English for Occupational Purposes: The Case for CLIL

1. English for Occupational Purposes:The Case for CLIL Associate Professor, Dr. Glenn Ole Hellekj�r Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo, Norway

2. Overview Vocational students and English Why CLIL for vocational students? CLIL in practice Pitfalls to avoid A CLIL research study

3. My point of departure Background as an English teacher, lower and upper secondary-> Norway�s first CLIL History class in 1993 Taught a number of ESP courses and done research on ESP Project coordinator for the new, Norwegian language syllabi in 2005 Teacher Educator at the University of Oslo - had to introduce lectures on vocational English Norwegian EFL instruction and teacher education have long neglected the practical and occupational aspects of English and English teaching

4. What do Dutch vocational students need to be able to do in English?

5. Needs: Reading proficiency- instructions, manuals etc? Oral proficiency for international workplaces? Academic proficiency- basis for further education? Is current EFL instruction providing this? If no, why not? Is CLIL a solution?

6. What is CLIL? CLIL � is an umbrella term describing the teaching of non language subjects � such as History, Geography or Physics � in a foreign language, with both language learning and content learning as goals. Bilingual instruction Extended language learning Content based language instruction TCFL- teaching content in a foreign language FLAC- foreign languages across the curriculum Foreign language/English medium instruction Immersion To start with then, what are we talking about? CLIL � is an umbrella term describing the teaching of non language subjects � such as History, Geography or Physics � in a foreign language, with both language learning and content learning as goals. Actually, instruction can alternate between the foreign language and the learners� mother tongue, which is why the term bilingual instruction is often used- and CLIL is still called bilingualer unterricht in Germany. In Norway, when the first mainstream CLIL classes started up in 1993, it was � and still is � referred to as bilingval undervisning. Of the many other terms I have seen used one is extended language learning� solving the problem of crowded timetables by �extending� foreign language instruction into subject matter classes. Others are content-based language instruction, teaching content in a foreign language (TCFL), and FLAC � the acronym for foreign languages across the curriculum. In European higher education � the term foreign language medium instruction � or in practice, English medium instruction � is used to refer to the thousands of university level content programs taught in a foreign language to domestic and/or foreign students. To start with then, what are we talking about? CLIL � is an umbrella term describing the teaching of non language subjects � such as History, Geography or Physics � in a foreign language, with both language learning and content learning as goals. Actually, instruction can alternate between the foreign language and the learners� mother tongue, which is why the term bilingual instruction is often used- and CLIL is still called bilingualer unterricht in Germany. In Norway, when the first mainstream CLIL classes started up in 1993, it was � and still is � referred to as bilingval undervisning. Of the many other terms I have seen used one is extended language learning� solving the problem of crowded timetables by �extending� foreign language instruction into subject matter classes. Others are content-based language instruction, teaching content in a foreign language (TCFL), and FLAC � the acronym for foreign languages across the curriculum. In European higher education � the term foreign language medium instruction � or in practice, English medium instruction � is used to refer to the thousands of university level content programs taught in a foreign language to domestic and/or foreign students.

