Content and foreign langua geinte grated learning - Tài liệu tham khảo Tiếng Anh ( TA8 ISW) p2 | Đại học Hoa Sen

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251576256
CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning
ArticleinSystem · March 2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2011.01.001 CITATIONS READS 8 24,848 1 author: Vera Busse University of Münster
112 PUBLICATIONS809 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Effectiveness of L1, L2 and FL writing instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis View project
Call for Papers - Special Issue on Literacy and Feedback View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Vera Busse on 26 June 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. + MODEL
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com System xx (2012) 1e3 www.elsevier.com/locate/system Book review
Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts, Yolanda
Ruiz de Zarobe, Juan Manuel Sierra, Francisco Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.). Peter Lang, Bern (2011). 343 pp.
In the last few years, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) has become the keyword and hope of many
educators and policy makers. From a desire to boost students’ language skills without neglecting other relevant
content and thereby meet the European Union’s ambitious goal of making students proficient in two EU languages,
CLIL has been introduced in a range of European countries. Subjects as diverse as History and Biology are already
taught through the medium of a foreign language in many European schools. The current trend goes hand-in-hand with
the accrued attention paid to CLIL by educational researchers. The present anthology, edited by Yolanda Ruiz de
Zarobe, Juan Manuel Sierra and Francisco Gallardo, is the latest in a long line of other recent publications on the topic
(e.g. Coyle et al., 2010; Dalton-Puffer et al., 2010; Ruı´z de Zarobe and Jime´nez Catala´n, 2009). The authors rightly
distinguish between foreign language (FL) learning contexts and second (or minority) language learning contexts and
focus, as the title suggests, entirely on studies exploring FL learning. The volume addresses several questions preying
on our minds: to what extent can CLIL keep its promises in a FL learning environment? How does CLIL affect
classroom practice? Given the latest controversies surrounding CLIL (Bruton, 2011), this contribution is well-timed
indeed and sure to move the discussion forward.
The volume features 14 contributions and numerous well-known names in the field. Like the editors, the majority of
researchers come from Spain, a country with a strong interest in CLIL due to its prevailing multilingualism.
Accordingly, studies mostly report on data obtained in Spanish secondary education where English is used as
a medium of teaching and learning, often in addition to another official language, for example, Basque or Catalan. The
book is divided into two parts, which are framed by an introductory and a concluding chapter written by the editors
plus a short foreword by CLIL researcher, Dalton-Puffer. The first part “Research in European Contexts” consists of
six chapters, which explore CLIL from different theoretical perspectives. The main focus is on language learning
outcomes, although other potential benefits are also touched upon. The second part, “Classroom Practice and
Outcomes” comprises five chapters, which place professional and pedagogical issues firmly in the foreground.
Part I starts off with a contribution by Mephisto and Marsh who make a case for CLIL by exploring the societal and
individual benefits of bilingualism in general. Although the authors are careful to point out that the evidence is not yet
conclusive, their insightful literature review uncovers a variety of advantages of bilingualism, such as economic,
cognitive and health benefits. While most readers will agree with the authors that monolingualism is undesirable in
today’s society, one may add in parenthesis that, of course, bi-or multilingual people can only reap benefits like better
employment prospects if they speak the ‘right’ languages, that is, languages that are valued in a given society. This
aspect of multilingualism is mentioned only in passing by the authors, but gains significance in view of the sizeable
immigrant population in many European countries. It is worth pointing out that immigrants and second generation
citizens already speak a foreign language in addition to the country’s official language, but these language assets are
often not valued or even ignored in the educational system (one may contemplate, for example, the recent public
outcry in Germany at the Turkish prime minister’s proposal to introduce bilingual German/Turkish1 grammar schools
in the light of the increase of bilingual programmes for languages such as English, French and Spanish).
In the following chapter, Coyle stresses the importance of language as a means of learning and explores the use of
foreign languages as learning tool in CLIL settings. The author goes on to describe a qualitative study set in
a secondary school in England, where students were taught science through the medium of German. Without giving
1 Note that the Turkish language is Germany’s main immigrant language.
0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2012.04.004 + MODEL 2
Book review / System xx (2012) 1e3
too much away at this point, it might be said that the article is well worth reading, not least because it may encourage
educators to engage in critical inquiry about their own teaching practice. Note, however, that the analysis of CLIL
classroom discourse provided in the appendix reveals many basic mistakes in the teacher’s comments and instructions.
This point would have merited more attention, as it may reinforce growing scepticism about the ability of the average
teacher to communicate content successfully through a foreign language.
