OUTCOMES AND ISSUES IN APPROACHING CLIL WITH PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

Prévia do material em texto

OUTCOMES AND ISSUES IN APPROACHING CLIL WITH 
PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS 
 
Lenilson Carneiro da Silva1 
Abstract 
 This study aim is to analyze how content-based teaching has become famous around the 
world and how Content Language Integrated Learning specifically has influenced countries, 
educational institutions, EFL/ESL teachers, learners etc. All research was mainly based on theorists 
such as David Marsh (2008), Ofelia García (2009), Ellaine Gallagher (2015) and Stephen Krashen 
(2008). Although, some other authors are cited as well. During the research, it is noticeable that few 
theorists have1 developed theories against CLIL approach. It occurs because this approach seems to 
be new for some reasons and is still being spread worldwide. All results presented in this study have 
shown that approaching CLIL can be both challenging, when the second language teacher is not 
prepared to do so, and priceless, when the opposite occurs. 
 
Key words: CLIL. Primary school. L2 acquisition. 
 
Resumo 
Este estudo objetiva-se a analisar como o ensino baseado em conteúdo tem sem tornado 
famoso ao redor do mundo e de que maneira a abordagem Content Language Integrated Learning 
(Aprendizagem Integrada de língua e conteúdo) tem influenciado países, instituições educacionais, 
professores de línguas estrangeiras e segunda língua, aprendizes etc. Toda a pesquisa baseia-se 
predominantemente em teóricos como David Marsh (2008), Ofélia García (2009), Ellaine Gallagher 
(2015) e Stephen Krashen (2008), embora outros autores também sejam citados. Durante a pesquisa 
é perceptível that poucos teóricos desenvolveram teorias indo de encontro a abordagem CLIL. Isto 
ocorre porque esta abordagem aparenta ser novidade por algumas razões e continua a espalhar-se 
mundialmente. Todos os resultados apresentados no estudo mostraram que aplicar a abordagem 
CLIL pode ser tanto desafiadora quando o professor de língua não está preparado para isso, e 
impagável quando o oposto acontece. 
Palavras-chave: CLIL. Primeira Educação fundamental. Aquisição de segunda Língua. 
 
1 lenilsoncarneiro@yahoo.com 
2 
 
Introduction 
 
Language learning has been changing throughout the world and we must be informed about 
what is happening in this area. For about two years, I have been teaching English as a foreign 
language and have improved my teaching skills and experience. However, occasionally we ask 
ourselves: What approach would suit best in this class? Is there a new approach or method dealing 
with our modern world? These two thoughts raise even more questions. 
Teaching is not just entering into a class and giving a lecture. Rather, a teacher must be 
capable to let his/her students not only understand what is being taught, but learn how to use that 
new knowledge as well (Papaja, K, 2010). Then, one may interrogate saying: What does it have to 
do with Content Language Integrated Learning? (From now on, CLIL) Everything! In fact, CLIL is 
not a miraculous method that promises never make mistakes and fulfill any existing expectation. 
Yet, it is all about great teaching (GALLAGHER, 2015). 
The lack of interest on teaching theories by teachers is something that does not make any 
sense because, instead of basing our teaching strategies on learning theories and good sources, most 
of the time teachers rely on common sense and experience (Oliveira, 2014). The effectiveness of a 
teaching methodology depends, firstly, on the foundations of that practice. Otherwise, they all are 
only ideas that were tested and passed a certain trial. 
According to David Marsh (2008), “in short, CLIL is a dual-focused educational approach in 
which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language 
[...]”. CLIL is not a method but a language teaching approach that unifies content and language, and 
thinking skills (depending on the context and general purpose). 
Thus, the aim in writing this paper is to analyze the outcomes of applying the CLIL 
approach with primary school students in a school in Campina Grande City, State of Paraiba, Brazil. 
That being said, it is pivotal to bear in mind that there are different ways of approaching CLIL 
around the world, especially because its history tells us that. 
An important issue that could be addressed is related to the limitations of this approach. As 
we have known studying linguistic theories of learning, a perfect method does not exist and rather, 
each one of them can suit in a certain social context (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, Richards & Rodgers, 
2001). Thus, this paper is not fostering CLIL, nor trying to convince any institution to adopt it. 
Rather, it is intended to share its features, possible problems and address each of them. For instance, 
most critics are complaining about operational issues, not pedagogical, which according to her are 
not even challenging the approach. According to the author, “Right now the CLIL positives vastly 
outweigh negatives, and when look at criticism; it is usually about operational issues, not 
pedagogical-educational realities.” (Gallagher, Elaine “CLIL revisited, the foundations, the present, 
3 
 
