An Observation Tool for Comprehensive Pedagogy in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Examples from Primary Education

Taina M Wewer

Abstract


This article on principles and practices in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is also applicable for general foreign and second language instruction. Since there is no ‘one size fits all’ CLIL pedagogy, the origin of the article lies in the need of educators to obtain and exchange ideas of and tools for actual classroom practices (Pérez Cañado, 2017), and ensure that all key features of CLIL are present in instruction. Although there are a few handbooks available for launching CLIL and adopting CLIL pedagogy (e.g., Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010; Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, 2008), these provide principles and general examples of content-based instruction at higher levels of education rather than more detailed advice on how to operate in the beginning phases with young language learners, hence the focus on primary education. The Observation Tool for Effective CLIL Teaching created by de Graaff, Koopman, Anikina, and Gerrit (2007) was chosen as the starting point and was complemented with three additional fields that were not markedly included in the original model: cultural aspects, affects, and assessment.


Keywords


pedagogy; English; EFL, bilingual education; CLIL

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alisaari, J., & Heikkola, L. M. (2017). Songs and poems in the language classroom: Teachers’ beliefs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 231–242.

Anderson, L. W., & Kraftwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

Asher, J. J. (1969). The total physical response approach to second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 53(1), 3-17.

Asher, J. J. (1981). The total physical response: Theory and practice. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 324-331). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT teaching knowledge test course CLIL module. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bligh, S. (2014). The silent experiences of young bilingual learners: A sociocultural study into the silent period. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

Bovellan, E. (2014). Teachers’ beliefs about learning and language as reflected in their views of teaching materials for content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/44277/978-951-39-5809-1_vaitos20092014.pdf?sequence=1.

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: An investigation into ‘successful learning’ across CLIL contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 244–266.

Cummins, J. (1982). Tests, achievement, and bilingual students. FOCUS, 9, 2–9.

Cummins, J. (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In E. Shohamy & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 7: Language testing and assessment (2nd ed.; pp. 71–83). Boston, MA: Springer.

Cummins, J. & Man Y.-F. E. (2007). Academic language: What is it and how do we acquire it? In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 797–810). Boston, MA: Springer.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content and language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204.

de Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624.

Drury, R. (2013). How silent is the ‘silent period’ for young bilinguals in early years setting in England? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(3), 380–391.

Eurydice. (2012). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe 2012. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. European Commission. Retrieved from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/143EN.pdf.

García, O., Ibarra Johnson, S., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom–leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon.

Habrat, A. (2013). The effect of affect on learning: Self-esteem and self-concept. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel & E. Szyman´ska-Czaplak (Eds.), Language in cognition and affect, second language learning and teaching (pp. 239–253). Berlin: Springer.

Hillyard, S. (2011). First steps in CLIL: Training the teachers. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 1–12.

Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2014). CLIL (content and language integrated learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A.

Burton (2013). CLIL: Some reasons why… and why not. System, 41(2013): 587–597. System, 44, 160–167.

Hönig, I. (2010). Assessment in CLIL: Theoretical and empirical research. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag.

Kopperoinen, A. (2011). Accents of English as a lingua franca:

A study of Finnish textbooks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 71–93.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and

implications. New York, NY: Longman.

Krashen, S., & Brown, C. L. (2007). What is academic language

proficiency? STETS Language and Communication Review, 6(1), 1–4.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction:

Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181–207.

Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker R. (2012). The roles of

language in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Milovanov, R. (2009). The connectivity of musical aptitude

and foreign language learning skills: Neural and behavioral evidence. Anglicana Turkuensia No 27. Turku: University of Turku. Retrieved from http://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/50249/diss2009milovanov.pdf?sequence=1.

Milovanov, R., Tervaniemi, M., & Gustafsson, M. (2004). The impact of musical aptitude in foreign language acquisition. Conference paper for Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Music Perception & Cognition. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/

download?doi=10.1.1.476.1488&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

NCC. (2016). The national core curriculum for basic education 2014. Publications 2016:5. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.

