U B B U UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA T. Navés [email protected] Dpt. Anglès. Facultat de...

U

B

U

BB

UUNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA

T. Navés [email protected] Dpt. Anglès. Facultat de FilologiaTel. (34) 93 403 58 66 Fax (34) 93 317 12 49

www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves/

http://www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves/

I. Lang Policy in EUII. Why CLIL? III. Successful CLIL IV. Revisting impressive long-term effects of immersion programmesV. Embryonic promising but non-refined short-term research VI. Conclusions

UE: A1 - A2 - B1 - B2 - C1 - C2

• PISA: Most EU countries: B1

• Mobility

• Two foreign languages

• High command (C1/ C2) of at least one foreign language

EU: From B1 to C2. How?

The European Commission’s (1995) White Paper. Teaching and learning. Towards the Learning Society declares that proficiency in three community languages is a priority, and suggests lowering the starting age and teaching content in a foreign language as ways to contribute to the achievement of this objective.

EU

The European Commission’s (2005) report on foreign language teaching and learning claims that an excellent way of making progress in a foreign language is “to use it for a purpose, so that the language becomes a tool rather than an end in itself.” (p. 9).

One single entry: CLIL, a EU’s mantraReform in foreign-language learning is very slow globally, despite some imaginative initiatives, for instance, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), one of the EU’s mantras for achieving more success in foreign language learning…Phillipson (2009, p. 56) in Long & Doughty (2009) Handbook of Language Teaching. Wiley-Blackwell

I. Lang Policy in EUII. Why CLIL? III. Successful CLIL IV. Revisting impressive long-term effects of immersion programmesV.Embryonic promising but non-refined short-term researchVI. Conclusions

Solid foundations of CLIL (Muñoz, 2007 p. 25)

• CLIL can provide relevant and plentiful comprehensible input,

• it can facilitate the processing of meaning and form,

• and provide justification and motivation for language production in the target language.


Furthermore, CLIL presents the most enriching characteristics of the communicative approach, for example,

• the use of language in appropriate context,

• the exchange of information, or

• involving learners in cognitive processes which are rellevant for acquisition (…).


It is hoped that the solid foundations of CLIL will contribute to the improvement of the processes of teaching-learning languages that our multilingual aspirations require

SOLID FOUNDATIONSPiske (2008, p.165-166) in Piske & Young-Scholten Input matters in SLA. Clevedon.

…it comes as no surprise that types of language learning scenarios such as immersion teaching (Petit, 2002; Wode, 1995, 2004), bilingual subject matter teaching, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) (Klieme et al., 2006) or task-based language learning and teaching (Ellis, 2003) are considerably more successful than traditional formfocused language learning.

What these arrangements have in common is that the learner is not squeezed into a language structure, but may respond to an intellectual challenge according to her or his respective competence.

Such scenarios leave space for language hypothesis testing and non-sanctioned language production since in these settings the focus truly is primarily on meaning.

Solid Foundations Dalton-PufferMost of the arguments in favour of CLIL come from SLA research and show that CLIL

(1) creates conditions for naturalistic language learning,

(2) provides a purpose for language use in the classroom,

(3) has a positive effect on language learning by putting the emphasis on meaning rather than form and

(4) drastically increases the amount of exposure to the target language

(Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2007).

PROGRAMMES Vs.

APPROACHES & METHODOLOGIES

CLIL methodology?

• Immersion methodology?

• Bilingual education methodology?

• Content-based methodology?

CLIL methodology? –ii--

¿Este método [AICLE] funciona?

No existe el método AICLE. Enseñar y aprender en una lengua extranjera se puede hacer de formas muy diversas.

(Escobar, 2009, p. 48)

Programmes vs MethodologyCLIL teaching methodology is just one among many other features efficient CLIL programmes have in common.