and its future”, p.7) 
Therefore, the following question must be considered: How many times have you heard 
about this educational approach? It is likely that you barely heard this acronym occasionally. 
Another reason this paper might be relevant is that it may assist experienced and future teachers, 
coordinators and educators in general to get to know this new or considered new bilingual 
educational approach in Brazil and explain how it works. 
“In the twenty-first century one only knows a language when he speaks the language” 
(Elaine Gallagher, 2015). A few decades ago, we could say we were fluent in a language if reading 
and writing were easy. Nowadays, however, things are extremely different as Gallagher said. We 
live in a fast-changing world, technology is transforming society, and globalization is a fact. 
Therefore, language teachers need to be always prepared and informed. 
What is expected is to make it clear to the reader what Content Language Integrated learning 
is and what it is not because one of the most difficult issues teachers come across while approaching 
CLIL at first is that they are not sure whether it is a method, approach or just an ideology. (Elaine 
Gallagher, 2015) In addition, teachers are inefficient to evaluate their students while teaching CLIL 
lessons because they are probably not capable to understand what they are doing in class or what to 
evaluate. (Jan Rowe, Carmel Mary Coonan, 2014) 
During this analysis, CLIL will be shown taking into account different perspectives, from 
theorists up to teachers focusing on my own experience of a year and a half applying the ideas 
contained in this approach, which I am going to show further. All the first outcomes of this 
experience were gathered this year (2016), so, most of them are positive. As a conclusion, I will 
make some remarks regarding what think of this approach after analyzing and reading all the 
sources mentioned, share my ideas for using CLIL in language lessons as well as how to motivate 
children and teenagers to engage themselves in order to achieve a good level of the target language, 
in our case, English. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
 
Methodology 
 
In order to gather all the information this article comprises, theories of second language 
acquisition, especially the one developed by Krashen (2009) were analyzed. The aim was fully 
understand the difference between language learning and language acquisition, which according to 
the author is that acquisitionis a subconscious process and the learners are not aware that they are 
acquiring a language. However, they do know that they are using the target language to 
communicate. The outcomes are subconscious as well. He also argues that when we are learning a 
language we usually are not aware of grammar rules but “feel” when something is not right. As a 
result, learners feel and intuitively know what rule was violated. 
When it comes to language learning, he says that the second way to develop competence in a 
second language is knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about them. In 
non-technical terms, learning is "knowing about" a language, known to most people as "grammar", 
or "rules". Some synonyms include formal knowledge of a language, or explicit learning. 
This distinction was relevant because the essence of CLIL is also based upon Krashen’s 
hypotheses regarding language acquisition. In addition, a few articles concerning different contexts 
where CLIL had being approached were investigated as well as books namely Uncovering CLIL by 
David Marsh, 2008 and Teaching through a foreign language, Gisella Langé, 2001. 
As mentioned previously, the focus here is on the outcomes of my teaching practice using 
this approach. All material present in this paper come from other articles published. The results 
were mainly collected through one exam: TOEFL Primary. Students have been assessed from last 
year up to this year and only those who scored minimally A1 or A2 received a certificate from ETS. 
 
A brief description of the Study 
 
 This study, which lasted one school year and a half, was conducted in a primary school 
where English has been taught jointly with content from other subjects. I Lenilson Carneiro was the 
teacher who approached Content Language Integrated Learning during the research and collected 
all the outcomes. Most of the data used were from the perceptions as an EFL teacher experiencing 
both advantages and disadvantages. However, two international standardized exams are being used 
in the school, thus, outcomes of CLIL students performances are going to be cited as well. The 
school’s objective in adopting the approach was proportionate to students a bilingual environment 
in order to facilitate the implementation of a bilingual or plurilingual education. The reason we say 
it could be plurilingual is that it would not be fair to avoid mentioning Spanish lessons as part of the 
5 
 
curriculum. 
 To sum up, the resources gathered were books from authors mentioned previously in this 
paper, such as David Marsh (2008), Ofelia García (2009), and so forth. At first, we wanted to make 
sure the data of the object of study were trustworthy in order to describe it avoiding misconceptions 
and foster misunderstandings concerning any theme, issue or conclusion here. 
We observed lessons. Notwithstanding, it did not affect the neutrality of our research 
because a few videos were recorded in order to analyze my teaching practice. Unfortunately, the 
school lacks English language teachers currently. 
 
