LANGUAGETEACHERTRAININGANDBILINGUAL

EDUCATIONINFINLAND

DavidMarsh,WorkplaceCommunication,UniversityofJyvskyl
TarjaNikula,WorkplaceCommunication,UniversityofJyvskyl
SauliTakala,CentreforAppliedLanguageStudy,UniversityofJyvskyl
inconjunctionwith
UllaRohiola,DepartmentofTeacherEducation,UniversityofTurku
TeroKoivisto,DepartmentofTeacherEducation,UniversityofTurku

CAVEAT

Theinformationgatheredherehasbeendrawnfromarangeofsourcesanditispossiblethat
inaccuraciesmaybefound,particularlyasregardsthatwhichmayhavebeenunintentionally
omitted.Theauthorswishtothankallthosewhocontributedinformationonlanguageteacher
trainingandbilingualeducationinFinland.

FORWARD

BilingualEducationisatermwhichisusedtodescribeavarietyofcontexts.Inthelastfew
yearsthetermMainstreamBilingualEducationhascometobeusedforsituationsinwhich
majoritylanguagestudents,whoareinthestateeducationalsystem,learnnonlanguagecontent
throughamodernforeignlanguage.

Morerecently,practitionersandresearchersinthisareahavebeenfoundtofavourthe
termContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning (CLIL) todescribethisformof
instructionwhichisconsideredameansbywhichtoimplementaplurilingualapproach
to education. Preference for CLIL can be found because the term allows for the
movementofbothlanguageteachersbecomemoreinvolvedwithcontent,andcontent
teachers to become more involved with language. This is particularly the case in
FinlandinwhichCLILinvolvesbothlanguageandcontentspecialists.Inthischapter,
theacronymCLILwillbeusedtorefertoatypeofmethodwhichmayleadtothe
developmentofplurilingualisminmainstreameducation(fordiscussiononterminology
inthisfieldseeNikula1997).

The text does not seek to duplicate the existing description of language studies in
Finland produced by the European Language Council and European Universities
Networks.ItissuggestedthatthistextbeconsideredcomplementarytobothLanguage
StudiesinHigherEducationinFinland(Sajavaara,1995)andTeacherEducationin
Finland (Hansn, 1994) which provide a comprehensive description of the these
respectiveareas.
Finally, it should be stressed that this text will not describe minority language
educationalissuespertainingtoteachertraininginFinlandasthisisconsidereddifferent
totheCLILactivitiesunderdiscussion.

1. THENATIONALLINGUISTICSITUATION

Duetohistoricaldevelopments,Finlandlikemanyothercountriesisamultilingualstate.
Finland'sofficiallanguagepolicyisembodiedinconstitutionallaw,whichestablishedFinnish
andSwedishasthenationallanguagesofthenewrepublicwhichwascreatedin1917.Other
lawsstipulatethelinguisticstatusofmunicipalitiesandthelanguageproficiencyrequiredof
civilservants.Inaccordancewiththeprincipleofculturalautonomy,educationalandcultural
services are available in the two languages. Thus the children and youth representing the
Swedishspeakingminoritycanhavetheireducationintheirmothertonguefromkindergarten
to postgraduate studies at university. The national radio network has a Swedish language
channel and radio/television services have specific times allotted to Swedishlanguage
programmes.WhenthelandIslands(locatedbetweenSwedenandFinland)wererecognized
bytheLeagueofNationstobeapartofFinlandinthe1920s,theareawasgivenalargedegree
ofautonomyandtheSwedishlanguageobtainedstronglegalprotection.

TheSamilanguagehasalsobeengainingincreasingrecognition.IntheSamiregion,the
languagecanbetaughtasamothertongueorasasecondlanguage.Itcanalsobeused
asthelanguageofinstruction.Fromthebeginningof1992,Samicanbeusedinthe
Lapland region for all official business with the right to interpretation services
accordingly.

According to available population statistics, the Swedishspeaking population has

decreased relatively speaking and also in absolute terms. In the early 1600's, it
constitutedabout17%ofthetotalpopulationandiscurrentlyabout6%.(Thehighest
absolutenumberwasrecordedinthe1900census349,700andthefigureattheendof
1991was296,842speakers).

Outofthe460urbanandruralmunicipalities in1990,395wereofficially Finnish

speaking,21werebilingualwithFinnishasthemajoritylanguage,20withSwedishas
the majority language, and 24 municipalities were Swedishspeaking. With the
exceptionofthelandIslands,abouthalfoftheSwedishspeakingFinnsarenowliving
inpredominantlyFinnishspeakingcommunities.Mixedmarriagesarecommon,and
increasingnumbersofchildreninSwedishspeakingschoolsarebilingual.

ThenumberofSamispeakingLappswas1,734in1990(0,03%).

Attheendof1992,thenumberofnonFinnishpassportholdersresidentinthecountry
wasabout44,000.This amounts to0,9%ofthetotal population(cf.1987:Sweden
4,8%,Germany7,6%).Thenumberhas,however,risensteadily:26,255(1990)and
37,579(1991).Asylumseekersarenotincludedinthefigures.

1.2. DescriptionofAreaSpecificUnderstandingofBilingualEducation
Sincetheearly1980stheFinnishgovernmenthasissuedseveralpolicydocumentsaimingto
diversifytherangeofforeignlanguagesstudied(partlytocombatthedominanceofEnglishin
relation to pupil/students subject choice) and toimprove the general standard of language
proficiency.Onesuchmeasurewastheintroductionofanoptionalsecondforeignlanguagein
grade5(agerange1112years)tofollowtheintroductionofthefirstforeignlanguageingrade
3(agerange910years).Thiswasfirstexploredinpilotschoolsin1987andhassincebecome
partofthemainstreamsystem.AnothermeasurewastheintroductionoftheIBschoolsinthe
firstyearsofthe1990stosupplementthefiveforeignlanguageschoolsinHelsinki.Aworking
partysetupbytheMinistryofEducationrecommendedin1989thatteachinginaforeign
language(CLIL)shouldbemadeavailableinFinnishschools.

