For the reasons outlined in my video. And in next week’s blog post (to be posted this Sunday).

Please allow me to use your website to ask you and your many readers for help.

I’m looking at Content and Language Integrated Learning.

As you, and your readers, surely know, CLIL involves teaching a curricular subject through the medium of a language other than that normally used. Very often, as noted in the European Commission report (2010: 1) “teachers working with CLIL are specialists in their own discipline rather than traditional language teachers. ….. In many institutions language teachers work in partnership with other departments to offer CLIL in various subjects. The key issue is that the learner is gaining new knowledge about the ‘non-language’ subject while encountering, using and learning the foreign language.”

CLIL can be defined as a dual-focused educational approach where English is used for the learning of both content and language. In CLIL “various language-supportive methodolgies are used which lead to a dual-focused form of instruction where attention is given both to the language and to the content” (Coyle, et.al., 2010: 17).

The question is: “How do we go from theory to practice?”

The innovative qualities which so recommend CLIL give rise to new problems that previous syllabus designs need not confront. The most obvious questions are:

1. Who decides on the content of a a CLIL course?
2. Who teaches the CLIL course? The content expert? If so, what is the role of the language teacher? If not, what is the difference between a CLIL course and an ESP course, apart from the elaborate educational “theory” discussed in Coyle, et. al (2010) which many might dismiss, in the absence of more practical examples, as sophistry?

The obvious and essential and innovative quality of CLIL is that the content teacher and the language teacher work together. In this case, the approach has much to recommend it; but how, precisely would that work? Of course, it could work, and work very well, in principle. We can imagine any number of ways in which the language teacher could collaborate with the content teacher in each and every stage of a CLIL course, but what would be the practical implications? There are enormous implications of introducing a CLIL approach for curriculum design at a general educational level, in primary, secondary and tertiary levels. And what about those schools and institutions devoted to TESOL? Are they doomed to extinction under the force of this new approach?

Learning content-based subjects (typically subjects like geography and history) has long been distinguished from learning EFL, and much has, rightly been made of the different methods needed to teach them. We might all, accross the curriculum, agree on learner-centred approaches, on a problem-solving, task-based approach, and helping learners develop their thinking skills.

But, while history and geography are truly content-based, however innovatively its content might be pedagogically organised, EFL is a fundamentally different type of study, where content is not the focus. Learning English, to put is simply, is not a question of what you know. Learning English has often been compared to learning such skills as how to drive a car, or even swimming. Those advocating a CLT approach to language learning have emphasised the distinction between knowing what and knowing how, between “procedural and declarative” knowledge or “implicit and explicit” knowledge . The challenge for CLIL, therefore, is to find a way of combining or converging these two.

What seems to be happening is that in primary, secondary and tertiary education, “content teachers” are being encouraged to deliver their courses in an L2, often English. But what is not at all clear is how language teachers are involved. The European Community Commission for Languages (2010) gives no clarification of this crucial issue, except to say that content teachers need further training, which rather assumes that they will take care of language issues. Mehisto, et al., (2008), deal with primary education and equally seem to suppose that the content teacher will manage the language aspect. Such sources seem to be in almost complete contradiction to all the principles which define CLIL, at least as outlined above in this unit.

On a purely anecdotal level, living in Spain, I have talked to a number of directors of educational institutions where what they call CLIL courses are being enthusitically adopted With only one exception, all the “CLIL courses” that they are carrying out are being delivered exclusively by the subject teacher who is supposed to take care of the complex language components so carefully discussed by Coyle. et. al., (2010). In one case (Sweeny, 2012), EASDE (part of Ramon Llul, a private university in Barcelona) is about to launch a BA in Business Administration taught in English, which, it claims, embraces CLIL principles and methods. The teachers who will give this course will be tested for their proficiency in English and then given a 2-week course by an ELT language expert in how to deal with the languages issues which might arise. The language teachers involved have no training in, or appreciation of, CLIL.

What to do?

Best,

Geoff

References

Coyle, D, Hood, P. and Marsh, M. (2010) CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
European Commission, Languages. ( 2010) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/languages/language-teaching/content-and-language-integrated-learning_en.htm 27th April, 2012.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D. Frigols, M. (2008) Uncovering CLIL. London: Macmillan.

