Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Bilingualism
Do Coyle
To cite this article: Do Coyle (2007) Content and Language Integrated Learning: Towards a
Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies, International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 10:5, 543-562
Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] Date: 01 June 2016, At: 04:09
Content and Language Integrated
Learning: Towards a Connected
Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies
Do Coyle
School of Education, University of Nottingham, UK
This paper sets out to position CLIL research within the broader field of bilingual
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 04:09 01 June 2016
education in the 21st century. In considering the development of CLIL across diverse
European contexts, the author problematises the construction of a research agenda
which lies at the interface of several different fields of study. A conceptual
framework for CLIL is presented which reorientates the integration of language
and content in order to inform and develop CLIL pedagogies from a ‘holistic’
perspective. Using the 4Cs Framework for analysis, the author concludes that for
CLIL research to ‘mature’, the nature and design of the research must evolve to
identify CLIL-specific issues whilst drawing on a much wider frame of reference.
This poses a challenge for a future CLIL research agenda which must ‘connect’ and
be ‘connected’ if the potential of CLIL is to be realised.
doi: 10.2167/beb459.0
543
544 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
(Cummins, 2000: 2), some of which has led to fierce debate and controversial
policies. In his overview, he also asserts that there is ‘relevant and interpretable
research’ and in my view it is timely for CLIL researchers to explore carefully
these studies and connect with commonalities which are relevant in CLIL
contexts. There are lessons to be learned and adapted. One prominent theme
to emerge from data is the ‘form-meaning’ dichotomy. Extensive scientific
studies have resulted in, for example, a general consensus that French
immersion programmes in Canada result in differences between listening
and reading skills where many learners reach native or near-native speaker
standards, with speaking and writing skills often requiring further support
in terms of grammatical accuracy. In broad terms, this lays open the tension
between grammatical understanding and meaning-making by suggesting
that in some immersion contexts a greater emphasis is placed on semantic
processing than on syntactic processing (Kowal & Swain, 1997). Whilst
Canadian immersion differs from CLIL in significant ways such as its
approach to pedagogic doctrine, teacher supply, homogeneity of language
starting levels and socioeconomic status of learners (Marsh, 2002) none-
theless the form-meaning question resonates with similar language-content
issues in the CLIL context.
Taking account of possible ways to address the impact of form-meaning
emphasis in immersion contexts, Swain’s ‘output hypothesis’ (2000) makes the
case for a clearer ‘focus on form’ where tasks are designed to engage learners
in extensive speaking activities and to seek systematic feedback from their
peers or teachers. Similarly, ‘focused input’ requires tasks to focus on
problematic grammatical forms which are then used in meaningful situations
(Day & Shapson, 1991). Whilst there is wide agreement that learning will be
most effective when intentional language development and meaningful
content communication are combined (Pica, 2001), Mohan et al. (2001) caution
that there is insufficient recognition of the wide interpretation of the relation
between form and meaning, and between language learning and content
learning governed by different theoretical orientations.
if code is divorced from message, content is excluded; if form is divorced
from function, there is no functional grammar; if language is divorced
from discourse, there is no account of larger units of discourse . . . there
is no attempt to account for language as a medium of learning, or for
content learning. (Mohan et al., 2001: 132)
548 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
elements but rather positions content in the ‘knowledge for learning’ domain
(integrating content and cognition) and language, a culture-bound phenom-
enon, as a medium for learning (integrating communication and intercultural
understanding).
The 4Cs Framework focuses on the interrelationship between content
(subject matter), communication (language), cognition (learning and thinking)
and culture (social awareness of self and ‘otherness’). It takes account
of ‘integration’ on different levels: learning (content and cognition), language
learning (communication and cultures) and intercultural experiences.
Culture(s) permeates the whole:
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 04:09 01 June 2016
(1) Subject matter is about much more than acquiring knowledge and skills.
It is about the learner constructing his/her own knowledge and
developing skills which are relevant and appropriate (Lantolf, 2000;
Vygotsky, 1978).
(2) Acquiring subject knowledge, skills and understanding involves learning
and thinking (cognition). To enable the learner to construct an under-
standing of the subject matter, the linguistic demands of its content as the
conduit for learning must be analysed and made accessible (Met, 1998).
Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies 551
it their own’ (Mohan, 1986: 13). This has implications when the learning
context operates through L2 (Pica, 1991; van Lier, 1996).
(6) The interrelationship between cultures and languages is complex
(Byram, 2001). The framework puts culture at the core and intercultural
understanding pushes the boundaries towards alternative agendas such
as transformative pedagogies, global citizenship, student voice and
‘identity investment’ (Cummins, 2004).
Communication
Cognition
Content
which combines learning to use language and using language to learn. Whilst
the ‘C’ representing communication takes into account linguistic elements
such as grammar, it also includes a wider interpretation of communication for
learning which accommodates issues such as the use of the mother tongue and
codeswitching. CLIL includes the learning of the target language as a subject
in parallel to it being used as a vehicle for content learning. However there is
now an identified need to explore alternative approaches beyond those
embedded in grammatical progression which are commonplace in foreign
language classrooms. Such approaches to CLIL have to take into account
teaching and learning scenarios led by the content teachers, who may not be
familiar with second language acquisition theories and those led by language
teachers, who may resort to an overemphasis on linguistic form.
In the 4Cs Framework communication involves CLIL teachers and learners
in using and developing language of learning, for learning and through
learning. Applying this triptych linguistic approach (see Figure 2) marks a
shift in emphasis from language learning based on linguistic form and
grammatical progression to a more ‘language using’ one which takes account
of functional and cultural imperatives. This echoes the language across the
curriculum movement in the UK in the 1970s, which argued that all teachers
Communication
Through Of For
The Why: How to:
The What: Content Meta-cognition &
Cognition (e.g.
thinking skills) Grammar system
New knowledge
Cultural awareness
Intercultural understanding
Pluri-culturalism
are teachers of language (Bullock, 1975) and that issues of oracy and literacy
are as crucial to learning mathematics in a foreign language as understanding
a story in the mother tongue. This opens up a new avenue for exploration by
connecting CLIL to a much wider language learning and using agenda. There
are elements of this triptych which resonate with Cummin’s model for focus
on message, language and use (Cummins, 2000).
Within the 4Cs Framework, language of, for and through learning
(communication) can be represented as follows:
Language of learning
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 04:09 01 June 2016
learners themselves. This research suggests that CLIL fosters fluency rather
than grammatical accuracy.
Interestingly, promoting interactivity also has repercussions for classroom
learning cultures where learnerlearner interaction and specific scaffolded
teacher support may not be in the usual repertoire or classroom routines of
either teachers or learners.
thinking (Vygotsky, 1978), i.e. when learners articulate what they understand
then a deeper level of learning takes place. To reinforce a point made
previously, the CLIL classroom demands a level of talking, of interaction
and dialogic activity which may be different to that of the traditional language
or content classroom. According to van Lier (1996), ‘if we were to put quality
in one word, it would have something to do with participability’. In effect this
suggests that CLIL learners need language to assist their thinking and they
need to develop their higher-order thinking skills to assist their language
learning. Met (1998) makes a strong case for using higher-order thinking skills
(such as analysing, synthesising or predicting) to promote quality learning.
Students need to communicate with the teacher, one another, or texts, in
order to access or apply content. In so doing, the cognitive demand of
task requires students to call upon their existing knowledge, concepts,
skills and strategies. This strengthens the connections between the
elements of language being practised/learned and previous knowledge.
As we have seen, research indicates that strengthening and making
connections amongst concepts and knowledge increases learning and
retention. (Met, 1998: 62)
Whatever the developmental level of learners, effective learning demands
cognitive engagement. Research has shown that cognitively undemanding
work, such as copying or repetition, especially when there is little or no
context to support it, does not enhance language learning (Smith & Paterson,
1998: 1):
by actively involving pupils in intellectually demanding work, the
teacher is creating a genuine need for learners to acquire the appropriate
language.