Inearliertimes,thelanguagesofinstructionwereeitherFinnishorSwedish,witha
specialdispensationthatallowedtheuseofaforeignlanguagesinspecialtemporary
circumstances.However,since1991themunicipalities,schoolsandteacherscanusea
foreignlanguagetoteachanysubjectasinCLIL.

The current legislation concerning the 9year comprehensive school and upper
secondary school states that the medium of instruction may, when it is considered
appropriate,beotherthantheinstructionallanguageoftheschool(ie.inmainstream
schools, Finnish, Swedish, or in a few northern municipalities, Sami). Both
comprehensive schools and upper secondary schools may also have one or several
teachinggroups(classes)inwhichinstructionisgiveninalanguageotherthanthe
school'sordinaryteachinglanguage.Participationinsuchclassesisvoluntary.

InFinland,CLILhasnotbeen"pinneddown"byanynarroworexplicitdefinitions,and
ithas,atleastuptillnow,escapedanynarrow"orthodoxy"intermsofitsgoalsand
methodology.CLILhasbeeninterpretedinabroadsense,tocovertheuseofaforeign
languageinteachingrangingfromveryshortunitsorsubstantialcourses,orvarying
degreesofthecurricula.Therehasbeennoaprioripreferenceforhavinglanguage
teachersteachingcontentorsubjectteachersusingaforeignlanguageintheirteaching.
It has been recognised that the reasons for introducing teaching through a foreign
languagemaybediverseandreflectcontextualconstraintsandpriorities.Teachingina
foreign language may be introduced, for instance, (i) to improve foreign language
proficiencybyincreasingthepupils'andstudents'exposuretotheforeignlanguage,ie.
increasing their opportunities to obtain a better knowledge of foreign languages in
formalschoolingthancannormallybeobtained,(ii)togiveaboosttothepupils'and
students'confidencebylettingthemexperiencethattheycanunderstandandusethe
language"forreal"and,throughthis,bringaboutagreaterinterestinusingthelanguage
andthusalsolearnmore,(iii)toofferanewchallengeforteacherswhofeelthatthey
wouldliketoteachinaforeignlanguageforrespectivereasons,(iv)tomakeiteasier
foreducationalinstitutionstoreceiveforeignstudents,topromoteteacherandstudent
exchangeandtorespondtothechallengeofgrowinginternalisationevenineducation.

1.3. LegislationandLanguageTeacherTraining

Currentlegislationconcerningteachereducationisfrom1995.Itlaysdowntheprinciplesof
teachertraininganddetermineswhicheducationalsubjectsaretaughtinwhichuniversitiesand
how the tasks of training study counsellors, kindergarten, classroom, subject, and special
teachersaredividedamonguniversities.

Since1973,allteachereducationhasbeenuniversitybased.Theeducationoffuture
classteachers(teachersforthelowerstageofcomprehensiveschools)ismainlythe
responsibility of the teacher education departments which belong to the university
facultiesofeducation.Theeducationofsubjectteachersinforeignlanguages(upper
stage of the comprehensive school and the upper secondary school) is the joint
responsibilityoflanguagedepartmentsandtheteachereducationdepartments.These
departmentsalsohavepracticeschoolswheremostoftherequiredsupervisedpractice
teachingtakesplace.Theproportionoffieldpracticeisincreasingasapartofteaching
practice.

Inthepresentsystem,classroomteachersobtainaMaster'sdegreeineducation,which
requires160studyweeks(1studyweek=averageof40hoursofactivestudy,equivalent
to240ECTS).StudentshaveEducationastheirmajorsubjectandprepareaMaster's
thesisaccordingly.Teachingorientedpedagogicalstudiesarecarriedoutaseitherpart
of the major, or within a separate study programme. Thirtyfive study weeks are
requiredinsubjectsorintegratedsubjectstaughtinthecomprehensiveschool.
SubjectteachersobtainaMaster'sdegree,requiring160studyweeks.Studiesinwhatis
generallytwolanguagesubjectsastaughtinschoolarerequiredaswellaspedagogical
studies.Atleast55studyweeksarerequiredinoneschoolsubjectandatleast35study
weeksinthepossibleotherschoolsubject.Aftersome23yearsofstudying,students
may apply to be admitted to teacher education and, if accepted, can start their
pedagogicalstudieswhichtakeplaceconcurrentlywiththeircontinuedsubjectstudies.
Prior to the present system pedagogical studies followed the completion of subject
studies.

Teachers'pedagogicalstudiesarewithinEducation,andtheyaredidacticallyoriented
andcontainteachingpractice.Pedagogicalstudiescomprise35studyweeks.General
pedagogicalstudiestypicallytake15studyweeks,schooladministration1studyweek
andsubjectdidacticstudiesandpracticeteaching19studyweeks.

Thereisnoshortageofqualifiedlanguageteachersandinthemid1990stherehasbeen
somedegreeofoversupply.

2. LANGUAGETEACHERTRAININGINRELATIONTOBILINGUAL
EDUCATION

2.1. InitialTeacherTraining

InitiallanguageteachertrainingisreportedinSajavaara1995.IntermsofCLILitisimportant
torecognizethatinitialteachertrainingconcernsbothlanguageteachersandsubjectteachers,
but generally the latter. The Finnish approach, as it presently stands, reflects a stronger
movement of CLIL interest within subject teaching and this is reflected in the tentative
movementtowardsCLILininitialteachertrainingforsubjectratherthanlanguageteachers.

2.1.1. UniversityLevel
There are 13 teacher training schools in Finland which are attached to universities and
administeredbytheirrespectivefacultiesofeducation.Thesetrainingschoolswhicharelocated
in Helsinki (2 institutions), Hmeenlinna, Joensuu, Jyvskyl, Kajaani, Oulu, Rauma,
Rovaniemi,Savonlinna,Tampere,TurkuandVaasa,playakeyroleintheinitialtrainingof
teachers.WhereasCLILinstructionhasbecomerathercommonplaceintheschools,thisisnot
generallysupportedbytheoreticalstudiesintheuniversityfacultiesthemselves.