A novel take on CLIL is provided by Ting who argues that CLIL is also beneficial from a neuroscientific point of
view. As the title “CLIL and Neuroscience” may appear rather dry to some readers, let me stress that the article is, in
fact, very entertaining and gives plenty of food for thought. Ting’s call to make school lessons more ‘brain- friendly’ is
sure to find sympathetic readers, and biology teachers will welcome the illustrative example of how CLIL can be used
to spice up science lessons. However, while CLIL may indeed have the potential make classes more relevant to some
students and perhaps also more interactive, it does not necessarily do so. As Ting herself points out, young animals
roam and learn, while young human beings are forced to sit and learn (or rather, to sit and listen). CLIL alone may not
change established ‘brain-unfriendly’ teaching practice, as teacher-centred ‘talk and chalk’ instruction can also occur
when science classes are taught through the medium of a foreign language. A wider implementation of state-of-the-art
methods for cooperative and explorative forms of learning appears to be needed in this respect. It may be worth cross-
referencing here to a contribution in Part II, where Sierra explores the link between CLIL and project work. The music
project described was well received by students and will hopefully encourage other teachers to explore the potential of
CLIL for more open forms of learning.
Can CLIL keep its promises in a FL learning environment? Readers interested in this question should turn to Ruiz
de Zarobe’s critical scrutiny of current research studies. Clearly, results are not yet conclusive and some language
skills seem to benefit more than others. More research is still warranted, in particular, as the author points out in the
concluding section of the volume, involving studies in which CLIL and non-CLIL learners are matched for quantity of
exposure to the foreign language. One may also add that the variable language-proficiency of the teacher and its effect
on students’ language development also needs to be more closely examined. However, the picture painted by existing
studies is promising over all, and-the author trusts that CLIL is the right way forward in language education.
The last contribution in Part I by Nave´s focuses mainly on studies conducted in Catalonia. Nave´s highlights a recent
study involving Catalan-Spanish learners studying English as a third language, in which students who learnt English
through CLIL outperformed their non-CLIL peers in overall EFL proficiency and EFL writing proficiency. While this
study is certainly an interesting one, more could have been said about participants and matching techniques. The
author briefly states that “Non-CLIL learners came from state-funded schools in Barcelona, while all CLIL learners
came from semi-private schools in Metropolitan Barcelona. EFL was taught three times a week. CLIL courses
consisted of subjects such as natural sciences or social sciences which were taught in English three times a week” (p.
164). It thus appears that CLIL and non-CLIL learners had the same quantity of exposure to the foreign language,
which would set this study apart from others of its kind. However, did CLIL students therefore not receive any regular
EFL classes? A word or two could also have been said on the fact that EFL students attended a regular state school
while CLIL students attended a semi-private school. In Spain, semi-private schools, so-called “concertados”, tend to
have a different student population from fully-subsidized state schools (Cenoz, 2009). Were the two samples
comparable, for instance, in terms of the private English lessons received? The reference to de Graff (p.180) is missing in the reference list.
Part II, “Classroom Practice and Outcomes”, focuses on CLIL teachers and pedagogical issues. Contributions deal
with the implementation of CLIL or the evaluation of CLIL programmes or projects, an exception being the chapter by
Dafouz Milne, who explores teacher discourse. All chapters are well worth reading, and the practical challenges
uncovered should not go unnoticed; above all, the need to find qualified staff with a high level of expertise in the
desired language, but also the scarcity of adequate teaching material and textbooks. In this respect, let me highlight
here a contribution reporting on an ongoing bilingual project in Madrid. Ferna´ndez and Halbach’s sensitive reflection
on teachers’ evaluation of the project makes for very interesting reading indeed, both for practitioners and researchers.
Four years after its implementation, teachers involved in the project seemed to be on the whole positive but also
critical. An important issue raised by teachers is how and whether inclusive education and CLIL work together. If
high-ability students share the same classroom with lower ability children or children with special educational needs,
will the CLIL learning environment not disadvantage the latter students even further and aggravate their learning
problems? Given the scarcity of empirical data on CLIL and low-ability children and/or special needs children, these
lingering doubts may not easily be dispersed and would deserve more attention than they currently receive. + MODEL
Book review / System xx (2012) 1e3 3
The volume concludes with a useful synthesis of issues raised by contributors and a tripartite research desideratum:
more studies to explore the effect of CLIL on learning with regard to (a) content achievement (b) first language
learning/maintenance of first language and (c) FL gains. In particular, the first two areas are still under-researched and
will hopefully be taken up by the growing number of researchers working in CLIL, to whom I would warmly recommend this volume. References
Bruton, A., 2011. Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System 39, 523e532.
Cenoz, J., 2009. Towards Multilingual Education: Basque Educational Research from an International Perspective. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, UK.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., Marsh, D., 2010. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., Smit, U. (Eds.), 2010. Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Ruı´z de Zarobe, Y., Jime´nez Catala´n, R., 2009. Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, UK. Vera Busse
Carl von Ossietzky Universita¨t, Fakulta¨t I Bildungs - und Sozialwissenschaften, Institut fu¨r Pa¨dagogik, 26111 Oldenburg, Germany
E-mail address: vera.busse@gmail.com View publication stats