because the medium of instruction is English and because content area teachers lack language pedagogy.
Regulations in the Ciudad de Buenos Aires jurisdiction and in Provincia de Buenos Aires jurisdiction state that, when a given subject is taught in a foreign language within an officially recognized bilingual programme, teachers should hold a teaching degree in the subject as well as be able to accredit a degree of proficiency in the foreign language in question (Banfi and Rettaroli 2008). As a result of this, there are teachers of Mathematics, Physics and History, among other subjects, who teach content areas in a foreign language. Content area teachers lack a knowledge base for teaching the subject contents in a foreign language.
Banfi and Rettaroli (2008) state these teachers should have knowledge and competencies in the languages and the cultures involved in the programme, in the content to be taught, in pedagogical knowledge and in bilingualism and bilingual education. Moreover, there are also FL teachers teaching a variety of subjects which may or may not have been part of their initial training, i.e. teachers of a certain foreign language teaching Geography or History, among other subjects.
These teachers have the knowledge and competencies of the languages and the cultures involved in the programme. They also know how to teach the foreign language but they lack the necessary knowledge of the content and of the pedagogical knowledge related to the subject they are teaching.
Of late, bilingual teaching has become increasingly popular in Europe (CEC 2005). To satisfy the European Commission's objective (1995) that all European citizens should be able to communicate in three languages – the local and/or national language and two other European languages, European schools have had to find creative ways of introducing the teaching of at least two modern languages within an already tight curriculum. This resulted in having to use foreign languages as the medium of instruction of content subjects, this being the only way of providing enough exposure to those languages in order to guarantee successful learning of two additional languages (Coyle 2007).
In contrast to the Argentine scenario where “bilingual schools” have been using the foreign language as a vehicle of instruction to teach content for over a century, this approach to foreign language teaching seems to be a fairly recent development in most secondary schools in Europe. This innovative FL methodology called CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) has emerged
offering a list of core concepts, or by using synonyms and/or translations of
“difficult” words as the CLIL teachers have to do. The CLIL teachers might even need to resort to summarizing, paraphrasing, asking clarifying questions, or use gestures, board drawings and body language when they notice that the adapted text is still above comprehension level.
More often than not FL teachers stick to the use of textbooks because input has been carefully targeted at the level of the learner. This type of input, which Mackey (1999) calls “premodified input”, offers very few opportunities to misunderstand, negotiate for meaning, and produce errors, limiting, therefore, the chances for language learning. In addition to this, this type of input can often be described as devoid of content, something which may demotivate the learner. Research demonstrates that most vocabulary knowledge comes from meaningful language encounters. If the language is authentic, rich in content, enjoyable, and, above all, comprehensible, then learning is more successful (Coady 1997) The integration of language and content provides a substantive basis for language teaching and learning: content can provide a motivational and cognitive basis for language learning as it is interesting and of some value to the learner (Snow, Met and Genesee 1992).
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research has repeatedly shown evidence that mere exposure to language is not enough and that input is effective if it is processed for meaning (Ellis 1994; Long 1988). Lessons with a focus on meaning are communicative, interesting and relevant. It is the learner, not the teacher, who must analyse the FL, at a subconscious level, inducing grammar rules from exposure to the input. Attention is said to be necessary “for input to become available for further mental processing” (Robinson 2001: 16) and Ellis (1994 cited in Robinson: ibid) states that attention is necessary and sufficient for learning the perceptual aspects of novel word forms, while learning word meanings requires both attention and awareness. Attention to input is seen as essential for storage and a necessary precursor to hypothesis formation and testing.
Therefore, for input to be storable and retrievable, CLIL teachers must give the learners special tasks that involve them in trying to make sense of what they hear or read. A content area textbook does not generally contain a large number of tasks for the processing of meaning as the use of the L1 allows the content teachers the flexibility “to go off the beaten track and to interact in an impromptu manner”
throughout Europe to enhance the value of European linguistic diversity and achieve sustainable learners' outcomes (Wolff 2000 cited in Coyle: ibid). According to Coyle (ibid) CLIL is an umbrella term which defines any activity in which “a foreign language is used as a tool in the learning of a non-language subject in which both language and the subject have a joint role” (Marsh 2002 cited in Coyle: ibid).
As the framework underlying CLIL goes beyond considering subject matter and language as two separate elements, which is the case in the approach adopted in the “bilingual schools” in Argentina, and as most CLIL teachers have no professional background in language pedagogy, the need for training in content and language integrated teaching has promoted research into effective CLIL teaching performance (de Graaf et al.: op.cit.).
CLIL: an effective methodology for language learning
SLA research states that several conditions need to be met in CLIL classrooms so that students can cope with the difficulties which arise when learning subject matter by means of a FL (de Graaf et al.: op.cit). Exposure, use and motivation in functional and relevant activities are prerequisites for successful language learning (Ellis 2003; Willis 1996). Simultaneous attention to form and meaning (Beretta 1989) and corrective feedback are also essential conditions for FL acquisition (Mackey et al. 2000).
