CLIL-AICLE: La Investigación basada en evidencia. Towards an evidence-base

CLIL-AICLE: La Investigación basada en evidencia.

Towards an evidence-base.

Teresa Navés tnaves@ub.edu University of Barcelona

GRAL Project (UB) & CLIL-SLA Project (UAB) www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves CLILSLAProject@gmail.com

CLIL Teacher Education-Capacity-building:Perspectives for the next decade based on current experience.

Madrid, Ministerio de Educación 28-29 Noviembre 2010

Beliefs vs. Mainstream Research1. The age factor: The sooner the better

(García-Mayo & García Lecumberri, 2003; Muñoz, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010; Navés 2006; Celaya & Navés, 2008))

2. Study abroad (SA). (Pérez-Vidal, 2001, 2009. But Llanes & Muñoz, 2009)

3. CLIL maybe but the evidence comes from– Short-term studies vs Long-term studies. Statistically significant

differences vs. Relevant educational gains. (Navés, 2010)– Quantitative vs Qualitative studies (Escobar, 2009; Whittaker, 2010)– Cross-sectional studies vs. Longitudinal studies (See SLA-CLIL project

in Victori et al., forthcoming)– Linguistic-oriented studies vs Content-oriented and CLIL-oriented

studies– Product-oriented vs Process Oriented studies– Comparison of existing curricula vs. finely-grained studies: The

control of the variables: amount of instruction, type of school, etc. (García-Mayo, 2010; Muñoz and Navés, 2007; Navés, 2010) (See CLIL-SLA Project in Victori & Navés and Victori et al., forthcoming)

The best way to learn an L2: Teaching subject matter in the L2

• Using the L2 to teach subject matter is more effective than teaching the language directly, treating the L2 itself as the subject matter (Krashen, 1982).

• Teaching subject matter in a second language is the best possible way to encourage second language acquisition. (Spada and Lightbown, 2002)

CLIL

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)

European Council (1995): A1-A2 - B1-B2 - C1-C2

1)Lowering the starting age

and simultaneously

2) CLIL instruction

CLAIMS: CLIL > EFL • CLIL instruction is more successful

than traditional form-focused EFL learning (Piske, 2008, Do Coyle, 2009).

• CLIL methodology provides plenty of real and meaningful input to learners and raises their overall proficiency in the target language. (Coyle, 2002 p.258).

SLA foundations of CLIL1. The transferabilty of skills (Cummins, 1991)

2. BISC vs CALP (Cummins, 1979, 2000; Collier, 1987; 1989)

3. The exposure factor. To increase SL and FL contact hours (Muñoz, 2007; Cenoz, 2003; De Keyser, 2001)

4. The quality of the input. Meaningful learning (Krashen, 1997)

5. Focus on Form (Long 1997; Doughty, 2001; Ellis, 2005)

SLA foundations of CLIL• CLIL promotes negotiation of meaning,

through interaction (Lightbown and Spada, 1993; Long, 1983).

• Comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985), is a necessary but not a suffcient condition.

• Cognitively demanding but context-embbeded (Cummins, 1991) Learners also need an focus on relevant and contextually appropriate language forms to support content learning (Lyster, 1987; Met, 1991)

SLA foundations of CLIL1. 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; De Graaf et al. 2007; Muñoz, 2007; Muñoz & Navés, 2007; Navés and Victori, 2010, Navés, in press).

CLIL benefits for Content from Llinares (2009)

• Learners are more successful and more motivated than those in traditional content subject classrooms (Wolff, 2004)

• Learners look at content from a different and broader perspective when it is taught in another language (Multi-perspectivity) (Wolff, 2004)

• Learners develop more accurate academic concepts when another language is involved (Lamsfuss-Schenk, 2002)

• In CLIL content subject related intercultural learning takes place (Christ, 2000)

But…

• Not all content-based instruction results in good language learning (Swain, 1988)

• CLIL provides some of the necessary conditions for good effective language learning to take place but is not a guarantee of success (de Graaf et al. 2007; Muñoz, 2007; Navés in press)

The most successful language learning programmes: Canadian Immersion

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.

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

(See Navés, 2009, 2010)

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).

Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)

Limitations (2) complex subject matter

• In addition, some educators and researchers have expressed concern about how well students can cope with complex subject matter taught in a language they do not yet know well (Cummins & Swain, 1986).

Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)

Short-term statistical significant differences versus long-term relevant education gains.