THE GENESIS OF CLIL 
 
In the book Uncovering CLIL, one of the most famous specialists on language teaching and 
bilingual education, David Marsh, describes the process in which the approach began its journey 
towards what it is nowadays. In short, he describes a stage called Pre-CLIL. Pre-CLIL as the author 
states is related to the history of CLIL-type programs that used the target language as a means to 
teach something else. It could be theology, zoology and so forth. A few ancient societies are 
mentioned and the contents that had been taught as well. 
After that, CLIL programs start to rise and influence Europe, Asia etc. At this point, most 
institutions were concerned with the impact of globalization and decided to invest in bilingual 
education in order to provide people accessible knowledge and facilitate this access. 
The authors declare that the world is becoming small due to the impact of multiculturalism 
and globalization. Thus, from that moment until then the importance of being at least bilingual was 
starting to be considered important to those citizens. García (2009) states that most people 
nowadays are bilingual and everyone should be bilingual as well. 
It is essential to summarize the most influential events that boosted CLIL origins. Gallagher 
2015, claims they were the early psychological studies 1920-1930’s, beginning of globalization in 
the 1950’s, language acquisition studies in the 1980’s, and the creation of CEFR in 1991. 
 CLIL was presented in 1994, at the University of Jyvaskyla, in Finland. Developed by 
European educators from 20 countries, headed by Dr. David Marsh. 
It is also important to clarify a few misunderstood ideas concerning CLIL, and these 
problems will be addressed soon. Before doing that, the reader needs to comprehend this: 
“The essence of CLIL is integration. This integration has a dual focus: Language learning is 
included in content classes. […] Content from subjects is used in language-learning classes. […] 
students learn the language and discourse patterns they need to understand and use the content.” 
When one is researching on the internet something about CLIL, that person certainly will come 
6 
 
across websites arguing that CLIL is a philosophy. On the other hand, some other will argue that 
CLIL is more than a method. They say it is an educational approach as it has been shown earlier. 
The point is that when someone sees the ambivalence, it raises one more question: “After all, what 
is CLIL after all? If it can be both, when is it considered a philosophy and when can people call it an 
educational approach? Those inquiries bring us to what is named The many faces of CLIL. 
CLIL stands for Content language integrated learning. The acronym covers many different 
approaches worldwide. That occurs because it works more like a philosophy than a method as 
Elaine Gallagher points out in these lines: “CLIL is a philosophy of how we learn language. It is not 
a program or a method.” 
That being said, it is clear to us that the main feature of CLIL is flexibility. One can 
approach CLIL in immersion programs, bilingual education, multilingual education etc. 
 
The natural approach 
 
Krashen’s (1982) natural approach underlies CLIL philosophy completely. It basically states 
that recognition presupposes production and acquisition activities get better results than just 
“learning” activities. He also claims that it reduces the filter and uses material from subjects, such 
as science, history, mathematics and so forth. 
It occurs because in CLIL lessons communicative methods are necessary, hands-on activities 
and critical thinking skills must be taught at the same time. Interestingly, these thinking skills are 
mostly the same, which one may need to take the high-school famous Brazilian exam, namely 
ENEM. See Gallagher’s graphic: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
CLIL IN LATIN AMERICA 
 
 According to Gallagher, 2015 Mexico’s government decided to adopt CLIL philosophy last 
year changing the educational policy they had been doing. Mexico has the longest history of 
English being taught in public schools. In 2008, Mexico started to implement the Programa 
Nacional de Inglés en la Educacion Básica (PNIEB). The program is based on CEFR2 standards 
and CLIL philosophy. Gallagher adds this: 
 
In January 2015, it has been decreed that English will no longer be an optional school subject 
for the 31 Mexican states, Every state will have to offer English, staffed by teachers who 
have evidenced they're at a B-2 level on 12 the CEFR scale. This implies that teacherdevelopment in English and in CLIL philosophy is imperative. It appears that the future of 
CLIL in Mexico is secure, and many other Latin American countries, such as Brazil, 
Colombia, Ecuador, and Guatemala, are on the same path. 
 
