Conceptualising CLIL: elements or principles behind features

The CLIL Quality Matrix (cf. the CLIL Compendium) is an example of an attempt to build a framework based on core elements of CLIL and a set of parameters. This “four-dimensional core framework” is formed when four core elements, i.e. Content, Language, Integration and Learning, are realised through four parameters, i.e. Culture, Communication, Cognition and Community, resulting in a matrix array with 16 indicators. Each quality indicator, e.g. that of Content-Culture, provides four brief pieces of information related to a given aspect of CLIL: an introduction, an example of application, questions, and extra information. Launched in 2006, the CLIL Matrix is

designed with the purpose of facilitating successful implementation of CLIL to achieve good CLIL practice; it is “an awareness-raising and training tool” especially for teachers (see CLIL Matrix: User guidelines, homepage).

The above elements and parameters show also in the 4Cs Framework (see Figure 1), a conceptual tool developed by Coyle, which has been applied to CLIL. It integrates four

“building blocks” or “major components” which are: Content (subject matter), Communication (language learning and using), Cognition (learning and thinking processes) and Culture (developing intercultural understanding and global citizenship) (Coyle et al. 2010: 41, 53–55; cf. Coyle 2006: 9–10). According to Coyle (2006: 9), the framework “takes account of integrating learning (content and cognition) and language learning (communication and cultures).” The abovementioned elements (four Cs) and specific contexts where integrative learning happens are seen as symbiotically interrelated (Coyle et al. 2010: 41). According to the 4Cs Framework, it is as a result of this symbiosis that effective CLIL takes place, through:

- progression in knowledge, skills and understanding of the content;

- engagement in associated cognitive processing;

- interaction in the communicative context;

- development of appropriate language knowledge and skills;

- the acquisition of a deepening intercultural awareness, which is in turn brought about by the positioning of self and ‘otherness’. (Coyle et al. 2010: 41)

Context

Context

Cognition

Culture

Context

Context

Thus, and the above said summarized, CLIL can be viewed as involving ”learning to use language appropriately whilst using language to learn effectively” (Coyle et al.

2010: 42). ‘Communication’ and ‘language’ as terms are used interchangeably.

The Language Triptych is a conceptual tool for CLIL teachers to help in planning with the purpose of linking the content and cognition with communication (see Figure 2). As described by Coyle et al. (2010: 36), the Triptych

has been constructed to take account of the need to integrate cognitively demanding content with language learning and using. It provides the means to analyse language needs across different CLIL contexts and transparently differentiates between types of linguistic demand which impact on CLIL.

The Triptych helps to analyse the CLIL vehicular language from three interrelated perspectives: language of learning, language for learning and language through learning.

Figure 2: The Language Triptych (Coyle et al. 2010: 36)

Language of learning (Coyle et al. 2010: 37, 60–61) refers to language that learners need to be able to access and deal with the knowledge and skills related to the subject matter to be learned. In order to identify the language essential for learning the content, i.e. content-obligatory language, it is useful to recognize the type of language (linguistic genre), e.g. language of music theory, the content may be linked to. Content-obligatory language means not only key vocabulary and phrases related to the content but also the specific kind of language with certain grammatical demands the learners need to use to

CLIL linguistic progression Language learning and language using Language

for learning

Language through learning Language

of learning

learn, e.g. the language of discussing, describing, defining, analysing, explaining. The demands of the content primarily dictate linguistic progression, e.g. the order and depth of the grammatical aspects of language such as past tense to be covered to enable learning. Language for learning refers (Coyle et al. 2010: 37, 62) to the kind of language needed to operate more fully and successfully in a foreign language environment. It enables learners to carry out tasks and activities such as reading, group work, writing a report. Learners need to be supported in the challenge of learning to use the language. Learning metacognitive strategies, e.g. learning to learn, reading strategies and speech acts relating to the content, such as describing or arguing, is important.

According to Coyle et al., the language for learning is likely to be “the most crucial element for successful CLIL” (p. 62). Language through learning (pp. 37, 63) is based on the principle that active involvement of language and thinking is necessary for effective learning. In CLIL settings, new language may emerge, unplanned and spontaneously, through learning as it progresses. This emerging new language, un-predetermined learner input, needs then to be “captured, recycled and developed strategically by teachers and learners” for it to become part of the learners’ repertoire helping them progress both in their content learning and language learning processes.

Apparently, the language for learning and language through learning could be also referred to as content-compatible language (p. 59).

The CLIL Matrix (see Figure 3), an adapted version from is Cummin’s 1984 model, helps in balancing linguistic and cognitive demands.

Figure 3: The CLIL Matrix (Coyle et al. 2010: 43)

2 3

1 4

LOW HIGH

LOWHIGH

Linguistic demands

Cognitive demands

According to Coyle et al. (2010: 44), the quadrant 1 with low cognitive and low linguistic demands might be a starting point to build confidence in learners but preferably only a transitory step before moving towards quadrant 2. Focusing on quadrant 2 ensures that learning is not hindered by the learners’ language levels that are often lower than their cognitive levels. Progressing in language learning while maintaining cognitive challenge helps learners to gradually move to quadrant 3. High linguistic demands might be appropriate only when focus on linguistic forms is necessary to help learning.

The four Cs of the Framework by Coyle can be regarded as the principles in CLIL (García 2009: 213; Mehisto et al. 2008: 31). These four principles should be taken into account when planning a CLIL lesson; they are behind or “drive” the six main core features and up to 30 sub-features (Mehisto et al. 29–31). The main features that a CLIL teacher should consider are: Multiple focus, Safe and enriching learning environments, Authenticity, Active learning, Scaffolding, and Cooperation (Marsh et al. 2010: 33).

Mehisto et al. (2008: 27–30) explain these main features by listing 3–6 points or sub-features for each, giving a total of 30 “core sub-features of CLIL methodology”. These are

“[e]ssential elements of good practice in CLIL and education in general”, “strategies”

that “support the successful delivery of CLIL lessons” (p. 27). While the CLIL approach is flexible and there is “neither one preferred CLIL model, nor one CLIL methodology”

(Coyle et al. 2010: 48), apparently, ideally all or as many as possible of these features should be present.

As shown above, important work has been done in attempting to define how CLIL could or should ideally look like in practice. However, while also Dalton-Puffer et al.

(2010: 284) admit that, for example with the Coyle’s conceptualisation of four Cs, “the multidimensionality of CLIL as an educational concept has been considerably elaborated”, it seems that such “expert-designed CLIL concepts” may not always be compatible with the reality of how CLIL is actually implemented in various contexts (see Dalton-Puffer et al. 2010: 6, 284–285).