To Teach English Is Human, To Teach CLIL Is Divine? - Jeremy Harmer PDF

Jeremy Harmer
ELT writer, presenter, teacher & trainer

To teach English is human, to teach CLIL is divine?
Posted by jeremyharmer on January 25, 2011
Posted in: CLIL (Content and Language Intergrated Learning), Language. 114 Comments
When Lindsay Clandeld gave his talk at the International House World Organisation Director of Studies conference (try saying all that
quickly) in early January his title was Coursebooks: whats hot and whats not.
There was one thing Lindsay didnt mention, and that was CLIL or, as you all know by now, Content and Language Integrated
Learning. So I got to wondering . Do CLIL people (like this lot (http://www.clilconsortium.jyu./)) and EFL people talk to each other
very much? At all?
Then I thought: is CLIL hot, lukewarm or icy cold? Is it taking the educational world by storm as some people suggest or isnt it?
[A quick preamble: look away now if you know anything at all about CLIL. This is just for those who haven't thought about it much.
CLIL is (supposedly) not like teaching ordinary EFL (English as a Foreign Language) or ESOL (to speakers of other languages). It is
teaching the language and an academic subject at the same time, so that as you learn about physics you learn the language for
physics. CLIL advocates dividing language skills into BICS (basic interpersonal communicative skills - that's familiar EFL territory)
and CALP (Cognitive academic language prociency - that's, for example, the physics bit!). You can have soft CLIL (that's a bit of
teaching physics and English together) and hard CLIL (delivering a lot of the physics curriculum in English and vice-versa).
CLIL advocates say that it is different from just bi-lingual schooling. It is new and shiny because CALP and BICS have equal billing.
Many people have a big stake in promoting and supporting CLIL practice.]
Some governments (well, education ministeries, anyway) are going crazy for CLIL. For example, in Spain it is all the rage; the
government of the United Arab Emirates has said it wants CLIL at the secondary level so university courses do not have to spend
hours on foundation English courses. In other countries they are promoting CLIL as hard as they can. But Malaysia has just
abandoned teaching maths and science in English because, many Malaysians say, it is bad enough having to learn science without the
added burden of a foreign language (English).
Hmm. Of course there are many factors behind the decision of Malaysia (and Korea backtracking away from something similar).
Three of them might be (a) does CLIL actually work? (b) where can you get teachers who are competent in both the subject and the
language? (c) the local language needs defending.
And yet in an increasingly global world surely teaching subjects through English (and teaching English through subjects?) IS the way
to go. Teaching English for no obvious reason (TENOR) has had its day. CLIL and English for Special Purposes must be the way forward.
In the ESOL world by the very nature of the students and what they need and want, theres a kind of CLIL imperative, perhaps?
And yet.heres what someone said to me the other day, and it is the reason for this post:
I hear lots of people talking about the advantages for English that CLIL offers, but I havent heard anyone saying its a great way to
teach physics (or geography or maths etc).
So get your Tarot cards out, polish your crystal balls. Is CLIL the present? The Future (perfect)? The soon-to-be-past (even with the
massive investment in it)?
What do you think?
114 comments on To teach English is human, to teach CLIL is divine?
annabooklover on January 25, 2011 at 3:25 pm said:
Very good point Jeremy! I am in the middle of a CLIL project right now, but I have my own doubts whether this is actually as good
as they say.
Reply
jeremyharmer on January 26, 2011 at 12:11 am said:
Hi Anna,
I think it may be the case of a good idea not necessarily implemented well?
Jeremy
Reply
sophie ioannou georgiou on January 25, 2011 at 3:29 pm said:
Hi Jeremy
You are right in that sometimes people tend to concentrate on the benets CLIL has for language learning but this usually comes
from language teachers such as most of the colleagues probably reading this blog.
When CLIL is properly introduced in education, one is careful that the subject content is taught adequately. This is crucial when
CLIL is implemented the way it should be (in my humble opinion) i.e. teaching a subject in another language. If this is done so,
then teachers have to emphasise the subject and that is where students are assessed.
Unfortunately often colleagues, in their efforts to try to be up to date (?) teach content-based/topic-based English and think it is
CLIL whereas in this case the teacher is not really interested whether the student learnt his/her science or geography. In essence
the student knows that too. He/she will be assessed on their English and NOT on the topic. So, this is where the problem very
often lies.
As in the countries you mention that are backing out, I think there are a range of issues to blame and not the approach as such.
CLIL works but it works when a range of factors are in place and when it does the developments are evident in the subject matter
too.
From our experience in Cyprus, CLIL implementation has had a very positive effect on the subject taught.
Sophie
Reply
Hi Sophie,
I am sure you are right. CLIL only works when the content (physics, geography etc) is as much at the heart of what is going on
as the language.
Jeremy
Reply
Adam on January 25, 2011 at 3:52 pm said:
I have genuinely high hopes for CLIL, more so than for dogme, I have to say (not that Im trying to directly compare the two).
Perhaps my desire is based in the fact that my teaching context is highly focused on content based instruction, of which CLIL
seems to be a natural extension.
I like the notion of there merely being different ways of expressing a notion, some linguistically sophisticate, others less so. This is
where the traditional grammar syllabus is selling learners short. Nevertheless, I do fear for the young uns in countries like Spain
that have dived into what is essentially still a fad.
The language we use to describe a given concept is inherently connected to that concept, although I think well end up seeing two
camps develop; the hardcore CLIListas and the neo-decontextualised grammar CLILardos.
Who will win? It will be interesting to see.
Reply
jeremyharmer on January 26, 2011 at 3:37 pm said:
Hi Adam,
Im glad your comment made it through in the end!
I am interested in your Dogme/CLIL comparison. I see similarities in that most teachers do a bit of both, but few are totally
committed!!!
I have seen (have even written) lessons which have had CLIL elements (that is if I understand the concept correctly. But I cant
imagine where I would nd (in most countries I visit) teachers who could take on a long hard CLIL approach.
Of course if we CAN educate children this way, that is all to the good but for what? The concepts or the language (my
original questions)?
Yes, the language for a concept is concept-specic. That begs a question, of course: is it a god thing to be that specic and make
things less generalisable?
Jeremy
Reply
ALiCe__M on January 25, 2011 at 3:52 pm said:
Teaching English for no obvious reason (TENOR) has had its day Well, maybe Ill sound very silly, but I learn English for no
obvious reason (LENOR), and my students often tell me they would like to learn French for no obvious reason, just because its
a beautiful language, just for the sake of it, for the mere pleasure of speaking a foreign language, which gets bigger and bigger : the
more you can speak it, the more beautiful language snow you get, the bigger the snowball.
But nowadays the word objectives is written in such tall letters everywhere, (even on the soles of a toddlers shoes), that it seems
unreasonable not to be obsessed by it too. And so, lets dissect objectives, theyll multiply, well triple the joy. Because it is
thought that the more precise the objectives, the better. But the beauty of language is not in the pointy details only, its in the
owing, the musical, the creative nature of it. CLIL sounds like this to me : dissecting objectives, to create a new market, and a
new jargon.
Reply
Hello Alice,
thank you for that beautiful reminder of the joy of language learning it because it is there, and because we want to and
because maybe, one day, we can appreciate poetry and ction in another language.
IF CLIL is just another mindless objective-driven fad then it is not a good thing. But if it really helps both language AND
content then it is to be welcomed?
Jeremy
Reply
Jeremy Taylor on January 25, 2011 at 3:54 pm said:
I attended a CLIL discussion at an IATEFL conference a few years ago. Someone asked David Marsh (big sh in CLIL world),
Could you tell us about some of the negative aspects of CLIL? His reply? No, next question?
Spain could look to Germany where CLIL is not a big thing at all yet German scientists are perfectly comfortable working with
English-speaking colleagues. I sometimes proofread scientic texts written by German scientists and their level of English is
amazingly high. How did they manage it without CLIL? I think we should nd out.
It seems that CLIL is much better than EFL teaching because it has an an impressive array of SFLAs. Stupid Four Letter Acronyms.
Reply
Well there are loads of people who speak English well despite the methods they were taught through. I wonder how they
made it?
what about all the people who learnt English through English translation and the Audiolingual method? Does this means the
methods were great?
What it means is that some motivated people will learn DESPITE the method.
The question is: what about all the other people who did not learn despite being top students in audiolingual and translation
classes? etc etc
Reply
Sophie,
yes your question is a good one and one that exercises the minds of everyone in language teaching and planning.
Methods such as audiolingualism and GT and even the traditional structural-situational teaching that has charaterized
much western TEFL seemed to work well for some but not for all.
Why?
!
Jeremy
Hi Jeremy,
your story about David Marsh is instructive. Of COURSE every approach and development has some negative aspects!!
Beware the anti-negative blinkers.
But in case you think Im weighing in on this I was not there so I cant comment on the actual event, my comments are only
made in the abstract.
In order for CLIL to sweep the world it needs to be able to back up the claim that it is better for (a) English and (b) the content.
Jeremy
Reply
sophie ioannou georgiou on January 26, 2011 at 6:33 am said:
Or simply to prove that it is just as good as other approaches for a) teaching English and b) teaching content
Hi Alice
I dont think it is like that at all. Learning English for no obvious reason I think would better translate into not having any
motivation for learning a language obviously this is not so for you.
There are many who need some motivation to do so and need some reason to use the language. CLIL makes language learning
meaningful. Of course language learning can be make meaningful in the hands of talented teachers but so often it is exam-oriented
etc
CLIL offers the possibility for learners to really communicate about something it creates real communication opportunities in the
classroom and implements most of the principles of communicative language teaching and task-based learning in an effortless
way.
Obviously it is currently being exploited by the marketing departments of a number of schools and a number of publshing houses.
It is a shame though to let they hype lead you to a negative stance towards it.
We (I guess the lot, Jeremy refers to or at least me and some other colleagues involved in CLIL) are sorry to see the way it is
being used and manipulated and being stretched so it ts anyone and everyone who wants to seem trendy and up to date.
Reply
Sophie,
yes, thats the thing. If CLIL DOES mean something it is because it is real and genuine and answers new and pressing needs.
But CLIL will be diminished if it just picked up and abused by people who arent really doing it.
Jeremy
Reply
Exactly and Im afraid this seems to be happening
Luciana on January 25, 2011 at 6:53 pm said:
Hi Jeremy, I was a TENOR student and learnt in spite of it. Just recently I heard and ESOL teacher say: I am an eclectic teacher
trying to make the most and pick and choose the best from each method/approach. Tell you the truth, Im no purist myself, and
do also mix and match.
When it comes to CLIL, all I can say is that I cant do maths in English, I must have the cadency of my mother language when
calculating. Food for thought?
Reply
Hello tenor Luciana!
Yes, I am sure students can learn English for no obvious reason and enjoy it (and have great success) as you and Alice have
done!
