CLIL SP3 – Year One Report

1. CLIL SP3 – Year One Report www.lanqua.eu

2. Term ??? • CBI = Content-based language instruction • Discipline-based language teaching = HE version of content-based language instruction • EMILE = Enseignement de Matières par l'Intégration d'une Langue Etrangère = French version • FSsA (Fremdsprachen als Arbeitssprachen) = German version • Education through a Vehicular Language = In use in Italy • Bilingual Education • BIT = Bilingual Integrated Teaching • MLAC = Modern Languages across the Curriculum • L2 medium instruction • EMI = English-medium Instruction • TCFL = Teaching content through a foreign language • DSMLE = Discipline-specific Multilingual Learning and Education

3. Redefining ‘CLIL’ !!! • TOWARDS MULTILINGUAL COMPETENCE

4. Preliminary Questions ??? • What are the reasons for implementing CLIL? • Is there a planned/staged-out approach to CLIL implementation? • At what levels of education is CLIL mostly practiced (e.g. BA, MA, PhD, CPD)? • Are these full-size L2 mediated programmes or modules offered systematically? • What subjects/domains are most likely to take up CLIL? • How are learning outcomes defined? Are learning outcomes specified for both language and content? • How is CLIL delivered (e.g. contact hours, blended learning, e‑learning options)? • Is there coordination between language-specialists and subject-specialists (e.g. joint planning of syllabus and learning outcomes, team teaching)? • How are students’ needs dealt with? Is there any language support offered to students prior or during the content courses? • How are educators’ needs dealt with? Is there any language support offered to subject-specialists? Is there any content-related support offered to language-specialists?

5. Why? • To attract national and international students, i.e. positioning of higher education institution within the national and international context; • To enhance the institutional profile; • To promote plurilingualism: social, citizenship, intercultural competence, employability; • To develop in graduates the necessary competitive edge; • To open new possibilities on the job market, i.e. enhance employability; • To raise money, i.e. financial issues; • To develop economic and cultural collaboration with other countries through Governmental Agreements; • To promote future academic/ research/ professional networking; • To develop intercultural expertise; • To develop the European dimension.

6. Where? • Private and public Higher education • Schools of Law, Schools of Economics, Schools of Medicine and Schools of Humanities • BA – generally courses/modules not full programmes • MA – full programmes (mainly)

7. How? •  in many ways 

8. FROM NON-CLIL TO CLIL (in second/foreign language mediated higher education) LANQUA/CLIL Anne Räsänen / 2008 • - no concern for language learning, other agendas • no (pedagogical) collaboration btw any teachers • e.g. visiting experts giving individual lectures • incidental, unsystematic, limited exposure (<25%) NON- CLIL

9. FROM NON-CLIL TO CLIL (in second/foreign language mediated higher education) LANQUA/CLIL Anne Räsänen / 2008 LSP / Discipline- Based Language Teaching • - language specialists providing discipline- • specific language teaching to support learning • no (systematic) collaboration with subject • specialists, language teacher chooses materials • possible power plays, role formation NON- CLIL

10. FROM NON-CLIL TO CLIL (in second/foreign language mediated higher education) LANQUA/CLIL Anne Räsänen / 2008 PRE-CLIL (language) - pre-sessional teaching of language, discourse, academic practices etc. to support students’ learning in the content course/programme that follows - possible collaboration between teachers -language learning outcomes specified according to content learning needs LSP / Discipline- Based Language Teaching NON- CLIL

11. FROM NON-CLIL TO CLIL (in second/foreign language mediated higher education) LANQUA/CLIL Anne Räsänen / 2008 PRE-CLIL (content) PRE-CLIL (language) • - courses/programmes provided • systematically by subject specialists • to mixed, multicultural and • multilingual groups (>25% exposure) • language learning expected due to • exposure, but no specified outcomes; • often implicit aims and criteria • - collaboration possible, but rare LSP / Discipline- Based Language Teaching NON- CLIL

12. FROM NON-CLIL TO CLIL (in second/foreign language mediated higher education) LANQUA/CLIL Anne Räsänen / 2008 ADJUNCT- CLIL PRE-CLIL (content) • - language support • coordinated with/ • integrated in • subject studies and • takes place • simultaneously • joint planning and • specified outcomes • and criteria for both • content and language PRE-CLIL (language) LSP / Discipline- Based Language Teaching NON- CLIL

13. FROM NON-CLIL TO CLIL (in second/foreign language mediated higher education) LANQUA/CLIL Anne Räsänen / 2008 CLIL ADJUNCT- CLIL • -fully dual • approach • and full • integration • across • subject • teaching • by subject • specialist • or via team • teaching PRE-CLIL (content) PRE-CLIL (language) LSP / Discipline- Based Language Teaching NON- CLIL

15. Anomalies !!! • English as a lingua franca •  CLIL objectives ignored • Minority language of instruction •  CLIL objectives ignored • Specialists language programme •  CLIL objectives ignored

16. Assessment of Students ??? • Entry level • Exit level • Are content and language aims defined and properly considered in the assessment? • What forms of assessment are used (e.g. formative, summative, self‑assessment, peer-assessment)? • What criteria of assessment are used? • Is there a joint system of assessment, with both assessors on the board or is the assessment split between content and language? • What weighting is there for content and language? • Are the results of the assessment expressed in grades and ECTS credits? • Are there any exemption procedures from the assessment? • What is the function of the entry level for the final assessment?

