), an approach to language education that integrates content learning with language development.
What is CLIL?
CLIL originated in Europe, inspired by bilingual education approaches like immersion in Canada.
It emerged amidst European policies promoting multilingualism and aimed to introduce innovative pedagogy in both language and content teaching.
Defining characteristic: a dual focus on content and language learning, differentiating it from approaches that merely use content to support language learning or vice versa.
Debates and Comparisons:
There's an ongoing debate about the distinction between CLIL and other approaches like immersion, Content-Based Instruction (CBI), and English-medium instruction (EMI).
While differences exist regarding the role of the language of instruction, teacher qualifications, learner profiles, and expected outcomes, some argue that similarities outweigh differences.
"Cenoz et al. (2014) and Somers and Surmont (2012) argue that there may,, in fact,, be more similarities than differences between what is labeled ‘CLIL’ and ‘immersion’ programs."
Cenoz et al. (2014) propose viewing CLIL as an umbrella term encompassing various approaches where language and content teaching are combined.
Paran (2013) suggests focusing on CLIL as a pedagogy rather than a policy.
Why (not) CLIL?
Arguments for CLIL:
Pluriliteracies Approach: Focuses on learners' ability to use language and other modes of communication (visual, graphic) to engage with subject-specific content.
"A pluriliteracies approach builds on and refines earlier distinctions between ‘everyday’ types of communication and more specialized types required for academic study"
SLA-Informed Approaches: Proponents see CLIL as an ideal setting for communicative language teaching and task-based learning, with content providing authentic contexts. However, research indicates that CLIL classrooms may not offer significantly more opportunities for developing communicative competence than other classroom types.
Focus on Form: There's a need for explicit language focus within meaning-focused content learning to support learner progress.
Research on Outcomes:
Positive Findings: Studies show CLIL learners outperform non-CLIL peers in various language skills, demonstrating gains in structural variety and academic discourse features.
Limitations: Focus on L2 learning outcomes often overshadows content learning outcomes. Limited research on content acquisition through CLIL yields mixed results.
Methodological Concerns: Criticisms about methodological issues, researcher bias, and potential elitism in student selection for CLIL programs.
The Multilingual Turn:
Shift from Monolingual Bias: CLIL increasingly embraces a multilingual perspective, recognizing learners' existing linguistic repertoires.
Translanguaging: Encourages the deliberate and spontaneous use of multiple languages as a pedagogical strategy and means of expression.
Examples: Lin (2015) proposes a multi-stage approach incorporating L1 and L2, along with various modes of communication, for effective content learning.
CLIL Teachers:
Characteristics: Content teachers often see themselves as co-learners with students in the target language. They may struggle to balance content and language instruction due to a lack of linguistic knowledge and pedagogical training.
Needs: Training should focus on the theoretical underpinnings of CLIL, methodology, language awareness, and access to appropriate materials and resources.
Practical Aspects of CLIL:
Teaching: A scaffolding approach is crucial, supporting learners to access content through the target language without diluting academic rigor. This can involve visual aids, graphic organizers, explicit language support, and engaging activities.
Conclusion:
CLIL presents both opportunities and challenges for ELT. Its focus on integrating content and language learning holds the potential for enriching language instruction, while its implementation demands careful consideration of teacher training, resource development, and assessment practices. As CLIL continues to gain prominence, ELT professionals must engage in critical reflection and dialogue to determine its impact and shape its future within the broader field of language education.