Eclecticism HAS to be a good answer when we teach groups full of individuals.
The question about you and maths and CLIL is, for me, whether either your English or your maths would be better off if they
were taught separately or together!
Jeremy
Reply
Luciana on January 26, 2011 at 1:05 pm said:
I liked maths well enough when I learnt it in my mother tongue. My knowledge of English at that time was rubbish, so Im
not sure how I would have dealt with it. I can see it causing some trouble.
What I notice is that maths and scientic topics, not being my line of work / interest, are now better understood in the
language I originally learnt them. So, there may be a point for CLIL. Teach them science in English early on and they might
have less trouble dealing with these subjects in English at higher levels.
But is English the most wide-spread language for science??
emilyvbell on January 25, 2011 at 8:28 pm said:
I have to admit to being very sceptical about CLIL.
I was involved in a big project which aimed at introducing CLIL. It was woefully lacking in its planning and delivery (even
thought I was involved!). At the time I didnt know much about CLIL and we were just asked to deliver a TKT course to a group of
local school teachers. When we arrived, ready to impart knowledge on the grateful teachers, we were shocked by the bile, vitriol
and near mutiny that we encountered. Basically, nobody had thought about what the teachers needed to be able implement CLIL
in their classrooms and were just instructed to get the certicate or be sacked. The teachers needed language development, not ELT
training.
As Sophie says CLIL works but it works when a range of factors are in place. That was certainly not the case in my experience,
and, I think, the majority of cases. Thats why CLIL is being abandoned. I honestly dont know if it works when implemented
correctly because I have nothing to base my opinion on.
And, selshly, I dont want to teach science!
Reply
Hi Emily,
thanks for coming along.
(I dont want to teach science as it happens, though I DO appreciate real and needed content).
But your story ABSOLUTELY conrms my worries about imposing some ill-understood new paradigm on teachers who have
not asked for it and, more important, who do not have the requisite training or support to make it work.
If you want a paradigm shift you have to get teachers to buy into it rst, dont you? And then amsses of support?
Jeremy
Reply
darridge on January 26, 2011 at 7:45 pm said:
This is common now in many countries now. Notably, in the UAE it was decided that all teachers now had to get IELTS
scores of 5.5+ and teach their subjects (previously taught in Arabic their native tongue) in English.
Unbelievably stressful for the teachers, and often no nancial incentives beyond do it or lose your job were given.
Michelle Worgan on January 25, 2011 at 9:34 pm said:
Hi Jeremy,
This is a large and complex issue in Spain CLIL seems to be being implemented very poorly on the whole, and the main reasons
for this seem to be a) Lack of teacher training and insufcient level of L2 on the part of the teacher. (Just a B1 level is required to get
a teaching position at a bilingual school, which is actually nothing of the sort) and b) A quick-x answer to the question of why
the level of second language ability in Spain is behind that of many other countries. If it is not being implemented well, it is hard to
see how CLIL can be really successful.
On the other hand, I am actually doing a bit of CLIL with one of my groups of young learners (rst year primary). I am an English
teacher, but I have designed a syllabus full of content, cognitive and language objectives. Those who would like to know more,
will be able to read a guest post on http://kenwilsonelt.wordpress.com/ sometime over the next month or so!
Reply
Hello Michelle,
great that you have come along!
I am looking forward to your guest blog!
So you are a soft-CLIL teacher!! I completely agree with that idea. But is a CLIL lesson merely a lesson using real-world
content? Theres nothing wrong with that of course, but it doesnt make for a brave new world does it?
`You are so so so right (I suspect) about problems when CLIL is introduced indiscriminately. For in order to be a successful
CLIL teacher you need good English and good subject knowledge and sufcient training.
My suspicion is that in most places where CLIL is enthusiastically introduced at least one or two (maybe even three?) of those
needs are not being met.
Jeremy
Reply
I think what this discussion is pointing out is that -as Jeremy puts it CLIL is being abused by a number of people.
Carried away by the enthusiasm (or the hype) they rush to implement it without having secured some basic factors (much like
buidling without proper foundations.
Some of the main factors are:
a) competence in the foreign language by the teacher
b) teachers trained in language teaching methodology
c) teachers trained in the specic contents methodology
Other factors are continuous support for the teachers and provision of suitable teaching materials.
I think often CLIL seems to be a victim of its own success. People observe a successful CLIL lesson and it all seems to be running
so smoothly and effectively. Then other colleagues and/or policy makers want to implement it and think it is OK to just get
started.
The reality behind a successful CLIL lesson or overall programme involves a lot of hard work and teacher training and much
more.
We specically require that teachers have the rst three factors above, before they can start teaching CLIL.
Reply
Hi Sophie,
yes, thats just it. You DO need 3 competencies at least to be a CLIL teacher but as usual when governments get involved they
think they can them on the cheap.
I think it may be more fun to teach soft CLIL (because of the content). But the occasional lesson about Emperor penguins or
the process of evaporation is not so different from any other EFL lesson the content is just different. But to be a REAL CLIL
teacher you need deep subject knowledge at least.
Then the methodology.
And denitely, good English.
Thats a big big ask.
Jeremy
Reply
Jeremy Taylor on January 26, 2011 at 6:56 am said:
I agree with the three factors that Sophie suggests above. So CLIL might be ready for introduction (in most countries) in about 10-
15 years. In the meantime I have a wonderfully simple alternative: introduce more subject content into English teaching. English
teachers will always need content of some kind do why shouldnt it be a bit of history, geography, science?
Reply
Jeremy,
yes I agree and in fact if you look at some better coursebooks they have always had soft CLIL in them (unless CLIL means
something very different, and for the life of me I cant see it yet).
So I am all for decent content which includes anything from acid rain to how the sun works etc as valid topics for any class.
But the hard stuff?! It may take years to implement, by which time the band may have marched on?
Jeremy
Reply
Hi Jeremies : )
Why do you guys assume that its going to take so many year???
Teachers with double specialisations are not as rare as you think.
In primary schools it is normal for teachers to be able to teach more than one subject.
Many university graduates have double majors.
I dont see why you are pushing readiness too far into the future. It can be done. Its just that it needs people to be aware of
what needs to be done so that it is implemented effectively.
Adam on January 26, 2011 at 7:04 am said:
Hi Jeremy, I left a comment here last night but I think it got lost in your spam.
Reply
see above!
Jeremy
Reply
Luciana :
I liked maths well enough when I learnt it in my mother tongue. My knowledge of English at that time was rubbish, so Im not sure how I
would have dealt with it. I can see it causing some trouble.
What I notice is that maths and scientic topics, not being my line of work / interest, are now better understood in the language I originally
learnt them. So, there may be a point for CLIL. Teach them science in English early on and they might have less trouble dealing with these
subjects in English at higher levels.
But is English the most wide-spread language for science??
I think English is a common language for science but the commonest? By how much? I dont know.
Dont Id enjoy maths and science in Spanish (which is my not-very-good second language) much!
I am in two minds about whether or not learning science in the L2 is a good think or not
Jeremy
Reply
Natalia on January 26, 2011 at 3:42 pm said:
In a softer version, if it is about using content in our classes and dealing with meaning rst, well, as someone has already said,
then thats what we should be doing already.
As for hard CLIL, Im worried mainly because its a fad here in Brazil. For a while in Rio it seemed there was a new billboard every
day announcing that a new school had gone bilingual, teaching part of the curriculum in English. Not only am I condent that
there arent enough subject-matter specialists with uent Academic English to go around, but Im also worried about the
ideological implications of the whole thing. I dont believe that changing the language is just changing the wrapping of the same
content. Thats too much of the conduit metaphor for me. The content will necessarily be changed whether its for the better or
for the worse ir remains to be seen. What seems to happen (but I may be wrong, since Im a bystander in the whole CLIL
revolution here) is that the Humanities are still taught in Portuguese, while the other Sciences are taught in English. Well,
considering the status that both technology/Sciences and English already have, this can actually undermine the view of
Portuguese as an Academic language in its own right. But then again, considering how much of our research is ignored worldwide
because of the language, then arent we (I mean me! LOL) being hypocrites by worrying with a status we have never held?
P.S.: As I said on Twitter, I just began studying about this and Id really appreciate some references about content-based learning.
According to ICAO, thats what I should be teaching my students, who are all air trafc controllers. However, all I could only nd
were CLIL books, which seem to focus on schools rather than in the ESP domain. But Im sure you and your readers can help me.
Reply
Natalia,
that is a very interesting perspective the idea that by teaching some subjects in English (and only the humanities in English)
you undermine the status and validity of the home language (Portuguese).
The whole way in which languages clash and rub against each other is difcult to work out, isnt it (hence your comments
about worldwide research).
I understand that a lot of CLIL focuses on schools although as people have been saying in their comments here many teachers
offer CLIL-like lessons at all levels. But air trafc control is not so much CLIL, is it, as full-on ESP. There ARE materials out
there but I dont know themwill try and nd out.
Jeremy
Reply
Natalia on January 27, 2011 at 1:03 pm said:
jeremyharmer :But air trafc control is not so much CLIL, is it, as full-on ESP. There ARE materials out there but I dont know
themwill try and nd out.
Thank you for your help!
I may have misunderstood what you wrote, but I dont think that being full-on ESP means ATC English cant be anything
else. After all, we can teach ESP following communicative, task-based or basically any other methodology. ICAO suggests
we do it with CBLT. I think they mean we should be teaching refresher courses such as Safety in Aviation, which ATCOs
have to take anyway, in English, or perhaps we should scaffold ICAO materials and documents, which are for the most part
written in English. (At least thats how one company understood it
http://www.aeservices.net/English/articles_value_of_content.html)
Its the same 2-for-1 concept that CLIL has, but out of the school context, which is why I wrote that I fail to see the difference
between CLIL and CBLT. But then again I realize I dont know enough about either.
Nicky hockly on January 26, 2011 at 9:29 pm said:
CLIL has a great track record in Finland. However, we dont all teach there & our learners are not Finns. Malaysia recently
dropped clil after 10 years of it. Looks to me like the writing is on the wall for clil in countries like Spain. I wager that 10 years
down the line well be back where we are now Been there, done that & ( surprise!) it didnt work out
Reply
Hello Nicky!
Well you are right there about us and Finland!!
If CLIL IS to work, then Spain is the ultimate test case. English learning at school in Spain has not been, over the years,
conspicuously successful. Of course that doesnt make Spain different from many other countries (and look at foreign language
learning in the UK if you want to get REALLY depressed!). But CLIL has been put forward as some kind of a saviour for this
situation.
Is it? I cant tell. Im not right there right in it. But the sounds coming out of it are not, as yet, encouraging. On the other hand
Sophies enthusiasm (above) is pretty infectious.
As a mutual friend and colleague said to me the other day Im in two minds about it. Well so am I. Hence this blogpost of
course!
