CBI and CLIL—Same but Different? - schd.ws and CLIL—Same but... · for assessment n-) Example:...

CBI and CLIL—Same but Different? CATESOL State Conference 2017, Santa Clara CA

Donna M. Brinton, Educatonal Consultant, Beverly Hills, CA 90213

©Brinton 2017 1

CBI and CLIL—same but different? Donna M. Brinton CATESOL State Conference

Educational Consultant Santa Clara, CA

Beverly Hills, CA October 19-22, 2017

Why all the confusion?

Content Language CLIL?

CBI?

A LITTLE BACKGROUND



©Brinton 2017 2

Integrated language and content teaching

A Working Definition

“… a heuristic label for a diverse group of curriculum approaches which share a concern for facilitating language learning broadly defined, through varied but systematic linking of subject matter and language in the context of learning activities”

Key Characteristics

integration of content and language teaching aims

subject matter broadly defined (e.g., themes, academic content)

adaptable to a variety of contexts (e.g., ESL/EFL, academic/vocational)

primary goal to promote language acquisition

Dav

iso

n &

Will

iam

s (2

00

1, p

. 57

)

Content-based instruction (CBI)

CBI first appears on the scene in 1986, with the publication of Mohan’s seminal volume Language and Content.

The movement has taken hold both in ESL and EFL contexts, spreading literally around the world.

Increasingly today, it is used in contexts where English functions as a lingua franca.

New “models” of CBI continue to evolve and respond to setting variables.

Gra

dd

ol (

20

06

)

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL)

1994 sees the birth of the acronym CLIL—an approach promoted through the Council of Europe for socio-political and economic reasons.

CLIL’s primary goal is to create global citizens with advanced second language proficiency.

It lends itself well to contexts where the L2 serves as a local lingua franca.

Since its beginnings, CLIL has spread rapidly throughout Western Europe and elsewhere throughout the world.

Gra

dd

ol (

2006

)



©Brinton 2017 3

English Next

English Next reports on the present status of CLIL in Europe.

The report was commissioned by the British Council and written by researcher David Graddol, a British applied linguist known for his work on global English.

It draws attention to the rapid speed of change to issues affecting English previously identified in Graddol’s report The Future of English (1997).

Gra

dd

ol (

20

06

)

Claims

English Next claims that… we are already in a new

phase in the global development of English;

this phase may signal the end of English as a foreign language;

the rise of English as a universal basic skill is not incompatible with the vision of multilingualism and linguistic diversity.

Gra

dd

ol (

20

06

)

CBI AND CLIL—SAME?



©Brinton 2017 4

CBI defined

Definition #1

“…CBI is an umbrella term for a multifaceted approach to SFL teaching that differs in terms of factors such as educational setting, program objectives, and target population but shares a common point of departure—the integration of language teaching aims with content instruction.”

Snow (2014, p. 439)

Definition #2

“[CBI is] a heuristic label for a diverse group of curriculum approaches which share a concern for facilitating language learning broadly defined, through varied but systematic linking of subject matter and language in the context of learning activities.”

Davison & Williams (2001, p. 57)

CLIL defined

Definition #1

“CLIL refers to any dual-focused educational context in which an additional language, thus not usually the first language of the learners involved, is used as a medium in the teaching and learning of non-language content. It is dual-focused because whereas attention may be predominantly on either subject-specific content or language, both are always accommodated.”

Marsh (2003)

Definition #2 “…[CLIL] is a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language. That is, in the teaching and learning process, there is a focus not only on content, and not only on language. Each is interwoven, even if the emphasis is greater on one or the other at a given time.”

Coyle, Hood, & Marsh (2010, p. 1)

Compare… CBI

CBI is an umbrella term for a multifaceted approach to SFL teaching that differs in terms of factors such as educational setting, program objectives, and target population but shares a common point of departure—the integration of language teaching aims with content instruction.

CLIL

CLIL refers to any dual-focused educational context in which an additional language, thus not usually the first language of the learners involved, is used as a medium in the teaching and learning of non-language content. It is dual-focused because whereas attention may be predominantly on either subject-specific content or language, both are always accommodated.



©Brinton 2017 5

Compare… CBI

[CBI is] a heuristic label for a diverse group of curriculum approaches which share a concern for facilitating language learning broadly defined, through varied but systematic linking of subject matter and language in the context of learning activities.

CLIL

…[CLIL] is a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language. That is, in the teaching and learning process, there is a focus not only on content, and not only on language. Each is interwoven, even if the emphasis is greater on one or the other at a given time.

SAME BUT DIFFERENT?

“Same same but different”

htt

p:/

/ww

w.u

rban

dic

tio

nar

y.co

m/d

efin

e.p

hp

?ter

m=s

ame%

20sa

me%

20b

ut%

20d

iffe

ren

t



©Brinton 2017 6

Does CLIL equal CBI? CLIL represents a response to

the specific English language needs and goals of global economies.

It aims to promote bilingualism or pluralingualism.

CLIL occurred relatively independently of CBI.

However, it clearly shares features with other forms of CBI such as immersion education, theme-based instruction, and sheltered content instruction.

Given their shared premise of integrating language and content instruction, CLIL can be considered to be a variant of CBI.

CBI

Theme-Based

Instruction

Sheltered Instruction

CLIL

Similarities: CLIL and CBI

In both CLIL and immersion/sheltered content instruction…

Students study subject matter delivered in a language other than that of their L1.

L2 acquisition occurs as a “by-product” of the rich exposure to meaningful language in the subject matter classroom.

Subject matter teachers need to be educated in methods of content delivery to L2 learners.

Instructional materials must be carefully selected with the needs of L2 learners in mind.