Toexemplifythesituationwecanturntofiveuniversitieswhichoffersomeformof
training,howeverminimalinCLIL.TheseareboAkademi,andtheUniversitiesof
Oulu,Helsinki,JyvskylandTurku.boAkademioffers3creditunitsoftheory,and
2creditunitspracticaltraininginanintegratedCLILelectiveinwhichupto50%ofall
classtimeistaughtthroughtheEnglishlanguage.AformofindirectCLILtrainingis
offeredbytheUniversitiesofOuluandJyvskylinwhichinitialteachertrainingis
geared to preparing teachers to work in English on international assignments. The
courses extendoverfiveyears,areconducted from4070%inEnglishandinvolve
foreignsojourn.HelsinkiUniversityreportedlyoffers1creditunitinthisarea(40hrs
study)whichisspecificallyonCLIL.TheUniversityofTurkuoffers2creditunitson
theory for class teachers, with an additional 1 credit unit for subject teachers
commencingin1997.

Whereas the bo Akademi and Turku courses are somewhat exceptional, the Oulu
UniversitycoursecouldbeconsideredaformofexperientialCLILtraining,andthe
HelsinkiUniversitycourseprobablyrepresentsthenorminfacultiesofeducationin
FinlandasregardsCLIL.HoweverthecourseofferedattheUniversityofJyvskyl,in
turn supported by a Lingua /Socrates project termed JULIET, offers a 50 ECTS
specializationinCLIL.ThusthesituationininitialtrainingsuggeststhatCLILisnot
incorporatedintoteachertrainingprogrammesveryextensively,andisofferedasan
internationalization course or offered as an elective which involves a minimal
workload.However,asweshallseebelow,CLILtrainingishappeninginapractical
mannerintheteachertrainingschoolsthemselvesbuteventhistendstobeextremely
smallscale.

2.1.1.1. Curriculum

The minimalist approach to the inclusion of CLIL training in the initial teacher training
curriculameansthatintroductorycoursestotheareaareofferedwhichfocusonthefollowing
type of areas: foreign language methodology, communicativeinteractive methodology,
communication competence and performance, immersion, contentbased foreign language
curricula, grammar versus communication, foreign language teacher talk, CLIL teaching
materialsandassessment.Becausethereisrelativelylittleresaecrdriveninformationavailable
onCLILintheEuropeancontext,studiestendtofocusontheNorthAmericanexperienceswith
theimmersionmethodwhichconstitutesaproblem.Thethreethousandormoreresearchpapers
onimmersionascarriedoutinCanadaarehighlycontextspecificandthus,thoughofacademic
interest, may not have direct bearing on the introduction of CLIL in the Finnish national
context.ThefirstsignificantresearchprojectsonCLILinFinlandstartedin1996(cf.Marsh,
OksmanRinkinen&Takala1996,Nikula&Marsh1997a,Nikula&Marsh1997b).

2.1.1.2. PracticalTraining
InordertodescribethetypeofCLILactivitywhichoccursintheFinnishteachertraining
schools,whatfollows isabriefdescriptionofeachoftheschoolswhicharemostactively
involvedwiththisarea.

InTurku,activitiesinCLILcommencedin1992withteachingintheEnglishlanguageatall
primarylevelsfromgrades16.CLILinstructionisconductedinallsubjectsexceptFinnish
language.Thecurriculumremainsthesameasinmothertonguemediumteaching.Infinal
assessment pupils are also graded for their English language competence.In the CLIL
programmesbetween2550%ofteachingisconductedinthetargetlanguage.Theteacherswho
workinCLILteachinghaveundergoneInsettraininginCLILattheUniversityofJyvskyl.

InRauma,thesituationissimilartoTurkubuttheoverallproportionoftargetlanguageCLIL
instructionis25%.Helsinkistartedactivitiesin1993withCLILactivityinkindergartenandthe
first two years of primary education. English is used as a target language in one subject,
handicrafts,andthisisrestrictedtoabout36hoursexposureinagivenyear.InOulu,CLIL
startedin1994throughscience,historyandtheartsandanindividualstudentmightbeexposed
to3080hoursofinstructioninEnglishlanguageinayear.InVaasa,thesituationissimilarto
OuluwithexposuretoCLILbetween3080hoursperyearforagivenpupil.Savonlinna,which
reportsinterestinCLILoffers10hoursperyear.

In this brief description of activities commonplace in the Finnish teacher training

schoolsitisclearthattheactualinitialteacherdevelopmentaspectofreportedCLIL
activity is minimal. Forevenifachildintheschoolis exposedto3080hoursof
instructioninthetargetlanguageinayear,thishaslittlebearingontheinvolvementof
aspecificteachertraineewhomayteachaslittleas2hoursinthetargetlanguage
duringhis/herperiodofattachmenttotheschool.

Thesituationatsecondarylevelissimilar.InTurku,CLILinstructionstartedin1992
butinthemainstreamschool(asopposedtoaninternationalbaccalaureateinstitution)
instruction inthe target language is as little as 1015hours peryear. Thesituation
appearstobesimilarinothersecondarylevelteachertrainingschools.

2.1.1.3. ImpactofEUProgrammes

Euprogrammeswhichfacilitatemobilityhavebeenincreasinglyutilizedforthepurposesof
encouraging internationalization. The term internationalization is frequently considered as
synonymous withCLILinstructionandlearning.However, suchaviewreflectsanattitude
whichseestheteachingandlearningofcontentthroughaforeignlanguageasarequirementfor
mobility,ratherthanasanapproachinitsownright.Atthisstagebecauseoftheabsenceof
significantinitialteachertrainingactivitiesinFinlanditisnotpossibletodiscusstheimpactof
EUprogrammestoanygreaterdepth.ThisisnotthecasewithInsetprogrammeswhichwillbe
discussedbelow.