7. The Case for CLIL Extend language instruction into other subjects Uncrowding the timetable - find room for more EFL instruction �Have your cake and eat it too?� Why CLIL? A more than good enough reason is that CLIL offers one of those rare opportunities to �have your cake and eat it too.� This is because CLIL offers a solution to the perennial mismatch between what parents, teachers, and authorities feel pupils should learn, and the time available to learn it in. In fact, the possibility of freeing up time by moving language instruction into other subjects � might in itself be good enough reason for introducing CLIL. I will, however, focus on language learning. Brinton, Snow and Wesche (1989) claim that �probably the strongest argument for content-based [bilingual] courses comes from research in second language acquisition" (p 3). This brings us to the perhaps best known proponent of language learning though acquisition, Stephen Krashen, His Input Hypothesis provided an early rational for immersion programs, and although I am sure most of you are quite familiar with it, I can mention that according to the Input Hypothesis, the main element in the language learning process, "the one essential ingredient" for language learning, is what Krashen calls comprehensible input. This can be described as linguistic input just beyond the learner�s level of competence with regard to unfamiliar vocabulary and structures, but still within their ability infer the meaning of and understand from context. This makes providing comprehensible input into one of the main tasks of the language classroom, and language production � speech or writing � the result of the building of competence from sufficient comprehensible input. Why CLIL? A more than good enough reason is that CLIL offers one of those rare opportunities to �have your cake and eat it too.� This is because CLIL offers a solution to the perennial mismatch between what parents, teachers, and authorities feel pupils should learn, and the time available to learn it in. In fact, the possibility of freeing up time by moving language instruction into other subjects � might in itself be good enough reason for introducing CLIL. I will, however, focus on language learning. Brinton, Snow and Wesche (1989) claim that �probably the strongest argument for content-based [bilingual] courses comes from research in second language acquisition" (p 3). This brings us to the perhaps best known proponent of language learning though acquisition, Stephen Krashen, His Input Hypothesis provided an early rational for immersion programs, and although I am sure most of you are quite familiar with it, I can mention that according to the Input Hypothesis, the main element in the language learning process, "the one essential ingredient" for language learning, is what Krashen calls comprehensible input. This can be described as linguistic input just beyond the learner�s level of competence with regard to unfamiliar vocabulary and structures, but still within their ability infer the meaning of and understand from context. This makes providing comprehensible input into one of the main tasks of the language classroom, and language production � speech or writing � the result of the building of competence from sufficient comprehensible input.

8. 2. Teaching to the interests of vocational students Norwegians call it �yrkesretting� Brinton, Snow & Wesche (1989), proponents of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) note that for successful language learning to occur, the language syllabus must take into account the eventual uses the learner will make of the target language, p. 3 �in its overall purpose and in its implementation, content based instruction aims at eliminating the artificial separation between language instruction and the subject matter courses that exist in most settings� p. 2 CLIL teachers are �asked to view their teaching in a new way, from the perspective of truly contextualizing their lessons in using content as a point of departure� p.2 Why CLIL? A more than good enough reason is that CLIL offers one of those rare opportunities to �have your cake and eat it too.� This is because CLIL offers a solution to the perennial mismatch between what parents, teachers, and authorities feel pupils should learn, and the time available to learn it in. In fact, the possibility of freeing up time by moving language instruction into other subjects � might in itself be good enough reason for introducing CLIL. I will, however, focus on language learning. Brinton, Snow and Wesche (1989) claim that �probably the strongest argument for content-based [bilingual] courses comes from research in second language acquisition" (p 3). This brings us to the perhaps best known proponent of language learning though acquisition, Stephen Krashen, His Input Hypothesis provided an early rational for immersion programs, and although I am sure most of you are quite familiar with it, I can mention that according to the Input Hypothesis, the main element in the language learning process, "the one essential ingredient" for language learning, is what Krashen calls comprehensible input. This can be described as linguistic input just beyond the learner�s level of competence with regard to unfamiliar vocabulary and structures, but still within their ability infer the meaning of and understand from context. This makes providing comprehensible input into one of the main tasks of the language classroom, and language production � speech or writing � the result of the building of competence from sufficient comprehensible input. Why CLIL? A more than good enough reason is that CLIL offers one of those rare opportunities to �have your cake and eat it too.� This is because CLIL offers a solution to the perennial mismatch between what parents, teachers, and authorities feel pupils should learn, and the time available to learn it in. In fact, the possibility of freeing up time by moving language instruction into other subjects � might in itself be good enough reason for introducing CLIL. I will, however, focus on language learning. Brinton, Snow and Wesche (1989) claim that �probably the strongest argument for content-based [bilingual] courses comes from research in second language acquisition" (p 3). This brings us to the perhaps best known proponent of language learning though acquisition, Stephen Krashen, His Input Hypothesis provided an early rational for immersion programs, and although I am sure most of you are quite familiar with it, I can mention that according to the Input Hypothesis, the main element in the language learning process, "the one essential ingredient" for language learning, is what Krashen calls comprehensible input. This can be described as linguistic input just beyond the learner�s level of competence with regard to unfamiliar vocabulary and structures, but still within their ability infer the meaning of and understand from context. This makes providing comprehensible input into one of the main tasks of the language classroom, and language production � speech or writing � the result of the building of competence from sufficient comprehensible input.