Nikula, T., & Järvinen, H.-M. (2013). Vieraskielinen opetus Suomessa [Instruction in a foreign language in Finland]. In L. Tainio & H. Harju-Luukkainen (Eds), Kaksikielinen koulu – tulevaisuuden monikielinen Suomi [Bilingual school—the multilingual future Finland] (pp. 143–166). Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopistopaino.

Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, J. M. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Oxford: Macmillan Education.

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past,

present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual

Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341.

Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2017). Stopping the “pendulum effect”

in CLIL research: Finding the balance between Pollyanna

and Scrooge. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(1), 79–99.

Pérez-Vidal, C. (2007). The need of focus on form (FoF) in content and language integrated approaches: An exploratory study. Volumen Monográfico, 39–54.

Pihko, M.–K. (2007). Minä, koulu ja englanti: Vertaileva tutkimus englanninkielisen sisällönopetuksen ja perinteisen englannin opetuksen affektiivisista tuloksista [Me, school and English: A comparative study of the affective outcomes of English teaching

in Content and Language Integrated (CLIL) classes and in traditional EFL classes]. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

Pihko, M.–K. (2010). Vieras kieli kouluopiskelun välineenä: Oppilaiden kokemuksista vihjeitä CLILopetuksen kehittämiseen [Foreign language as a medium of school study: implications of pupils’ experiences for development of CLIL instruction]. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto.

Rahman, H. (2012). Finnish pupils’ communicative language use of English in interviews in basic education grades 1-6. Research Report 340. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

Rahman, H. (2013). Viestinnällinen CLIL-opetus [Communicative CLIL instruction]. In T. Wewer (Ed.), CLIL liitoon [Make CLIL soar] (pp. 40–44). Publication of the Teacher Training School of Turku University. Turku: University of Turku.

Rantala, T., & Määttä, K. (2012). Ten thesis of joy of learning at primary schools. Early Childhood Development and Care, 182(1), 87–105.

Scarcella, R. (2003). Academic English: A conceptual framework. Technical Reports. University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute: UC Berkeley.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2006). The challenges of academic language in school subjects. In I. Lindberg & K. Sandwall (Eds), Språket och Kunskapen: Att Lära på sitt Andraspråk I Skola och Högskola [Language and sciences: To learn one’s second language at school

and university] (pp. 47–69). Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet Institutet för Svenska som Andraspråk.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.

Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affective factors. Language and Education, 21(4), 328–341.

Shabani, B. M., & Torkeh, M. (2014). The relationship between musical intelligence and foreign language learning: The case of Iranian learners of English. International Journal of Applied Linguistics &

English Literature, 3(3), 26–32.

Slattery, M., & Willis, J. (2001). English for primary teachers: A handbook of activities and classroom language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2003). Clarifying different types of portfolio use. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(6), 625–648.

Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Swinney, R., & Velasco, P. (2011). Connecting content and academic language for English learners and struggling students. Grades 2-6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Van Canh, L., & Renandya, W. A. (2017). Teachers’ English proficiency and classroom language use: A conversation analysis study. RELC Journal, 48(1), 67-81.

Wewer, T. (2014a). Assessment of young learners’ English proficiency in bilingual content instruction CLIL. Publications of Turku University B-385. Turku: University of Turku.

Wewer, T. (2014b). Academic language: Raising awareness of subject-specific literacies. A Capstone Project Report. Retrieved from http://www.fulbright.fi/sites/default/files/Liitetiedostot/Stipendiohjelmat/Suomalaisille/da_fy14_capstone_project_wewer_finland.pdf .

Wewer, T. (2015). Portfolio as an indicator of young learners’ English proficiency in mainstream English instruction (EFL) and bilingual content instruction (CLIL). Turku: University of Turku.

Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic conversations. Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085.11576

Copyright (c) 2017 Taina M Wewer

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

https://doi.org/10.14483/issn.2248-7085