FAQs by language teachers

1. Why CLIL?
2. Which languages?
3. What if the student is not as good at languages as the other students in the classroom?
4. What are the underlying theories about language learning in CLIL?
5. Does CLIL promote this Communicative Competence we talk so much about?
6. Can CLIL be the key to dealing with cultural aspects in vocational curricula?

In many regions, young people in vocational and professional education want the opportunity to learn languages. If we accept that the ability to use other languages, even if extremely limited, is an asset for these youngsters’ working lives, then greater incorporation of language development running parallel to required subject teaching can be clearly seen as advantageous. (Marsh, Marsland & Stenberg, 2001, p. 27)

There are many youngsters who feel alienated from foreign language learning because of their earlier experience of being unable to learn vocabulary and grammar in formal language learning lessons. This is not to criticise the language teachers who, after all, may have been succeeding in doing very good job with a portion of their students, perhaps a big portion. But there remains a solid group of youngsters who leave general education without the ability to string words together in a foreign language, even though they have spent hundreds of hours undergoing language training. The questions we need to face involve either seeing these youngsters as failed language learners, or considering that with different methods things might turned out differently for them. (Marsh, Marsland & Stenberg, 2001 p. 16)

CLIL provides means to use the language actively, as a tool for real-life communication in everyday situations. This can enrich the “ordinary” language lessons and increase motivation to learn foreign languages. The central idea is to provide students with the self-confidence and hands-on skill they will need in their future working lives so that they can communicate in several languages. The students can accelerate their learning of other languages by using language as a tool in a natural and innovative way. Through CLIL language teachers can make sure that they provide an opportunity for the students to be even better equipped to face the demands of an increasingly internationalised world. (Marsh, Marsland & Stenberg, 2001,p.13)

There is continuously widespread discussion on the value of linguistic diversity in Europe. Every teacher, regardless of level, should be active in guiding learners towards appropriate language usage regardless of which particular language we are talking about! But, more often than not, in CLIL most implementation concerns languages which are so called ‘foreign’ languages, with some cases focusing on minority languages or even the majority language (as in the national language).

Many people are particularly concerned about the dominance of languages such as English, and the threats which such widespread usage can pose to their own languages. Rather than view such developments as negative and respond defensively, it is possible to view them as necessities which can bring positive potential. Young people are increasingly aware of the wider world around them and physically more trans-nationally mobile than ever before. This results in these young people wanting to develop their skills I using one or more languages other than their own. (Marsh, Marsland & Stenberg, 2001,p. 26)

CLIL is carried out in one language, but combined with the use of the language of the larger environment. A major outcome of CLIL is to establish not only competence in these two languages, but also nurture a ‘can do’ attitude towards language learning in general. So very often the CLIL language will itself only be a platform by which the student may ultimately take an interest in other languages and cultures as well. If the student has a home language which is not the language of the wider environment, then CLIL can lead to an even greater appreciation of that home language. (Marsh)

This is a question which language teachers have to face everyday and CLIL makes no exception. All people are different in ability when it comes to language command, regardless of the language. CLIL classrooms always have students with mixed abilities in terms of not only the additional language, but also other forms of knowledge and skill. One key part of CLIL methodology requires that students use the language actively with each other during the lessons so that they learn from each other. All students can benefit from CLIL, not just those that we think of as being good at languages. (Marsh)

Participating in a CLIL lesson doesn’t require a student to already have a background in the additional language, like having lived abroad or used it with family members or friends. Each CLIL class should start at a level which is suitable for the students involved. Many classes are started with the assumption that the students do not have any prior knowledge of the language. To make cognitively demanding lessons understandable for everybody calls for expertise and careful planning. This is exactly one of the reasons why there indeed is a difference between CLIL and plain “lecturing in a foreign language” approach.

