UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA

1. U B U UNIVERSITAT DE BARCELONA B T. Navés tnaves@ub.edu Dpt. Anglès. Facultat de Filologia Tel. (34) 93 403 58 66 Fax (34) 93 317 12 49 www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves/

2. I. Lang Policy in EUII. Why CLIL? III. Successful CLIL IV. Revisting impressive long-term effects of immersion programmesV. Embryonic promising but non-refined short-term research VI. Conclusions

3. I. Lang Policy in EUII. Why CLIL? III. Successful CLIL IV. Revisting impressive long-term effects of immersion programmesV. Embryonic promising but non-refined short-term research VI. Conclusions

4. UE: A1 - A2 - B1 - B2 - C1 - C2 • PISA: Most EU countries: B1 • Mobility • Two foreign languages • High command (C1/ C2) of at least one foreign language

5. EU: From B1 to C2. How? The European Commission’s (1995) White Paper. Teaching and learning. Towards the Learning Society declares that proficiency in three community languages is a priority, and suggests lowering the starting age and teaching content in a foreign language as ways to contribute to the achievement of this objective.

6. EU The European Commission’s (2005) report on foreign language teaching and learningclaims that an excellent way of making progress in a foreign language is “to use it for a purpose, so that the language becomes a tool rather than an end in itself.” (p. 9).

7. One single entry: CLIL, a EU’s mantra Reform in foreign-language learning is very slow globally, despite some imaginative initiatives, for instance, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), one of the EU’s mantras for achieving more success in foreign language learning… Phillipson (2009, p. 56) in Long & Doughty (2009) Handbook of Language Teaching. Wiley-Blackwell

8. I. Lang Policy in EUII. Why CLIL? III. Successful CLIL IV. Revisting impressive long-term effects of immersion programmesV.Embryonic promising but non-refined short-term researchVI. Conclusions

9. Solid foundations of CLIL(Muñoz, 2007 p. 25) • CLIL can provide relevant and plentiful comprehensible input, • it can facilitate the processing of meaning and form, • and provide justification and motivation for language production in the target language.

10. Solid foundations of CLIL(Muñoz, 2007 p. 25) Furthermore, CLIL presents the most enriching characteristics of the communicative approach, for example, • the use of language in appropriate context, • the exchange of information, or • involving learners in cognitive processes which are rellevant for acquisition (…).

11. Solid foundations of CLIL(Muñoz, 2007 p. 25) It is hoped that the solid foundations of CLIL will contribute to the improvement of the processes of teaching-learning languages that our multilingual aspirations require

12. SOLID FOUNDATIONSPiske (2008, p.165-166)in Piske & Young-Scholten Input matters in SLA. Clevedon. …it comes as no surprise that types of language learning scenarios such as immersion teaching (Petit, 2002; Wode, 1995, 2004), bilingual subject matter teaching, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) (Klieme et al., 2006) or task-based language learning and teaching (Ellis, 2003) are considerably more successful than traditional formfocused language learning. What these arrangements have in common is that the learner is not squeezed into a language structure, but may respond to an intellectual challenge according to her or his respective competence. Such scenarios leave space for language hypothesis testing and non-sanctioned language productionsince in these settings the focus truly is primarily on meaning.

13. Solid Foundations Dalton-Puffer Most of the arguments in favour of CLIL come from SLA research and show that CLIL (1) creates conditions for naturalistic language learning, (2) provides a purpose for language use in the classroom, (3) has a positive effect on language learning by putting the emphasis on meaning rather than form and (4) drastically increases the amount of exposure to the target language (Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2007).

14. I. Lang Policy in EUII. Why CLIL? III. Successful CLIL IV. Revisting impressive long-term effects of immersion programmesV. Embryonic promising but non-refined short-term research VI. Conclusions

15. PROGRAMMES Vs. APPROACHES & METHODOLOGIES

16. CLIL methodology? • Immersion methodology? • Bilingual education methodology? • Content-based methodology?

17. CLIL methodology? –ii-- ¿Este método [AICLE] funciona? No existe el método AICLE. Enseñar y aprender en una lengua extranjera se puede hacer de formas muy diversas. (Escobar, 2009, p. 48)

18. Programmes vs Methodology CLIL teaching methodology is just one among many other features efficient CLIL programmes have in common. The one feature which all efficient CLIL programmes share is that they are PROGRAMMES of varying length which provide, nevertheless, a substantially greater and better exposure to the target language.(Navés, 2009)