9. 3. Language acquisition Brinton, Snow & Wesche (1989) claim that �probably the strongest argument for content-based [bilingual] courses comes from research in second language acquisition� (p 3). What is language aquisition? Krashen - input is all that is needed Swain and others- input becomes intake when new words and structures are �noticed�

10. CLIL-an optimal situation for language acquisition �What immersion has taught us is that comprehensible subject matter teaching is language teaching -- the subject matter class is a language class if made comprehensible. In fact, the subject matter class may be even better than the language class for language acquisition. In language classes operating according to the principle of comprehensible input, the teachers always face the problem of what to talk about. In . . . [subject matter classes] the topic is automatically provided, it is the subject matter. Moreover, since the students are tested on the subject matter, not the language, a constant focus on the message is assured.� Krashen 1985, p.16 In this light, it is hardly a surprise when Krashen argues that immersion, or the CLIL content classroom, is in fact an optimum situation for language learning though acquisition. Krashen puts this as follows: What immersion has taught us is that comprehensible subject matter teaching is language teaching -- the subject-matter class is a language class if made comprehensible. In fact, the subject matter class may be even better than the language class for language acquisition. Krashen 1985:16 Krashen�s claims about the importance of comprehensible input for language learning have not been contested. However, his claim that formal language instruction is not necessary for the development of spoken and written proficiency and for grammatical correctness, that this will appear by itself as the result of sufficient comprehensible input, has been challenged by the work of Merril Swain in particular. I will return to this later. In this light, it is hardly a surprise when Krashen argues that immersion, or the CLIL content classroom, is in fact an optimum situation for language learning though acquisition. Krashen puts this as follows: What immersion has taught us is that comprehensible subject matter teaching is language teaching -- the subject-matter class is a language class if made comprehensible. In fact, the subject matter class may be even better than the language class for language acquisition. Krashen 1985:16 Krashen�s claims about the importance of comprehensible input for language learning have not been contested. However, his claim that formal language instruction is not necessary for the development of spoken and written proficiency and for grammatical correctness, that this will appear by itself as the result of sufficient comprehensible input, has been challenged by the work of Merril Swain in particular. I will return to this later.

11. Other advantages? Norway- traditional EFL instruction with its cognitive approach has failed many vocational students Using language acquisition systematically - through CLIL- can vary EFL teaching and improve language learning for vocational students who often have long histories of failure

12. What about the weaker students? Many vocational classes are very �hands on� this closeness between language and practice/objects/tasks enhances language acquisition To my knowledge vocational schools have not experienced language learning problems with CLIL classes because of the hands-on nature of many CLIL classes Students even experience success in language learning Canadian research on immersion - students with learning disabilities benefit as well

13. Subject matter learning Genesee - early immersion students and late immersion students with core French instruction throughout the elementary grades experience no lags in achievement as a result of receiving academic instruction in French. There is some evidence that late immersion students with limited prior exposure to French experience some �underachievement� in academic subjects, but that this is rectified rather quickly (p. 43). Subject matter learning Day & Shapton�s positive findings with regard to subject matter learning mentioned above are corroborated by Genesee. He sums up his results as follows: The results of standardized testing in mathematics and science indicate that early IM students and late IM students with core French instruction throughout the elementary grades experience no lags in achievement as a result of receiving academic instruction in French. These results are confirmed by locally devised achievement tests in geography, history, math and science. There is some evidence that late IM students with limited prior exposure to French experience some �underachievement� in academic subjects, but that this is rectified rather quickly (p. 43). Before continuing to foreign language learning I would like to mention a 2005 Finnish study, by Aini-Kristiina J�ppinen. It is called �Thinking and Content Learning of Mathematics and Science as Cognitional development in Content and Language Learning (CLIL): Teaching Through a Foreign Language in Finland.� Subject matter learning Day & Shapton�s positive findings with regard to subject matter learning mentioned above are corroborated by Genesee. He sums up his results as follows: The results of standardized testing in mathematics and science indicate that early IM students and late IM students with core French instruction throughout the elementary grades experience no lags in achievement as a result of receiving academic instruction in French. These results are confirmed by locally devised achievement tests in geography, history, math and science. There is some evidence that late IM students with limited prior exposure to French experience some �underachievement� in academic subjects, but that this is rectified rather quickly (p. 43). Before continuing to foreign language learning I would like to mention a 2005 Finnish study, by Aini-Kristiina J�ppinen. It is called �Thinking and Content Learning of Mathematics and Science as Cognitional development in Content and Language Learning (CLIL): Teaching Through a Foreign Language in Finland.�

14. A new Finnish study J�ppinen 2005 669 Finnish students aged 7 to 15. 335 of these were taught in English, French, or Swedish. Mathematics and Science �The main conclusion of the study is that a demanding and language-enriched environment has, in general, a positive effect on the Finnish mainstream learner�s cognitional development� (p. 163). Strictly speaking, J�ppinen�s study does not examine how well content, in this case mathematics and science, is taught in CLIL programs. Instead, it looks at cognitional development in these two subjects, that is to say the students understanding, use, and application of concepts and conceptual structures taught through a foreign language. Her sample comprises 669 Finnish students aged 7 to 15. 335 of these were taught in English; French, or Swedish. The control group was, of course, taught in Finnish. J�ppinen sums up her findings as follows: � Finnish CLIL learners seem to attain, over time, the necessary abilities and cognitional level. The main conclusion of the study is that a demanding and language-enriched environment has, in general, a positive effect on the Finnish mainstream learner�s cognitional development (p. 163). Well, lets go back over the Baltic and Atlantic for a moment and look at foreign language development. Strictly speaking, J�ppinen�s study does not examine how well content, in this case mathematics and science, is taught in CLIL programs. Instead, it looks at cognitional development in these two subjects, that is to say the students understanding, use, and application of concepts and conceptual structures taught through a foreign language. Her sample comprises 669 Finnish students aged 7 to 15. 335 of these were taught in English; French, or Swedish. The control group was, of course, taught in Finnish. J�ppinen sums up her findings as follows: � Finnish CLIL learners seem to attain, over time, the necessary abilities and cognitional level. The main conclusion of the study is that a demanding and language-enriched environment has, in general, a positive effect on the Finnish mainstream learner�s cognitional development (p. 163). Well, lets go back over the Baltic and Atlantic for a moment and look at foreign language development.

15. Foreign language proficiency Genesee - �Evaluations of late [immersion] students� French language proficiency have tended to find the same pattern of results as in the case of early total immersion students; namely, they score consistently better than [English control] students on all measures of French, and they are more likely to attain native levels of proficiency in comprehension skills and less than native levels in production skills or in their mastery of discrete aspects of French, be they phonological, lexical, or syntactic� (p. 49). Foreign language development Both Genesee and Day & Shapton, as well as most other studies I have come across, are unanimous in that all forms of immersion lead to gains in foreign language proficiency. Genesee sums up the findings of his and other studies as follows: Evaluations of late IM student�s French language proficiency have tended to find the same pattern of results as in the case of early total immersion students; namely, they score consistently better than EC students on all measures of French, and they are more likely to attain native levels of proficiency in comprehension skills and less than native levels in production skills or in their mastery of discrete aspects of French, be they phonological, lexical, or syntactic (p. 49). Foreign language development Both Genesee and Day & Shapton, as well as most other studies I have come across, are unanimous in that all forms of immersion lead to gains in foreign language proficiency. Genesee sums up the findings of his and other studies as follows: Evaluations of late IM student�s French language proficiency have tended to find the same pattern of results as in the case of early total immersion students; namely, they score consistently better than EC students on all measures of French, and they are more likely to attain native levels of proficiency in comprehension skills and less than native levels in production skills or in their mastery of discrete aspects of French, be they phonological, lexical, or syntactic (p. 49).