 This represents a huge impact on their educational goals. Please, see in the excerpt that they 
require teachers to be at least B-2 level on 12 the CEFR scale. The following graphic illustrates that 
requirement. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: https://jackyspanish.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cefr.png 
 It seems that the Mexican government is stricter in hiring language teachers to develop the 
task of transforming its country in a multilingual nation. This makes a huge difference in the quality 
of bilingual education learners will receive. On the other hand, a few researches show that most 
 
2 Available on: http://cambridgeenglish.org/br/exams/cefr 
8 
 
English teachers are not aware of the CEFR and do not speak the language fluently. According to 
Ana Maria Ialago (2008), most professionals feel frustrated with their jobs because the Brazilian 
Education System sends to schools unprepared teachers. In their teacher training courses, they are 
not prepared to achieve a good level of the language and fail in teaching that language in the 
schools they work. 
If there are such issues regarding English teachers education in Brazil concerning public 
schools, imagine how far we are from what is happening in Mexico and Colombia for instance. In 
1991, Colombians issue in their constitution declaring the country a multilingual and pluricultural 
nation: This resulted later in the National Ministry of Education creation of a ten-year-plan towards 
bilingualism. The aim was to achieve the requirements of a new society more globalized and open 
to changes. Then, later in 2004, the National Bilingual Program (2004 – 2010) (Programa Nacional 
de Bilinguísmo) came out with a nationwide plan for having a bilingual territory. (Bonces 2011) 
Colombian Ministry of Education also adopted the CEFR as a standard for guiding the 
language learning in the country as Mexico did as well. Other countries where the CLIL approach 
has been implemented could be cited here. However, we will focus on our experience in Brazil. 
 
FIRST OUTCOMES IMPLEMENTING A BILINGUAL APPROACH WITH PRIMARY 
SCHOOL STUDENTS 
 
In 2015 a few schools in Campina Grande City, Paraiba, Brazil decided to begin a bilingual 
education program and create a bilingual environment in their workplace. Initially, they adopted a 
Pedagogical Project called UNO International3. In this pedagogical project they have some bilingual 
programs namely Become Program and Bicultural Program. The school where this research was 
taken took the Become Program. Notice that both programs follow a CLIL educational approach. 
Once a school chooses to begin this long-term bilingual program, all teachers are provided 
with iPads containing subject books and useful apps. Also, classes receive projectors to implement a 
technological environment. All lessons are projected using those projectors, language lessons are 
taught only in the target language and there is no translation. Occasionally, if necessary the teacher 
may translate something for pedagogical reasons. 
At the end of every school year, these school students take several exams in order to provide 
a feedback to the administration, coordinators and especially, teachers. Among these exams is the 
TOEFL Primary granted by ETS4 (Education Testing Service). This exam particularly is the one we 
used to describe a year analysis of implementing a bilingual approach with primary school students. 
 
3 Available on: http://br.unoi.com/ 
4 Available on: https://www.ets.org/ 
9 
 
The main approach being CLIL philosophy as Gallagher 2015 well stated. In 2015, the 5th 
grade had twelve students enrolled and all of them took the exam. According to their school history, 
they had never been to a language school before nor did their old schools have a bilingual 
educational approach. Thus, the results presented here are showing how beginners respond to a year 
of CLIL lessons completely in English. The following chart shows the outcomes of the TOEFL 
Primary exam according to the CEFR. 
 
Student 1 A1 or A2 
Student 2 A1 or A2 
Student 3 A2 
Student 4 A2 
Student 5 A1 
Student 6 A1 
Student 7 A1 
Student 8 A1 
Student 9 A1 
Student 10 A1 
Student 11 Did not receive a certificate 
Student 12 Did not receive a certificate 
 