Jeremy
Reply
sophie ioannou georgiou :
Hi Jeremies : )
Why do you guys assume that its going to take so many year???
Teachers with double specialisations are not as rare as you think.
In primary schools it is normal for teachers to be able to teach more than one subject.
Many university graduates have double majors.
I dont see why you are pushing readiness too far into the future. It can be done. Its just that it needs people to be aware of what needs to be
done so that it is implemented effectively.
Thanks, Sophie, for that corrective.
Yes, of course primary schools have teachers who teach across a range of subjects. And at primary level many can do that. But
whereas it is fairly easy to be a mistress or master of experimenting, for example, about what things oat, or how to do simple
mathematics, actually knowing a language means that you have to KNOW it.
Of course, if primary school EFL is just a taster then thats a different matter.
I cant see reasons why good CLIL at primary shouldnt work IF you have competent English-language users. But what are the
benets for the core subjects? What for English?
Jeremysubjects, what for English
Reply
Of course there needs to be teacher competence in the foreign language goes without saying
I thought we talked about the benets earlier .
and there are additional benets to those mentioned earlier. These are practical benes such as nding the time in the school
timetable to teach a foreign language. It is often one of the biggest problems!
(This is juat and additional benets to others mentioned above pls dont take it as the major consideration)
Reply
Burcu Akyol on January 27, 2011 at 12:31 pm said:
Hi Jeremy,
When I look at the denition of CLIL, it looks like an ideal way of teaching/learning content and a foreign language.
CLIL refers to situations where subjects, or parts of subjects, are taught through a foreign language with dual-focused aims,
namely the learning of content and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language.
(http://www.onestopenglish.com/clil/what-is-clil/)
However, when I look into the reality in my country, I can say that it is a fantasy. First of all, I dont know the answers of these
questions:
-Should it be the subject teacher or the English teacher who is teaching a subject through English? Or can both be possible? Even if
both are possible, I think, neither English nor Turkish subject teachers can do it properly. The reasons are simple:
1. English teachers are trained to teach English and we cannot expect them to teach maths or science.
2. Subject teachers are trained to teach subjects and they are taught how to do it in Turkish. There are not many subject teachers
who can use English as a means of communication in the classroom or to teach a subject.
-If we teach a subject through English, what should we assess? Linguistic outcomes or content area knowledge? Or both??
Furthermore, I think, if a student learns subjects in their native language, the level of competence would be much higher and the
students are more likely to produce knowledge in the further steps of their academic lives. If the content is taught in English,
student would try to cope with both the subject area content and the linguistic content which will make it difcult to master even
one of them.
I dont think we need a single content area to teach English well and the content area teachers need a foreign language as a
medium of instruction. Why should they?
I, as an English teacher, need to make learning English meaningful for my students and I can do this via a variety of authentic or
graded materials & tasks which I choose according to the lessons linguistic aims and my students interests. I can either choose an
article from a history magazine or a video about global warming from the National Geographic website. Without content, how can
the language I teach be meaningful? But, still, I teach language not the content. I guess this can be called a soft CLIL approach
I think that working with subject teachers in the planning period and having some common projects and/or lessons is very good
for curriculum integrity but teaching the subjects through English doesnt seem logical to me
By the way, are there any Turkey trips in your agenda? I wish you were coming to ISTEK.
Have a nice weekend.
Burcu
Reply
Hello Burcu,
thanks you so much for your comments. I think you summarise (very effectively) the whole debate about CLIL.
It goes something like this:
1
where CLIL is badly implemented it isnt going to work (teachers not prepared etc)
2
Good teachers always include interesting content to teach English with
3
it is still unclear to me whether the content is enhanced or damaged by using the L2
(But in case Sophie is worried) CLIL clearly can and does work in some situations. It may in the end be an issue of training
and investment.
(But I cant help feeling that learning content in Turkish is pretty good for Turkish kids!!!)
Ill be in Izmir and samsun, but oh, how sad, not in Istanbul!!
Jeremy
Reply
Im keeping track of this discussion and I feel sad about all the negativity. I dont know if it is because of bad publicity some CLIL
programmes are getting, because of misunderstanding of the concept or because of a hidden fear that others are tresspassing into
our territories?
Sometimes the argument is This is not going to work where I live or This can not work where I live. Thats ne and acceptable
but one should not generalise and trash an approach simply because it will not work in their own context at this particular point in
time.
Judged in such a subjective/context-restricted manner, then the arguments of those in whose contexts CLIL works are equally
valid. An approach does not necessarily need to t all contexts in order to be a worthwhile approach.
So, if it doesnt t, then dont stretch it. But dont discard it or reject it either. One day it might t (things change fast) and if it
doesnt, its still OK.
Reply
Sophie,
I am sorry about the negativity too!
When I think of good primary lessons a topic stretching over many different content areas, children involved in play and
study then CLIL sounds absolutelt right IF the langauge is there.
Of course you are right to say that CLIL approaches DO work where they do work!!
I think the negativity comes from (a) people who have an interest in EFL, (b) people who are suspicious of big changes, (c)
epople who look at the activities of education ministeries and (d) people whove seen CLIL fail because its been badly
implemented.
But I would hate you to think (this is me speaking personally) that good CLIL practice is unattractive. On the contrary it
sounds wonderful!
Jeremy
Reply
Hi Jeremy
Youve desribed CLIL in primary so well!
The only thing I can say is that hopefully people for whom the approach resonates continue to try to implement it well and
share their experiences with the rest of us. Then these experiences will help others to implement it better and avoid making
the same mistakes.
It is easy to criticise some programmes that may not be doing well but when these were starting they were pioneers and
had no one to learn from but their own experiences and, perhaps, mistakes.
Having started our implementation ve years ago, I felt lucky that we could study other programmes and learn from them.
This is what its all about. Its very difcult walking in uncharted territory.
So Im thankful to the brave ones who went ahead, opening the paths for us whereas we can follow and smooth the path
and, perhaps, sort out the signposting .
For those who have an interest in EFL, I think there is no reason to worry. My belief is that CLIL will always work in
addition to language classes and not instead of language classes. Based on my personal experiences I think that is the best
way to go.
TEFL101 on January 28, 2011 at 8:54 am said:
Surely the problem is that CLIL in formal education inevitably tends towards a top-down exercise in developing students
declarative memories in the traditional manner of learning history or chemistry; where a clearly dened ow of knowledge from
teacher to student makes large classes workable and cost efcient.
I think there is a bit of room for this; its intellectually stimulating, encourages critical thinking and makes more sophisticated
speakers. Ultimately though, I think CLIL has to be properly integrated with TBL to be of real value in developing language skills,
and this takes quite a bit of engineering on the part of the course designer.
Reply
Really interesting comments!
Its not just the spine of CLIL that matters, in other words; its the clothing, the esh and bones of it, the HOW of it!
Of course that applies to all content teaching too and English teaching.
Best? A blend of experiential, declarative and reective practice?
Jeremy
Reply
Lauretta on January 28, 2011 at 9:55 am said:
I was impressed by this sentence Is CLIL the present? The Future (perfect)? The soon-to-be-past (even with the massive
investment in it)? because this idea ishas been seething in my mind in the last weeks. I have been for a long time a CLIL fan (and
teachers trainer). Then I did a doctoral research and wrote my thesis on the the CLIL subject teacher in Italy and Spain and I had
the opportunity to study deeper the whole thing and I began to have doubts about it. Not because the initial idea was not valid I
still nd it a good idea but as a matter of fact the CLIL approach has so many impications to be effective that are generally not
considered. I must admit I have seen very few really good CLIL implementations. I think that a good CLIL imply a change of
paradigm in the curriculum that is not generally triggered (and some times it is not even possible because there is a mismatch
between innovation desire and legislation. Another point is that I think too that CLIL is already the past and the challenges for
education and teachers training are in my opinion already changing.
Reply
Hi Lauretta,
thank you so much for you very interesting comments.
I completely agree that the promise of CLIL is great. And when it works (as Sophie tells us above) it is worth celebrating.
But my who concern in this post has been to question why we want to teach core content in English, especially when in many
situations, the implementation and the resources backup just arent there.
We will see if you are right and that the future is something else!
A lot depends, I suspect, on the way in which education and technology integrate over the next few years
Jeremy
Reply
hans kloibhofer on January 29, 2011 at 12:40 pm said:
Jeremy,
as long as teachers continue to advocate CLIL as a grand way of TEACHING language and subject at the same time youre dead
right in questioning the current CLIL craze!
Trying to TEACH a language or an academic subject is an approach open to many questions in rst place anyway.
Lets (more) talk about METHODS.
Hans
Reply
Hello Hans,
yes, I think you are right.
Its not what (usually), it HOW!
Jeremy
Reply
sophie ioannou georgiou :
Hi Jeremy
Youve desribed CLIL in primary so well!
The only thing I can say is that hopefully people for whom the approach resonates continue to try to implement it well and share their
experiences with the rest of us. Then these experiences will help others to implement it better and avoid making the same mistakes.
It is easy to criticise some programmes that may not be doing well but when these were starting they were pioneers and had no one to learn
from but their own experiences and, perhaps, mistakes.
Having started our implementation ve years ago, I felt lucky that we could study other programmes and learn from them. This is what its
all about. Its very difcult walking in uncharted territory.
So Im thankful to the brave ones who went ahead, opening the paths for us whereas we can follow and smooth the path and, perhaps, sort
out the signposting .
For those who have an interest in EFL, I think there is no reason to worry. My belief is that CLIL will always work in addition to language
classes and not instead of language classes. Based on my personal experiences I think that is the best way to go.
Thats a very cheerful comment/reply, Sophie
And if something works then it should be celebrated as you have been doing in these comemnts!
As usual, with any approach, it is always possible that the people who have the biggest stake in whats going on (the CLIL
machine) will over-promote what is going on, whereas others will try and climb onto the backs of all this forgetting that what
really matters (always) is the buy-in and the training and the support etc!
Your experiences sound different from all of this!
Jeremy
Reply
Ann on January 30, 2011 at 6:31 pm said:
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for this very interesting post. Have just linked to it on http://www.facebook.com/TeachingEnglish.BritishCouncil because
Im sure that readers there will nd it thought provoking. Feel free to post links there directly if you have anything youd like to
saher with us.
Cheers,
Ann
Reply
Jeremy Harmer on January 31, 2011 at 12:19 pm said:
Hi Ann,
thanks for this.
Ill try and come round and leave something there!
Jeremy
Reply
English Raven on January 31, 2011 at 8:46 am said:
Good issue to address here, Jeremy.
I ran a whole institute program based around CLIL (I was calling it CBI and more inuenced by the Canadian and US perspective
at the time) in 2001-2003, in Korea, from kindergarten through year 8.
