CLIL as a pathway to additive language

learning across language backgrounds

Thomas Somers, Esli Struys, Jill Surmont & Piet Van de Craen
MuRe, Multilingual Research Group
Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Should CLIL be inclusive?

31/12/2011 | pag. 2
The target groups approach

Language profile of education remains linked to that of the
target population

in terms of language abilities and use

defined in terms of homogeneous characteristics.


The target groups approach
Submersion monolingual education
for majority-language children (bilingualism = ignored)

Transitional bilingual education
for powerless language-minority children (bilingualism = problem)

Maintenance & revitalization bilingual education
for empowered language-minority children (bilingualism = right)

One-way immersion enrichment bilingual education
for homogeneous monolingual elite (bilingualism = privilege)

Two-way immersion enrichment bilingual education
for two homogeneous language groups (bilingualism = resource)
BE types by language orientation
The target groups approach
International migratory patterns (e.g. Lambert 1999, Vila 2001)
diversity of IM languages
number of IM speakers in total
number of speakers per IM language
interspersed settlement pattern
qualified teachers
Instructional materials
language codification & elaboration
dialect & standard varieties

Limitations and problems
The target groups approach
Dominant-language-only pedagogy
disempowering (Kubota 2003)
ignores learners cultural identity (Pavlenko & Blackledge 2004)
economically limiting (Banks 2004)
pedagogical succes? (Cummins 2009)

Two-way immersion (Valds 1997, 1998; Palmer 2009)
Power distribution
Relative language status (need versus option)
Political/economic language status (EU versus immigrant)

Limitations and problems
The target groups approach
A target groups approach to education
may cause subtractive bilingualism
may lead to segregation

Organizational formulas based on the homogeneity of
students clearly no longer work

A different perspective on diversity is needed!
Conclusions
IM students in CLIL

Influx of IM students in majority bilingual education
(CLIL/immersion)

CLIL may provide a more suitable alternative to
effective language learning for IM students (Van de Craen
et al. 2007, Sierra & Lasagabaster 2008)


31/12/2011 | pag. 8
Subtractive?
L1 support ? (Cummins e.g. 1981)

language disadvantage doesnt disappear with
removal (Genesee 2007)

L2+L3 = greater difficulties? (Wolff 2005)

Concern that they will not have adequate
opportunities to develop L2 (e.g. Dagenais & Berron 1999)


31/12/2011 | pag. 9
Research results
Paucity of research and lack of agreement (Gunderson 2007,
Auerbach 1993)

Studies from Canada (e.g. Dagenais et al.), BAC (e.g. Sierra &
Lasagabaster 2008), Catalonia (e.g. Vila 2001, 2009; Nussbaum & Unamuno 2006)

Looking at
Beliefs and attitudes: more positive (e.g. Makropoulos 2005;
Dagenais 2003, Dagenais & Day 1998, 1999; Manzanos & Ruiz Pinedo 2005)
Motivation: investment (e.g. Pierce 1995, Makropoulos 2009, Ibarran,
Lasagabaster & Sierra 2008)
Achievement: equal or even better (overview by Roy & Galiev 2009)

31/12/2011 | pag. 10
Explanations
Two strands of explanations can be discerned:

1. Explanations from a pedagogical perspective

2. Explanations from a learning theoretical
perspective

31/12/2011 | pag. 11
Pedagogical perspective
CLIL is the ultimate communicative language teaching
CLT should be communicative
CLT should be inherently repetitive
CLT should be functional/pragmatic

CLIL cannot be but inherently communicative,
repetitive, and functional/pragmatic.

31/12/2011 | pag. 12
Pedagogical perspective
L1 support through flexible language arrangements
code-switching (Gajo 2007, Ferguson 2003)
translation (Manyak 2004)
Translanguaging (Garcia 2009)
transfer (Cummins 2007)
collaborative dialogue (Swain 2001)
Language as a cognitive tool for learning (Swain & Lapkin
2005)
Visual aids, gestures,
Language awareness

31/12/2011 | pag. 13
Theory of learning perspective
CLIL is a form of implicit learning
Implicit learning is not associated with academic
learning
It refers to a non-structured, non-guided,
scaffolded, holistic, unconscious mode of learning
Content is learnt through language, but no explicit
language teaching takes place, at least not initially
The status of this way of learning is different from
explicit learning


31/12/2011 | pag. 14
Theory of learning perspective
What is implicit learning ?
Implicit learning is such a form of learning in which
[complex information] is [learned] without complete
verbalisable knowledge of what is learned (Seger 1994: 164).