Building on Baker’s suggestion that thinking could be considered as the fifth
skill (after speaking, writing, reading and listening), an adaptation of the
Cummins’ matrix (1984) (Figure 3) might serve as a useful audit for the
cognitive and linguistic demands made on CLIL learners. Where the language
level of learners is lower than their cognitive level, the learning environment
must take into account this mismatch through ensuring that cognitive
progression is maintained by accessing content through a lower linguistic
level (Quadrant 3) gradually working towards higher linguistic demands
(Quadrant 4). This point in particular has implications for CLIL approaches
including the scaffolding of cognitively demanding work through a range of
Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies 555
3 4
Low High
Linguistic Linguistic
Demands Demands
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 04:09 01 June 2016
2 1
media not only language. Perhaps this is one of the major challenges for
CLIL. In pedagogic terms Quadrant 2 cannot be justified, whereas Quadrant 1
may support learner progression in terms of language as content or as a
linguistic focus needed for subsequent content learning.
In terms of existing literature, I would suggest that Mohan’s (1997) work is
particularly relevant to CLIL, including content-based language learning,
second language using and systemic functional linguistics (Mohan & Beckett,
2001). He explored the basis of pedagogical thinking to support contexts
where language is used as a medium of learning rather than as the object of
learning. He identifies four points which resonate with language through
learning and serve as a useful reminder for CLIL:
. Language is a matter of meaning as well as of form.
. Discourse does not just express meaning. Discourse creates meaning.
. Language development continues throughout our lives, particularly our
educational lives.
. As we acquire new areas of knowledge, we acquire new areas of language
and meaning. (Mohan & van Naerssen, 1997: 2)
Moreover, the discourse referred to above is closely linked to the notion of
dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2005), which suggests that talk is the most
pervasive and powerful learning tool.
Talk vitally mediates the cognitive and cultural spaces between . . .
teacher and learner, between society and the individual . . . language
not only manifests thinking but also structures it, and speech shapes the
higher mental processes necessary for so much learning. (Alexander,
2005: 2)
556 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
This also raises the issue of the role of teacher questioning (and learner
response) in CLIL settings. Language through learning is central to the notion
that teacherlearner questions are a means of engaging learners cognitively
and generating new language use. This will not happen if there is a
predominance of display or closed questions posed by the teacher or if
questions are simply used to inform the teacher whether or not the learners
have understood.
The case I am making for the 4Cs conceptual framework is built on an
approach to language learning and language using which could lead to greater
transparency and a more holistic interpretation of effective learning in CLIL
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 04:09 01 June 2016
others who signpost relevant practice already in the field for critique. This
research agenda is rooted in classroom practice. Lave and Wenger (1991)
promote co-construction of theories through locating learning in communities
of practice. Building communities of practice involves cooperation, collabora-
tion and partnerships for learning. They involve content and language
teachers working together, subject and language trainers sharing ideas and
supporting classroom enquiry with networks of CLIL teachers and their
learners, working on joint curricular links. There is a shared belief that for
CLIL theories to guide practitioners, they must be ‘owned’ by the community,
developed through classroom exploration and understood in situ theories of
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 04:09 01 June 2016
practice developed for practice through practice. Holmes et al. (2002) describe
communities of practice as a form of communal constructivism:
an approach to learning in which students [teachers] not only construct
their own knowledge (i.e. constructivism) as a result of interacting in
their environment (social constructivism) but are also actively engaged
in the process of constructing knowledge for their learning community
(communal). (Holmes et al., 2001: 1)
Communities of practice suggest a widening of CLIL teaching, learning and
research repertoires which reflect the diversity of CLIL across Europe. Yet for
many teachers the role of teacherresearcher and a collegiate network for
professional discourse remains out of reach. For many teachers communal
constructivism is an unknown, an abstract which resides exclusively in the
research domain. The question remains as to how to make changes which will
encourage a more inclusive approach to CLIL research.
This responds to Alexander’s plea (2005) for transparent pedagogic
repertoires, as a prescriptive model for CLIL which spans such a wide variety
of contexts in Europe and beyond is neither desirable nor achievable. What the
Canadian and European investigations have taught us is that different kinds of
bilingual education are not an ‘all-or-nothing’ phenomenon or a reduplication
of unilingualism but instead a cline of proficiency in more than one language
towards a ‘more-or-less phenomenon’ (Baetens Beardsmore, 2007). There is
after all no single model or blueprint. Also, it must not be overlooked that
CLIL already has a growing research base. Whilst in some countries e.g.
