Adding language without taking away

Where English has been imposed as the language of instruction the result has often been
failure. The way forward is a sensitive and collaborative integration of language and content,
argues David Marsh

Guardian Weekly

There is a marked difference between teaching in English and teaching through English. Globally,
teaching in English is spreading like wildfire from primary to higher education. Meanwhile teaching
through English is steadily developing as an educational methodology, particularly in Europe.
Content and Language Integrated Learning (Clil) involves integration of language teaching into the
learning of other subjects. Clil invites confusion as it does controversy. Much of this derives from
misunderstanding the apparently subtle, yet fundamental difference between "in" and "through".
Caustically referred to as the language of instruction, if not occasionally destruction, adoption of
English as the medium of learning is responsible for widespread school wastage in various continents.
From Africa to Asia, from Bolivia to Brunei, the use of a foreign language as the medium of
instruction is directly linked to educational exclusion.
Medium of instruction language problems are by no means exclusive to some continents more than
others. These issues span the world. Teaching in English, without adoption of appropriate language-
sensitive curricula and methodologies, inevitably leads to confusion, despair and high drop-out rates.
Clil, as in teaching through English, always involves dual-focused aims. In a Clil class, attention is
simultaneously given to both topic and language. Colloquially described as using languages to learn
and learning to use languages, it can be viewed as the next phase of the 1970s' communicative
revolution. Clil is not new. Although the term was adopted in the 1990s, successful implementation
of such dual-focused learning stretches back many decades. Clil is a generic term, which covers some
20 or more educational approaches. Although these differ in terminology (immersion, languages
across the curriculum, bilingual education, etc), they share certain common methodologies. Clil was
introduced as an inclusive "umbrella" term by which to capture and further develop these.
What is new about Clil is that it is cascading into mainstream education, having previously been
found only in special regions, or elite forms of education. In addition, there is now greater
understanding of the cognitive and development advantages of this type of education. But for these
successes to be achieved, teaching through English requires much more than just teaching in English.
The essence of Clil is in integration. The methods used in the classroom depend on a set of core
variables. These are interwoven into the curriculum, and realised through classroom practice. They
revolve around the type of subject learnt, the cognitive demands involved, and the pupils' linguistic
load. But there are others linked to the educational environment. Is it Ethiopia, where policy makes
English an educational lingua franca such that secondary students learn subjects in English? Or is it
-England, where Clil is used to achieve the added value of enhanced foreign language competence?
The reasons for introducing Clil are diverse but the core chemistry is methodological.
When Clil is incorporated into the curriculum, language takes its position at the centre of the whole
educational enterprise. All teachers take responsibility for nurturing its development in the classroom.
This is because successful language acquisition depends on the amount, quality and richness of input.
Yet not all input becomes intake. And if there is limited intake then there will be equally limited
opportun-ities for output, which is the realisation of meaningful language usage. In successful
examples of Clil all teachers consider themselves to be responsible for language development to a
greater or lesser extent, even if the language focus is very, very small indeed.
Clil does not necessarily correlate with the maximum exposure hypothesis (the more you have the
better you become). This has been an erroneous assumption in the introduction of teaching in English.
A small amount of learning through a foreign language can go a long way towards achieving various
positive outcomes. This could be as simple, yet as import-ant, as developing language learner self-
confidence. It can also be found through tapping into preferred language learning styles for which
there is often too little time available in formal language lessons.
Clil presents an opportunity and a threat to accepted ELT practice. The so-called communicative
dimension of language teaching, where the language is treated as a functional tool rather than the
explicit object of study, is now moving into the realm of subject teaching. Often involving few contact
hours where students learn appropriate topics, rather than whole subjects, Clil complements parallel
formal language instruction.
This has direct implications that are likely to impact on different types of ELT practitioners. One
feature of Clil teacher competence relates to good understanding of the major first language of the
environment. In this respect, the non-native speaker of English is emerging as a particularly
successful Clil teacher. The role of the native speaker EFL teacher, if monolingual and employed to
encourage language practice, is likely to be undermined.
Some have asked if Clil is the trojan horse that is carrying English ever deeper into the European
national educational systems. Accepting the metaphor, others see it as a means of driving even better
teaching and learning practice into the heart of education. The debate is active and the ELT -
practitioner needs to ensure that she is not sidelined. Such a sea-change in educational philosophy
offers opportunities for enhancing professional performance.
Formal language teaching is part of the Clil approach, so language teachers who re-position their
teaching philosophy according to the new demands could, in fact, become conductors of the orchestra
within the new language learning framework. There is potential here for ELT practitioners to
regenerate their profession, but, by not recognising the impact of Clil, they also run the risk of missing
opportunities.
In addition to internationalisation, there are various catalysts behind this contemporary Clil cascade.
One of these is increasingly widespread access to the converging technologies. The mindset
orientation of Generation Y (born 1982-2001) is particularly focused on immediacy as in "learn as
you use, use as you learn - not learn now, use later". Generation C (2002-2025) will be even more
influenced by early experience of integrated media, curricula and practice.
Another concerns cultural shifts in the teaching profession. Generation Y, increasingly at ease with
mobility, foreign languages and with a preference for learning by doing will shortly be appearing as
teachers in schools. These teachers will have even greater capacity for Clil.
Globally, other drivers exist, ranging from interest in the value of cross-curricular approaches,
through to an increasing tendency towards market-oriented educational culture. Although there are
substantial differences in application globally, there are core methodological and theoretical issues
common to different regions.
Teaching in English can easily lead to language problems. Teaching through English can unleash
language potential. These are early days in the emergence of Clil. If the -European models continue
to take root, and be justified through the types of research now being published, there could be a
positive knock-on effect globally. It is clear that dual-focused Clil methodol-ogies have immense
potential in easing the language burden in certain countries, as in enhancing language learning in
others.
David Marsh, of the University of Jyväskylä, Finland, is a leading expert on Clil in Europe

You can also send send us your comments about Clil and English medium and we will add these to a
feedback section clil.debate@guardian.co.uk

Go back to the Clil Debate main page