Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
While there is much that Australia has
done well with respect to languages
education, many problems still persist
in terms of mainstream provision of
quality languages programs, attaining
real outcomes and gains in language
learning, and in relation to retention of
students studying languages through to
the senior years of school. The success of
new approaches focused on integrating
language with the mainstream curriculum
across schools in Europe suggests
new possibilities for dealing with the
challenges of languages in the Australian
schooling context. This paper considers
key aspects of the Content and Language
Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach as
developed in Europe over the past two
decades to help clarify and establish
a shared professional conversation for
advancing the approach amongst teachers
of languages in Australia interested in
its possibilities. The paper includes core
ideas underpinning the CLIL framework,
an awareness of its benefits as well as
challenges, and guidance about first
steps on implementing CLIL based on
trials in the Victorian context, together
with how effectiveness of such a
program might be determined.
KEY WORDS
CLIL, content and language integrated
learning, languages pedagogy, languages
curriculum, languages policy, bilingual
language learning
INTRODUCTION
Content and Language Integrated Learning,
or CLIL, has been established as a
mainstream option for languages teaching
and learning throughout Europe since the
term was first used some 20 years ago
(Marsh, 1994). Traction has been especially
strong in the last 10 years since the
European Commissions 2004 Action Plan,
Promoting language learning and linguistic
diversity, recognised that CLIL had a major
contribution to make to the Unions language
learning goals (European Commission,
2003, p. 8). These goals include Europes
one plus two strategy, which encourages
proficiency in at least three languages: each
citizens national language, as well as two
others from the wider EU community (often
including English as the common lingua
franca). In Italy, for example, the Ministry
of Education has now mandated CLIL as
the teaching approach for all non-language
subjects in the final year of secondary
school, regardless of whether students
are undertaking an academic or vocational
pathway (LAssociazione Professionale dei
Docenti Italiani, 2014).
In the last three to five years, interest in
CLIL has begun to expand rapidly beyond
Europe, including to settings as diverse
as Japan (Sasajima, Ikeda, Hemmi, &
Reilly, 2011), Singapore (Hanington, Devi
Pillai, & Kwah, 2013), and the Middle East
(Riddlebarger, 2013). Likewise, Australia
has also begun to explore the possibilities
of CLIL within local settings, and how the
approach might offer new solutions to
longstanding problems that have troubled
BABEL
VOLUME 49 NUMBER 2
THE AUSTRALIAN
LANGUAGES TEACHING
COMMUNITY CAN LEARN
FROM THE EUROPEAN
CLIL EXPERIENCE,
REVIEWING ITS TWENTY
YEARS OF TRIALING OF
WHAT WORKS MOST
EFFECTIVELY FOR
INTEGRATING LANGUAGE
AND LEARNING CONTENT
TO BRING ABOUT
SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES
FOR LEARNERS.
BABEL
SOME TERMINOLOGICAL
CLARIFICATION
Across Australian education systems there
is considerable variability in the terms used
to describe approaches and programs that
have a curriculum-based focus. It is helpful
to be explicit about where and how CLIL
might sit alongside these.
First, CLIL is best understood as an
umbrella (Marsh, 2002, p. 56) term for
a flexible pedagogical approach to dual
focused (content/language) instruction;
that is, CLIL as a descriptor for the type
of teaching approach used. CLIL-based
programs can take a variety of forms (e.g.
units of work within standard languages
programs, standalone subject options within
larger school programs), or CLIL can be
the pedagogical basis for regular bilingual
programs (i.e. where the whole school
curriculum is organised for instruction in the
medium of another language, using CLIL
VOLUME 49 NUMBER 2
ACROSS AUSTRALIAN
EDUCATION SYSTEMS
THERE IS CONSIDERABLE
VARIABILITY IN THE
TERMS USED TO
DESCRIBE APPROACHES
AND PROGRAMS THAT
HAVE A CURRICULUMBASED FOCUS. IT IS
HELPFUL TO BE EXPLICIT
ABOUT WHERE AND
HOW CLIL MIGHT SIT
ALONGSIDE THESE.
BABEL
Communication
Content
CULTURE
Cognition
VOLUME 49 NUMBER 2
10
BABEL
VOLUME 49 NUMBER 2
11
12
BABEL
VOLUME 49 NUMBER 2
CONCLUSION
For more than 50 years, the Canadian
immersion experience has demonstrated
that when students are provided with
genuine opportunities for meaningful
engagement with language in, through,
and across the curriculum, it leads to
worthwhile outcomes in both first and
second language development, increased
levels of interpersonal and intercultural
understanding, and students overall sense
of achievement and engagement in learning.
These are the contributions we would hope
any quality language education program
might be making towards our students total
educational experience throughout school.
Yet challenges replicating the conditions
necessary to expand the immersion model
within local Australian school systems have
meant that its mainstream viability has
always remained elusive. While there are
some very high quality programs and smallscale initiatives, for the majority of students
this will never be an opportunity that they can
access for learning a new language at school.
CLIL offers the potential for change, and new
tools to approach old challenges differently.
As a pedagogic innovation that builds on
the immersion model but with a new level
of contextual responsiveness and flexibility,
the building blocks that underpin CLIL have
allowed teachers across Europe to approach
language/content integration in ways that
have suited a broad and very diverse range
of education systems and settings.
CHALLENGES
REPLICATING
THE CONDITIONS
NECESSARY TO EXPAND
THE IMMERSION
MODEL WITHIN LOCAL
AUSTRALIAN SCHOOL
SYSTEMS HAVE MEANT
THAT ITS MAINSTREAM
VIABILITY HAS ALWAYS
REMAINED ELUSIVE.
CLIL OFFERS THE
POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE.
13
14
BABEL
VOLUME 49 NUMBER 2
15