2.1.2. AtNonUniversityLevel

ThereisnoinitialteachertrainingatnonuniversitylevelinFinland.Allmainstreamteacher
training,eventhatforkindergartenteachers,isnowconductedsolelybyuniversities.Theonly
exceptions apply to specific types of educational approach such as Steiner or Montessori
pedagogy.
2.2. InserviceTeacherTraining(INSET)

2.2.1. UniversityLevel

InsetinCLILhasbeenavailableincertainFinnishuniversitiessince1991.Thelargestofthese
courses,attheUniversitiesofJyvskylandVaasaamountto2730ECTS.Thesmallestmay
involve1,5ECTS.Aheterogenousrangeofprogrammeshavebeenofferedsince1990which
rangefromsmallscaleseminarstoextensiveprogrammesrunoveraperiodofoneyear.

ThetwomajorFinnishcentresofCLILtrainingandresearcharetheUniversitiesof
Jyvskyl and Vaasa. Vaasa which specializes in immersion methods with specific
referencetoSwedish,hasbeenactiveintheareasince1991andhasdevelopeda30
ECTSprogrammeonmultilingualismanddidactics..Thiscourseincludescontenton
minoritylanguageissuesandCLIL.Todate72teachershavecompletedthiscourse,
and50peoplearepresentlyenrolled.AspecialtypeofInsetprogrammecalledaPD
(Professional development course amounting to 60 ECTS) called Multilingual
Educatorswasstartedin1994.Asofearly1997,5teachershavecompletedthiscourse,
with27participantsworkingonthePDonflexibleschedules.During19911996Vaasa
hascateredforabout900teacherswhohaveattendedseminarsandsymposiaonaspects
ofSwedishimmersionandtheareasmentionedabove.

Inexcessof700subjectandlanguageteachershavecompletedvariousformsofInset
traininginCLILatthe UniversityofJyvskylintheperiod19911997.Jyvskyl
started Inset in CLIL in 1990 with a range of teacher development programmes
specificallygearedtowardsprovidingsubjectspecialistswithskillsandknowledgeto
teachinaforeignlanguage.Thetheoreticalapproachadoptedhasreliedonnotonlythe
immersion methods as used in Canada but also CLIL activity in Southeast Asian
countriessuchasBrunei,HongKongandSingapore.Thetargetlanguageshavebeen
English(98%)andGerman(2%).TheproportionoflanguagespecialiststakingInset
courses at Jyvskyl on CLIL is between 34%. About 1500 teachers have been
involvedwithvariousformsoftrainingorganizedbyJyvskylduring19911996.

From19972000,duetoalargescaleinvestment(projecttitleKimmoke)inforeign
languageteachingandacquisitionbytheFinnishMinistryofEducation,thenumberof
universitiesofferingINSETinCLILwillincreaseconsiderably.Universitiesacrossthe
country(Helsinki,Lappeenranta SummerUniversityOulu,Tampere, Turku)willall
offer21ECTSInsetcourses(comprising7ECTSontheoryandapplication,and14on
targetlanguagelinguisticskillsdevelopment).Trainingresourcesarebroughtinfrom
eitherJyvskylorTurkuinmostcases.

2.2.1.1. Curriculum

Becauseoftherangeofdifferentcourseswhichhavebeenavailableitisnotpossibleto
giveacomprehensivedescriptionofthecoursesavailableinFinland.However,inorder
toprovideanexample,theUniversityofJyvskyllargescaleprogrammefocusesona
modularbasisonthefollowing:

TheSituationalParameter
PhaseATheInstitutionalEnvironment
I.SituationalClarification
aimandselectionofaCLILapproach
objectivessetforCLILcourses
realizationprocessofaimsandobjectives
flexibilityoftheinstitutionalinfrastructure(structures,procedures,decisionmaking
processes)
professionalrolesandinterstaffrelationships/interactions

II.ActionPlan
institutionalcapacity
financialresources&investmentrequired
materialsbank/library/selfstudyfacilities
supportsystems(e.g.computer,networks,trainings,etc....)
classroomfacilities
humanresources
availableteachingstaff
newteacherrecruitment
useofexternalstaff
teacherselectionstrategies
teacherdevelopmentprogrammes
inservice/tutorsystems
studentselection
selectionprocedureofinhousestudents
recruitmentofnewstudentsandselectionprocedures
theCLILprogramme
curriculumintegration
timetabling
interculturalismintheclassroom
promotionofCLIL
briefingstudents
briefingparents
briefingtheinterestgroupsinthewiderenvironment
coursedescriptions
institutionalethos
TheOperationalParameter
PhaseBPuttingtheCLILprogrammeintopractice

III.TheCLILCurriculum
choiceofCLILsubjects
objectives/targetsofcoursesubject
coursesyllabusandlearner><teachernegotiation
courseoutcomepredictionsandlearner><teacheragreements
courseapproachandmethodologicalshift
interculturalaspectsofcoursedesign
schedulingofCLILsubjectcourses
timeallocation
CLILsubjects><L2teaching
 teacherinteraction&teamwork
coursematerials
availabilityofmaterials
national&internationalnetworking
selfmadematerials
materialsforselfstudypurposes

IV.TheCLILTeam
professionalroles,relationships,interactionandsupport
subjectteacher><subjectteacher
subjectteacher><L2teacher
subjectteacher/L2teacher><administration
subjectteacher/L2teacher><student
roleoftheL2teacherintheCLILcontext
inhousesupportsystemsandtutoring

V.TheCLILTeacher
L2competence
professionalrole

VI.TheCLILClassroom
learninginaL2
student><teacherrelationship
selfdirected,cooperative,andexperientiallearning
supportingthelearningprocess
tasks,assignments,selfstudy
assessment
L2threshold
selfconfidence
reducedpersonalitysyndrome
emotions
linguisticfatigue
groupdynamicsinalearnercentredbilingualenviroment
interculturaldynamics

TheOutcomeParameter
PhaseCFutureorientedness

VII.Institutional/workplacefeedingsystems
regional,localizedopportunitiesforcontinuity
cooperationwiththelocal,national,andinternationallabourmarket
cooperationwithforeigninstitutionsandEUsupportorganizations
certification

VIII.Networking:local,national,international
forumsforsharingexperienceandexpertise
 Networksystems

IX.CLILProgrammeResults
studentsL2andcontentperformanceassessment
choiceofL2
newperspectivesre:
curriculumplanning
classroompractice
institutionalorganization

2.2.1.2. StructureofProgrammes

ThedifferenttypesofInsetofferedinFinlandmeansthatthestructureofprogrammesdiffers
accordingly.Theshortcoursesmayinvolveanythingfrom1dayseminarsto4days(2+2)
spreadoveracoupleofmonthswithsomeformofassignmentworkloadtobedonebetween
meetings.Intermsofthelongercourses,12dayscontactspreadover12monthsistypicalof
theUniversityofJyvskylInsettrainingwhereteachersattendtraininginJyvskylitself.
However,therearemanyregionalspecificorinstitutionspecificcourseswheretrainersgoon
sitetoconductdifferingformsoftraining.