The results were spectacular in terms of student motivation, vocabulary uptake, and uency, but much less spectacular in terms of
grammar accuracy. This was, in the end, the undoing of the movement in that context in a lot of ways, because the students
continued to be tested according to discrete language skills (and grammar in particular) in the school system, where stakes are
horrendously high. Their uency and bilingual subject knowledge were great things, but it didnt grant any specic rewards
within the countrys assessment system for English.
So, as with so many other aspects of EFL, a lot of this comes back to testing. Until the tests change to incorporate CLIL, or CLIL
nds a way to cater to the tests that exist in certain contexts, it risks being something along the lines of an interesting diversion, but
ultimately a false promise to learners.
Cheers,
- Jason
Reply
Jeremy Harmer on January 31, 2011 at 12:23 pm said:
Hi Jason,
thanks for bringing things back to reality! It is ALWAYS testing, isnt it! If you want to change a system, change the tests. Thats
the way it goes, and thats why so much methodological talk disappears down a testing black hole (lovely idea, your
methodology, but my students have to pass a test).
But you also highlight one of my big questions about content-based instruction: in such an approach which benets most? The
content or the language? Or neither? or both?
Of course grammar is, er, grammar.
Jeremy
Reply
Borja on January 31, 2011 at 9:32 pm said:
Hi Jeremy,
I agree, there are many ways of putting CLIL into practice. In Spain the softer version is being implemented in most schools
fortunately. CLIL does require a different prole of teachers, different resources and a different approach. In my opinion, after 20
years in TEFL and 7 in CLIL, CLIL makes more sense than TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign! Language). A FOREIGN
language? In Spain English is not a foreign language any more. University students have lectures in English. They are starting to
have the possibility of even doing their whole university studies in English. Students in bilingual high schools are getting together
with students from other countries to do science, geography or history projects together.in English. Professionals go to more and
more international conferences.where people speak English. Companies need to open new marketsabroadin English. The
Internet has taken over the world and most of its content is.yes, thats right! English is not a foreign language. It is not a
language to get coffee in London in the summer any more. I have been involved in CLIL the last few years and although I know
that it is not working perfectly it gives the students the English they need for their studies and their professional careers. It gives
them more academic English. In our CLIL lessons students aged 11-12 are discussing ecosystems, the food chain, the universe, the
human bodyin English. In our school, we focus more on the language than on the content because we are a language school but
still, students have a chance to consolidate their knowledge and to learn new things by doing projects, doing research and having
discussions in English. I think CLIL can be very effective if done properly. But the ideal programme for me is one that combines
CLIL with general English. Our students need academic English but they still need to get coffee in Londonin the summer. So
why not bring some content to our English programme? This is what Ive been doing the last few years. To give you some
examples: when we teach food to children aged 6 we still teach I like / dont likeMy favourite fruit is But then we go into food
from animals and food from plants. Healthy vs unhealthy diets. Food we get proteins from.The same when we teach animals:
we talk about how many legs they have got, whether they are big or small but then we go into vertebrates vs invertebrates or
viviparous vs oviparous.
There are advantages and disadvantages in CLIL but I think the balance is positive and it is the only way to go nowadaysuntil
the Chinese take over.
Reply
Scott Thornbury on February 3, 2011 at 9:59 am said:
While were still in Andalusia (hi, Borja) it might be worth referring to a study reported in Applied Linguistics (July 2010) on
the effect of implementing CLIL on a large scale in southern Spain, as part of the governments Pluralingualism Promotion
Plan. CLIL classes in 61 primary and secondary schools were surveyed, in order to answer the question (among others) Is
CLIL having any visible effect aside from that observed in L2 learning? One conclusion of the study, based on teacher
questionnaire data, is that CLIL is benecial to the educational process in general, an opinion echoed by parents and learners
alike (p.433). However, there are no objective data on the attainment results in tests, which does still leave open the question
as to whether subject area objectives and being met. Nevertheless, the article represents serious research, and, as such, I think
helps move the argument beyond mere opinion and hearsay.
Lorenzo, F., Casal, S., & Moore, P. 2010. The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key
ndings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics, 31, 391 417.
Reply
jeremyharmer on February 3, 2011 at 10:57 am said:
Many thanks for this reference, Scott.
The article is printing out as I type. It will make extremely interesting reading.
More later!
Jeremy
TEFL101 on February 3, 2011 at 11:05 am said:
That research is pretty equivocal. In fact it says very little of substance and seems like a typical case of argument by
prestigious jargon and hedging. Im not sure if I should value such non-ndings over good old fashioned opinion and
reason.
Borja on February 3, 2011 at 11:18 am said:
Hi Scott,
Thank you for pointing out this report. I have a copy and I will read it later on.
Fiona (@onamau) on February 3, 2011 at 11:43 am said:
Hi Scott, Borja, Jeremy and everyone
Just a quick comment. My younger son was on the receiving end of the CLIL in primary ed in Andalusia thing, until we
moved this summer. I dont know if it was implemented the same way in all schools, but essentially what he did was repeat
in English the class hed done in Spanish a couple of days before. Science, in his case. So if they were doing, say, owers in
Spanish, just as they were nishing that module, theyd do it in English. It reinforced his knowledge of science quite well, as
the effort of hanging words in one language onto word pegs in another seemed to work to actually gel the pegs as well as
the words HOWEVER I was totally unconvinced by the fact that his pals (my son is bilingual) couldnt say much more than
Hello how are you ne thank you how are you conversationally, but had vocabulary ranging from stamen and petals to
vagina and uretra in perfectly pronounced English. At age 9, theres a limited use for such stuff. Can I have a biscuit,
please? is more their regular sort of line.
Pros and cons, I guess.
Pingback: First they came language garden
Hi Borja,
I have been thinking about your comments for a couple of days..
It is great to hear such a hugely positive view of what is going on. There is nothing more encouraging than hearing someone say
that things are better and how well ?new ideas and content are shaping lessons.
So my reaction is one of huge relief e.g. soft CLIL in your setting is far from a waste of time.
But I cant help thinking that CLIL (in the way you describe it) is just another form of content. Please dont misunderstand me; that
is not a criticism. Merely an observation. In other words, what seems to be happening what you seem to be saying is that
adding academic (normally science) content is for your kids is more interesting than stories about Mr Jones dropping his wallet in
the street (or some other typical EFL story). Is that right?
If that IS the case, then my friends original comment people talk about the advantage of CLIL for English teaching, but they
never talk about the advantage for physics still holds.
As for English not being a foreign language in Spain any more? Hmm. Well I agree that the need for (and use of) English for
Spaniards is changing. But no one has really told the majority of Spanish schoolchildren yet?
But if CLIL is to work in Spain (or anywhere else) to achieve the kind of results that you foresee, then it has to be delivered well in
state education by teachers as skilled in content methodology as they are in the provision of English.
How soon will that take?
Thanks for your great comments.
Jeremy
Reply
Borja on February 3, 2011 at 11:13 am said:
I can see the story of Mr Jones in a coursebook. What can you see in picture 1? Who is he? Where is he? Whats happening in
picture 4? Whats Mr Jones doing in picture 5? Where is his wallet now? Is he happy?
Talking about CLIL is like taking about gazpacho or paella, we all seem to have our own recipe. And its different in every
house or restaurant. The recipe we like best. Or the recipe I can make with the ingredients I have in the fridge. Or the only one I
know. Or the one Im being told to make. In my setting, I use CLIL to do less of Mr Jones and more content. I do think Mr Jones
has a role in the English class the same way that songs, arts and crafts, role plays, videos have their role.obviously depending
on the age of the students. I could not teach another whole year of Head, shoulders , knees and toes Whats the weather
like today? (looking out the window) Whats Ana wearing today? (pointing to Ana). Oh! Lets make it more
fun.Everybody, close your eyes. Juan, Whats Isabel wearing? Can you remember?. No, dont open your eyes Thats
teaching primary in lots of classrooms. Secondary becomes more like What did you do yesterday? Tell me about your best
holidays (yes, I know, again). With adults it might become more interesting.if we listen to the students and use their
interests, experiences, needs and knowledge in class. All this is ne butI believe students need more than that kind of
English. They also need to be able to do research on the Internet where the language will not be graded like in general English
coursebooks, they need to write reports at university, follow lectures given by foreign professorsall in English. Introducing
CLIL in Primary and continuing throughout secondary gives the students a new dimension, especially if technology like the
Internet, blogs, videos etc are also used in the CLIL class.
I think the great advantages of introducing some CLIL is that English becomes more meaningful, it takes different shapes and
has new faces. You can still do a guessing activity or describe what people are wearing but then you move into something more
challenging cognitively.and you can touch different subject matters.
So answering your question, yes, in my setting we are using CLIL to bring more interesting, relevant and challenging content
to the class. Content that makes people think. And it does when you ask 7 year olds if crocodiles lay eggs or have babies, for
example. Great debate! CLIL also brings language that students wouldnt probably learn before FCE: lay eggs, breathe through
gills, scales, carnivores and this makes them hopefully more competent in English.
This is our recipe and I know that its probably different from any other programme somewhere else.
I couldnt agree more when you say that then it has to be delivered well in state education by teachers as skilled in content
methodology as they are in the provision of English. I believe CLIL is effective if done properly, the same way that the
communicative approach is effective if the necessary requirements are met. To do CLIL right is very challenging. State schools
in Spain are making an effort and it is getting better slowly but it will take a long time to succeed.
Reply
jeremyharmer on February 3, 2011 at 4:33 pm said:
CLIL is gazpacho!! I love that.
I agree 100% with the idea that some CLIL content is more interesting (crocodile eggs) than some of the oldstuff and on
that basis we should celebrate content-based teaching.
I dont mean to belittle the efforts of Spanish education authorities, and yes, in time who knows how things will change.
Nicky thinks we will have forgotten CLIL. Im not so sure.
I am sure Borja that as you say students need more than one kind of English.
Jeremy
English Raven on February 3, 2011 at 9:37 am said:
I totally see where youre coming from here, Jeremy, (I think!) and it is a really challenging question. I think there is a denite see-
saw sensation with CLIL:
1. Is what we are doing at this point really about learning new content and subject-related skills (and if so, arent we eroding the
effectiveness of this by doing it all in a second language which the learners havent mastered?)?
2. Is what we are doing now more about developing better second language skills, with the content being the background music
(and if so, how does/should subject content matter compared to any other content we might use)?
In my own time with a CLIL program, we stumbled onto some discoveries on account of featuring US/UK grade-level subject
content alongside the learners own school system subject content (in terms of topics and learning goals).
Because we were using two sources of content for the same subjects, but from different countries and cultures, two patterns
emerged:
A. The learners already knew most of the content, but got to review it and extend it in the second language using the US/UK
content (this was pronounced for maths and science, where the Asian system was often 1-2 years ahead of the US/UK content). In
this case, language learning took precedence and the content/subject was somewhat secondary.