16. Swain�s Output Hypothesis explains that immersion students do not perform as well as they might because: Immersion students get functionally restricted input; Immersion students do not get sufficient opportunity to speak or write the foreign language; Immersion students do not get sufficient feedback on language quality; Immersion students do not get challenged to use the foreign language in increasingly demanding tasks and situations. Day & Shapton also mention that there is room for further improvement with regard to vocabulary and grammatical correctness. This brings us to Merril Swain and what has become known as the Output Hypothesis. In number of studies (1985, 1990, 1993, 2000) Swain found that immersion students do not perform as well as they might because: They got functionally restricted input; Did not get sufficient opportunity to speak or write the foreign language; Did not not get sufficient feedback on language quality; Were not required, or taught to use the foreign language in increasingly demanding tasks and situations. Unfortunately, time forces me to cut short my presentation of Swain�s research, in particular her experiments in improving language learning in immersion settings. What Swain�s research does make clear is that immersion/CLIL instruction needs the active support of formal foreign language instruction, along with the integration of language learning goals in the content classrooms, in order to enhance language learning and to develop advanced productive skills. All right, to sum up, Canadian research on immersion programs are fairly unanimous on that first language development is not harmed, nor is subject matter learning, and that students achieve high, even near native levels of receptive proficiency, but not necessarily the same levels for the productive skillsDay & Shapton also mention that there is room for further improvement with regard to vocabulary and grammatical correctness. This brings us to Merril Swain and what has become known as the Output Hypothesis. In number of studies (1985, 1990, 1993, 2000) Swain found that immersion students do not perform as well as they might because: They got functionally restricted input; Did not get sufficient opportunity to speak or write the foreign language; Did not not get sufficient feedback on language quality; Were not required, or taught to use the foreign language in increasingly demanding tasks and situations. Unfortunately, time forces me to cut short my presentation of Swain�s research, in particular her experiments in improving language learning in immersion settings. What Swain�s research does make clear is that immersion/CLIL instruction needs the active support of formal foreign language instruction, along with the integration of language learning goals in the content classrooms, in order to enhance language learning and to develop advanced productive skills. All right, to sum up, Canadian research on immersion programs are fairly unanimous on that first language development is not harmed, nor is subject matter learning, and that students achieve high, even near native levels of receptive proficiency, but not necessarily the same levels for the productive skills

17. Implications of the Output Hypothesis Input is not enough- which means CLIL is not enough without EFL support Swain, among others, claims that a word or structure is not learnt until it is noticed--> for instance by using it EFL instruction must therefore supplement and enhance language input from CLIL instruction to develop language proficiency by getting the students to use the language for increasingly demanding tasks while providing the students with feedback and support Team teaching Systematic cooperation between EFL and content classes

18. Potential pitfalls Organizing teaching and cooperation between content and EFL classes and teachers Finding enough teachers Assessment Avoiding conflicts with L1 teachers Assuring quality

19. Setting up and organizing Plan ahead- Find textbooks and learning materials Find teachers!!!! Inform all parties Whole school policy needed Staff Administration pupils and parents - must pull together

20. Teaching and organizing Start slow- Theme based modules Sheltered instruction Adjunct instruction Develop cooperation between EFL teachers and content staff Work with language learning strategies, study skills, reading skills - using a foreign language is cognitively demanding so compensate! Accept that teaching is slower to start with, that initial goals must be pared down - teach smarter Discuss assessment!

21. Teachers Do not start with too few teachers, enthusiasts get worn out Content teachers especially need language courses, classroom discourse is particularly important Remember, CLIL is hard work to start with! �Parity of esteem� is necessary in the cooperation between EFL and content teachers

22. Assessment Trials at the University of Maastricht Language Centre show that language and content teachers use different evaluation criteria. Therefore. Discuss assessment in good time!! Decide whether the target language has to be used for assessment in all CLIL subjects and learners? Receptive knowledge can be enough. My suggestion- use separate grades for content and language, or write evaluation guidelines that all parties agree upon

23. Potential quality issues Teaching without consideration for the use of a foreign language Reliance on too few CLIL teachers who feel unsupported Conflicts with L1 teachers Believing CLIL is a panacea! Do not expect near native levels of proficiency, but expect improvement Full immersion is not necessary, a few subjects will do fine!

24. CLIL research 217 students from 7 upper secondary schools (General Studies branch) 178 students had EFL instruction only, 25% Foundation Course, 17% 3 or 5 lessons in second year, 56% Advanced English Course 39 students had a single CLIL subject Modern History or Physics taught in English Tested with an IELTS Academic Reading Module (24 out of 38 points required)

27. CLIL students quickly learn to read for overall meaning, to tolerate uncertainty and vagueness Better able to adjust reading strategy to reading purpose Able to guess/deduce word meaning from context--> expanding their vocabulary in the process The same is the case for proficient readers in higher education, and for extracurricular readers