19. Naves (2009) 10 Characteristics Successful CLIL Programmes • Respect and support for the learner’s first language and culture; • Competent bilingual teachers i.e. teachers fully proficient in the language of instruction and familiar with one of the learners’ home languages; • Mainstream (not pull-out) optional courses; • Long-term programmes, stable teaching staff; • Parental support for the programme;

20. Naves (2009) 10 Characteristics Successful CLIL Programmes (6) cooperation and leadership of educational authorities, administrators and teachers; (7) dually qualified teachers (in content and language); (8) high teaching expectations and standards; (9) availability of quality CLIL teaching materials; (10) properly implemented CLIL methodology.

21. I. Lang Policy in EUII. Why CLIL? III. Successful CLIL IV. Revisting impressive long-term effects of immersion programmesV. Embryonic promising but non-refined short-term research VI. Conclusions

22. Canadian Immersion Programmes • Canadian Immersion Programmes are by far the most highly acclaimed language learning programmes. • SLA researchers, teachers and parents fully agree that the immersion programmes in Canada have been extremely efficient and successful. Instruction is given in the target language from kindergarten on or starting at some time during elementary school. (Swain & Lapkin, 1982; Swain, 2000).

23. Not all content teaching is necessarily good language teaching(Swain, 1988, p. 68) … typical content teaching is not necessarily good second language teaching. Appropriately, content teaching focusses on comprehending meaning. However, what second language learners need is to focus on form-meaning relationships. Doing so is facilitated through the production of language, whether in written or spoken form. Because the typical question/ answer sequence found in content classes tends to elicit short responses of minimal complexity from students, at least part of the content lesson needs to be substituted with activities which demand longer, more complex, and coherent language from the learners. Swain (1988, p. 68 & 81) in“Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning.” TESL Canada Journal, 6(1), pàgs. 68-83.

24. 5-10 years for immigrant stds to catch up with NS in academic language abilities (CALP) Collier’s (1987; 1989) research among middle-class immigrant students taught exclusively through English led her to suggest that a period of five to 10 years was required for students to catch up with their native-speaking peers in terms of their academic language abilities Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)

25. Limitations to L2 learning in immersion: more focus on form/s needed However, the question of whether immersion, especially ‘early’ immersion, is the best model for students in all sociocultural and educational settings has not been satisfactorily answered. Some researchers have found that there are limitations to L2 learning through subject matter teaching alone and have suggested that more direct L2 instruction needs to complement the subject matter teaching (Harley, 1989; Lyster, 1994; Swain, 1988). Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)

26. I. Lang Policy in EUII. Why CLIL? III. Successful CLIL IV. Revisting impressive long-term effects of immersion programmesV. Embryonic promising but non-refined short-term research VI. Conclusions

28. Embryonic short-term empirical research • Langé (2007:352), the empirical research on CLIL is still embryonic. • As Pessoa et al. (2007: 102) rightly argue, content-based instruction has had strong professional advocacy but has thus far not benefited from extensive research. Although a substantial amount of professional literature argues for the potential benefits of content-based instruction, limited research exists on how this type of instruction actually is appropriated, understood, and carried out in practice by foreign language teachers.

29. Empirical Research on CLIL Writing Performance: Ackerl (2006) Carrilero(forthcoming) Huttner et al (2006) Lasagabaster (2008) Loranc-Paszylk(2009) Navés and Victori (2010) Navés (in press) English Proficiency : Admiraal et al.(2006) Jiménez et al.(2006) Kasper (1997) Lasagabaster (2008) Navés and Victori (2010) Ruiz de Zarobe and Jiménez (2009) Villarreal Olaizola et al (2009) Navés (in press) Lorenzo et al. (2009)

30. How encouraging are the results? Muñoz & Navés (2007:164) examined the empirical research on CLIL in Spain and concluded that most of the results derived from comparing the foreign language achievement of learners in CLIL courses and learners in regular EFL curricula have given estimates of the gains of the former, measured in school years. BUT they also pointed out, is that, due to the nature of comparative research studies, it has not always been possible to control all the variables. More finely-grained empirical studies are needed.