B. The learners hadnt been exposed to the new subject content in their L1, or only partially so (arts and humanities in particular
here). In this case explicit language learning (beyond lexis) took a back seat to learning about the new subject matter.
From there we learned to blend things more so that all subjects got an equal mix of new content to learn (less explicit language
study) and content to review/extend (more explicit language study).
We werent experts in this eld (of CLIL) by any means, but when we got to a stage where our supplementary outside school
system began to result in good language development *as well as* better results for students in their mainstream subjects studies
at school, we thought we might be on to something.
What do you think? Were we?
- J
Reply
Hi Jason,
I cant really tell. It SOUNDS like you were on to something!!
But why is CLIL always focused only on maths and science. What about the humanities? Does it mean that reaching kids how
to received and understand language, poetry, art etc is not part of all this (and yes, language IS different of course)?
Did the kids MIND going back to the same content? You may just be saying that revision works?!!
The situation you describe does seem to be slightly unique (is that possible) in that students had already experienced the
content (most of them).
Borja likes CLIL because kids (and CLIL is all about primary, in particular?)prefer CLIL-type content. But what about your
students. Was the content still fullling and engaging 2nd time round?
Language development measured how? Thats a real question!!
Jeremy
Reply
Borja on February 3, 2011 at 5:16 pm said:
I dont think CLIL is all about primary. I do think its better to start doing CLIL with primary students and continue all the
way up. Its not fair on the students to study economics in English at university or when they do a Masters Degree when
theyve never done any CLIL or academic English before
We are developing CLIL programmes for juniors and their response is very positive. Weve just done a survey among them
and almost all of them said that they liked the combination of studying English (TEFL) and CLIL.
Regarding subject matters, the ideal CLIL programme would be one which offered a wide variety of subjects. But I think
that because its difcult to have teachers who are competent in both the subject and L2 its easier to focus on maybe 1, 2 or
3 subjects.
Hi Borja,
sorry I have only just come back to this.
I agree entirely. If you ARE going to do something about CLIL then starting early is the only way, really!
Jeremy
Simon Greenall on February 3, 2011 at 2:16 pm said:
This post is a very useful summary of some concerns Ive had about CLIL, thank you. Here are some further thoughts
David Marsh in IATEFL Cardiff was trying to be witty in a debate, but taken out of context, it comes over as rather arrogant. I
dont think he intended this, although I think he may have underestmated the amount of scepticism about CLIL in the hall.
My (as yet unpublished) friend and colleague Anna Guazzi Valeria, who is active in CLIL in northern Italy, says it allows great
opportunities for collaborative teaching, although it tends to revert to a fairly teacher-centred methodology.
To my knowledge, there is at present no comprehensive curriculum of the various subjects which also takes into consideration the
language needed to be taught. This creates two problems. For ELT textbooks, which include an element of CLIL, its easy for this
element to be disregarded as irrelevant. For specic CLIL materials, there is a risk of a mismatch between high frequency language
structures, low frequency lexis, and the metalanguage needed to understand the rubric. Until we get a T-level proto-curriculum of
content and language syllabuses, its hard to supply relevant or well written material, and ironically CLIL will remain a
methodology, a way of teaching, with only arbitrary content and without systematic language knowledge and skills.
But Id love to do the protocurriculum one day!
Reply
Hi Simon,
thank you for your very informed comments.
I think theres a real danger that when you focus on content you forget about methodology. Science and maths teaching at
primary cant all be teacher centred (well it shouldnt be, presumably), yet unless there is denite CLIL methodology, that may
happen.
And yes, the important thing is to decide exactly WHAT language to teach and I am not currently aware that such lists exist.
I wonder what will happen!
Jeremy
Reply
Lorraine Davies on February 4, 2011 at 7:18 pm said:
Hello to all!
I love teaching CLIL and I read up on the subject as much as possible to try to deliver lessons which are creative and motivating
for my young learners. I dont have a problem with planning my lessons as I have found a wealth of material from published CLIL
materials which I use alongside key stage 1 resources and reinforce the content matter with interactive games from the web.
For me CLIL works like a dream and the learning rate of the pupils is clearly accelerated. I feel myself to be in a privileged position
as I have started this school year with rst year primary pupils and am therefore able to witness the successes and also the issues
of the CLIL experiment from the beginning.
The one frustrasting and most challenging issue at my school is the resistance and lack of knowledge of CLIL from the teaching
staff. For them CLIL only means: more work after school hours, pressure to understand language teaching and methodology
jargon related to CLIL, and of course their own anxieties about the language itself brings a negative aspect.
Fortunately the recent vote just about went in favour for the project to be introduced for the next year 1 group, but a signicant
number voted against it primarily because they believe that sufcient evidence has not been produced to persuade them that it
works and does not affect the learning progress in the L1. They would prefer the project at the school to freeze for the time being,
allowing the current CLIL groups to get to the nal year and then see what they think of it all. An absurd proposal in my mind!
As I believe in the project so much I intend to start collecting data from teachers, pupils and parents from questionnaires to gather
data on the positives and negatives of CLIL which I hope will then inspire everyone involved to help the project become more than
an experiment, a phase, a trend, into a sustainable ongoing methodology. Its a start anyway!
Thank you!
Lorraine
Reply
jeremyharmer on March 7, 2011 at 5:48 pm said:
Hello Lorain,
I am so sorry i didnt reply to these comments before.
I am really thrilled to read of your enthusiasm. With that behind you, anything is possible.
I like that you are collecting material, evidence etc.
What really interests me is how you persuade people who are resistant (the staff that you talk about). How do you make them
see the benets for them of using this approach? Because if they see that theyll go for it straight away, i think.
Jeremy
Reply
Saeed Mubarak on February 5, 2011 at 11:05 pm said:
Hello,
It depends on the governments priority and their detrmination to defend their local language .Also the academic standard of the
local language .
In Syria ,for instant,they have high academic standard in Arabic .So there is no need for English .But if the academic standard in
the local language is low,then the obvious option is English .
Reply
Hello Saeed,
I am so sorry that I didnt reply before to your comments.
I think I understand your point, but Syrians need English too, perhaps? To deal with the subject specic English they may
encounter outside school.
Nevertheless, you identify one of my concerns (and that of the Malaysian government, for example). Does English actually get
in the way of content delivery in some cases? Is it necessary?
Jeremy
Reply
Leahn on February 8, 2011 at 9:23 pm said:
Hi Jeremy,
Ive been following this discussion for a while and I must say its been very interesting. Im a language assistant in a CLIL
programme in Spain. I work in a primary and secondary school. The other day in a co-ordination meeting I asked a maths teacher
if he thought that CLIL was only benecial for English and what he said was very interesting. Im sure he wont mind I share it
with you!
I asked him if he thought that teaching maths in English was only benecial to English . He said that he thought it improved the
teaching learning process because teaching his subject in a foreign language(English) meant that he had to pay much more
attention to the lesson planning process. He said that it made him much more conscious of the cognitive steps involved and made
him think much more carefully about how to scaffold his students learning.
I dont know about the value of CLIL or whether it has a future. I dont think its divine I nd it all very new and confusing but
this answer started me thinking again!
Leahn
Reply
Hello Leahn,
I feel so so bad for not having replied before to your comments.
Thank you very much indeed for sharing the maths teachers thoughts. I like the idea of CLIL impacting on the actual teaching
in such a satisfactory way. I nd the idea that teaching CLIL means thinking much more about scaffolding to be very exciting.
But what about general English teaching? Shouldnt we think in the same way about that?
Or a different question wouldnt you want to think like that about teaching maths in the L1 too?
Could it be that the teacher is just being challenged by the newness of it all?
No idea if I am right, but your comments got me thinking
Jeremy
Reply
Knightstower on February 13, 2011 at 10:58 am said:
Good blog. I am subscribing to it.
I am an English teacher and am presently working at a Spanish secondary school with a bilingual section in the E.S.O. (11-16
year olds, Compulsory Secondary Education).
The teachers who supposedly teach in English (Physical Education, Technology, Music) do not speak English well enough to hold
a conversation, let alone use routine classroom language. Content teaching?? Of course there is, in Spanish. In order to make it
seem like instruction is in English they give the students notes with technical vocabulary that the students memorize for the
multiple choice tests they take. Some of these teachers are highly motivated and try very hard. Others seem to be going through
motions that they do not understand. These teachers have not been trained in CLIL methodology and their only resources are
the Lectores (untrained native English speakers who come to Spain to learn Spanish)and the Internet.
We (the teachers in the English Dpt.) were supposed to have weekly planning meetings but since this was not a priority when the
schedules were done no meetings are taking place.
The programacion or curriculum used by the English teachers is based on grammatical content presented in the commercial
method (textbook) we use, and yes, we test for discrete grammatical skills. We use the same textbook for the bilingual sections
and the other sections.
The creation of bilingual sections, in my experience, has resulted in veiled streaming of students. Thus, we have the more
motivated students in the bilingual sections and other students in the regular sections.
At this moment in time I would like to conrm that the bilingual section of my school is a fraud. This is a top-down initiative of
the various Spanish Ministries of Education and like other such initiatives, it is neither well understood or adequately supported
by the individual school communities it impacts.
Reply
I nd your account very compelling and it exactly mirrors the concerns that many people share about the bandwagon
nature of CLIL. My problem is that all the CLIL researchers claim huge success for CLIL classes and students. But at the other
end of the scale there is badly implemented CLIL lip-service solutions (like the one you describe). It breaks my heart really
because just learning a few English words not only isnt CLIL, but is unlikely to make kids feel enthusiastic about English.
So if all these research papers say CLIL is so good how many schools teach CLIL like yours does? I would love to know.
Jeremy
Reply
I think we all know that CLIL is not working in many primary and secondary schools in Spain and the stories we can read in this
blog seem to be a good reection of the good and not so good outcomes. But, is it CLIL as such which is not working or the way
its being implemented? The communicative approach works well in most language schools and not so well in other situations
due to the conditions it takes place in, eg, large groups vs small groups, uent teachers vs not uent teachers, participative classes
vs lectures, communication vs grammar, accuracy vs uency, trained teachers vs .CLIL also requires certain conditions to be
effective, eg, competent teachers in both L2 and content, participative lessons, appropriate materials, effective methodology
CLIL in a situation which doesnt meet these requirements is like a sh out of the water.it will not swim! But, is there anything
wrong with the sh?
Reply
Knightstower on February 14, 2011 at 7:54 pm said:
Off hand I cant tell you, Jeremy, how many Spanish public schools, primary and secondary, have bilingual Sections, but the
information is available on each of the educational websites of the various autonomic regions. I am located in Castilla y Leon.
Aside from secciones bilingues you probably know that we also have secciones linguisticas and those form part of an
agreement with the British Council. I have also had experience with these and although they work better (i.e. CLIL methodology is
being used although adequate resources are lacking) than the secciones bilingues there are other problems associated with those.