Input and Meaning Focussed Processing
There seems to be a consensus that exposure to meaningful and functional FL input is absolutely necessary for FL acquisition (Krashen 1985; Ioup 1995; Gass 1997). In CLIL lessons, the subject teachers are expected to select and tailor input material so that it is comprehensible but still challenging. This makes a number of demands on the CLIL teachers: they have to select and adapt the text (i.e. written texts, videos, audio files, etc.) in advance; they have to adapt their teacher talk in advance and while teaching, it might be necessary for the teachers to adapt the chosen text again and fine-tune their teacher talk.
When teaching a certain content area in the learners' mother tongue, the subject teachers do not need to adapt input at a minimally challenging level (de Graff et al. op.cit.). They do not choose a text bearing in mind both the language level of the text and the content. Neither do they have to adapt the selected text by
conscious of specific language features by the application of activities which promote awareness-raising of language forms. To do so, CLIL teachers indicate and direct learners' attention to correct and incorrect uses of form, give examples of such uses, thus facilitating implicit or explicit noticing of language form (de Graaf et al. op.cit.).
When giving corrective feedback the CLIL teacher can employ implicit (e.g.
clarification requests, recasts) or explicit (e.g. explicit correction, metalinguistic comment, query, advice) techniques for focusing on form, as well as nonverbal reactions (de Graaf et al. op. cit.). When giving explicit correction CLIL teachers may repeat the incorrect language production and correct the mistake explicitly.
When employing recasts, they can repeat the incorrect language production and correct the mistake implicitly while when providing metalinguistic feedback they can give the grammatical rule directly.
Many studies have examined how repair sequences involving L2 learners – particularly intermediate students - facilitate acquisition, and how interaction can create the necessary conditions for language acquisition to occur (Long 1996 cited in Mackey et al. 2000). Focus on form research has shown implicit feedback about learner production using recasts and models of preferred forms generally leads to the incorporation of the recast forms in subsequent learner output (Mackey 1995).
Using complex tasks in a progressive way in order to push learner output, and providing teacher feedback to facilitate noticing is one of the approaches of SL pedagogy applied by Robinson (2001). Research continues on how effective implicit feedback is when targeted at different forms, and when compared to explicit metalinguistic feedback about correctness (Long 1997; Mackey 1999;
Mackey et al. 2000). The question remains for CLIL and FL teachers in how to design activities that can integrate attention to form in communication without turning back to the principles characteristic of traditional rule presentation strategies (Van Patten 1996).
Research has also supported the stimulating role of output production.
Pushing output forces learners to “notice” mismatches between their own and their interlocutor's production (Swain 1993, 1995 cited in Swain and Lapkin 1995) and pushed output contributes to Focus on Form giving the teacher the opportunity to provide corrective feedback. Besides, raising the learners' awareness of language deficits increases their motivation for learning. The activity (Coonan 2007). This type of flexibility may not be present in the CLIL lessons but
needs to be guaranteed in a variety of ways. Coonan (2007) also states that there is the risk that CLIL lessons might be only concerned with comprehension activities rather than with activities of analysis, synthesis and evaluation. CLIL teachers, then, should promote meaning focused processing by engaging the learners in identifying the meaning of important concepts (e.g. using organizers, filling in charts, etc.). They should also check understanding by asking questions, by emphasizing the correct meaning of important concepts or words when they notice or suspect the learners do not master the concepts or by setting extra tasks that anchor identifications of meaning and which promote the development of higher order skills. Using foreign languages as the medium of instruction of content subjects may well help provide enough exposure and chances of processing language in order to guarantee successful foreign language learning. FL lessons can benefit from this as well by exposing learners to meaningful input which can be processed for meaning. Once again the integration of language and content may help provide a substantive basis for language teaching and learning.
Form Focussed Processing and Output Production
CLIL stresses the idea that students achieve fluency in the FL when they use it to provide information and to communicate with others (Marsh 2002 cited in Coyle 2007), and when the FL is not the object of analysis in class. However, research shows that a focus on meaning alone is insufficient to achieve full native-like competence. It also states that if attention is paid to the FL as object then language learning can be achieved faster and with better results (Long 1997). In her studies of immersion situations Swain (1985 cited in Swain and Lapkin 1995) noticed that the obstacles to learning of a linguistic nature are not always removed in those contexts and suggests that language problems should be highlighted and dealt with so that problems of meaning and communication can be solved.
Rather than going back to discrete-point grammar teaching (i.e. to a focus on forms approach, where language forms are pre-isolated and taught as parts of the code, detached from the immediate problems of communication) it is advisable to shift the learners' attention briefly to linguistic code features when they are actually experiencing problems in solving a communicative task (Long 1991 cited in Sheen 2002). Form-focussed processing in CLIL lessons implies making learners
Coady J. (1997): 'L2 vocabulary acquisition: A synthesis of the research'. In Coady J. and T. Huckin (eds.) Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.
Commission of the European Communities (2005) A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism.
Brussels. Retrieved March 3, 2008, from Accessed:.
Coyle D. and H. Baetens Beardsmore (2007): 'Research on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)'. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 10/5: 541 – 542.