As the graphic shows, the school had some good results but there is work to be done yet. 
Last year, most of those students could not read anything in English; they did not know at least how 
to count from one to ten and could identify sounds of letters. The major challenge for students who 
enroll in a bilingual school in primary stage is that few places teach languages with a bilingual 
approach and environment, so they feel unable to survive the new school. The graphic also shows 
that two students had not received their certificates. It occurred because their results were less than 
the minimal required to emitting one. 
There are other reasons why that school faces issues in implementing a bilingual school. 
Some of them are: Subject teachers are not open to a bilingual environment; the school 
administration does not fully understand what a bilingual school is and how it works which draws 
all the responsibility to language teachers. Also, there’s no professional development for the 
language teachers dealing with CLIL lessons and bilingual education. In fact, there are national 
events provided by Uno International, however, the costs are expensive and most teachers cannot 
afford the trip and hotels. Are there more issues language teachers face in a school with a CLIL 
10 
 
approach? Yes, there are, and (?) we will address this question and other topics below. 
 
TEACHERS AND THE CLIL CHALLENGE 
 
Teaching a foreign language requires qualification from teachers more than they expect. 
When it comes to CLIL teachers the quantity of requirements increase significantly. According to 
Gisella Langé and her co-authors in Teaching through a foreign language, a CLIL teacher needs to: 
 
 Produce coherent lesson plans which will take account of CLIL objectives, needs and 
specificity more specifically, plan and organize lessons in such a way as to keep take into 
account the linguistic and cognitive demands that the various activities carried out in the L2 
require 
 Ensure continuity and progression within the content subject and the foreign or second 
language involved, and maintain the integration between both 
 Employ a range of teaching strategies appropriate to the age, language competence, general 
ability and attainment level of learners 
 Present subject content in clear, contextualized language and in a stimulating and interactive 
manner 
 Contribute to the development of learners’ language and communication skills demonstrate 
ability to select and use appropriate resources, including information technology. 
 
Gallagher adds more requirements5 for CLIL teachers to be effective. According to her view, 
being a great CLIL teacher implies that the teacher is the one who: 
 
 Only speaks ENGLISH is English class. Whatever language being taught, it is the only one 
spoken in class. CLIL philosophy is in evidence. 
 Does not translate. Gives examples in the target language or uses diagrams, pictures, 
drawings, or actions. 
 Does not lecture. Class work is always based on activeparticipation. 
 Has students talking approximately 70% of the time. 
 Uses "guided practice". = practice DIRECTLY monitored by the teacher. 
 Oral fluency, not grammatical structures, is most important. 
These are only a few things teachers need to acquire or own in order to teach effective CLIL 
 
5 There are more requirements than those cited here. If you are interested in checking all of them, check her article. 
11 
 
lessons. Recently, one may notice that here in Brazil few companies provide CLIL teaching 
courses to prepare their professionals and it seems to be frustrating to such teachers because they 
want to be prepared, on the other hand they are not capable for doing that due to this lack of 
coaching, resources and so forth. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 References 
Ana Maria Ialago, Marilia Claret Geraes Duran. “English teachers education in Brazil.” Revista 
Diálogo, 2008: 55-70. 
Asomoza, Alejandra Nuñez. "Students’ Perceptions of the Impact of CLIL in a Mexican BA 
Program." 2015. 
Bonces, Mônica Rodrigues. “CLIL: Colombia Leading Into Content Language Learning.” Íkala 
revista de lenguaje y cultura, 2011: 79-89. 
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. “Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning.” 
Werner Delanoy and Laurenz Volkmann, (eds.) Future Perspectives for English Language, 
2008. 
Gallagher, Elaine. "CLIL revisited, the foundations, the present, and its future." 2015. 
García, Ofelia. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. 2009. 
Jan Rowe, Carmel Mary Coonan. "Issues in Primary CLIL: the teacher's voice." 2012. 
Krashen, Stephen. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. 1982. 
Langé, Gisella. "CLIL." In Teaching through a foreign language, by Daniela Bertocchi, Marie 
Hofmannová, Monika Kazianka Maria Pavesi. 2001. 
Marsh, David. Mehisto, Peeter. Frigols, María Jesús. Uncovering CLIL. 2008. 
Oliveira, Luciano Amaral. Métodos de ensino de Inglês. São Paulo: Parábola, 2014. 
Papaja, Katarzyna. "The role of a CLIL teacher." 2010. 
Vygotsky, Dr. Lev. “From Social Interaction to Higher Psychological Processes. A Clarification and 
Application of Vygotsky’s Theory.” 23 de December de 2009.