2.2.1.3. PracticalTraining

ItislikelythatmostInsetonCLIconductedbythedifferentuniversitiesintegratepracticaland
theoretical concerns very closely throughout training programmes. If we consider the
curriculumexampleabove(UniversityofJyvskyl)thenoneshouldbearinmindthatpractical
trainingisapredominantcharacteristicoftheentirecurriculum.However,allpracticalworkis
continuouslysupportedbyselectedandrelevanttheoreticalinput,particularlydrawingonfirst
andsecondlanguageacquisitionandotherfeaturesofappliedlinguisticssuchaspragmatics
(seeMarsland1997).

2.2.1.4. ImpactofCommunityProgrammes

Lingua/Socrates(DGXXII)hasbeenveryimportantduring19961997asanexternalsourceof
fundingandsupportforCLILInsetinFinland.Thisisnotonlyintermsofallocationoffunds
to support the mobility of CLIL Inset teachers, but also through certain publications and
directiveswhichencouragethedevelopmentofCLILEuropewide.TheEuropeanCommission
whitepaperTeachingandLearning:TowardstheLearningSociety(1995),thegreenpaper
ObstaclestoTransnationalMobility(1996),andBasicCommunicativeSkillsandCultural
KnowledgeforTransnationalVocationalPlacements(1996)areallexamplesofEUdocuments
whichsupporttheneedforrapiddevelopmenttowardsthegoalsofCLIL.Thisacuteperceieved
needtoenhancemultilingualismwiththeEUhasinitially,atleast,hadanimpactontheneedto
engageinInset.

Inaddition,EuropeanCommissionsupportfortransnationalprojectsprojectslinkedtoCLIL
have been of great significance. (For example, European Networks in Bilingual Education
organisedbytheEuropeanPlatformforDutchEducation,UniversityofJyvskyl,University
ofNottingham,MinisteriumfrSchuleundWeiterbildingdesLandesNordrheinWestfalen;
EuroCLICaEuropeanNetworkforPractitionersinCLILorganisedbytheEuropeanPlatform
forDutchEducation,UniversityofJyvskyl,UniversityofUppsala;andGepeavideoguide
toCLILleadingtoproductionofavideoentitledInterTalkPlurilingualEducationacross
Europe,organizedbytheUniversityofJyvskyl,BergischeUniversity,EuropeanPlatformfor
Dutch Education, and the University of Uppsala. are all examples of a range of Lingua
supportedprojectswhichhavehadanimpactonencouragingFinnishlanguageandcontent
specialiststobecomeinterestedinCLI.(seeBuiteveld1997,Fruhaufetal.1996,EuroCLIC
Bulletin1,1997,Masih1997)

2.2.2. NonUniversityLevel

Insetatnonuniversitylevelhasbeencarriedoutbynonuniversityorganisationssuchasthe
FinnishNationalBoardofEducationbutusinguniversityresources.Thereforefurtherattention
willnotbegivenatthisstage.

3. NEWDEVELOPMENTSINTHEAREAOFLANGUAGETEACHING
ANDLANGUAGETEACHERTRAININGINRELATIONTO
BILINGUALEDUCATION

3.1. TheNatureofSchools

InordertoexemplifynewdevelopmentsinFinnishCLI,itmaybeworthwhileexaminingthe
situation in schools as it now stands. This is because, as mentioned above, the movement
towardsCLILinFinlandhascomeaboutduetoderegulationandgrassrootsinterestinthe
potential of the method. Therefore, schoolbased CLIL activity has often preceded teacher
training,bothinitialandINSET.

AsurveyreportonCLILactivityinFinlandwaspublishedbytheNationalBoardof
Education(Nikula&Marsh1996).Thefollowingdescriptionofthetypesandrangeof
schoolsinvolvedwithCLILisdrawnfromthisreport.

Figure1 shows the distribution of CLIL activity inFinnish primary and secondary
educationasoflate1996.Thepercentagesshownationalactivityregionbyregionand
are not populationadjusted. The letters indicate the name of the district as seen in
Figure2.AseasternandnorthernFinlandarethemostsparselypopulatedareasthe
lowerfiguresdonotnecessarilyreflectlowerlevelsofactivity.Butclearlyinterestin
CLILisnotconfinedtoborderorotherwiselinguisticallyspeciallocalities.Figure2
showsthepropostionofCLILschoolsineachprovince.
Figure1.ThedistributionofCLILschoolsacrossFinland

K: 6 %

J: 7 %

I: 14 % G: 6 %
F: 1 %
H: 7 %
E: 2 %

B: 16 % C: 11 %
D: 6 %
L: 0,5 % A: 22 %

The distribution of primary and secondary schools according to the provinces is shown in
Figure3.Thereare4787mainstreamprimaryandsecondaryschoolsinFinland,ofwhich251
report CLIL activity in 1996. Clearly CLIL is not confined to the primary sector. Indeed
activityintheloweranduppersecondarysectorsisratherconsiderablebearinginmindthatthe
majorityofpupilsundergoingCLILinstructionwillnothaveundergoneitatprimarylevel.