For example, some Spanish Geography and History teachers greatly resent it when
1) a geography and history vacancy is being lled by a non-specialist and
2) why should the history of Spain be taught in English? Would this be tolerated in the U.K. or the U.S.A.? As one of them once
told me There must be a better way to learn English.
But to pick up where Borja left off youre right, Borja, CLIL requires certain conditions for success. These conditions are not
being met across the board in Spain. What is true is that all of the ministries of education in Spain are betting on CLIL as the
method by which to achieve English-Spanish bilingualism through the schools. Unfortunately, or fortunately (hey, Im tenured)
the ministries of education need to invest on the language prociency of a large group of teachers, and I hope they succeed.
Back to your more theoretical concerns, Jeremy, I believe that Colin Baker pointed out the fallacies of constructs such as BICS and
CALPS more than 20 or 25 years ago -not that I dont like Jim Cumminswork, I do. As a teacher I have always found the notion of
BICS and CALPS rather useful, but as a linguist I am not sure. Practitioners and theoreticians do not seem to look at the same data.
I have also worked in elite international schools where the conditions for implementing sound methodology are in place, whether
we call this CLIL or something else.
Reply
Hi,
Interestinghow would you compare your experience teaching at a Spanish secondary school and at the elite international
schools where it sounds like you also did some sort of CLIL? How were the conditions similar / different? And the outcomes?
Reply
I should have answered these comments weeks ago. I am so sorry.
Thank you so much for this. You persuade me of two things:
1 CLIL can work really well.
2 It is not always transparently clear why you would want it though (Spanish history in English) and I sympathise with those
Spanish history teachers.
Yes of course Borja is right. Its the way you administer the thing that really matters. Money. Its always money and training.
I am so grateful for your participation in this discussion.
Jeremy
Reply
steph on February 20, 2011 at 10:03 pm said:
Hi Jeremy,
I work for a large school the school is essentially 3 separate schools under the same umbrella. We have a language school where
English and German are taught as a 2nd language this is where I do most of my work as academic DOS. We also have an
international bi-lingual primary school and an international college (where I teach IGCSE English both as a rst and second
language).
Part of my job in the language school is to observe the English team. But we are in a situation where we have CELTA qualied
English teachers who are also qualied subject teachers. So, for example, one of our English teachers is also a qualied Biology and
chemistry teacher. I observed this particular teacher in his CLIL environment, he was teaching a group of mainly 2nd language
speakers IGCSE Biology.
Its quite useful because although I cant comment on the actual content, I could certainly see from his clarity of instruction, the
way he set up his class in groups working on tasks, the way he changed pace in the classroom and where appropriate highlighted
the linguistic requirements specic to report writing (passive) that he was a great teacher.
Our CLIL teachers are following the international GCSE syllabus and so need to focus on content. We also teach A levels, including
humanities such as History, Geography and English Lit. We hold cross school workshops and have a dedicated team of English
as a second language teachers who provide special classes in the afternoon. These teachers focus on the areas the subject teachers
see are lacking, but are unable to spend time on themselves. The wonderful part is the EFL teachers are truly working with
emergent language and language essential and useful to the successful completion of tasks in the subject teachers classroom.
It seems to me, CLIL teaching works most effectively when it happens hand in hand with English (EFL) support and general
clear communication across teaching staff + regular support for staff. The content teachers do need to have a good level of English
and need to be primed to notice and note down language areas which they feel would improve their students work. Sometimes,
content teachers provide us with sample scripts (from A level history) for example from the students and some model or ideal
answers, we are then able to look at the students scripts and see linguistically where the gaps are and then base our input around
that.
There are still gaps and difculties, it is a process. I have seen a big improvement in the students English in all areas over the last
18 months but the biggest test will be the IGCSE exams in particular the rst language exams..lets see.
Reply
Hi Steph,
thank you so much for your comments and the experiences you describe.
There seems to be a consensus building up that when CLIL is done properly it really works. And that a combination of subject
specialist and English specialist is the best way of ding it.
But how do you get the two kinds of teacher to talk to each other? They should, of course, but there is not always the spirit of
cooperation is there? Not sure.
Jeremy
Reply
Pingback: Methodological madness: Dogme, CLIL and the curse of the Recency Illusion | Not another teaching blog
llanarth on March 3, 2011 at 12:46 pm said:
Lets face it, learning English is constantly repackaged. But Im a little confused about this-Isnt this task-based learning
essentially-learning English through doing tasks, all be it through specialized language?
Im sure this would work for academic people, who are very self motivated. However, this could essentially lose the non-academic
students very quickly. If youre plunged straight into the deep end-I can just see mentally, students switching off. In which case, I
would agree very much with the last comment. Learning a language is easier with a basic understanding in place, before learning
specialist vocabulary, unless you are already at intermediate level.
Reply
Ah, sorry, content based learning is the correct word, although it seems very similar in many respects to tasks based learning-
presumably the students are doing tasks, in order to learn the content!
Having reected a little more on the previous comments, I would also think that learning using this method, concentrates the
mind more (as you are not only having to learn English, but new content too), but perhaps has the disadvantage of learning
English in a quite academic context-students may have difculty speaking natural English, and sound more like university
lecturers!
However, regarding the comments that the teachers do not speak English well enough in the rst place for this to work at all (a
common problem is so called bilingual schools) then this is clearly problematic-and this method has no chance of succeeding
therefore at all.
I can see this style of learning being very useful to students wishing to study academically but they would need to be motivated
by the content for this method to work successfully! Very motivated.
Reply
Hi Llanarth,
thanks so much for your comments.
Quite a few people here have said that teaching CLIL actually makes you (= the teacher) think more! I like the sound of that.
You are of course right that if and when a big change like is introduced without proper backup, resources and training (e.g.
language prociency) then it is bound to be less successful than it should be.
Jeremy
Reply
Borja on March 7, 2011 at 8:49 pm said:
Hi Llanarth ,
Id like to highlight 2 points.
1. Yes, one of the key requirements for CLIL to be successful is the prole of the teachers. These teachers need to be uent in the
target language and they also need to know the content they are teaching. The same way that an EFL teacher has to be uent in
English and has to know the content hes teaching: the English language. Being uent might not be enough to make someone a
good teacher, ideally you need to know how the language works and how the students learn it in order to teach it effectively. In
many TEFL situations the target language and the content is the same: you teach English in English. In CLIL its not like that, you
need to be also competent in the subject matter..so ideally you need to be uent in the target language, you need to know how
the target language works and you need to know the subject matter. There are not many teachers (in Spain) with this prole
although there are more every year.
2. The English you learn in TEFL and the English you learn doing CLIL is not the same and most students need both Englishes.
One will allow them to communicate with people socially (TEFL) whereas the other one will allow them to study, do research and
work internationally (CLIL). Doing just CLIL wouldnt be enough. CLIL should be done together with TEFL and when its done
like that it can be very effective as both languages support each other because they have a lot in common: grammar,
pronunciation, 4 main skills, some vocabulary You can use the past simple to talk about what you did yesterday (TEFL) but also
to talk about the World Wars (CLIL), you can use the present simple to talk about daily routine (TEFL) but also to do experiments
(CLIL). These are very simple examples but when you do CLIL combined with TEFL you can nd lots of interesting and natural
ways to integrate the 2. My experience is that students dont nd CLIL too academic, on the contrary, they enjoy learning that kind
of language as well as the content.
Reply
Hang on! Is TEFL and CLIL so different! Yes, at elementary level, I have personally always concentrated on communicative
methods, because, after all, we want our students to communicate. But I have also taught advanced business students vocabulary,
that even I have had to look up rst (specialised jargon) and some very challenging texts. Isnt it given, that as students progress
from elementary to intermediate level, and from intermediate level to higher intermediate level and advanced, we our going to
look for challenging texts -from business, to history, and wine tasting, to literary. My point is, is there such a barrier between the
two methods. Surely TEFL teachers, should also be teaching using challenging content, and not just communicative methods?
For me, there is no barrier. There is just intergration, and students cannot progress without the content. In which case I disagree
with Borja, because surely competetent TEFL teaching should be integrating all methods available to them!
Reply
Borja on March 8, 2011 at 10:10 am said:
Hi ,
Thank you for your comments. I do think TEFL and CLIL have a lot in common but I also see big differences.
Probably the main difference for me is that in TEFL the language aim goes rst. Then we usually choose an appropriate topic to
teach this language, eg, we want to teach present perfect so the topic might be life experiences. In CLIL the content goes rst and
then we select the language required so that the students can learn this content, eg, I want to teach prehistory to 11 year olds so I
might have to teach cave, spears, fur. The main aim in this CLIL lesson for me is that the students can talk and write about
prehistory as well as understand texts . using appropriate language. I will be paying attention to their ideas as well as to the
language used. In the TEFL lesson the aim is that the students can use present perfect and I will not worry too much if its true that
they have actually eaten snakes or not. I just want to hear I have never eaten snakes, for example. In the CLIL lesson if students
say Prehistoric people lived in ats I will say its not correct. The language is right but the content is not. In fact, in some very
well-known English exams students will not get marked down if the information they give is not correct as long as the language is
grammatically correct. That really made me think and worry.
Comparing teaching prehistory with teaching present perfect are just examples but I have seen AND DONE lots of lessons whose
aim was just the language allowing the students to get by with empty sentences. I think this is OK for a while and there is
nothing wrong when students talk about what they do everyday or what they would do if they found a lost puppy but doing CLIL
makes English a much more interesting language and gives the teacher an opportunity to bring relevant topics to the classroom.
Yes, these topics are more academic but if they are relevant the students will feel motivated. At least this has been my experience.
Of course, TEFL teachers need some content in their language lessons, otherwise we wouldnt be able to teach. The difference is
that in the CLIL lesson we really think about the content, choosing appropriate content for the students. Content that is relevant to
their age, interest and cognitive development. This last requirement is key in CLIL whereas it might not be in TEFL. I think TEFL is
getting better in terms of content but how many lessons have I done on David Beckham with my teenagers? How many What are
you wearing? lessons have I done with primary students? when I can clearly see what everyone is wearing. I understand when
you mention I have also taught advanced business students vocabulary, that even I have had to look up rst (specialised jargon)
and some very challenging texts but the fact that it is difcult doesnt necessarily mean that is relevant to the students. I am sure
in your case it was but in lots of advanced coursebooks there are really long and difcult texts which might not be relevant to the
students. In CLIL you would choose a topic that is relevant to them and you would teach the language required by the topic. To
summarise, Id say that sometimes TEFL and CLIL can look very similar as in both approaches you need content and target
language, however the difference could be What IS the aim of the lesson?
