Forces driving clil. david marsh. córdoba2012

Forces Driving CLIL

CEP Luisa Revuelta de Córdoba - 15 November 2012 - David Marsh

Change Agents in Fast Developing Systems & CLIL

Adopting a holistic view of education which shifts towards learner-centricity

Identifying key success factors such as equity and competence-based education involving problem-solving skills and pattern recognition

Recognising that demand for change now requires a response as significant as the setting up of basic education systems which occurred at least a century ago and that these have changed little in this time

Moujaes et al. 2012 Canada, New Zealand, Korea

Change Agents in Fast Developing Systems & CLIL

Leveraging quality through focus on creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration

Changing curricula from emphasis on what to learn towards how to learn, and activating this in rich learning environments

Recognising the relevance of the newly emerging literacies & communication with respect to the impact of technology on the lives of young people

Moujaes et al. 2012 Singapore, Finland, Australia

The Evidence-base Growing Globally since the 1960s

13

while students placed with the worst teachers regressed – their math got worse.17

Studies that take into account all of the available evidence on teacher effectiveness

suggest that students placed with high-performing teachers will progress three times

as fast as those placed with low-performing teachers.18 In every school system visited

during the benchmarking, head teachers reported variations in the amount of learning

that occurred in different classes, and those variations depended mainly on the quality

of teaching in different classrooms.

Exhibit 5: The effect of teacher quality

*Among the top 20% of teachers; **Among the bottom 20% of teachersAnalysis of test data from Tennessee showed that teacher quality effected student performance more than any other variable; on average, twostudents with average performance (50th percentile) would diverge by more than 50 percentile points over a three year period depending on theteacher they were assignedSource: Sanders & Rivers Cumulative and Residual Effects on Future Student Academic Achievement, McKinsey

50th percentile

0th percentile

100th percentile

Studentperformance

Age 8 Age 11

90th percentile

Student wit

h high-per

forming* tea

cher

53 percentile points

37th percentile

Student with low-performing** teacher

The negative impact of low-performing teachers is severe, particularly during

the earlier years of schooling. At the primary level, students that are placed with low-

performing teachers for several years in a row suffer an educational loss which is

largely irreversible. In some systems, by age seven, children who score in the top 20

percent on tests of numeracy and literacy are already twice as likely to complete a

university degree as children in the bottom 20 percent. In England, students that were

failing at age 11 had only a 25 percent chance of meeting the standard at age 14. By

age 14, the chances that a failing student would graduate with the expected minimum

set of school-leaving qualifications had fallen to just six percent (Exhibit 6). Taken

together, all the evidence suggests that even in good systems, students that do not

Enhancing Education takes Time – Finland 30 years

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Innovation Paths: CLIL vs. Standard Education

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2012 2014 2016 2018

CLIL Standard

Effects from Learning Activities – 0.40 upwards considered Significant

§ Self-reported grades 1.44

§ Formative Evaluation 0.90

§ Classroom Discussion 0.88

§ Teacher-student Relationships 0.72

§ Concept Mapping 0.60

§ Cooperative Learning 0.59

§ Visualization 0.55

John Hattie Visible Learning (2012)

Page § 7

Dimension 1 Simultaneous Pressure for Change 1990-2012

Socio-political Top-down Pressure

European Integration

Equity of Access to Languages

Educational System Transformation

Educational Top-down Pressure

Language Competences

Language-learning Performance

Educational Practices Transformation

Examining Existing Educational Practices

Content and Language Integrated Learning CLIL

Total Immersion Partial Immersion Double Immersion Bilingual Education Two-way Immersion Dual language Immersion Foreign language Immersion Heritage Language Immersion

Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol Cognitive Academic Language Learning Cross-curricular Language Teaching Content-based Language Teaching Task-based Language Instruction English as medium of Instruction English for Specific Purposes Content-based Instruction

Stability over CLIL Definitions 1994 - 2012

a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language (EuroCLIC 1994)

a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of content and language with the objective of promoting both content and language mastery to pre-defined levels (ECFT 2010)

a general term to designate different types of bilingual and immersion education (Eurydice 2012)

K-12 Current Status - Europe 2012 – 2006 (Eurydice)

39

O R G A N I S AT I O N

SECTION II – FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROVISION IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIL IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IS PART OF MAINSTREAM PROVISION IN ALMOST ALL COUNTRIES

In nearly all European countries, certain schools offer a form of education provision according to which non-language subjects are taught either through two different languages, or through a single language which is 'foreign' according to the curriculum. This is known as content and language integrated learning (CLIL – see the Glossary, Statistical Databases and Bibliography section). Only Denmark, Greece, Iceland and Turkey do not make this kind of provision.