The one feature which all efficient CLIL programmes share is that they are PROGRAMMES of varying length which provide, nevertheless, a substantially greater and better exposure to the target language. (Navés, 2009)

(1) Respect and support for the learner’s first language and culture;

(2) Competent bilingual teachers i.e. teachers fully proficient in the language of instruction and familiar with one of the learners’ home languages;

(3) Mainstream (not pull-out) optional courses;

(4) Long-term programmes, stable teaching staff;

(5) Parental support for the programme;

Naves (2009) 10 Characteristics Successful CLIL Programmes

(6) cooperation and leadership of educational authorities, administrators and teachers;

(7) dually qualified teachers (in content and language);

(8) high teaching expectations and standards; (9) availability of quality CLIL teaching

materials; (10) properly implemented CLIL

methodology.

Naves (2009) 10 Characteristics Successful CLIL Programmes

Canadian Immersion Programmes

• Canadian Immersion Programmes are by far the most highly acclaimed language learning programmes.

• SLA researchers, teachers and parents fully agree that the immersion programmes in Canada have been extremely efficient and successful. Instruction is given in the target language from kindergarten on or starting at some time during elementary school.

(Swain & Lapkin, 1982; Swain, 2000).

Not all content teaching is necessarily good language teaching (Swain, 1988, p. 68)

… typical content teaching is not necessarily good second language teaching. Appropriately, content teaching focusses on comprehending meaning. However, what second language learners need is to focus on form-meaning relationships. Doing so is facilitated through the production of language, whether in written or spoken form. Because the typical question/ answer sequence found in content classes tends to elicit short responses of minimal complexity from students, at least part of the content lesson needs to be substituted with activities which demand longer, more complex, and coherent language from the learners.Swain (1988, p. 68 & 81) in“Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning.” TESL Canada Journal, 6(1), pàgs. 68-83.

5-10 years for immigrant stds to catch up with NS in academic language abilities (CALP)

Collier’s (1987; 1989) research among middle-class immigrant students taught exclusively through English led her to suggest that a period of five to 10 years was required for students to catch up with their native-speaking peers in terms of their academic language abilities

Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)

Limitations to L2 learning in immersion: more focus on form/s needed

However, the question of whether immersion, especially ‘early’ immersion, is the best model for students in all sociocultural and educational settings has not been satisfactorily answered. Some researchers have found that there are limitations to L2 learning through subject matter teaching alone and have suggested that more direct L2 instruction needs to complement the subject matter teaching (Harley, 1989; Lyster, 1994; Swain, 1988).


Search by Title in Academic Research Databases Aug 2009 [email protected]

2182

919

14210

893

674

14714

444310

66 70

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

ERIC 2182 919 142 10

LLBA 893 674 147 14

MLA 444 310 66 7

Bilingual Education Immersion Content-based CLIL

Embryonic short-term empirical research

• Langé (2007:352), the empirical research on CLIL is still embryonic.

• As Pessoa et al. (2007: 102) rightly argue, content-based instruction has had strong professional advocacy but has thus far not benefited from extensive research.

Although a substantial amount of professional literature argues for the potential benefits of content-based instruction, limited research exists on how this type of instruction actually is appropriated, understood, and carried out in practice by foreign language teachers.

Empirical Research on CLIL

• Writing Performance:– Ackerl (2006) Carrilero(forthcoming)– Huttner et al (2006) Lasagabaster (2008)– Loranc-Paszylk(2009) Navés and Victori (2010)– Navés (in press)

• English Proficiency :– Admiraal et al.(2006) Jiménez et al.(2006)– Kasper (1997) Lasagabaster (2008)– Navés and Victori (2010) Ruiz de Zarobe and Jiménez (2009)– Villarreal Olaizola et al (2009)– Navés (in press)– Lorenzo et al. (2009)

How encouraging are the results?

Muñoz & Navés (2007:164) examined the empirical research on CLIL in Spain and concluded that most of the results derived from comparing the foreign language achievement of learners in CLIL courses and learners in regular EFL curricula have given estimates of the gains of the former, measured in school years.

BUT they also pointed out, is that, due to the nature of comparative research studies, it has not always been possible to control all the variables. More finely-grained empirical studies are needed.