Austria and Germany, early research data tended to focus on the linguistic
competence in CLIL, nonetheless other research themes have now emerged:
content subject competence, intercultural competence, content subject
methodologies and evaluation (Wolff, 2008). These wider research themes
resonate with the different aspects of CLIL which are represented in the 4Cs
Framework.
In this paper I have explored integrating language and content from
different perspectives. I have adopted a holistic perspective on integrating
content and language learning by focussing on a conceptual framework for
CLIL which has been developed through case study research (Coyle, 1994) and
is continually being revised and recycled by practitioners for practitioners in
communities of practice (Coyle, 2006). It has not been possible to explore all
558 The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
issues connected with integrating content and language so, for example,
mother tongue and target language use, codeswitching and language choice
have not featured in this writing, but have an important role to play. It has also
been outside the scope of this paper to address the impact of different CLIL
models or the dominance of English over other languages in CLIL.
I will conclude then that for the CLIL research agenda to work alongside
developing practice, it will be multifaceted in both design and purpose as well
as in a range of foci. I have suggested that in order to maximise the potential of
CLIL, the research agenda needs to ‘connect’ and ‘be connected’. The
following recommendations are open to discussion but if they trigger debate
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 04:09 01 June 2016
and critique then the aim of this paper will have been fulfilled.
Any future research agendas for CLIL should embrace a holistic approach,
will contribute to mapping the terrain and respond to rapid societal change
and thereby ‘connect’ and ‘be connected’ within arrange of research commu-
nities by:
(1) unifying a range of research opportunities: scientific research and
classroom enquiry, top-down and bottom-up approaches, qualitative
and quantitative;
(2) uniting a much wider field of research than is associated with language
learning per se, including learning theories, language learning theories,
intercultural and social processes and provides a lens through which
integrated learning can be interpreted;
(3) adapting a more inclusive approach to research which engages teachers
and learners, trainee teachers and trainers and other stakeholders such
as parents in co-exploring CLIL;
(4) drawing on existing research in related fields such as immersion,
bilingual education, LEP and EAL, second languages in plurilingual
settings, special educational needs, subject teaching, cross-curricular
initiatives, technology-enhanced learning;
(5) considering new emergent theories and explores them in context e.g.
Cummin’s (2005) work with transformative pedagogy;
(6) involving more practitioner researchers in articulating theories of
practice through learning communities;
(7) asserting itself as a field of research in its own right by building up a
CLIL research base, which takes account of relevant and related research
findings, applies these critically and appropriately to CLIL contexts and
goes beyond the current boundaries so that new research questions
evolve and existing ones are addressed.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Associació de Proessors i Professores d’Anglès de
Catalunya (APAC) for their encouragement to use the text of the Monograph
as a springboard for further thinking and ideas contained in this paper.
Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies 559
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Do Coyle, Visual LearningLab,
School of Education, University of Nottingham, Triumph Road, Nottingham
NG8 1BB, UK (do.coyle@nottingham.ac.uk).
References
Alexander, R. (2005) Culture, dialogue and learning: notes on an emerging pedagogy.
In International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology (IACEP) 10th
International Conference, Durham, UK, July 2005, Keynote address.
Artigal, J.M. (1991) The Catalan Immersion Program: A European Point of View. New Jersey:
Ablex Norwood.
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 04:09 01 June 2016
Kowal, M. and Swain, M. (1997) From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we
promote it in the immersion classroom? In R. Johnstone (2001) Immersion in a Second
or Additional Language at School: Evidence from International Research. Report for the
Scottish Executive Education Department.
Krashen, S.D. (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.
Kumavardivelu, B. (2001) Towards a post method pedagogy TESOL Quarterly 35 (4),
537560.
Lantolf, J. (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
Leung, C. (2005) Mathematical vocabulary: Fixers of knowledge or points of explora-
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UP] at 04:09 01 June 2016