Key differences

driven by a language policy which embraces the development of multilingual/multicultural individuals who can function in today’s global society

exposure to L2 subject matter instruction “phased in” over time: planned, increasing with grade level

driven by educational need in settings where large numbers of school-age children speak home languages other than the language of school instruction

exposure to L2 subject matter instruction dependent on student’s entry into the school system: unplanned

CLIL Sheltered Content



©Brinton 2017 7

A current “map” of CBI

CBI

Immersion Education

Theme-Based

Sustained Content

Sheltered

EMI

Adjunct

Modified Adjunct

Simulated Adjunct

CLIL Other

Hybrids

Bri

nto

n &

Sn

ow

(2

01

7)

“HARD” VS. “SOFT” CLIL

Hard CLIL

Also known as “Type A” CLIL

Primary focus on content

Content standards apply

Taught by content instructor

Content criteria used for assessment

Dal

ton

-Pu

ffer

(20

17)

Example: L1 Spanish students enrolled in secondary school in a urban area of Madrid take a CLIL geography course taught through the medium of English. The teacher, also an L1 Spanish speaker, is a content specialist in geography and history.

Note: Hard CLIL is most similar to one-way immersion programs in the U.S. and Canada.



©Brinton 2017 8

Soft CLIL

Also known as “Type B” CLIL

Primary focus on language

Language standards apply

Taught by a language instructor

Language criteria used for assessment

Example: 12-year-olds studying English in a pilot program in three European countries do extended project work on inventions (drawn from the field of technology) over the period of 2 months. Subthemes include Inventions Through Time, Inventors and Their Inventions, and The Process of Inventing.

Bal

l, K

elly

, & C

legg

(2

01

5);

Dal

ton-

Pu

ffe

r (2

01

7)

Note: Soft CLIL is most similar to sustained content or theme-based curricula in ESL/EFL classes.

van Lier’s continuum

van

Lie

r(2

00

5)

Primary focus on language Primary focus on content

SoftCLIL Hard CLIL

ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTATION



©Brinton 2017 9

Shared challenges

L2 Proficiency

Student L2 Proficiency

Faculty L2 Proficiency

Faculty Training

Scaffolding Strategies

Language Awareness

Integrating Language

and Content

Balance of Language

and Content

Focus on Content

Focus on Language

Focus on Both

Assessment Issues

Focus of Assessment

Means of Assessing Content

Means of Assessing Language

COMPETING OR COMPLEMENTARY?

Recognizing commonalities

“As a practitioner of [CBI], I was saddened to see only very scant references to the extensive work that has been done in North America and elsewhere…. Many of the challenges described…--such as the effective collaboration of content and language faculty, the language awareness training of content faculty, means of “sheltering” content delivery for second language learners, the threshold level of English proficiency needed for participants to benefit from delivery of content through the medium of English, appropriate means of assessing both language and content in an integrated approach--are discussed at length in the literature on CBLT and could definitely inform and benefit those implementing [CLIL and EMI], both in tertiary and other settings.” [italics added]

Bri

nto

n (2

014,

p. 1

54)



©Brinton 2017 10

Seeking resolution

CLIL and CBI share the same tradition of content and language integrated instruction.

They also share many of the same implementation issues.

These two traditions have much to learn from each other.

CBI and CLIL researchers and practitioners need to recognize their similarities and create a shared research base.

THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING

Contact: [email protected]

References

Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Brinton, D. M. (2014). [Review of the book English-medium instruction at universities: Global challenges, by A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster, & J. M. Serra (Eds.)]. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(1), 151-154.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2017). Same but different: Content and language integrated instruction and content-based instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating language and content (2nd ed., pp. 151-164). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Davison, C., & Williams, A. (2001). Integrating language and content: Unresolved issues. In B. Mohan, C. Leung, & C. Davison (Eds.), English as a second language in the mainstream: teaching, learning and identity (pp. 51-70). Harlow, England: Longman.



©Brinton 2017 11

References, continued

Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English: A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century. London: British Council.

Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of English as a foreign language. London: British Council.

Marsh, D. (2003, April). The relevance and potential of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) for achieving MT+2 in Europe. ELC Information Bulletin, 9. Retrieved from: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/elc/bulletin/9/en/marsh.html

Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Snow, M. A. (2014). Content-based and immersion models of second/foreign language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 438-454). Boston, MA: Cengage/National Geographic Learning.

References, continued

van Lier, L. (2005). The bellman’s map: Avoiding the “perfect and absolute blank” in language learning. In R. M. Jourdenais & S. E. Spring (Eds.), Content, tasks and projects in the language classroom: 2004 conference proceedings (pp. 13-22). Monterey, CA: Monterey Institute of International Studies.

Abstract

The turn of this century has seen the emergence and exponential growth of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)—a dual language model involving the delivery of selected subject matter courses in the students’ second or additional language (L2) that represents a response to the multilingual needs and goals of global economies. A question often posed regards the relation between CLIL and content-based instruction (CBI), with some practitioners claiming that CLIL is a unique approach to L2 teaching while others view it as a newer prototype model of CBI. In this talk, the presenter will examine the extent to which CLIL shares features of other forms of CBI and will argue that by definition, it belongs within the CBI paradigm. She will then discuss those features of CLIL that distinguish it from other forms of CBI and will differentiate “hard” and “soft” CLIL, comparing these to their closest CBI counterpart, sheltered content instruction. Ultimately, she will show that the primary differences between CLIL and CBI have to do with the rationale underlying the two approaches, the sociolinguistic profiles of the student populations served, and the differing end goals of the programs.

CBI and CLIL—Same but Different? - schd.ws and CLIL—Same but... · for assessment n-) Example:...

Documents

Transcript of CBI and CLIL—Same but Different? - schd.ws and CLIL—Same but... · for assessment n-) Example:...