The difference with explicit learning processes is that implicit
learning is:
more robust
independent of age
less prone to give rise to variation
independent of IQ
more suited to shared learning
(cf. Reber 1993)

31/12/2011 | pag. 15
Theory of learning perspective
Implicit knowledge is later engaged to acquire
explicit knowledge, e.g. grammatical knowledge

The movement from implicit to explicit learning is
recognized as one of the most powerful learning
mechanisms (Reber 1993, Cleeremans 1997, Shanks 2005)

The learning outcomes are stronger, and thus creates
stronger learners.

31/12/2011 | pag. 16
Theory of learning perspective
In CLIL schools when children learn how to read a
difficult language such as French and English, pupils
have better results when they start reading in an
easy language also when that language is not their
mother tongue

Wallonian children have better reading results in
their mother tongue if they have started reading in
Dutch (Vandersmissen 2010, Veron 2012)

31/12/2011 | pag. 17
Example: Reading
Conclusion
CLIL as a highly stimulating learning environment

In which implicit learning processes are central

That goes beyond the distinction between additive and
subtractive language learning

As learning is language-driven, but not language-specific.

31/12/2011 | pag. 18
Thank you for your attention

Merci de votre attention

Vielen Dank fr Ihre Aufmerksamkeit
Thomas.Somers@vub.ac.be
References (I)
Auerbach, E. (1993). Reexamining English Only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 27, 9-32.
Banks, J. (2004). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching. 4
th
ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cleeremans, A. (1997). Principles for Implicit Learning. In D. Berry (Ed.), How implicit is implicit learning? Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 196-234.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In
California State Department of Education (ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles:
Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center California State University, pp. 349.
Cummins, J. (2007): Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. The Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics 10, 221240.
Cummins, J. (2009). Multilingualism in the English-language classroom: Pedagogical considerations. TESOL Quarterly 43, 317-321.
Dagenais, D. (2003). Accessing imagined communities through multilingualism and immersion education. Language, Identity and
Education 2, 269-283.
Dagenais, D., Armand, F., Maraillet, E., & Walsh, N. (2008). Collaboration and co-construction of knowledge during language awareness
activities in Canadian elementary school. Language Awareness 17, 139-155.
Dagenais, D., Armand, F, Walsh, N., & Maraillet, E. (2008). Lveil aux langues et la co-construction de connaissances sur la diversit
linguistique. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10, 197-219.
Dagenais, D. & C. Berron (1999). A Case Study of Multilingualism and Educational Choices in Immigrant Families. Research on
Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis. Working Papers 20, Vancouver.
Dagenais, D. & Berron, C. (2001). Promoting multilingualism through French immersion and language maintenance in three immigrant
families. Language, Culture and Curriculum 14, 142-155.
Dagenais, D. and Day, E. (1998). Classroom language experiences of trilingual children in French immersion. The Canadian Modern
Language Review 54, 376-393.
Dagenais, D. and Day, E. (1999). Home language practices of trilingual children in French immersion. The Canadian Modern Language
Review 56, 99-123
Dagenais, D. & Jacquet, M. (2000). Valorisation du multilinguisme et de l'ducation bilingue dans les familles immigrantes. Journal of
International Migration and Integration 1, 389-404.