Lindholm-Leary (2007) ELLs’ Long-term Achievement on Standardized Tests in English Reading Compared Across Six

Program Models

(1) Respect and support for the learner’s L1 language and culture

(2) Extremely competent bilingual teachers

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

(4) Long-term, stable programmes

(5) Parents’ support for the programme

Characteristics of Successful CLIL Programmes (Navés, 2002, 2009)

6. Joint effort of all parties. Cooperation and leadership of educational authorities, administrators and teachers

7. Dually qualified teachers (in content and language)

8. High expectations and standards

9. Availability of quality CLIL teaching materials

10. Properly implemented CLIL methodology.

Characteristics of Successful CLIL Programmes (Naves, 2002, 2009)

Empirical Research CLIL>EFL• Writing Performance:

– Ackerl (2006) Carrilero(2009); – Huttner et al (2006) Lasagabaster (2008)– Loranc-Paszylk(2009) Navés and Victori (2010)– Navés (2010) Miret (2009)– Miret & Navés (in preparation)– Vallbona & Victori (in preparation)

• English Proficiency :– Admiraal et al.(2006) Jiménez et al.(2006)– Kasper (1997) Lasagabaster (2008)– Navés and Victori (2010) Vallbona (2009)– Pérez-Vidal (2010) Lorenzo et al. (2009, 2010)– Ruiz de Zarobe & Jiménez Catalán (2009)– Villarreal Olaizola & García Mayo (2009)– García Mayo & Villarreal Olaizola (2011)

Met (1994) highlighted the need to have a well-balanced language and content planning for the CLIL lessons.

Darn (2006) proposed that language and content should be taught and learned

together in a dual-focussed classroom context.

Järvinen ( 1999) Ting (2007)examined the positive attitude of CLIL learners.

CLIL features• Following SLA research, CLIL may fulfill what is necessary for successful learning of a SL (Muñoz, 2007, De Graaff, 2007):– Real World language– Highly contextualised– Enough Comprehensible Input– Interaction– Cognitively demanding tasks– Meaningful learning

Previous Research on Previous Research on CLIL & Writing CLIL & Writing

• Muñoz and Navés (2007) Overview of empirical studies show a 2 year advantage for CLIL learners.

• Dalton-Puffer (2007) predicted CLIL would not have significant effects over productive skills

• Navés and Victori (2010) CLIL provided an advantage between one and two grades in overall proficiency and writing performance.

• .

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

• Four Proficiency tests– Michigan 50-item MC grammar test– 30-item Cloze (reading comprehension)– 50-word Dictation, – Listening comprehension.

• Written Timed-composition task (15’)- Accuracy: Error-free clauses and EFS- Fluency: Essay length, S, Cl- Syntactic Complexity: Subordinate clauses, ClxS- Lexical Variety: Giraud’s index, TTR, Types

Lasagabaster (2008)

• Compared the overall proficiency and the four language skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking of three groups of CLIL and non- CLIL learners from grades 9 and 10 (N =198)

• at grade 10, CLIL learners significantly outperformed non-CLIL learners.

• 9th grade CLIL learners significantly outperformed non-CLIL learners from grade 10 in all the domains examined as well

Tests: proficiency & timed-essayProficiency tests

– Michigan 50-item MC grammar exam– 30-item Cloze (reading comprehension)– 50-word Dictation, – Listening comprehension.

Timed-composition task (15’)- Accuracy: Error-free clauses and EFS- Fluency: Essay length, S, Cl- Syntactic Complexity: Subordinate clauses, ClxS- Lexical Variety: Giraud’s index, TTR, Types

Navés & Victori (2009) Study I

Study I. Proficiency Results

• CLIL 7th = Non-CLIL 9th & Non-CLIL 10th

• CLIL 8th > Non-CLIL 9th

Results

Navés & Victori (2009) Study II

Results

• CLIL 5th = Non-CLIL 7th (fluency)

• CLIL 7th = Non-CLIL 9th (syntacti complexity

• CLIL 9th > Non-CLIL 11th (syntactic complexity)

• CLIL 9th = Non-CLIL 12th (fluency),

• CLIL 9th = Non-CLIL 12th (accuracy)

Summary

• when learners are at grades 7 and 9 and have received CLIL instruction they achieve a level equivalent to or even higher than learners a couple of grades ahead in many of the domains of a language examined.

Limitations

These promising results have, nevertheless, to be analysed with caution because

• the amount of hours of instruction of the CLIL groups was not kept constant,

• of the different types of schools involved

• hours of instruction received.

• The present studies have analysed the overall English proficiency and writing proficiency of CLIL and non-CLIL learners in a foreign language context and have found that 5th and 7th grade CLIL learners did as well as learners two grades ahead in all the proficiency tests except listening comprehension and in all the writing domains examined except in accuracy.