Reply
llanarth on March 8, 2011 at 10:24 am said:
Hi,
Personally I hate TEFL lesson like thisand I think it is fundamentally wrong to teach language like this. If you are teaching
language, to me, the content is also equally important. In short language and culture are meaningless without a realistic context.
I take your point about TEFL being the language point rst, I have come around to realise this is not ideal. And I always now
encourage would be TEFL teachers to always put language in a realistic conversation.
Personally I do not subscribe to the approach of any sentence is ok, as lthe long as grammar is correct. This is a shallow and short
term approach.
The content approach (if you like) is desirable in my opinion, not only to keep language learning interesting (as CLIL clearly is) but
also to give the language meaning!
I agree with your comments on TEFL books in general. The texts are often long-winded, boring, and frankly, tedioius in some
cases. In many cases now, I write my own passages, or such more relevant and engaging content on the web. But, I realise the
majority of TEFL teachers would not do this, or have the condence to do this, and not think about language this deeply.
I think my nal point that I am trying to communicate, is that there fundamentally should be a difference in TEFL and CLIL. This,
to me is nonense. Instead TEFL should embrace content, as well as grammar, and CLIL should embrace TEFL. Content is
meaningless without looking at the language, and how its used, and grammar, is meaningless without content. It has been very
interesting to read your comments though.
Reply
Apologies for a couple of mistakes in the previous post! (search. not such)
Perhaps there should be a discussion on how to make TEFL methodology more holistic in terms of understanding texts, engaging
content, and presenting and practising the language in realistic context, with serious emphasis on content. As the comments from
Borja emphasize, students are clearly motivated by a content-driven approach.
Is TEFL methodology possibly guilty of being too simplistic?
Reply
Borja on March 8, 2011 at 11:23 am said:
I completely agree with you when you say that the content in TEFL should be equally important but I am afraid this is not the case
in most cases. As I mentioned in a previous comment, the way I look at TEFL vs CLIL is that TEFL gives you the language you
need to communicate socially and therefore appropriate topics could be meeting people, talking about your childhood, your town
etc This language is still important, we shouldnt forget that. On the other hand, CLIL gives you the language you need to study,
do research or work and therefore the topics will be more academic. There is no much point in learning how to talk about your
childhood (TEFL) when what you need to be able to do is write a report on climate change (CLIL) but there is no point either in
learning about climate change when what you need is to be able to communicate with people socially However, nowadays most
people have both needs and therefore a combination of TEFL and CLIL seems ideal to me. Maybe we should come up with a new
name!
I think TEFL is taking content more seriously and the newer books include content which is clearly more relevant. So, I dont think
TEFL is guilty of being simplistic, I would like to think its evolving and the same way that its gone through many different stages
we might now be going through a more-content-please! stage.
Reply
Yes, perhaps we should! TECCP ?(Teaching English for content and communicative purposes) I think at the end of the day
students benet from both!
With the advent of the internet both are relevant and important.
Students would be labelled both bookish or geekishif they went to a party, and spoke in academic language, and uneducated if
they wrote (or even spoke in certain situations) as we may do down the pub.
TEFL is often labelled simplistic in the globish debate, possibly by Secondary school English teachers, or journalists who have a
rudimentary grasp of various issues, but as in any subject, it comes down to the awareness and professionalism of the teacher. And
debates such as these are good for doing precisely that-raising awareness.
Reply
Borja on March 8, 2011 at 2:39 pm said:
We seem to be drawing some interesting conclusions here. I think sometimes debates like this are essential. Thank you Jeremy.
TECCP? Mmm interesting. Last year I came up with TES (Teaching English as a Skill). The same way that our students need to
be able to use the 4 main skills I think they need to be able to use English for their own purposes: socializing, studying, writing
reports, writing music, using computers, attending conferences. English seems to be everywhere now so we may as well be able
to use it properly.
In the last few years when Ive done talks on CLIL and TEFL vs CLIL Ive heard many TEFL teachers say things like I will NEVER
do CLIL. That is just not for me! but when we discussed it further many of them could see that there is some common ground
and that there might actually be something in CLIL that TEFL could and might want to borrow and the other way around. Its all
about adding, not subtracting or even substituting.
Reply
Yes, I think we should denitely be thinking of an acronym, for an all embracing methodology, which emphasizes integration! I
believe in theres something in each methodology, but not every methodology is suitable for every students-or teacher. Therefore it
makes sense to inticately weave them altogether-although in what orderand does is matter? But I agree that integrating the four
skills is essential in order to effectively process language. But I really dont understand enough about how the brain processes
language-although I like to think it works very much on logic. Which why children make sure a fascinating study!
Reply
jeremyharmer on March 15, 2011 at 9:34 am said:
Borja and Llanarth,
I cannot say how much I appreciate the discussion that you two have had. Amazing. It is/will be really useful to anyone who stays
onto this blog and wants to read up about CLIL if they dont know much about it.
For my own part, I have no doubt about the wisdom/attractiveness of getting students engaged with real content that learning a
language can also be learning about the world. So I am denitely a content person. Implementing CLIL? I think, still think, that
there are big issues there in terms of subject/language tie-ups. And in educational systems working out how to deliver a CLIL
curriculum.
However, my gradual engagement with CLIL leads me to two conclusions: the rst is to feel gradually more sympathetic to the
aims and materials for it that I am becoming aware of. The second is to feel vaguely uneasy about the proselytizers (none of them
on this blog) who promote it rather too enthusiastically!
Thank you both so much!
(Sorry it took me some time to come back and engage with your fabulous conversation)
Jeremy
Reply
Well thank you Jeremy for writing the blog, to engage us in discussion-Ive really enjoyed it! Ill be looking out for additional
posts.
Just one more thought on the denition of content. Couldnt content equally apply to learning about the rules of chess, and
playing chess for example (creating the need to ask questions and give instructions) I suppose my point is does content need to be
written, or could it apply equally well to say a chemistry experiment? I have interpreted content here as been written, but there is
not reason why it should be written necessarily, or is there?
Reply
Phil Ball on March 16, 2011 at 11:59 am said:
Uuuf.as the Spanish say! As one of the CLIL insiders, I dont know where to start really. Its impossible to answer everything
that has been stated here, and of course, such a pretence would be a little over-ambitious/arrogant anyway take your pick.
But there are some fallacies ying around here, and their wings need to be clipped a little, I feel. One of the major ones is the idea,
perhaps unfortunately suggested by Jeremys initial starter, that CLIL self-proclaims as a de facto success, and as such the
approach (if it is an approach) is a craze that is fooling people (such as Malaysia) into quick-x solutions to their curricular
issues. It is true that several of the CLIL maa (Marsh has been quoted here) have sold the approach as a positive one, but it would
be strange to do anything else. The suggestion that only CLIL folks have a vested interest in selling themselves as efcacious is a
little unfair, I feel. Were all in it to make a living Jeremy. Also, CLIL is obviously in a phase of organic growth, during which it is
undergoing parameter problems. Why? Well because everyone and his grandma wants to try it, wants a piece of it, wants to
claim that theyre doing it. Some of us in the full-time CLIL warned about this, and that it would happen. I feel happy that is has
come into prominence, but panicky because I feel that what I understand CLIL to be is slipping like water from my material-
writing ngers splashing onto the educational pavement and drying up in the sun. Hows that for a mixed metaphor?
Ive been working in CLIL full-time for over 15 years and so of course, I know that it works, but that it also requires a set of
conditions in order to be minimally effective, as does any educational paradigm. Does ELT work? Well some of it does and some
of it doesnt. Its a bit of a mess nowadays, and its eclecticism, once a virtue, has led it down a path of stagnation, I feel. I may be
wrong. CLIL may offer a way out, but Id rather not make problematic claims. The ELT-centric nature of much of this discussion is
revealing. CLIL isnt about language teaching really. Its about education, and thats where the ELT world so misunderstands the
whole CLIL issue. Language teaching, in general, has always been over there in educational terms. There may be intrinsic and
cognitive value to learning languages, but try convincing the current generation of that argument. We have entered an extrinsic,
utilitarian phase in society, and educational values are reecting this. It doesnt mean theyre wrong. CLIL is an obvious vehicle for
this type of approach. Language teaching is stumbling a little I feel, in comparison.
CLIL is not about English either. Reading this thread you would think it was. Its about learning subject content through another
language. English happens to dominate, sure, but CLIL is much more allied to a multilingual approach, and all the curricular and
cognitive implications that it implies.
Spain? Well for starters, Spain is a very federal place, and to talk of CLIL in Spain is to employ a misnomer too. How would you
judge its success though? Well you would judge it relative to its objectives. A country should adopt CLIL relative to its socio-
linguistic reality, so that in Spain, where English (for example) is fairly absent from the public scene, CLIL gives us a chance to
increase the contact time. Thats one rational objective (among others). In Holland, the judgement of success would be based on
wholly differing criteria, since everyone speaks English anyway and English is much more present in its society. So the Dutch
use CLIL to ne-tune their academic English. Its completely different. So please be careful with how you judge CLIL success. In
the Basque Country, we have lots of empirical research-based evidence that CLIL works. What is all this nonsense about nobody
knowing whether CLIL works for subject teaching? It works much better for subject teaching than it does for language teaching!
But thats another story
Oh, and its not an approach either, which is another debate. CLIL is a methodology, but thats just my view. Ive been trying to
promulgate it for the last ten years, but ones powers are limited, sigh. But its not an approach yet. Its too heterogeneous for that
still. I would prefer it to be more limited in its scope and more prescriptive, which is what a methodology can be. But anyway,
thats for another day.
Best
Phil Ball
Reply
Hello Phil,
I am sorry it has taken me some time to reply to this. I have been thinking about your excellent comments, digesting them.
First off, the drying water on the pavement! It may be a mixed metaphor, but it works for me! Brilliant.
Anyway, there is lots to say. Yes, there was a suggestion (for which I am largely guilty), that CLIL is oversold, and that vested
interests have a part to play in this. However, I DO take your well-made point about all of us having to make a living. Yes, we do
things because of commitment, passion, belief etc, but other factors such as money, success etc are part of the mix too. It would be
wrong of me (especially?) to cricise anyone for that.
However, the main selling argument for CLIL is that it is better in some way. And thats why the ELT-focused people get
twitchy about it, of course, because if thats true, what on earth are we doing? Is ELT in crisis? Thats a very good question but I
guess if you go to the literally millions of students who study general English around the world (often in private language
schools), you would have to say that it is still pretty robust.
And, I would want to add, in a career which is getting way to long for me to feel comfortable about, I have seen some really really
excellent general English teaching; engaging, challenging, effective and sheer good fun.
However, if we ask the question Is English teaching in crisis in (state) school systems? that question might get a different answer.
Because the teaching of general English has not always been marked with success or student engagement. In such circumstances,
teaching which encourages language acquisition and, at the same time, genuine cognitive and subject-specic child development,
makes a lot of sense.