Navés & Victori (2010)

Navés & Victori (2010) and Navés (in press)

CLIL learners from lower grades did as well as non-CLIL learners up to three grades ahead in reading comprehension, dictation and grammar proficiency tests and in the written domains of fluency, lexical complexity and syntactic complexity

CLIL vs Study abroad and out of school classes

• The role of the QUANTITY and QUALITY of the input

• Short-term CLIL instruction is promising but not sufficient

Integrating content and language provides but does not guarantee the conditions SLA suggests need to be met for successful language learning to take place. (de Graff, 2007, Muñoz, 2007, Navés, in press)

How promising is existing research?From B1 to C2? Not yet

• Short-term CLIL instruction shows statistically significant differences in favour of CLIL learners of up two-academic years

• Long-term?

• Statistically significant differences = drastic relevant differences.

(Navés, forthcoming)

MOLTES GRÀCIESTHANK YOU VERY

MUCHMUCHAS GRACIAS

Navés (in press)... el fet que la recerca empírica assenyali que els alumnes que han cursat una assignatura en AICLE-CLIL atrapen els companys d’un a tres cursos per davant d’ells seria molt prometedora si els nivells de competència lingüística de l’alumnat fossin molt més variats i alts, de manera que la diferència en els cursos acadèmics resultés en diferències significatives de competència lingüística. Recordem que la incitativa del Consell d’Europa per introduir AICLE-CLIL era justament aconseguir fer pujar dràsticament la competència lingüística final de l’alumnat. Si tot l’alumnat té un nivell similar, inferior al B1 europeu, els guanys que hi hagi poden ser prometedors, però no suficients des d’un punt de vista de política lingüística.

Navés (in press)

Si, fins i tot en els millors programes, hi ha àrees a polir com el tractament de la forma en els programes d’immersió, només la supèrbia o l’agosarament cec ens portaria a pensar que els esperançadors resultats que estem obtenint a curt termini amb els cursos de què disposem de CLIL són suficients per garantir uns bons resultats a llarg termini també, que aconsegueixin finalment augmentar dràsticament a nivells molt més avançats la competència lingüística del nostre alumnat.


MUCHMUCHAS GRACIAS

Do we have CLIL programmes?In a review focussing on the characteristics of effective and successful CLIL programmes, Navés (2002, 2009) concluded that one of the most important characteristics was integration in a long-term, highly structured, coherent, stable programme. However, some of the features examined in this study, such as the ongoing joint effort of all parties involved, parental support, and the longevity and stability of the content subject and language teaching teams, are key aspects that we find lacking in our context. (Navés & Victori, 2010)

EU: Rationale and benefits USA: Research on efficient programmes

…in the last two decades, while in Europe and Asia the main emphasis is still on describing the rationale and benefits of implementing content and language integrated (CLIL) approaches and methodologies, in North America the emphasis has shifted to further investigating the characteristics of efficient immersion and bilingual education programmes. (Navés, 2009)

Need to justify CLIL?Beliefs and prejudices

The defensive attitude that can be inferred from researchers’ need to justify, time and time again, the rationale and benefits of integrating language and subject content rather than further investigating the commonalities of efficient CLIL programmes may have to do with pressure from

(a) folk beliefs and prejudices against bilingualism and multilingualism and

(b) political interests.

(Navés, 2009)

The debate on BE is political“I argue (...) that the debate on bilingual education must be considered in the political contexts for two reasons:

• first, the research findings on the effects of bilingual education are both abundant and clear; the common perception that research is either largely unavailable and/or inadequate is a myth generated by strong vested interests.

• The second reason for examining closely the political context of the issue is that the educational changes required to reverse the pattern of language minority group school failure are essentially political changes because they involve changes in the power relations between dominant and dominated groups”. (Cummins, 1995, p. 63 in Navés, in press)


MUCHMUCHAS GRACIAS

FURTHER INFO

Miret (2009)Miret (2009)Participants Participants (same OA)

Miret (2009) Writing Miret (2009) Writing performanceperformance

*p is significant at <.05 **p is significant at <.01

Miret (2009) Overall Miret (2009) Overall Proficiency Proficiency

*p is significant at <.05 **p is significant at <.01

Navés & Victori (2010)

Navés & Victori (2010)• CLIL programmes may offer the necessary

conditions – as established by SLA findings (see de Graff, 2007) – for effective learning to take place. However, implementing CLIL programmes at any cost, does not necessarily guarantee that those gains will take place (Victori and Vallbona 2008), especially if it is a short-term experience like some of the courses we have compared. Rather than promoting CLIL as a methodology or approach, we would advocate a vision of CLIL as a carefully planned, long-term programme (Navés 2009), similar to those that have been successfully implemented in semi-immersion or immersion programs in Canada, the USA or elsewhere.