Figure B9: Existence of CLIL provision in primary and/or general secondary education, 2010/11

Source: Eurydice.

Explanatory note CLIL provision in some schools: The practice is not necessarily widespread. For detailed information on CLIL provision in each country, see Annex 2. This figure does not cover:

x programmes provided to children whose mother tongue is not (one of) the language(s) of instruction to facilitate their integration;

x programmes in international schools.

For a definition of ‘CLIL’ and ‘pilot project’, see the Glossary, Statistical Databases and Bibliography section.

Although it exists in nearly all countries at primary and general secondary levels, CLIL is not widespread across education systems. This observation is drawn from the national information published in Annex 2, which although it does not allow strict comparisons to be made between countries, is still useful as it gives some indication about how extensive this provision is. Belgium (German-speaking Community), Luxembourg and Malta are the only countries or regions within countries in which CLIL provision exists in all schools throughout the whole education system.

In three countries, CLIL is provided only in schools operating within pilot projects. In Belgium (Flemish Community), the project, which was supposed to run from 2007 until 2010, has been extended to 2012

CLIL provision in all schools

CLIL provision in some schools

CLIL provision within pilot projects only

No CLIL provision

2012 2006

Eurydice 2006 & 2012

1

2

3

4

5

The CLIL Development Trajectory

Summarising Dimension 1

Trajectory

Professional inter-linking of language teaching with other disciplines

Parent and student expectations

Impact of competence-building on curriculum

Political integration

Simultaneous with other integrative trajectories influencing education

Dimension 2 Mainstreaming and Student Diversity

Specific Needs (often through

educational paradigm) includes migrants

students, those hospitalized,

giftedness

generally shorter-term challenges

Special Needs (often through psycho-medical paradigm) includes single or multiple disabilities, or disorders

generally longer-term challenges

Placeholder

Mainstream

Special

Specific

Significance of Scale: Special Needs

Scale of Students with Special Needs

Page § 14

Indicative Rates Around 20%

Finland 30% of all students receive special education each year NNDR 2012

Significance of Scale: Special & Specific Needs

Scale of Students with Special & Specific Needs

Indicative rates vary considerably and can be 40%+

UK 55% London primary students not having English as first language (2010) due to migration, National: 0.5m (MW 2012)

Content

Language

Stresses a Triple Focus for Teaching & Learning

The Learner

For SEN language experts cognition and student engagement is crucial

Individualizing learning paths means combining cognition, content & language as in CLIL

If everyone is percieved as the same, we don’t find the need to think about thinking

Inclusion, Innovation & Integration

Inclusion of special & specific needs students has expanded over 2000-2012 in most EU countries for different reasons

This drives the need to explore alternative ways of ensuring equity of access to language learning, accelerated access to education, and ways of de-stigmatizing certain cohorts of learners

SEN research describes research and examples of good practice where content and language are integrated

This leads to the hypothesis that an integrated CLIL approach can enhance learning outcomes for a broad range of young people, those with special/specific needs and those without

1

2

3

4

5



Trajectory

Migration and changing composite of classrooms

Recognition & diagnosis

Understanding how to overcome learning challenges leads to culture of individualized learning & implementation of solutions such as socio-constructivist holistic teaching and learning

Inclusion into mainstream classes, and equity of access to effective language learning

Cognition, thinking skills & individualized learning paths

Dimension 3 CLIL as Holistic Practices & LA

Coyle et al. 2010

Challenges, Constraints & Opportunities

In this information-rich age language awareness is an increasingly significant competence in L1 and L2

Traditional education has often led to deficit in language awareness with responsibility solely with L1 & L2 language teachers

Language teachers face major restrictions of time in the curriculum. Even if they wanted to develop language awareness time, and other constraints, are a challenge

CLIL can provide both extra time, and crucially context, for developing both L1 and L2 language awareness, if the teacher has the pre-requisite skills

1

2

3

4

5



Trajectory

Increasing access to digital information requires acute critical thinking skills

Media-rich lifestyles of young people impact on L1 and L2

Power of language awareness to promote learner autonomy

Enhanced competences in language awareness is a long-standing goal in quality language education

Interactive basis of new digital landscape strengthening case for socio-constructivist educational practices

Dimension 4 Impact of Languages on Individuals

Recent expansion of evidence-base due to research within the neurosciences

1960-1979

1980-1999

2000-2009

Est. 2012

EC 2009, plus projected

New Knowledge Driven by Innovative Research Practices

MBE: To improve the state of knowledge in & dialogue between education, biology, and the developmental & cognitive sciences