31/12/2011 | pag. 20
References (II)
Gajo, L. (2007): Linguistic Knowledge and Subject Knowledge: how does bilingualism contribute to subject development? The International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, 863-582
Genesee, F. (2007). The Suitability of French Immersion for Students who are At-Risk: A Review of Research Evidence. The Canadian
Modern Language Review 63, 655-687.
Gunderson, L. (2007). English-only instruction and immigrant students in secondary schools: a critical examination. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Ibarraran, A., Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J.M. (2008). Multilingualism and language attitudes: Local versus immigrant students perceptions.
Language Awareness 17, 326-341.
Kubota, R., 2003. New approaches to gender, class, and race in second language writing. Journal of second language writing 12, 31-47.
Lambert, R.D. (1999). A Scaffolding for language policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 137, 3-25.
Makropoulos, J. (2005). A case study of French immersion stayers in an Ottawa high school: Cultural capital, investment, and
identification to French. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad, & J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on
bilingualism. Somerville, MA:Cascadilla Press.
Makropoulos, J. (2009). Factors Related to Student Participation in French Immersion Programs. Journal de l'immersion/Immersion Journal
31, 31-32.
Manyak, P.C. 2004. What did she say? Translation in a primary-grade English immersion class. Multicultural Perspectives, 6, 1218.
Manzanos, C. & Ruz de Pinedo, I. (eds.) (2005). La infancia inmigrante en las escuelas de Vitoria-Gasteiz. Vitoria-Gasteiz: UPV/EHU, Denon
Eskola, Bachue
Nussbaum, L., Unamuno, V. (eds) (2006). Apropament a lescola multilinge. Usos i competncies multilinges entre escolars dorigen
immigrant. Bellaterra: Publicacions de la Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona.
Palmer, D. K. (2009). Middle-class English speakers in a two-way immersion bilingual classroom: 'Everybody should be listening to
Jonathan right now...'. TESOL Quarterly 43, 177-202.
Pavlenko, A., & A. Blackledge. (2004). Introduction. In A. Pavlenko and A. Blackledge (eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual
contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 1-33.
Pierce, B.N. (1995) Social identity, investment, and language learning, TESOL Quarterly 29, 9-31.
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. NY: Oxford University Press.

31/12/2011 | pag. 21
References (III)
Roy, S. & Galiev, A. (2009). Pourquoi les immigrants veulent-ils apprendre le franais? Journal de l'immersion/Immersion Journal 31, 38-40.
Seger, C. A. (1994). Multiple mechanisms in implicit learning. In Proceedings of the 16
th
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 794-799.
Shanks, D. R. (2005). Implicit learning. In K. Lamberts and R. Goldstone (eds.), Handbook of Cognition. London: Sage, 202-220
Sierra, J.M. & Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Los programas AICLE en aulas diversas: una alternativa para todos?. Lenguaje y textos 28, 131-142.
Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review 58, 4463.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: Some implications for program
development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15, 169186.
Valds, G. (1997). Dual language immersion programs: A cautionary note concerning the education of language-minority students. Harvard
Educational Review 67, 391429.
VALDS, G. (1998). The world outside and inside school: Language and immigrant children. Educational Researcher 27, 4-18.
Van de Craen, P., E. Ceuleers, K. Lochtman, L. Allain, and K. Mondt. (2007). An interdisciplinary research approach to CLIL learning in
primary schools in Brussels. In C. Dalton-Puffer and U. Smit (eds.). Empirical Perspectives on CLIL Classroom Discourse. Frankfurt am Mein:
Peter Lang.
Vandersmissen, C. (2010). CLIL en lezen: onderzoek naar leesbaardigheid in meertalig onderwijs. Unpublished Master thesis. Vrije Universiteit
Brussel.
Veron, K. (2012). Nederlandse taalvaardigheid in meertalige Waalse scholen: een vergelijkende studie. Unpublished Master thesis.Vrije
Universiteit Brussel.
Vila, I. (2001). Algunes qestions referides a l'aprenentatge lingstic de la infncia estrangera a Catalunya. Articles de didctica de la
llengua i de la literatura 23, 22-28.
Vila, I. (2009). Els programes de canvi de llengua de la llar a l'escola: el repte de la catalanitzaci escolar. Treballs de Sociolingstica
Catalana 20, 229-257.
Wolff, D. (2005). Approaching CLIL. In: Marsh, D. et al. (2005). Project D3-CLIL matrix Central workshop report 6/2005 (Graz, 3-5
November 2005). European Centre for Modern Languages. 10-25. Retrieved on 9 November 2011 at
http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/clilmatrix/pdf/wsrepD3E2005_6.pdf.


31/12/2011 | pag. 22