But then Nicky Hockly (above) said she reckoned it would be unmentioned in 10 years. Not true I hear you say! Because (and
maybe your experiences in Euzkadi/Pais Vasco bear this out) where CLIL is well implemented, properly planned for, and
properly trained for (and funded), then who could be against it, I guess.
Malaysia did not abandon CLIL-type education because there was something wrong with CLIL per se. Of that I am sure. It was
because kids were getting unsatisfactory subject instruction in English. The instruction was better delivered so the argument
went in the home language, because teachers found it easier to do that. At least thats the way it appears to me. But then the
devil is in the implementation detail. So yes, parameters.
As I have been reading more about CLIL and, through this blog, hearing the views of others, I am more persuaded than I was of
the POTENTIAL efcacy of CLIL, or indeed of the present benets of CLIL whether in schools or in PLSs (see Borja above and
Michelle Worgans soft CLIL rst steps http://kenwilsonelt.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/guest-blog-11-4-michelle-worgan-on-
using-clil-with-spanish-primary-pupils). As an ELT-er, you see, CLIL IS a bit threatening. But also and this is important I think
it sounds remarkably un-new in the sense that content teaching has always been a feature of good ELT.
But CLIL, real CLIL, may well be signicantly different if it is properly cross curricular, involves subject teachers, has properly-
trained English-language specialist (or subject teachers who have reliable competence).
IF!
Thats the whole thing, isnt it. In other words, here is a way of doing things that works if certain labour-intensive, resource-and
time-hungry conditions can be met.
So thats where I am at the moment: trying to survey the scenery, seeing great benets and troublesome failures all in the same
frame, as it were.
Please excuse this long ramble. Writing a blog is a learning experience, mostly (I have found) for me!
Jeremy
Reply
Abraham on May 30, 2011 at 9:30 pm said:
I have just read about CLIL and it is something i have been working for the past two years, since i started working at the faculty of
medicine in my state.
Many obstacles have appeared, but i think that this is the future, or at least, a part of it.
We always must remember the number one rule for teachers: To be aware of our students needs, following that, we should be
ne.
greetings from Mxico!
Reply
jeremyharmer on June 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm said:
Hi Abraham,
you may be right about the future. The students needs should guide us.
Of course what would be interesting is to know is what kind of English you teach in medical school. Is it CLIL, bi-lingual, or
English for Specic Purposes!
Jeremy
Reply
Gabriela Gonzalez Dominguez on June 14, 2011 at 4:21 am said:
Hi Jeremy,
This weekend I had the pleasure to attend some of your conferences (and even get my diploma signed by you! =)) at Jalisco
Mextesol. I teach Social Studies in Middle School and I have nothing else but the best to say about the experience of doing it in
English. Since the purpose of the class is not the correct use of grammar but to express your ideas it makes them feel condent and
they acquire the language in a more natural way. Since the subjects that I teach are complemented by EFL classes their English
level skyrockets! I just wish we had more workshops/conferences, and books to support us who are doing this.
Gaby =)
Reply
Hi Gaby,
so pleased you came along to the sessions in la Perla Tapatia.
It sounds like your situation is ideal. Is it CLIL or bilingual teaching? Are they the same or different?
Jeremy
Reply
hugo on June 15, 2011 at 11:41 pm said:
In my short experience with young learners in Spain, I have only seen one school where students would use English in a natural
way when speaking in class. It was a rather elitist school where they followed a semi-immersion education plan: children were
exposed to English in a real context, on a daily basis and other subjects were also taught in the target language. CLIL is no new
thing, but could actually the CLIL brand be a way to democratise education as education authorities are starting to support it,
instead of being reserved for an elite?
Reply
Hi Hugo,
thats an interesting anecdote. But of course the CLIL people would say that teaching bilingually may not be CLIL.
Nevertheless you ARE right that things like that may be largely reserved for an elite. Its all about education authorities and
some idea of provision for all.
Jeremy
Reply
Sandra on June 20, 2011 at 1:36 pm said:
Dear Jeremy,
Having met you at the INTO conference this weekend, I went straight to your blog and was delighted to nd so many comments
on CLIL. I have to admit I have not had the time to read them all in detail but what I have read so far has really made me think
about CLIL again.
Back to your original question why CLIL might be better for the learning of the subject, here are a few ideas from my experience
as CLIL History teacher in Germany and as academic tutor for international students in the UK:
In CLIL classes students have to engage more with the subject. If they are put in a situation where they have to overcome some
linguistic problems to understand the academic content it will motivate them to nd more resources, books, texts or any other
material that will help them understand the language and thus the subject. Therefore, there is more engagement, more mental
construction activity and thus more learning. We could also argue that they gain problem-solving skills and develop strategies to
be more independent learners. For the teacher this obviously means to plan lessons and nd materials that challenge the students
linguistically but that do not to overwhelm them.
Language transports cultural ideas and thus can offer great insight through an outsiders perspective e.g. why do we call it the
Roehm-Putsch (coup) in Germany but the British call it the Night of the long knives? What is the difference? It thus promotes the
development of intercultural skills and the ability to identify with others perspectives. It encourages the students to think
critically about their own cultural / historical perspective which is one central aim of history teaching.
Many subjects require great linguistic awareness not only in terms of subject specic / technical vocabulary, but also in the way
language is used to argue a point. CLIL encourages students to think about discourses and ways of constructing arguments. I also
often nd that teaching CLIL generates more questions and stimulates curiosity and this surely has to be good for the subject?
With regards to the teachers perspective I have to agree with some of the comments made above CLIL has certainly made me
reect much more on how I teach, what scaffolding strategies to use and how to make my lessons more engaging, thus I really feel
it has a lot of benets.
I am, however, intrigued by your question you asked me on Saturday and that you have also posted on the blog what is the
difference between bilingual teaching and CLIL? I will certainly need to explore more and will keep on checking the comments
made here
Many thanks for your feedback and also for this discussion forum and blog,
Sandra
Reply
Hi Sandra,
thanks so much for coming along to the blog.
In the same way that i thought your presentation was really good organised, clear, helpful and enjoyable so i think your
pro-CLIL arguments here are absolutely spot on. I mean if I want to be cynical about CLIL I still can be, but you have made it a
lot harder!!
(Actually Im not sure I want to be that cynical, but I do think that the success of CLIL (in its many forms) depends on who
does it, how its done, and what kind of training is given to the teachers who use it.)
Once again, it was a great pleasure to meet you and see you in action. I hope ot happens again!
Jeremy
Reply
the_seadreamer on July 18, 2011 at 5:28 pm said:
Hi Jeremy,
Ive just read the article.Im a Turk and have been working as a teacher.As far as I know,CLIL is an old method.In Turkey its been
implemented for years.I learnt English at 11 and after learning English,we used to study maths and science lessons in
English,too.My English was good but I hated Maths and Science in English. I was brilliant at Maths at primary school but our
procient(!) teachers made me disgust from these subjects.They did not know English and try to teach us these subjects.It was such
a nightmare.This is not the only reason for this failure.Then the authorities saw their mistake and changed the system at secondary
schools.But this system continues at universities.I think these subjects should teach in mother tongue,otherwise people know what
happens!I can write a thesis about this method and tell how this method make people feel stupid in many subjects.Thats my point
of view.
Reply
Sue on July 21, 2011 at 4:36 pm said:
Hi, my husband is a CLIL language assistant at 2 schools in Tenerife. He had a shock this morning when he was served with a
summon from Securidad Social asking him to present facturas he doesnt have as he gpes on baja for the Summer months as he is
Autonomo.
He contacted the consejeria and he is not the only one served. It appears that he should have a contract as he has worked for them
for 5 years. The ofce did not have a clue what is going on and we are now panicking in case the job goes. Does any one know
anything about what is happening or what to do???
Reply
Sergio Perez on November 28, 2011 at 12:00 am said:
It is a pity I missed out this wonderful debate. I hope Im still on time for someone to read my post.
Im a teacher of English at Secondary level in State school system in Spain. Ive been involved in CLIL for something like 7 years
now, as a teacher trainer, as an adviser (so to speak) and as a teacher. I have seen CLIL being implemented in very different
contexts and I would denitely say it does work, both for content and for language.
We would have to talk about what parameter do I have in mind to assert CLIL works. And that is precisely where I would like to
make my point: would it be the bare communicative competence of students at the end of what, Secondary Education? Not
enough to see that in the context where I teach, at least. But if we still wanted to do it, what would we compare it to? The previous
competence in the same context, or students from say Germany? What about including other parameters too.
Say, for instance, the emotional side of the learning: would CLIL students feel more condent about their English (whatever it is)
than before? Would they think their learning has been more relevant? Would the teacher-student rapport change and would this
affect their attitude towards learning?
My point is THAT there is more to this topic than just the language and the content. We should be even talking about what do we
consider learning, and whats the role of the teacher and the learners. Maybe the foregin language (and the content, if I may say so)
is just one of the many ingredients of CLIL (and Im not really sure if it is the main one). If we have a look at the core clil activators
(http://www.kke.ee/clil/eng/index.html maybe too catchy a name) we would all probably agree that they are all present in any
good type of teaching, even in ELT.
Reply
Patricia on June 29, 2012 at 2:25 pm said:
Hello Sergio. Like you I have come late to this very stimulating debate. Also like you I am working in Spain (12 years in CLIL
contexts). My point to add to this debate is the need for a systematic approach which will ensure success and on the basis of this
success CLILwill gain respectable momentum. Here in Spain it is only working well where training in language and content
cooincide and CLIL theory is put into best practice in a systematic top down manner where the regional powers that be and the
senior managements of schools understand the demands and benets of CLIL and can lead their schools properly to achieve true
language/content learning.
Apart from good teaching CLIL needs clever planning and thorough and appropriate assessments.; for example, the allocation of a
60% subject and 40% language proportion to the planning and that same proportion to the assessment process immediately guides
the activity in the classroom, focusses the mind set of the teacher and redirects the motivation of the child to get a good grade in
both areas. In making this decision and putting it into a high quality planning/teaching/assessment model we have immediately
constructed a systematic base which a whole school can use.
The current mixed messages about the efcacy of CLIL can be blamed on poverty of experience rather than inherent weakness of
pedagogy.There is so much about CLIL which we need to know and understand and there is much about CLIL yet to be
discovered. The more we read, research and understand, the more able we are to make informed judgements and implementations
to benet the education of our young people. .
Reply
Blog at WordPress.com. The Parament Theme.
Follow
Follow Jeremy Harmer
Powered by WordPress.com

To Teach English Is Human, To Teach CLIL Is Divine? - Jeremy Harmer PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

To Teach English Is Human, To Teach CLIL Is Divine? - Jeremy Harmer PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Jeremy Harmer

ELT writer, presenter, teacher & trainer

Anda mungkin juga menyukai