Klapper, J., and Rees, J. 2003. Reviewing the case for explicit grammar instruction in the university foreign language learning context, Language Teaching Research vol. 7 no. 3 285-314

This paper examines the extent to which research findings from second language and immersion programmes, concerning the efficacy of different instructional approaches, are transferable to the context of foreign language learning in British higher education. It draws on data from a four-year longitudinal study involving two experimental groups of undergraduate learners of German as a foreign language, one of which was exposed to ‘focus-on-form’ tuition, the other to ‘focus-on-forms’ instruction. The relative merits of the two approaches are assessed through analysis of proficiency gains for classroom instruction and residence abroad phases of the programme, using holistic and discrete proficiency-testing instruments. The study also highlights the effect of formal and naturalistic learning contexts on the rate and order of development of particular grammatical competencies in L2 German for the sample.

Note: Focus on form (FonF) is what I call a reactive form focus, e.g. through error correction
Focus on forms (FonFS) is what we know as a proactive, or preemptive form focus, as in PPP.

Having located it, I’ve now read the Klapper and Rees paper (I initially failed to follow your advice to search for it using Google Scholar) and I agree that it’s a very thorough study, and deserves to be taken seriously. However, I’m not sure I draw quite the same conclusions from it that you do. It’s true that the group that followed the grammar syllabus, where there was explicit attention to form, did better than the group that didn’t, when tested on grammar (there was no test of fluency, as the authors admit), but this is not necessarily an effect of the syllabus — it’s an effect of a focus on form during the actual lessons. According to the researchers, The second group received “only occasional and, generally, more incidental attention to linguistic form.”

Now, of course, if there is a grammar syllabus there is more likely to be more attention to grammatical form — and this may be one (the only one?) advantage of a grammatical syllabus. But there’s no reason that — within a more task-based/meaning focused programme — there couldn’t be consistent, even persistent, focus on grammatical form — the difference being that it is reactive rather than pre-emptive. Thus, whether or not students get a focus on form is a methodological rather than a curriculum design issue. The fact that the researchers found that the order of acquisition of grammatical structures followed its own route, regardless of the grammar syllabus, or, indeed, of the natural acquisition the students received in their third year when they went abroad, again supports the view that the grammar syllabus is a poor reflection of the natural syllabus. So, to repeat, the initial progress of one group was due to the attention given to grammar, not the grammar syllabus in itself although I admit that the attention given to grammar may have been an effect of this syllabus.

What I found most interesting about the study was the fact that given naturalistic exposure abroad the differences between the two groups evened out, suggesting that the difference between the two kinds of instruction had ultimately the same ‘priming’ effect. The authors speculate that “naturalistic exposure that builds on prior FonF [reactive focus-on-form] instruction appears to be just as effective in developing grammatical competence as FonFs [preemptive focus-on-forms] classroom-based instruction and subsequent naturalistic exposure”.

In the end, as the authors insist, there is nothing better than naturalistic exposure, especially if it has been preceded by some kind (any kind?) of instruction. In the absence of such exposure, should the classroom attempt to replicate it, or should we accept that classrooms are not conducive to the kind of communicative opportunities and massive exposure found in naturalistic conditions, and therefore revert to a strongly form-focused approach? If the latter, should this be driven by a grammar syllabus or a more meaning-focused, e.g. task-based, syllabus? If the latter, how can sufficient form focus be engineered to ensure the same gains in accuracy and complexity as in a more traditional, grammar-driven approach?

And what about fluency?

Anyway, thanks very much for pointing me in the direction of this article even if it raises as many questions as it answers. We need more rigorous longitudinal studies of this type.

As always, Scott, a great post – comprehensive and informative. This must be a must-see for all pre-service teachers who are still unfortunately taught in many quarters to be grammar machines.

