CLIL an Ecological Approach

8/8/2019 CLIL an Ecological Approach

1/9

CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the Field (http://www.icpj.eu/?id=21) 164

What has Ecology to do with CLIL? An Ecological Approach inContent and Language Integrated Learning

Heini-Marja Jrvinen

Department of Teacher EducationUniversity of Turku (Finland)

Abstract

This article discusses the role of the ecological approach in language and content integratedlearning (CLIL). The ecological theory of (language) learning emphasizes the significance ofcontext in learning. In this view, context is the primary provider of affordances that mediatecognition by means of artifacts, such as language. On the cognitive view, context is a secondaryresource of the linguistic input that is operated by the acquirers cognitive mechanisms. The

practical implications of the views of language as a dynamic system and language learning as adynamic, non-linear, unpredictable and ongoing process in the ecological classroom arediscussed.

Keywords: ecological theory, ecological approach, cognitive approach, CLIL, affordance,context

Introduction

In spite of - or more likely due to - the popularity and spread of educational approaches whichcombine the teaching of content and language, there are a number of models beingimplemented ranging from full-blown immersion to occasional language showers. Classroomlevel implementation, or teaching to be more precise, is likely to be inspired by both languageteaching (e.g., communicative methods) and by content-specific pedagogies. Similarly, learningtheories in general, language learning theories, and research into relevant content learning alllikely impact on classroom practice.

We know that the study of learning is a complex endeavour and that it is probable that acomprehensive account of how learning takes place may never be completely developed. Aswell, the perspectives we adopt in our attempts to understand learning will vary over time.Looking at current research into (language) learning, it seems that the emphasis has shiftedfrom the study of cognition (with the exception of researching brain function through the new

technologies) to the study of context (Firth & Wagner, 1997). We are now living in a post-modern, post-method era, looking at learning as a socio-culturally defined phenomenondetermined by the social and cultural macro context and taking place in a socially, culturally andecologically determined micro context, for example, in the classroom. For some scholars, theshift from the internal to the external means that the locus of learning is entirely outside ofthe individual (the source of learning is the learners interaction with the context), for others theinteraction is the resource of learning and the role of the cognitive resources is important. Thisarticle will focus on the external factors; on the ecological approach.


2/9

Disclaimer

The European Commission maintains this website to enhance public access to information about itsinitiatives and European Union policies in general. Our goal is to keep this information timely and accurate. If

errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them.However the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the information onthis site.

This information is:

of a general nature only and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particularindividual or entity;

not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date;

sometimes linked to external sites over which the Commission services have no control and for whichthe Commission assumes no responsibility;

not professional or legal advice (if you need specific advice, you should always consult a suitablyqualified professional).

Please note that it cannot be guaranteed that a document available on-line exactly reproduces an officiallyadopted text. Only European Union legislation published in paper editions of the Official Journal of theEuropean Union is deemed authentic.

It is our goal to minimize disruption caused by technical errors. However some data or information on our sitemay have been created or structured in files or formats that are not error-free and we cannot guarantee thatour service will not be interrupted or otherwise affected by such problems. The Commission accepts noresponsibility with regard to such problems incurred as a result of using this site or any linked external sites.

This disclaimer is not intended to limit the liability of the Commission in contravention of any requirementslaid down in applicable national law nor to exclude its liability for matters which may not be excluded underthat law.


3/9


An ecological approach: affordance

Let us start with exploring one of the key concepts in ecological theory - affordance. Take amoment and look at the picture (Figure 1). Then list some of the possible associations of thepossible uses of what you see in the picture.

Figure 1. Pared de Lajas 6905 - Valles SLP Mxico 2007 (photographer: Lucy Nieto)

The picture may have invoked a variety of associations and possibilities of action. Theseassociations are some of the affordances of the object, i.e. they express the relationship that the

viewer has to the object in the picture.

The term affordance was construed by J.J. Gibson (1979) as a concept in the theory ofperception. For Gibson, affordance is a property of the object, invariant and independent of theviewers perceptions of the object and it is immediately perceptible without mediation of anykind. For example, a chairs affordance is sitting (sit-on-able) and this affordance remains theproperty of the chair. The perception of a chair is enough; no language, cognitive or realmediation is necessary for the affordance of the chair. The same goes for other everydayobjects, such as door handles. There may be cultural differences, but most people familiar withwestern, especially Anglo-American culture, would know what to do with the object in Figure 2,whereas the message conveyed by the picture in Figure 3 is mixed. This is due to the physicalaffordances of the object that are invariant and that we have become accustomed to actingupon. The handle triggers the pulling reaction, which is in contradiction with the text.