International Mind, Brain & Education Society

University of Cambridge, Centre for Neuroscience in Education

University of Harvard, Graduate

School of Education Brain

Education

Mind

OECD:CERI

Significance of Plasticity for (Languages) Education

‘Weak enough to yield to an influence, but strong enough not to yield all at once’ William James, The Principles of Psychology (1890)

The brain as adaptive and malleable and not ‘hard-wired’

cerebral architecture is heavily influenced by experiences such

as when learning at school, or immersion in a new environment

Plasticity

Brain

Mind

Athanasopoulus et al. 2010

Significance of Plasticity on Media Use

8-18 year olds – USA – hours of exposure 1999-2009

2004: Multi-tasking alongside use at

26% of time

2009: Multi-tasking alongside use at 29% of time

1999: Multi-tasking alongside use at

16% of time. 6.19 per

day 43.33 per

week

6.21 per day 43.47 per week

7.38 per day

51.66 per week

Rideout, Foehr & Roberts 2010

Core Findings on Enhancement through L2

Flexibility cognitive, affordances, interpretations, creativity, divergent and convergent thinking

Problem-solving executive function processing, attentional control

Metalinguistic awareness linguistic processing, enriched information processing

Learning memory, abstract and symbolic reasoning, innovative thinking, hypothesis formation

Interpersonal skills communicative sensibility, interactional competence, context understanding

1

2

3

4

5



Trajectory

Technological advances through fMRIs, PET, OT, and others have a major impact on understanding processes of language & thought (Ojima et al. 2010)

Advantages of using two languages on regular basis outweighs disadvantages (Bialystock 2010)

The neurocognitive mechanisms for learning the L1 have implications for learning an L2 in CLIL-type immersive environments (Morgan-Short et al. 2012)

Ideas emerging from authentic neuroscience with relevance for education (Howard-Jones 2011 )

Broad advantages from using two languages on a regular basis that support learning of other subjects (EU 2009)

Reported CLIL Provision Europe - K-12 - 2012

39

O R G A N I S AT I O N

SECTION II – FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROVISION IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIL IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IS PART OF MAINSTREAM PROVISION IN ALMOST ALL COUNTRIES

In nearly all European countries, certain schools offer a form of education provision according to which non-language subjects are taught either through two different languages, or through a single language which is 'foreign' according to the curriculum. This is known as content and language integrated learning (CLIL – see the Glossary, Statistical Databases and Bibliography section). Only Denmark, Greece, Iceland and Turkey do not make this kind of provision.

Figure B9: Existence of CLIL provision in primary and/or general secondary education, 2010/11

Source: Eurydice.

Explanatory note CLIL provision in some schools: The practice is not necessarily widespread. For detailed information on CLIL provision in each country, see Annex 2. This figure does not cover:

x programmes provided to children whose mother tongue is not (one of) the language(s) of instruction to facilitate their integration;

x programmes in international schools.

For a definition of ‘CLIL’ and ‘pilot project’, see the Glossary, Statistical Databases and Bibliography section.

Although it exists in nearly all countries at primary and general secondary levels, CLIL is not widespread across education systems. This observation is drawn from the national information published in Annex 2, which although it does not allow strict comparisons to be made between countries, is still useful as it gives some indication about how extensive this provision is. Belgium (German-speaking Community), Luxembourg and Malta are the only countries or regions within countries in which CLIL provision exists in all schools throughout the whole education system.

In three countries, CLIL is provided only in schools operating within pilot projects. In Belgium (Flemish Community), the project, which was supposed to run from 2007 until 2010, has been extended to 2012

CLIL provision in all schools

CLIL provision in some schools

CLIL provision within pilot projects only

No CLIL provision

Student Admission - CLIL Programmes - K-12 - 2012-2006

2012

2006


Status of Target Languages - K-12 - 2012-2006

2012

2006


Conclusion – The Development Trajectory

§ development has been driven by real-time pressures

§ no single blueprint for implementation or export

§  requires facing challenges and re-thinking of practices

§  strengthened by inter-disciplinary dialogue, breaking ‘silo’ mindsets, recognition of the potential of diversity, & professional capacity-building

§  further strengthened by identified generic features of good practice in educational transformation, and research on mind & brain

§  acts as open-source, different agendas, and differing approaches

§  leading to educational experience relevant to language and literacy

§  rising significance of language and literacies in education is likely to drive future development of CLIL

Thank you!

Documents

Forces driving clil. david marsh. córdoba2012