LEO

The data from Klapper and Rees’ study shows – with a clarity that is remarkable for research in language teaching – that a *planned focus on form* syllabus delivered greater gains in communicative and grammatical competence than a course comprising a similar cohort, with similar general intelligence scores and previous linguistic attainment, who followed a *meaning-oriented incidental focus on forms* curriculum. The assumption underlying my position in this thread is that “emergentist” (scare quotes) teaching and learning is sufficiently similar to the latter syllabus type to be susceptible to the criticism that *planned* FonF syllabi seem to work better.

There are, of course, limitations to the conclusions that we can draw from the research. Primarily, it’s just one paper (albeit a very good one), and I know of no other research that is similar in its longitudinal tracking of learner attainment with regards to the specific syllabus and input types under discussion here. The study should – perhaps even must, given what’s at stake – be replicated. The sample size is also relatively small (n=~120) and there is little mention made of controlling for variability in the standard and style of teaching. Furthermore, the study was conducted on university-level students who had *chosen* to study German. They would have already achieved a strong B1 at the very least (a minimal A-level pass in the UK) and would have likely been at B2, with perhaps some learners even reaching C1 before setting foot on the university campus.

I would also suggest that teaching in a planned FonF syllabus is actually more flexible than in an incidental curriculum. In my experience, it’s perfectly possible and probably rather desirable for the teacher to depart from a plan to give feedback and work on immediate language concerns. Conversely, it’s impossible for a teacher following a purely meaning-focused curriculum to impose planned FonF activities without altering what the teaching and learning in the course is predicated on in a fundamental way.

I think points regarding the overall level of attainment of learners to be something of a red herring – there are, I believe, simpler explanations than inappropriate grammar curricula for the majority of learners topping out at A2 – motivation being the most immediately obvious. Most people I know are pretty good at working out what they need and want. Perhaps the majority of learners don’t attain higher levels of competence in English because they simply just don’t need to. A2 is roughly the level at which 16+ language examinations, such as the GCSE in the UK, are benchmarked. As a mandatory subject in every example I know of in compulsory education, the secondary school learner *must* take a foreign language… Post-16 qualifications often provide greater flexibility in choice, such that learners can work on subjects that are more intrinsically motivating for them.

One either learns to the level one needs to, or learns to the level one has to.

Another reason for poor attainment could well be (and I know this is a heretical statement, but I’ve spent more than half my career in Japan) poor teaching. It’s possible in this country to end up a fully-tenured professor of English at a state-sponsored university without ever *once* being observed in practice, or receiving any feedback on teaching outside of unreliable end-of-semester student evaluations which only four or five of thirty students usually bother to complete. This is also achievable without once ever entering into any kind of training with an assessed practicum – true for both foreign and Japanese teachers of English. Obviously, different countries have different standards. Nevertheless, there are thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of English teachers around the world who probably shouldn’t be in a classroom. The blind leading the blind is, arguably, the rule rather than the exception.

It is obvious that poor textbooks abound. As I said in my initial post, the teacher must be critical when using a pre-planned text, as it does not – indeed *can* not – take the learners into account. One could argue that it is the role of the teacher. to do so.

Before blaming pedagogical grammars, shouldn’t we at least attempt to account for other factors?

Scott

Seriously, though, you make a very good point, and it set me to wondering where this prolonged and cumbersome induction process derives from. Basically it seems to go back to the situational approach of the 1960s, where short situations would be set up which generated several examples of the target structure. The whole thing took up about as much space on the page as a large postage stamp (from Trinidad and Tobago, say) — see, for example, Robert O’Neill’s classic English in Situations (OUP, 1970) and the associated coursebook, Kernel Lessons (Longman 1971), which, as the name implies, really did consist of bite-sized language presentations, each of which would take about five minutes manoeuvring-time, from start to finish.

What seems to have happened then, with the advent of the communicative approach, was a certain embarrassment about full-frontal grammar presentations, even those disguised as generative situations. Somehow, the grammar had to be nested or embedded within a teaching sequence which resembled a task-based one, involving, for example, a succession of tasks and texts. Teachers and learners were kidded into thinking they were doing a task, but, as you rightly suggest, the whole elaborate stage machinery was directed at the inductive ‘discovery’ of the structure of the day. The teacher’s management skills were directed, not at managing learning, but at managing grammar — in the mistaken belief that the latter equates with the former.