4/9


Figure 2. Door Knob (photographer: Ren Ehrhardt)http://www.flickr.com/photos/rene_ehrhardt/page5/

Figure 3. Picture: http://www.iqcontent.com/blog/2007/01/the-usability-of-garda-doors/

So far, the discussion has mostly dealt with the original definition of affordances, i.e., physicalaffordances (Gibson 1979).However, there are researchers, who allow for artefacts (such aslanguage) to mediate between the object and the perception. Thus, it is possible to view amediated affordance as learning, not solely as immediate perception. The focus of this article isto discuss the potential implications of the ecological approach for integrated content andlanguage learning.

An ecological approach: language

The ecological approach to language is based on characteristics of ecology, i.e. ecology is

holistic, dynamic and interactive, and situated (Garner & Borg 2005). In contrast to cognitiveviews on language learning, which perceive language learning as a uniform cognitive process,the ecological approach views language as a dynamic and complex system with a great deal ofindividual variation in individual progress (Larsen-Freeman, 2006). Table 1 compares cognitive


5/9


approaches to second language learning with ecological approaches. The latter place moreemphasis on the context than the former and are thus relevant when looking at languagelearning in the framework of an ecological theory of learning. The two approaches arecompared in terms of context, interaction and the learning of conceptual content, threedimensions that are crucial in content and language integrated learning.

Table 1. Context, interaction and learning of language and content as reflected in cognitive andecological approaches to content and language integrated learning (modified on the basis ofJrvinen 2008)

Cognitive approaches Ecological approaches

Context is the source of input.

Language learning is receivingcomprehensible input (Krashen, 1982).

Context is the source of learning

(ecological theory, sociocognitive approach).

Interaction is negotiating meaning & form.

Appropriate questions (referential questionscause more interaction than direct questions),and feedback (extended IRF, elicitation,recasts, Lyster, 2007: 93ff) promoteinteraction.

Interaction takes place on many levels:dynamic (sub) systems (DST), learner andcontext. Interaction in the zone of proximal(ZPD) development results in internalization(=learning) (Vygotsky, 1986).

Content-specific language (concepts) isnecessary for content learning (CALP,Cummins, 1991). Scaffolding (Bruner, 1990) isused to add support (context) to conceptual,

context-free objects of learning.

Thinking skills & related language (Mohan &Beckett, 2003), content-specific discourses(ESP).

Scientific concepts learning throughaffordances and/or in ZPDs is the startingpoint, then these internalized concepts areused to form new ZPDs at a practical level.

(Vygotsky, 1986).

The cognitive perspective (Table 1) emphasizes the relationship of cognitive invariables andlinguistic processes in learning. Context is seen as a relatively passive resource, whereas theecological approach focuses on the primacy of context and individual variation in learning.

The following quote (Swain, 2006: 95 - 96) illustrates the difference between the cognitive andthe ecological emphases, and in particular, the re-shaping of cognition by means of language.In Swains terms, the cognitive is emphasised in output and the ecological in languaging.Swains term output refers to her Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985), which states thatchallenging language production (spoken output) is necessary for language learning beyond theintermediate level.

1

For some time now, I have been searching for a word that puts the focus in secondlanguage learning on producing language, but which does not carry with it the conduitmetaphor (Reddy 1979, see SWAIN, 2006: 96) of output. Output is a word that evokesthe image of language as a conveyer of a fixed message (what exists as thought).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"!The Output Hypothesis was a counter-reaction to Krashens Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1982)

which claimed that rich input was what was needed for successful language acquisition.!!

!


6/9


Output does not allow at all for the image of language as an activity that when aperson is producing language, what he or she is engaging in is a cognitive activity; anactivity of the mind. Individuals use language to mediate cognition (thinking).