17. Quality Assurance ??? • Are there external Quality Assurance Mechanisms (national: QA bodies/agencies, international: ISO standards)? • Are there internal Quality Assurance Mechanisms (e.g. institutional, faculty, programme level)? • What are the areas of QA (e.g. staff competences, student competences, infrastructure, curriculum panning, etc.) • Is there a coherent institutional language policy including CLIL issues? Is it applied? • Is evaluation by peers practiced? Is there any washback effect? • Is evaluation by students practiced? Is there any washback effect?

18. Challenges and Forecasts !!! • Political, financial, institutional and even academic issues may stand in the way of appropriate CLIL development. • HOWEVER: • Awareness of CLIL will improve throughout Europe • Decisions taken should be informed decisions rather than ad hoc decisions

19. Year TWO: THE PLAN • Case Studies • Delivery • 1. Luxembourg, University of Luxembourg – multilingual context • Student support (quality of thesis) • 2. Finland, University of Jyväskylä- learning outcomes and assessment in the CLIL adjunct model • QAM • 3. Italy, University of Trento – support for content teachers • Learning Outcomes

20. Year TWO: OUR PLAN  • QUESTIONNAIRES • To management team • To content teaching staff • To language teaching staff • To students • STEPS • 1. Piloting (May-June 2008) • 2. Final draft + translation (Nov.-Dec 2008) • 3. Survey (Jan. – April 2009) • in person • electronic • 4. Analysis (partially electronic) (April – May – June 2009) • additional case study-type information • learning outcomes

21. PILOTING: MANAGEMENT • Q: Are there any aims for language and communication development for these courses or programmes? • A: No • Q: Are subject knowledge and communication/ skills both assessed • A:'No, only knowledge skills are assessed explicitly. An assessment of communication skills would make no sense. '

22. PILOTING: TEACHERS • We need TWO questionnaires: • 1. for content teachers • 2. for language teachers • Q: Are there any postgrad programs or specialized seminars that would prepare instructors to teach their courses in a different language? • Q: Should instructors be encouraged to travel and spend time in the nation where that language is spoken before they begin to use it in the classroom? • Q: Do you think the quality standards (and outcomes) of your subject are going to be affected by the fact that you’ll be using a different language? If so, to what extent? • Q: Are there any aims for language and communication development for these courses or programmes?

23. PILOTING: TEACHERS • Q:In your experience, would it be beneficial for (local and international) students to have (additional) language support (before the course or at the same time)? • A:Yes, that would be certainly the case. However, I noticed that the curriculum of the students is already very intensive and one should perhaps try not to overburden them with work. • Q:How would you rate your didactic performance in teaching a course in a foreign language? • A:Overall, I think my didactic performance was adequate. It took some time at the beginning for me and the students to get in tune. I had to modify my approach and method during the course. When teaching in Italian, I tend not use power point presentations and I allow much time to discussions with the students. Teaching in English I always went through a power point presentation so as to be sure that at least the words on the screen were understood by everybody. • Q: If you have international students in class, does this affect your teaching? • A: A multicultural/multilingual class makes it easier in that the teacher and the students are forced to use the vehicular language. The alternative would be a class of native speakers of Italian who speak English to each other. That's a bit awkward. All of the students, and myself as well, are constantly exposed to the temptation of reverting to the mother tongue. When foreign students are there that becomes impossible.

24. PILOTING: STUDENTS • Q: What programme taught in a foreign language are you enrolled in? How do you find it? • A:'In the general course the lector had to switch to German to explain difficult things in more detail, so he hadn´t good skills in the foreign language. The other course was a specific English course which was perfectly structured and performed.' • Q: How do you describe your foreign language level in the language of instruction? • A: I think my English is ok. I get the message every time and can communicate with everyone. When I didn’t get the right phrases I sometimes just go on with the German word and it seems to be no problem for the teacher and the other listeners. • Q: Do you hold any language certificates? • A:'I am sorry no certificates. Once we had the chance in school but since that time no further offering.‘ • Q:How do you find the language and communication skills of your teacher? • A: The English skills of my teacher in my English course were very good. For me he talked like a native …The lector in the other course, I was enrolled, was weak. Everyone recognized that he had to teach in English for the first time. So it was hard to listen to the speech, but sometimes it was really funny! • Q: . Do you think that teaching through a foreign language requires different pedagogical skills from teaching through the local language? • Comment:'4.2 has to do with pedagogical skill that we students are not entitled to know and discuss about'

25. Year TWO: MEETING IN FINLAND • Dates: 28, 29 May • Agenda: • Analysis of questionnaires • Detailing of Case Studies • Drafting of learning outcomes

26. ON WITH THE WORK