Coyle D. (2007): 'Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies'. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10/5:
543 – 562.
De Graaf, R. G., J. Koopman, Y. Anikina and G. Westhoff (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.
Ellis, R (1994): The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.
Ellis, R. (2003): Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gass S. (1997): Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner. New York: L. Erlbaum Krashen S. (1985): The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Ioup, G. (1995): 'Evaluating the Need of Input Enhancement in Post-Critical Period Language Acquisition'. In Singleton, D. ad Z. Lengyel (eds.) The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Long M. (1988): 'Instructed interlanguage development'. In Beebe, L. (ed.) Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple perspectives. New York: Newbury House.
Long M. (1997): 'Focus on Form in Task-Based Language Teaching'. Fourth Annual McGraw-Hill Satellite Teleconference. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from
.
Mackey A. (1999): 'Input, Interaction and Second Language Development'. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 557-587.
Mackey A., S. Gass & K. McDonough (2000) How do Learners Perceive Interactional Feedback? SSLA 22, 471-497. CUP.
Robinson P. (2001) Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: CUP.
Sheen, R. (2002): 'Focus on Form' and 'Focus on Forms'. ELT Journal 56/3: 303-305.
Snow, M., M. Met and F. Genesee, F. (1992): 'A Conceptual framework for the integration of language and content instruction' in Richard-Amato, P. and M. Snow The Multicultural Classroom. Reading, Massachusetts & Wokingham: Addison-Wesley
Swain M. (1985): 'Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development' in Gass S. and C. Madden (eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Newbury House.
Swain M. and S Lapkin (1995): 'Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They Generate: A step towards second language learning'. Applied Linguistics 16: 371-391.
VanPatten B. and S. Oikkenon (1996): 'Explanation Versus Structures Input in Processing Instruction'.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 495-510.
Willis, J. (1996): A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow: Longman
http://europa.eu/languages/servlets/Doc?id=913
http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/foreignlang/conf/first.htm
of producing the target language may prompt L2 learners to recognize some of their linguistic problems and bring to their attention something they need to discover about their L2 (Izumi et al. 1999). In order to promote output production in the target language CLIL teachers encourage learners to ask and answer questions about the topic in question. To facilitate meaningful communication in the FL, learners are engaged in participating in different interactive formats: group or pair work, encouraging them to use the FL in their discussion. In order to provide feedback on language use, CLIL teachers first judge whether the classroom situation and the language proficiency level is such that a positive effect of the correction may be expected and then, if necessary, prompt the learners to give the correct language utterance. They can apply the following techniques: repetition, elicitation and clarification request (de Graaf et al. op. cit.).
Conclusion
In order to stimulate the acquisition of a FL, teachers should deliver rich and varied lessons where learners are exposed to input at a minimally challenging level, where language processing is fostered through interaction and negotiation of meaning and where students are encouraged to notice problematic and relevant language both in the input material and in their output production (Willis 1996). For the introduction of CLIL, a new way of teaching is needed: content teachers are expected to teach subject matter in a FL and to succeed in this, comprehended input, interaction and output together with a focus on form are the keys. CLIL lessons can, therefore, contribute to better language teaching and can teach FL teachers the importance of combining learning to use language and using language to learn (Coyle 2007).
References
Banfi C. and R. Day (2004): 'The Evolution of Bilingual Schools in Argentina' The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 7/5: 398 – 411.
Banfi C. and S. Rettaroli (2008): 'Staff Profiles in Minority and Prestigious Bilingual Education Contexts in Argentina'. In de Mejía, A. M. and C. Helot (eds.) Forging Multilingual Spaces:
Integrating Majority and Minority Bilingual Education. Pennsylvania: Multilingual Matters.
Beretta A. (1989): 'Attention to Form or Meaning? Error treatment in the Bangalore Project'. TESOL Quarterly 23/2: 283-303.
A Broad Definition
Although there is a great variety of language centres, here is a possible definition that embraces most cases.
Language centres constitute an informal, extracurricular education context where foreign / second language students learn a target language usually to complement school instruction. Language centres vary in size, target population, teaching methodologies, etc., but most tend to offer facilities, resources and materials that are totally focused on language learning. The atmosphere tends to be casual and relaxed and classes tend to be small. Students are usually motivated and enthusiastic as in most cases they enrol of their own accord and they are placed in courses with other students who share the same language level.
A Taxonomy
The following is a possible way of classifying language centres:
?national / international
?private / state-run
?formal / informal
?governmental / non-governmental
?compulsory / optional
?with / without tuition fees
?specialised / general
?second / foreign language teaching
?own / borrowed facilities
?population they target (e.g. specific age group, geographical area, socio- economic position, etc.)
It may be useful to explore what type of learning centre would be most suitable for the successful implementation of CLIL as some of these variables, which may not apply to schools (the usual CLIL context), may prove to be the key to solving some of the problems of content-based instruction. Thus, a alternative context for CLIL implementation may emerge.
Teaching methodology
Language centres tend to keep abreast of all the latest developments in