Figure2.TheproportionofCLILschoolsineachprovince
 8

% 4

(I) Vaasa (J) Oulu

(D) Kymi (K) Lappi (C) Hme
(G) Kuopio
(A) Uusimaa
(H) Keski-Suomi (L) Ahvenanmaa
(B) Turun and P ori
Figure3.ThedistributionofCLILschoolsinFinlandaccordingtoprovinceandtype

25
56 total: 251 schools

20

41
15 u
34
% 28 l
10 p
18 18
16 16 16
5
5
2 1
0

(D) Kymi
(C) Hme (I) Vaasa (J) Oulu (K) Lappi
(E) Mikkeli (G) Kuopio
(A) Uusimaa
(H) Keski-Suomi (L) Ahvenanmaa
(B)Turku and P ori (F) P ohjois-Karjala

Figure4showstherapiddevelopmentofinterestinCLILintheperiod19901996.The
rateofincreaseisofconsiderableimportanceintermsofinitialandInsetCLILtraining.
Ifthetrendcontinuesthentherewillbeanevergreaterneedtoprovideservices to
ensurethatCLILisbeingimplementedsatisfactorily,andthiswillgenerallybeinthe
areaofInsettraining.However,ifFinlandistocontinuewithCLILactivitytheninitial
teachertrainingwillneedtoseriouslyaccommodatetheneedsofthefutureteachers.

Figure4.StartupofCLILinFinnishschools(19901996)
 35

30

25

20
%
15

10

0
primary lower secondary upper secondary
121 schools 58 schools 73 schools

Figure 5 shows that English is by far the most popular target language for CLI
instruction,particulary attheprimarylevel.However,thereissomemovement into
otherlanguages,principallySwedish/Finnish,German,FrenchandRussian.

Figure5.LanguagesusedforCLILinstruction
 100

90

80
E
70
S
60
G
% 50
F
40
R
30
o
20

10

0
primary lower secondary upper secondary

TheproportionofstudentsinvolvedwithCLILintheschoolsisshowninFigure5.
Herewecanseethatwithinagivenschool,CLILactivityisfairlymodestforinall
sectorsitgenerallyappliestolessthan20%ofthestudentpopulationwithinagiven
school.

Figure6.ProportionofpupilsinvolvedinCLIL
 90

80

70
Bilingual educa
60
less than
50
20-50% o
40
more tha
% of30schools

20

10

0
primary lower upper
secondary secondary
Figures79showwhichsubjectsaremostcommonlyusedforCLIinstructioninthe
primary,lowersecondaryanduppersecondarylevels.

Figure7.Subjectstaughtatprimarylevel(agerange712years)

environmental studies
music 52
mathematics 49
drawing 47
physical education 37
handiwork 35
religion 24
history 22
Finnish (Swedish) 17
compute studies 5
geography 2
other 25

0 10 20 30 40 50
%

Figure8.Subjectstaughtatlowersecondarylevel(agrerange1216years)
 home economics
biology
geography 21
history 18
mathematics 14
physics 10
physical education 9
chemistry 8
computer studies 8
religion 8
music 7
art 6
technical work 5
handiwork 4
philosophy 1
typing 1
Finnish (Swedish) 1
other 5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
%
Figure9.Subjectstaughtatuppersecondarylevel(1619years)

history
geography 32
biology 18
chemistry 14
psychology 14
mathematics 12
physics 11
religion 11
physical education 9
art 8
computer studies 6
music 6
Finnish (Swedish) 5
home economics 5
philosophy 4
typing 1
business studies 1
handiwork 1
technical work 1
other 8

0 10 20 30 40 50
%

ThesefiguresshowtheheterogenietyofactivityintheFinnishprimaryandsecondary
sectors. As we have seen above, the eclectism of initial and Inset teacher training
correspondstothediversityofCLILactivityintheeducationalsystem.Itispossible
thatthisdiversityislinkedtothewayinwhichderegulationhasallowedschoolsto
experimentwithCLILandthat,induecourse,aformofstreamliningwilltakeplace.
However, it is clear that this will need to be linked to directives from the Finnish
MinistryofEducationandprovisionofinitialandInsettrainingbyuniversities.

AsmentionedearlieritisevidentfromthissurveythatCLILinFinlandremainsvery
muchasubjectteachersmovementtowardslanguageratherthanalanguageteacher
shifting focus towards subject matter. We have seen growing interest being given
towardsCLILbytheforeignlanguageteachingcommunity(asseeninarticlesinthe
professionaljournal,Tempus)butthisinteresthasnotyetledtosignificantnumbersof
language teachers enrolling for Inset courses, or university faculties of education
consideringinitialtraininginthisareaforeitherlanguageorsubjectspecialists.

It may be of interest to briefly consider activity in the vocational and professional

education sectors (secondary and tertiary vocational education, and professional
educationasofferedinpolytechnics)

AreportontheseformsoftertiaryeducationwaspublishedbytheNationalBoardof
EducationinSeptember1996(Marsh,D.,OksmanRinkinen,P.&S.Takala1996).In
1995,139collegeswereinvolvedwithCLIL,withanadditional114collegesexpecting
tocommenceactivityin1996.Figure9showsthatthetypeofdiversityfoundinthe
primary and secondary sectors, can also be found in vocational and professional
education.
Figure10.CLILactivitiesaccordingtovocational/professionaleducationsector

15,9
general vocational 44,3
39,8
75,6
business & admin. 24,4

30
arts & handicrafts 46,7
23,3
46,7
home economics 46,7
6,7
25
agriculture 50 at present
25
anticipated
50
not anticipated
forestry 31,8
18,2
88,9
technical 5,6
5,6
58,3
hotel & catering 41,7

66,7
arts & communication
33,3
71,4
health care 28,6

64,3
social welfare 35,7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure11showsthat42%ofallsubjectteachersrunningCLILclassesreportedthat
theyhadundergonesomeformofInsettraining.Thisfigurecorrespondstothesituation
intheprimaryandsecondarysectorsasshowninFigure12.