31. Navés & Victori (2010)

32. Navés & Victori (2010) and Navés (in press) CLIL learners from lower grades did as well as non-CLIL learners up to three grades ahead in reading comprehension, dictation and grammar proficiency tests and in the written domains of fluency, lexical complexity and syntactic complexity

33. I. Lang Policy in EUII. Why CLIL? III. Successful CLIL IV. Revisting impressive long-term effects of immersion programmesV. Embryonic promising but non-refined short-term researchVI. Conclusions

34. CLIL vs Study abroad and out of school classes • The role of the QUANTITY and QUALITY of the input • Short-term CLIL instruction is promising but not sufficient

35. Integrating content and language provides but does not guarantee the conditions SLA suggests need to be met for successful language learning to take place. (de Graff, 2007, Muñoz, 2007, Navés, in press)

36. How promising is existing research?From B1 to C2? Not yet • Short-term CLIL instruction shows statistically significant differences in favour of CLIL learners of up two-academic years • Long-term? • Statistically significant differences = drastic relevant differences. (Navés, forthcoming)

37. MOLTES GRÀCIESTHANK YOU VERY MUCHMUCHAS GRACIAS

38. Navés (in press) ... el fet que la recerca empírica assenyali que els alumnes que han cursat una assignatura en AICLE-CLIL atrapen els companys d’un a tres cursos per davant d’ells seria molt prometedora si els nivells de competència lingüística de l’alumnat fossin molt més variats i alts, de manera que la diferència en els cursos acadèmics resultés en diferències significatives de competència lingüística. Recordem que la incitativa del Consell d’Europa per introduir AICLE-CLIL era justament aconseguir fer pujar dràsticament la competència lingüística final de l’alumnat. Si tot l’alumnat té un nivell similar, inferior al B1 europeu, els guanys que hi hagi poden ser prometedors, però no suficients des d’un punt de vista de política lingüística.

39. Navés (in press) Si, fins i tot en els millors programes, hi ha àrees a polir com el tractament de la forma en els programes d’immersió, només la supèrbia o l’agosarament cec ens portaria a pensar que els esperançadors resultats que estem obtenint a curt termini amb els cursos de què disposem de CLIL són suficients per garantir uns bons resultats a llarg termini també, que aconsegueixin finalment augmentar dràsticament a nivells molt més avançats la competència lingüística del nostre alumnat.

40. MOLTES GRÀCIESTHANK YOU VERY MUCHMUCHAS GRACIAS

41. Do we have CLIL programmes? In a review focussing on the characteristics of effective and successful CLIL programmes, Navés (2002, 2009) concluded that one of the most important characteristics was integration in a long-term, highly structured, coherent, stable programme. However, some of the features examined in this study, such as the ongoing joint effort of all parties involved, parental support, and the longevity and stability of the content subject and language teaching teams, are key aspects that we find lacking in our context. (Navés & Victori, 2010)

42. EU: Rationale and benefits USA: Research on efficient programmes …in the last two decades, while in Europe and Asia the main emphasis is still on describing the rationale and benefits of implementing content and language integrated (CLIL) approaches and methodologies, in North America the emphasis has shifted to further investigating the characteristics of efficient immersion and bilingual education programmes. (Navés, 2009)

43. Need to justify CLIL?Beliefs and prejudices The defensive attitude that can be inferred from researchers’ need to justify, time and time again, the rationale and benefits of integrating language and subject content rather than further investigating the commonalities of efficient CLIL programmes may have to do with pressure from (a) folk beliefs and prejudices against bilingualism and multilingualism and (b) political interests. (Navés, 2009)

44. The debate on BE is political “I argue (...) that the debate on bilingual education must be considered in the political contexts for two reasons: • first, the research findings on the effects of bilingual education are both abundant and clear; the common perception that research is either largely unavailable and/or inadequate is a myth generated by strong vested interests. • The second reason for examining closely the political context of the issue is that the educational changes required to reverse the pattern of language minority group school failure are essentially political changes because they involve changes in the power relations between dominant and dominated groups”. (Cummins, 1995, p. 63 in Navés, in press)

45. MOLTES GRÀCIESTHANK YOU VERY MUCHMUCHAS GRACIAS

46. FURTHER INFO

47. Miret (2009)Participants (same OA)

48. Miret (2009) Writing performance *p is significant at <.05 **p is significant at <.01

49. Miret (2009) Overall Proficiency *p is significant at <.05 **p is significant at <.01

50. Navés & Victori (2010)