Navés (in press)

Navés (in press) EFL proficiency

Navés (in press) Fluency in writing

Navés (in press) Syntactic complexity in writing

Navés (in press) Lexical Variety and Accuracy in writing

Revisiting Canadian Immersion• While most majority language children in immersion

education are likely to develop academic proficiency in their L1 as well as in their L2,

• in transitional bilingual education settings, there is often evidence that children fail to develop academic proficiency in either language. – Conversational L1 skills may be maintained in the absence of L1

schooling, but high-level literacy skills usually are not developed (Taylor et al., 2000; Wright et al., 2000).

– Furthermore, after years of education in their L2, many children in transitional bilingual programmes have not developed academic proficiency in the L2 either. This is by no means a universal finding.

– Students in transitional bilingual education programmes in which sufficient support is given to both languages may acquire CALP in their L1 as well as their L2 (Thomas & Collier, 1995).


Oral proficiency 3-5 yearsAcademic proficiency 4-7 years

• Similarly, in an analysis of data from two California school districts considered to be the most successful in teaching English to limited English proficient students, Hakuta and his colleagues (Hakuta et al., 2000) showed that while oral proficiency takes three to five years to develop, academic English proficiency can take four to seven years. Similar findings have been reported for Finnish immigrant children in Sweden (Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa, 1976), for immigrant children in English-speaking Canadian schools (Cummins, 1981) and elsewhere.


Cummins: BISC vs CALP• Cummins’s (1979) distinction between ‘basic

interpersonal communication skills’ (BICS) and ‘cognitive academic language proficiency’ (CALP) was developed in an effort: to draw educators’ attention to these data and to warn against premature exit of ELL [English language learning] students (in the United States) from bilingual to mainstream English-only programs on the basis of attainment of surface level fluency in English.

• In other words, the distinction highlighted the fact that educators’ conflating of these aspects of proficiency was a major factor in the creation of academic difficulties for bilingual students. (Cummins, 2000: 58)


Phillipson (2009, p. 56) in Long & Doughty (2009) Handbook of Language Teaching. Wiley-Blackwell

Another EU language mantra is an early start to foreign-language learning, a notion that is intuitively appealing, hence easy for politicians to latch on to and promote. Experience shows, however, that considerable educational changes need to be in place before the age factor can influence outcomes decisively (see Phillipson, 2003, pp. 95– 104).

Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.

References cited

• Genesee, F. (1987) Learning Through Two Languages: Studies of Immersion and Bilingual Education.Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.

• Johnson, K. and Swain, M. (1997) Immersion Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second LanguageAcquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

• Met,M. (1994)Teaching content through a second language. In F. Genesee (ed.) Educating Second Language Children: The Whole Child, the Whole Curriculum, the Whole Community (pp. 151–182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Snow,M.A., Met, M. and Genesee, F. (1989) A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language programs. TESOL Quarterly 23, 201–17

Navés, T. (2009). Effective Content and Language Integrated Programmes.

In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Ed.), Content and Language Integrated Learning: Evidence from Research in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Navés, T. (2002). Successful CLIL Programmes in Navés, T. Muñoz, and C. Pavesi, M. Module 2: Second Language Acquisition for CLIL. In G. Langé & P. Bertaux (Eds.), The CLIL Professional Development Course (pp. 93-102). Milan: Ministero della' Istruzione della' Università e della Ricerca. Direzione Regionale per la Lombardia.

U B B U UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA T. Navés [email protected] Dpt. Anglès. Facultat de...

Documents

Transcript of U B B U UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA T. Navés [email protected] Dpt. Anglès. Facultat de...