The word that replaced output is languaging. For Swain, languaging means not only the role oflanguage as a conveyer of meaning, but also, and in particular, the role of an agent in the

making of meaning (Swain, 2006:96), which involves mediating cognition, that is, articulatingand transforming thinking into an artifactual form, e.g. language. As a practical example oflanguaging, Swain quotes a study of biology students learning about the human circulatorysystem. The students in the study were advised to explain aloud to themselves in their ownwords the meaning of each sentence that they read, whereas the control group had been askedto read the article several times silently to themselves. The experimental group, thelanguaging group, developed a more profound and prolonged understanding of the circulatorysystem than the control group (Swain, 2006: 97).

The ecological perspective views the (rich) context either as the source of learning or as aprominent resource of learning. The learning (of language) emerges from the affordances andactivities (activity theory), such as language use and interaction at the many levels shown inTable 1.

Let us next focus on language learning in an ecological framework. Table 2 below compares thecognitive perspective to language learning with an ecological one. The implicit assumptionunderlying language teaching is that language learning is linear, takes place in prescribedstages, is relatively stable and fixed, relies primarily on the cognitive mechanisms forconstruction and the products of the learning are implemented in communicative activities.Language proficiency can be described as communicative competence, which consists ofsubcomponents, such as discourse and pragmatic competences.

The ecological perspective views language learning as a process, the course of which cannotbe predicted, because there is ample individual variation. The process is a dynamic one,containing phases of rapid progress and stages with seemingly very little development. Thelearning process is holistic and complex: no subprocesses or subcompetences are discernible,

and the locus of the learning is in the social context yet still supported through cognition. Therelationship between the learner-participant and the context defines the affordances and theresulting learning. Learning is actualised in action, (based on substantive and meaningfulcontent born out of context), and rather than communicative competence, the emergingcompetence can be called symbolic.

Table 2. Cognitive and ecological approaches to L2 language learning (modified on the basis ofvan Lier, 2002, Garner & Borg, 2005, Larsen-Freeman, 2006, Kramsch &Whiteside, 2008)

Cognitive approach Ecological approach

Goal =L1 competence, normative, prescriptive No pre-set goal of language learninginterlanguage=dynamic system, !L1

Product Process

Linear Non-linearFixed Dynamic

Coherent Complex

Stable Emergent

Global Situated

Analytic Holistic

Cognitive Social

Input Affordances

Output Languaging

Communicative competence Symbolic competence

Communication Action


7/9


The content and language integrated classroom provides an ecological environment for thelearning of content and language. Such an integrated context is rich with opportunities forlearning (Atkinson, 2002), or to use the terminology of the ecological approach: the contextprovides a number of affordances, (i.e. relationships between the learners and the context),which the learners then use within the limits of their resources.

What can function as affordances?

In content and language integrated teaching and learning, the affordances are necessarilymediated and rely on both learner and teacher participation. Knowing that affordances areavailable and learnable as part of the subject matter and as part of the learners resources andher/his activity and action on the available affordances, it is likely that learners tend to vary intheir use of affordances in the ecological context. An addition to the variation, unpredictabilityand situations of ecological learning comes from the dynamic and highly individual nature oflanguage learning (dynamic systems theory).

Research into affordances has focused on studying corpus tools (Hafner & Candlin, 2007),gaming (Starosky & Salies, 2008), teachers feedback (Wible et al., 2003), collaborative

dialogue (Swain, 1997), first language support (Swain & Lapkin, 2000), and affordances createdwithin the zone of proximal development (namely, microgenesis, Gnem Gutirrez, 2008). Interms of methodology, classroom activity that fosters student participation, action, critical andcreative thinking is likely to create affordances that are facilitative for learning. In CLIL contexts,an important source of affordances is provided by the subject matter itself. Content-specificaffordances, such as subject-specific thinking and related thinking skills, subject-specific genresand registers, offer unique opportunities for fostering learning. These dimensions need to beidentified as affordances and used to facilitate learning, or transformed to pedagogicalimplementations when necessary.

What ecological theory has to do with CLIL: opportunities and challenges

Ecological theory as a framework for learning in CLIL brings about an enhanced emphasis onthe learning environment. Context with its affordances provides the learner with learningopportunities to be mediated and internalized by the learners cognitive mechanisms. Oneimportant artifact to be used in mediation is language. Cognition is thus situated. As CLILcontexts and affordances vary and the learners interaction with the available affordancesvaries, what we have is a highly individual dynamic process of learning.