Figure11.Vocationalandprofessionalteachers'participationinCLILInsettraining

no 58% yes 42%

Figure12.PrimaryandsecondaryteachersparticipationinCLILInsettraining

101 schools

training in B

language tr

92 schools

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
% of schools

3.2. NewTechnologiesandAutonomousLearning

InvestmentinnewtechnologyhasbeenratherextensiveinFinnisheducationsincethelate
1980s.Thishasmeantthatvarioustypesoflearnerdirectedmethodshavebeendevelopedto
facilitatemanyaspectsofeducation,includingtosomelimitedextentCLI.Aswillbediscussed
under developments in Inset training below, technology plays a role in the design and
implementationoftransnationalInsetcoursessuchasDIESeLLandROMEO,bothpresently
beingdevelopedthroughinternationalprojectscoordinatedbytheUniversityofJyvskyl.

3.3. InitialandInsetTraining

Romeo (Resourcing onsite modules for educational orientations) is an Inset development

programme for teacher educators in Englishmedium programmes. The rationale behind
ROMEOisthatitallowstheteachereducatorsinafacultyofeducationtheopportunityto
upgradetheirknowledgeofCLILatthesametimeasimprovinglinguisticskillsinthetarget
language, whichinthiscaseisEnglish.ROMEO complementsJULIET whichisaninitial
teachertrainingprogrammeforteachertraineesthemselvesasmentionedaboveunderinitial
teachertraining.ROMEOisanexampleofanInsetprogrammewhichbridgesthegapbetween
knowledge of what is arapidly expandinginnovative fieldandteacher trainingpractice. It
comprises six modules: initial diagnosis and design of individual study plans, general
development of language proficiency, subjectspecific language skills, CLIL and design,
impelmentationandreportingofanactionresearchprojectonthearea.ROMEOissupported
byLINGUAandcoordinatedbytheUniversityofJyvskylwithpartnersinAustria,Norway,
SpainandtheUnitedKingdom.

DIESeLL (Distance Inset for European Second language Learning) which was supported
throughLingua(19961997)isspecificallydesignedtofacilitateCLILInsettransnationally.
TheprojectedoutcomeisapilotedInsetprogramme andsetof distance learningmaterials
whichcouldbetranslatedforusewithEuropeanmajoritylanguagesorLWULT(lesswidely
usedandlesstaught)languages.StartingwithEnglishinautumn1997,DIESeLLmovesinto
German in 1998, and possibly French (subject to agreement) in 1999. The idea is that in
Europe, although models of CLIL differ considerably, there are areas of commonality and
overlapwhichshouldbesharedacrossbordersandhandledaccordingly.DIESeLLdiffersfrom
anumberofotherCLILprojectsinthatitisnotaboutoneparticularlanguage,butratheris
based on a plurilingual perspective by which different languages are actively selected as
potential target languages for CLIL teaching and learning. DIESeLL is coordinated by the
UniversityofJyvskylalongsidepartnersinSweden,NorwayandtheUK.Partnersfor1997
1998includeAustriaandtheNetherlands.

3.4. MobilityofLanguageTeacherTraineesandTrainers

MobilityofbothgroupshasbeenfacilitatedbyEUfundingand,tosomeextent,institutional
resources.

3.5. Methodology(didactics)andInnovations(OpenandDistanceLearning)

ThemostsignificantdevelopmentsreportedarethoserelatingtoprojectssuchasDIESeLLin
whichemailisusedextensivelyfacilitatingcontactbetweenInsettrainees,experttutorsand
transnationalmentors.Distancelearninghasrequiredthedevelopmentofnewmethodologiesin
allareasandthisislikelytobehavinganimpactonCLILtraining.

4. NEWNEEDSINTHEAREAOFLANGUAGETRAININGIN
RELATIONTOBILINGUALEDUCATION

4.1. InInitialTeacherTrainingprogrammes

4.1.1. AtUniversityLevel

Certain faculties of education in the Finnish university system should consider offering
programmes in which teachers could lead towards dual qualifications, that is to teach the
languageandteachthroughthelanguage.ThisiswhatJULIETaimstodoforprimaryschool
teachers. At present internationalization and CLIL are being heavily combined which is
resultingintheCLILtargetlanguagebeingEnglish.Seriousconsiderationneedstobegivento
whythisishappeningandifitisduetomarketforcessuchastheneedtoattractforeign
students(i.e.Erasmus)orreduceattritionrates,thensomeformofstrategicplansneedtobe
madebywhichtorealizeactiveconsiderationofotherlanguages.IfCLILisonlyasssociated
with English language then serious questions arise concerning linguistic diversity and the
notionofEuropeanplurilingualism.

Recruitmentofstudentsintoinitialteachertrainingprogrammesshouldbedoneonthe
basisofapplicantshavingadvancedlanguageskillsinthetargetlanguage.Itwouldbe
preferable if an applicant were to have advanced skills in more than one foreign
language.

ResearchonthesituationinFinland,andEurope,needstobedoneinordertobeableto
enhanceunderstandingofgoodpracticeforthepurposesofinitialteachertraining.In
theearlystagesanationalmentorapproachcouldbeadoptedwithwhichtotransfer
theknowledgeandskillsofpractitionersinthefielddirectlytoteachertrainees,rather
thanhavingsuchlearningmediatedthroughteachertrainerswho,mostlikely,havelittle
directexperienceofCLIL.

4.1.2. AtNonUniversityLevel

NotapplicableinFinland.
4.2. InINSETLanguageTeacherTrainingProgrammes

4.2.1. AtUniversityLevel

Competitionbetweenuniversitiesshouldnotleadtoexclusivityintheprogrammesset
up and run for CLIL. Over the next ten years, human resources suitable for CLIL
trainingwillremainlimitedandshouldbedrawnfromestablishedcentresofexpertise
suchasJyvskylforCLILinEnglishandGerman,andVaasaforSwedishimmersion.
ThereisadangerthatasCLILbecomes evermorepopular,thenUniversityprofit
makingcentreswillsetuptrainingcourseswhichmaynotbeaswellplannedorrunas
mightbethecaseintheuseofestablishedandproivenexpertise.

Inset training should receive support from central bodies such as the Ministry of
Educationasispresentlythecase.However,researchmustbesupportedwhichcanfeed
thedevelopmentalneedsofCLILandlongitudinalstudieswillberequired.Universities
shouldconsiderformingspecialinterestgroupsofstudentswhocouldconductmore
modestresearchprojects,suchasMAthese,onthearea.

