In this chapter, I have reflected on CLIL in the context of an Australian MTESOL course that attracts students from diverse educational settings.
Europe and North America hardly ever count amongst students’ regions of origin, and yet much of the literature on CLIL and content-based instruction (at least, the literature written in English) derives from these two continents.
There are at least two main implications of this disjuncture; it is important to put context front and centre when analysing approaches, and also to show explicitly the relationship between different kinds of content-based pedago- gies. A way to address the former is to consider the possible teaching and learning objectives of content-based programmes and seek to understand how well these objectives (both explicit and implicit) fit with different settings, whilst also working towards enrichment, rather than assimilationist, goals.
Immediately beginning with a how-to approach to CLIL in TESOL can leave students with far more questions than answers, as they struggle to align what they are learning with the realities of their context.
The second implication—showing the relationship between various content- based pedagogies—includes the complexities that arise from a teach- er’s body of knowledge, or area of specialisation. In an MTESOL course, learning about content-based programmes is important given the prevalence of these kinds of programmes delivered through the medium of English.
However, the language progression of students may not be the chief concern in content-driven classes, especially when there is a large gap between the
language proficiency of the students and what they need to understand: point- of- need scaffolding can take precedence. An implication for teacher educators in the field of TESOL is to clearly demonstrate to English language teachers how they can link content-based learning to longer-term language progres- sion. One way to do this is to examine the relationship between the kinds of functional language needed for content-based learning and more traditional grammar-based language teaching. Sustained delivery of content can lend itself well to language progression. Exploring content-based pedagogies in an MTESOL course can help to focus on this, with CLIL pedagogy as an acces- sible point of entry.
Suggested Further Reading
Baker, C., & Wright, W.E. (2021). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (7th ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
This book situates TESOL in bilingual education. Currently in its seventh edition, it gives the reader a comprehensive tour through issues related to bilingualism and bilingual education, and includes more assimilationist (monolingual) forms of education in the discussion.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Singapore: Springer.
This book focuses on pedagogy and on connecting theory to classroom practice. It has a strong focus on functional language, including such concepts as genre and register. It is very useful for thinking about how to scaffold lan- guage in content-based classrooms where English is a language of instruction.
Turner, M. (2019). Multilingualism as a resource and a goal: Using and learning languages in mainstream schools. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
This book considers other languages in relation to English and highlights the various ways languages can be integrated across the curriculum and the opportunities to learn (through) languages. It then discusses language integra- tion and learning opportunities identified in empirical studies of primary and secondary schools in Australia.
Engagement Priorities
• How can TESOL be promoted in relation to other languages, or from an enrichment perspective, in very different contexts? How can we ensure that context is central to advocacy for CLIL programmes in different parts of the world?
• What is the place of language teachers in content-based pedagogies? Can content area teachers be reasonably expected to have a deep knowledge of functional language, form-focused instruction and crosslinguistic pedagogies?
• How can knowledge distributed between language teachers and content area teachers maximise students’ understanding of both language and con- tent? How can the language students use to learn content be connected to their language progression in a holistic way (and vice versa)?
References
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2020).
Australian Curriculum: English. Retrieved May 23, 2020, from www.australiancur- riculum.edu.au/f- 10- curriculum/english/
Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingual- ism (6th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course: CLIL module. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262.
Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2017). Validating the power of bilingual schooling:
Thirty-two years of large-scale, longitudinal research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 203–217.
Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cross, R. (2015). Creative in finding creativity in the curriculum: The CLIL second language classroom. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(4), 431–445.
Cross, R., & Gearon, M. (2013). Research and evaluation of the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach to teaching and learning languages in Victorian schools. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne Graduate School of Education: The University of Melbourne.
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL), 10(2), 221–240.
Czura, A., & Papaja, K. (2013). Curricular models of CLIL education in Poland.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 321–333.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying an integrative interdisciplinary construct. In E. Dafouz & T. Nikula (Eds.), Conceptualising inte- gration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 29–54). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2018). Postscriptum: Research pathways in CLIL/immersion instructional practices and teacher development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 384–387.
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218.
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).
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624.
de Jong, E. J. (2016). Two-way immersion for the next generation: Models, policies, and principles. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(1), 6–16.
Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2016). Teaching language in context (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.
García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93–116.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2009). The essential Halliday. London: Continuum.
Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2009). English language teacher expertise: The ele- phant in the room. Language and Education, 23(2), 137–151.
Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum and CLIL in English-as-an- additional- language contexts: Theory and practice. Singapore: Springer.
Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The roles of language in CLIL. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lorenzo, F. (2013). Genre-based curricula: Multilingual academic literacy in content and language integrated learning. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 375–388.
Massler, U., Stotz, D., & Queisser, C. (2014). Assessment instruments for primary CLIL: The conceptualization and evaluation of test tasks. Language Learning Journal, 42, 137–150.
Mehisto, P. D., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Oxford, UK:
Macmillan Education.
Navés, T. (2002). Successful CLIL programmes. In G. Langé & P. Bertaux (Eds.), The CLIL professional development course (pp. 93–102). Milan, Italy: Ministero della’
Instruzione della’ Universitá e della Ricerca.
Ó Ceallaigh, T. J., Ní Mhurchú, S., & Ní Chróinín, D. (2017). Balancing content and language in CLIL: The experiences of teachers and learners. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5(1), 58–86.
Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspec- tive. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Turner, M. (2013). CLIL in Australia: The importance of context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(4), 395–410.
Turner, M. (2015). The significance of affordances on teachers’ choices: Embedding Japanese across the curriculum in Australian secondary schools. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(3), 276–290.
Turner, M. (2019). Multilingualism as a resource and a goal: Using and learning lan- guages in mainstream schools. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Turner, M. (2020). Knowledge about (English) language across the curriculum in EAL and CLIL contexts. In P. Mickan & I. Wallace (Eds.), Handbook of language education curriculum design (pp. 90–106). London: Routledge.
171
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. Hemmi, D. L. Banegas (eds.), International Perspectives on CLIL, International Perspectives on English Language Teaching, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70095-9_9