There is much scientific research on how we learn languages, which now gives us greater understanding of the role of ‘acquiring language’ in relation to ‘learning language’. (Marsh)

Infants and young children can be very good at acquiring languages when they are used in the home, and this is one reason why people sometimes think that we learn languages best when we are very young. Older children and adults tend to be taught languages, usually in language learning classrooms or increasingly through computer-aided programs. Successful language learning can be achieved when people have the opportunity to receive instruction, and at the same time experience real-life situations in which they can acquire the language. (Marsh)

Even though there may be differences in how the brain works as a child grows older and becomes an adult, a key issue in ‘picking up’ languages relates to the opportunities we have for learning languages. This is where CLIL can be of interest. One reason why very young children seem so good at picking up language is often to do with the naturalness of the environment around them. A language classroom, where learners go through the often difficult process of sorting out sounds, structures, grammar or vocabulary is rarely natural. (Marsh)

What CLIL can offer to students of any age, is a natural situation for language development which builds on other forms of learning. This natural use of language can boost a student’s motivation and hunger towards learning languages. It is this naturalness which appears to be one of the major platforms for CLIL’s importance and success in relation to both language and other subject learning. (Marsh)

The term communicative competence was launched in the 1970s and has since been part of most language curricula. Language and communication are one of the most complicated aspects of human behaviour. As all language teachers know, the ability to use a language is much more than knowing its words and grammar, and speaking in perfectly formed sentences. We should all challenge the idea of waiting until I think I am good enough in the language to use the language. Rather we should use the language as a tool for communication and learning from as early a point as possible. (Marsh)

Our desire to measure success in terms of exam results and so forth, which is a basic part of school culture, sometimes blinds us to other learning qualities which can be highly advantageous for any person. It is doubtful if certain types of ‘communicative methodology’, as used in formal language instruction, genuinely result in enhancing the learning of communicative skills to any great degree.
One key factor here is ‘meaningfulness’, because the student constantly questions whether the endeavour actually is worthwhile, or only a routine. (Marsh, Marsland & Stenberg, 2001, p. 18)

Often there is an immense time pressure in language lessons to study vocabulary, grammar and so on. CLIL provides students with the ability to communicate, the so-called ‘pragmatic skills’, which enable them to do things with language. So, in a way, CLIL provides language teachers some extra time resources to teach communication skills.

It is clear that foreign language teaching in schools has not yet always brought about the sort of gains expected considering the investment made in terms of time effort and money. In other words, even if the outcomes may have been reasonable considering the amount of input given, does CLIL offer a means by which to improve levels of language learning? Although we can debate the needs and advantages to be expected from learning foreign languages, it is clear that too many students are leaving vocational and professional education institutions without having gained enough pragmatic skill in using additional languages. (Marsh, Marsland & Stenberg , 2001,p. 17)

If you provide a student with the opportunity to realise that they can manage to learn and do tasks in another language, it can provide a boost to that person’s linguistic self-confidence. This is particularly true of students who have opted for less academic educational programmes, because these students sometimes carry lower optimal self-esteem about the learning of what they have experienced as ‘academic subjects’ such as language. By converting language learning from ‘academic’ to ‘practical’ you may be able to offer a greater range of young people the ‘feel good factor’, so that they believe that ‘yes, I could manage and feel I could do even better’. (Marsh, Marsland & Stenberg , 2001,p. 28-29)….)

CLIL is a tool for intercultural learning. Expressing yourself in a language other than the mother tongue is one path towards intercultural development. However, there are few terms in current usage which are as ‘slippery’ as culture. It is a term misused by scientists and politicians alike, and it remains a term which can be understood in many different ways. The prominence of ‘culture’ in any scientific CLIL programme will depend on its overall aims. The potential for CLIL to enhance constructive ‘intercultural understanding’ may be considerable, but equally, there is a risk that over-generalisation of specified cultural traits could hinder individuals’ abilities to become more aware of the dynamics which cultural, and thus linguistic, experience may introduce in human interaction. (Marsh, Marsland & Stenberg, 2001, p.19.)

Intercultural communication is not just a matter of dealing with ‘foreigners’ or people from the ‘outside’. It is not true that communication breaks down more easily with outsiders than, for example, amongst people with similar backgrounds. Intercultural communication skill, usefully called skills of ‘situational adaptability’, is as relevant to communication within a family as that between people of different race, religion, philosophy and continents. (Marsh, Marsland & Stenberg, 2001, p. 19.)