TheEuropeandimensionofInsetinCLILshouldbefurthersupportedthroughnetworkingand
transnationalprojectsinwhichexpertiseisshared.

4.2.2. AtNonUniversityLevel

ThepotentialfortheprivatesectortobeinvolvedwithCLILhasbeenconsiderable
since the early 1990s when it was evident that the need for Inset would grow
considerably.TheUniversitiesshouldpenetratethemarketsinordertoensurethatsome
degree of academic standards are maintained with regard to quality of courses and
outcomes.Inaddition, withrespect tothe English language, special care shouldbe
takentoensurethatinstitutionsintheUnitedKingdomwhichprincipallyoperateas
languageschools,betheyuniversityofprivatesector,donotbecometooassertivein
Insettraining.ItistheopinioninJyvskylthatexperiencefromtheUK,itselfoneof
theleastactiveCLILcountriesintheEuropeanUnion,hastendedtobenegativeinthis
respect.

4.3. InRelationtoNewTechnologiesandAutonomousLearning
ShiftsofmethodologyoftennecssaryforCLILdirectlyencouragethedevelopmentof
autonomouslearning.Thus,autonomouslearningneedstobegivenspecificattentionin
initial and Inset training. CLIL offers transnational access thus training in new
technologiesisalsoaprerequisitefortrainingprogrammes.

4.4. InRelationtoMethodology

ThereisclearlyadegreeofmethodologicalshiftwhichoccursinCLIL(seeMarsh&Masih
1996).Guidesalongthelinesofgoodpracticestatementsshouldbecompiledaccordingto
differentmodelsofCLIL.However,furtherresearchisrequiredintomethodology.Sofarithas
beenlanguageteachingmethodswhichhavebroughtintothedomainofCLIL.Thereisaclear
needtoconsiderthesynergyemanatingfromthecombinationoflanguageandsubjectspecific
methodologies.

4.5. InRelationtotheMobilityofLanguageTeacherTraineesandTrainers

MobilityshouldnotbedirectedatvisitstoaCLILtargetlanguagenationstate.CLILexchange
wouldbepreferableiftheywerebetweenstatesinwhichbothpartieshavethetargetlanguage
asaforeignlanguage.Atthisstage,theavailabilityofnewlyqualifiedteachingassistants(as
plannedwithLingua/Socrates)wouldbeofgreatbenefitintheseearlydaysofCLIL.

4.6. InRelationtoAccreditationandECTS

Transnationalaccreditationwouldbeoptimal.thisisnotonlyintermsofteachingqualifications
butalsoevidenceoflinguisticcompetenceinatargetlanguage.However,theautonomyand
complexitiesinvolvedwithnationalteachercertificationsuggestthatagreementacrosstheEU
in this respect will not be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. However, a statement of
linguisticcompetencewhichisacceptableacrossnationalborderswouldbeanadavantagein
facilitatingtransnationalexchangeandplacement.

4.7. InRelationtoEducationalPolicy

MovestowardsderegulationhavebecomeincreasinglypopularinFinlandthroughthe
1990s. CLIL is more than merely an alternative teaching method. By adopting a
languageforthepurposesofinstructionotherthanthemothertongueofthestudents,or
nationallanguage,considerablecarehastobetakentoensurethatseriousmistakesas
regardsplanningorimplementationarenotmade.Pressuresonschoolsandcollegesto
internationalize or build profiles should not allow CLIL to be misused to the
disadvantageofstudentsorstaffalike.

REFERENCES

Buiteveld,A.1997.ReportontheConferenceonEuropeanNetworksinBilingualEducation.
EuropeanPlatformforDutchEducation,TheHague,Netherlands

European Commission 1995. White Paper, Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning
Society.DGXXII

EuropeanCommission1996.GreenPaper,TheObstaclestoTransnationalMobility.DGXXII
EuropeanCommission1996.Basic,CommunicativeSkillsandCulturalKnowledgefor
TransnationalVocationalPlacement.DGXXII

EuroCLIC Bulletin 1997. EuroCLIC Secretariat, European Platform for Dutch

Education,TheHague,Netherlands

Fruhauf, G. et al. 1996. Teaching Content in a Foreign Language: Practice and

Perspectives in European Bilingual Education. The European Platform for Dutch
Education,TheHague,Netherlands(alsoavailableinFrenchandGermanlanguages)

Hansn,SE.1994.TeachereducationinFinland.SIGMA,EuropeanLanguageCouncil

Marsh,D.,OksmanRinkinen,P.&S.Takala.1996MainstreamBilingualeducationin
theFinnishVocationalSector.NationalBoardofEducation,Finland

Marsh,D.etal.(eds)1997.DevelopmentalAspectsofPlurilingualEducation:Seminar
andFieldNotes,WorkplaceCommunication,ContinuingEducationCentre,University
ofJyvskyl,Finland.

Marsland, B. 1997. A language skills approach to teacher training for mainstream

bilingualeducation,inMarshetal.(eds)1997.

Masih,J.1997.DIESeLLAtransnationalteacherdevelopmentprogrammeinCLIL.InMarsh
etal.1997

Nikula,T.1997Terminologicalconsiderationsinteachingcontentthroughaforeignlanguage.
InMarshetal.1997

Nikula, T. & D. Marsh 1997a. Kartoitus vieraskielisen opetuksen tarjonnasta

peruskouluissajalukioissa,NationalBoardofEducation,Finland.(availableinEnglish
asLanguageandContentInstructionintheFinnishPrimaryandSecondarySectors,
Workplace Communication, Continuing Education Centre, University of Jyvskyl,
Finland)

Nikula, T. & D. Marsh 1997b. Good Practice in Content and Language Integrated
InstructionintheFinnishPrimaryandSecondarySectors(workingtitle,publishedin
October1997bytheNationalBoardofEducation,Finland)

Sajavaara, K. 1995. Language studies in higher education in Finland. SIGMA,

EuropeanLanguageCouncil.