• As de Graff (2007) and Navés (2009) argue, integrating content and language in CLIL, content-based, immersion, semi-immersion, and bilingual education programmes provide the conditions that applied linguistics in general and the field of second language acquisition in particular have long suggested need to be met for successful language learning to take place.

• These results are in line with those found by

• Ruiz de Zarobe (2009),

• Lasagabaster (2008),

• García-Mayo (2009)

Naves (2010, in press) Study I: Proficiency

Study II. Writing (Navés, 2010)

Results Study I Proficiency Grammar Test

Results Study I: Proficiency Dictation

Results Study I Proficiency Cloze: Reading Comprehension

Study II WritingResults Fluency (Essay length)

Study II Writing Results Syntactic Complexity (clauses per sentence)

Study II Results Lexical Variety (Giraud’s index)

Summary of Results Navés & Victori (2010) and Navés (2010)

• Overall 5th and 7th grade CLIL learners better than their non-CLIL peers from 5th and 7th and did

as well as learners two grades ahead – in all the proficiency tests except in the

listening test

– and in all the writing domains examined except in accuracy.

Limitations

These promising results have, nevertheless, to be analysed with caution because

• the amount of hours of instruction was not kept constant

• of the different types of schools involved

• cross-sectional nature

• product-oriented nature.

• short-term nature.

Limitations and Conclusions

• Limitations of these types of studies

(See Muñoz & Navés, 2007)

• Statistical significant differences vs. Relevant gains from an education and language policy perspective.

Final remarks

1) Unlike the results found when examining

(a) an early start

(b) stay-abroad

(c) out-of-school instruction

the preliminary results from short-term cross-sectional research on CLIL instruction --in spite of its limitations and confounds-- seem promising.

Final remarks

2) Although the preliminary short-term of CLIL instruction results are encouraging, we still need to see whether

(a) carefully planned studies confirm the benefits already found and furthermore whether

(b) in the long run CLIL instruction will not just show a statistically significant difference but would make it possible to drastically raise the levels of proficiency of European learners as called for by the Council of Europe (1995).

Further evidence is needed 1. Short-term studies vs Long-term studies. Statistically

significant differences vs. Relevant educational gains. (Navés, 2010)

2. Quantitative vs Qualitative studies and Product vs Process oriented studies. Mixed-methodology studies (Escobar, 2009; Whittaker, 2010)

3. Cross-sectional studies vs. Longitudinal studies (See SLA-CLIL project in Victori et al., forthcoming)

4. Linguistic-oriented studies vs Content-oriented and CLIL-oriented studies

5. Comparison of existing curricula vs. finely-grained studies: The control of the variables: amount of instruction, type of school, etc. (García-Mayo, 2010; Muñoz and Navés, 2007; Navés, 2010) (See SLA-CLIL project in Victori et al., forthcoming)

(1) Respect and support for the learner’s L1 language and culture

(2) Extremely 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, stable programmes (5) Parents’ support for the programme;

CHALLENGES. Commonalities of Successful CLIL Programmes (Navés, 2009, 2002)

6. Joint effort of all parties. Cooperation and leadership of educational authorities, administrators and teachers

7. Dually qualified teachers (in content and language)

8. High expectations and standards 9. Availability of quality CLIL teaching

materials 10. Properly implemented CLIL methodology

CHALLENGES: Commonalities of Successful CLIL Programmes (Naves, 2009, 2002)

Muchas gracias

Thank you very much

Moltíssimes gràcies

Eskarrik-asko

Graciñas

Teresa Navés tnaves@ub.edu (GRAL project & CLIL-SLA project)

www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves CLILSLAProject@gmail.com

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, 2010)

U

B

U

BB

UUNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA

T. Navés tnaves@ub.edu Dpt. Anglès. Facultat de FilologiaTel. (34) 93 403 58 66 Fax (34) 93 317 12 49

www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves/

CLIL• This approach involves learning subjects such as

history, geography and others, through an additional language.

(Marsh, 2000)

• Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a general expression used to refer to any teaching of non-language subject through the medium of a second or foreign language (L2).

(Pavesi, 2001)

AICLE

Aprendizaje Integrado de Contenidos Curriculares y Lenguas Extranjeras implica estudiar asignaturas como historia o ciencias naturales en una lengua distinta de la propia. AICLE resulta muy beneficioso tanto para el aprendizaje de otras lenguas (francés, inglés, ...) como para las asignaturas impartidas en dichas lenguas.

(Navés & Muñoz, 2000)

Definitions• The subject matter or part of the subject

matter is taught via a foreign language with a two-fold objective: the learning of those contents and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language (Marsh, 1999:27)

• CLIL methodology provides plenty of real and meaningful input to learners and raises their overall proficiency in the target language (Coyle, 2002:258).