For a teacher working in CLIL, simple awareness of the implications of ecological theory mayinvolve a wider, deeper and more accurate understanding of available affordances and learningactivities that are going on in the classroom. The application of ecological theory in CLIL is likelyto bring about more versatile ways of providing affordances, in particular becoming aware ofand identifying content-specific thinking and the ways in which this thinking is languaged. In

sum, the ecological approach provides a more active, less mechanical, more dynamic and lesslinear option to learning both language and content in CLIL classrooms.

It is apparent from the background of the ecological approach that it is not a method with fixedtechniques to be applied immediately in the classroom. Rather, it is a theoretical framework thatcan inform the choice of classroom level applications. This means that a teacher who wishes toadopt the ecological approach in teaching needs some creativity, initiative and effort. It is to behoped that both ongoing (see e.g. Nikula 2002, 2005; Dalton-Puffer 2007) and future researchinto ecological learning will lead to practical applications as well as help understand learningand teaching in an ecological framework.


8/9


References

Atkinson, D.: 2002, Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition, TheModern Language Journal86, 525545.

Bruner, J.S.: 1990,Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Cummins, J.: 1991, Conversational and academic language proficiency in academic context.AILA Review8, 75 89.

Dalton-Puffer, C.: 2007, Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL)classrooms. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Firth, A. and Wagner, J.: 1997, On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamentalconcepts in SLA Research, TheModern Language Journal81, 285 300.

Gnem Gutirrez, A.: 2008, Microgenesis, Methodand Object: A Study of Collaborative Activityin a Spanish as a Foreign Language Classroom,Applied Linguistics 29, 120 148.

Garner, M. and Borg, E.: 2005, An ecological perspective on content-based instruction, Journalof English for Academic Purposes 4, 119134.

Gibson, J.J.: 1979, The ecological approach to visual perception. : Houghton Mifflin, Boston,MA.

Hafner, C. and Candlin, C.: 2007, Corpus tools as an affordance to learning in professional legaleducation, Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6, 303-318.

Jrvinen, H.-M.: 2008, Learning contextualized language: implications for tertiary foreign-medium education, in E. Rauto and L.Saarikallio (eds.), Foreign language medium studies intertiary education: principles and practices. Vaasa University of Applied Sciences. Tutkimuksia1/2008, Vaasa.

Kramsch, C. & Whiteside, A.:2008, Language Ecology in Multilingual Settings. Towards aTheory of Symbolic Competence,Applied Linguistics 29, 645-671.

Krashen, S.: 1982, Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press,Oxford.

Lantolf, J.P.: 2000, Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Larsen-Freeman, D.: 2006, The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral andwritten production of five Chinese learners of English,Applied Linguistics 27, 590619.

Lyster, R.: 2007, Learning and teaching languages through content. A counter-balancedapproach. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Mohan, B. and Beckett, G. H.: 2003, A functional approach to research on content-basedlanguage learning: recasts in causal explanations, The Modern Language Journal87, 421 432.

Nikula, T.: 2002, Teacher talk reflecting pragmatic awareness: A look at EFL and content-basedclassrooms, Pragmatics 12, 447 468.

Nikula, T.: 2005, English as an object and tool of study in classrooms: Interactional effects andpragmatic implications, Linguistics and Education 16, 27 58.

Starosky, P. and Salies, T.G.: 2008, How a deaf boy gamed his way to second languageacquisition: Tales of intersubjectivity, Simulation & Gaming39, 209-239.


9/9


Swain, M.: 1985, Communicative Competence: Some Roles Of Comprehensible Input AndComprehensible Output In Its Development, In S. M. Gass And C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input InSecond Language Acquisition.Rowley, Ma, Newbury House.

Swain, M.: 1997, Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning, RevistaCanaria de Estudios Ingleses 34, 11532.

Swain, M.: 2006, Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second languageproficiency, in H. Byrnes (ed.),Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday andVygotsky, (95 - 108). New York, Continuum.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S.: 2000, Task-based second language learning: The uses of the first

language, Language Teaching Research43, 25174.

van Lier, L.: 2002, An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics, inC. Kramsch, (ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: ecological perspectives.Continuum, New York.

Vygotsky, L.S.: 1986, Thought and language.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Wible, D., Kuo, C.-H., Liu, A. and Lin, H.-L.: 2003, Bootstrapping in a language learningenvironment, Journal of Computer Assisted learning. 19, 90-102.

Documents

CLIL an Ecological Approach