Читать книгу: «Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A Methodology of Bilingual Teaching», страница 7

4.4 The Two Tales of CLIL

Not least because of its conceptional openness, CLT remains the main methodological basis of foreign language teaching and clustering the key elements of linguistic, socio-linguistic, pragmatic and strategic competences these basic tenets are part of the CEF and transferred into national curricula and educational standards. In this respect, both teaching foreign languages and bilingual programs found a convincing common ground, because these two approaches towards language learning aim at the same objective—enabling intercultural learning (chapter 6.6).

Drawing on the practices of CLT does not only support CLIL programs overall but also enhances their linguistic dimensions. Bilingual teaching is based on the target language as a means of communication in the CLIL classroom and the transfer of main contents in the respective subject matters. Therefore, and backed by recent research to be outlined accordingly, intercultural competence as the bracket between the two approaches of teaching languages, TEFL and CLIL, is working both ways in an innovative manner. Innovation occurs on at least five levels: the fusion of content and linguistic skills opens new perspectives—always a CLIL tenet of first degree- , authentic learning environments and material originate in CLT, widening the scope of content by including, for example, literature of the target countries (cf. Literary CLIL in chapter 7), support of foreign language learning through discourse competence and subject-specific registers, new impulses for the content subjects by including target country references, requirement for an integrative teaching methodology, as teaching a content subject does not follow the traditional linguistic progression (adapted from Wolff: 2011).

Whether there are “two tales of CLIL” (Bonnet 2012: 67), “killing two birds with one stone” (Dallinger et al. 2014: 123) or at least a “double focus” on skills and knowledge in this approach has been the object of extensive research, which seems to be still ongoing and with findings pointing in different directions3. In the line of research no less than eight aspects were examined, covering the CLIL domains of language teaching, subject specific knowledge and intercultural learning. Initially undertaken by trained linguists, issues of foreign language learning were paramount at first without looking more closely at the didactics of any one content subject, so that CLIL more often than not was presented as another method of language instruction, innovative at any rate (cf. Wolff: 2011) and being the most frequent “selling point” of CLIL; a consensual finding was the very positive influence of bilingual programs on foreign language competence in general. But more recent research projects show a more diversified result in different areas.

In sum and as already mentioned, the generally positive influence of CLIL on language competence was confirmed at an early stage already; the second aspect provides the explanation in that

regular foreign language teaching is often more concerned with an explicit focus on grammar, whereas CLIL is more concerned with implicit grammatical knowledge, which is acquired in the process of exchanging subject-specific information (Breidbach 2019: 8).

Furthermore, the structural selectivity of CLIL programs has an impact of the students’ achievements and, in more detail, CLIL learners’ accuracy in written texts is significantly higher than those of non-CLIL students, the same applies—as far as lexical scope and fluency are concerned—to oral tasks.

The fifth dimension of research is concerned with language awareness and the favorable prospects of multilingualism and learners’ attitudes. A further perspective is presented by looking at CLIL as an independent teaching approach instead of pondering its added value; this does not automatically lead to higher quality learning but is considered a turnaround in research. On a different note, the motivation of CLIL-learners is confirmed as being high and constant while the non-CLIL group’s motivation seems to drop over time. Finally, and pointing at differences to minor and major English courses, CLIL settings cause learners to take a reflective view of content matter and the cultures behind the target language. (cf. Breidbach 2019: 9).

The earlier dominance of a linguistic research emphasis was abandoned in favor of an integrated focus on L2 development in combination with subject-specific competences showing a less conclusive picture of advantages, disadvantages and CLIL-added-value: “In the German discourse, the CLIL approach is often criticized from the perspective of non-language subject teachers, who fear substantial negative influences on the learners’ subject matter competences and their literacy development” (ibid.). Different forms of knowledge (later on referred to as Higher and Lower Order Thinking Skills (LOTS and HOTS, chapter 6.7), however, have different and corresponding realizations in language varying between undemanding, every-day and demanding, academic discourse. This is particularly relevant to one of the central CLIL-objectives, intercultural learning, which “does not mean the comparison of two whole entities, but rather the creation of a more or less ‘complete’ and sufficiently differentiated picture from various perspectives” (ibid.: 11) and would culminate in communicative activities within a “Third Space” (Klewitz 2020: 116, see also: chapter 6.6). Without following static concepts of culture and target language nations, this third space can actively be created and pursued by international contacts through pupil exchange programs and, at the university level, by connecting with collaboratory and advisory networks, as practiced at Göttingen University:

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is presented in the continuum of authentic topics and language instruction. Students will be able to familiarize themselves with current concepts and design and implement individual teaching units that will then be evaluated during the course work. A variety of topics include social issues, market economies and the media (beginners, intermediate), political issues, economic growth and ecological problems (intermediate), as well as multiculturalism, international relations and globalization (advanced). A special focus will be on oral examinations and presentations as required in the final exams of the Abitur. The teaching units to be developed will draw particular attention to learning strategies involving discontinued texts, graphs and tables and using the dynamics of scaffolding to bridge the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD, Vygotsky/Bruner). Written course work will explore criteria to design further examples of authentic CLIL tasks and topical research across the curriculum. During the course we will link up with projects in Australia and New Zealand (www.visiblelearningplus.com) and the Northwestern University of Chicago (www.icollaboratory.org/projects).4

The ”two tales of CLIL” refer to practicing foreign languages and studying content subjects, “killing two birds with one stone” to a possible added value in contrasting language related concepts in the literal meaning of bilingual programs—frequently quoted examples are shifts in meaning when looking at twin-terms changing their cultural connotations from L1 to L2, such as “Völkerwanderung” to “Barbaric Invasion”, “Siebenjähriger Krieg” to “French and Indian War”, “Erster Weltkrieg” to “The Great War”, “Christliches Abendland” to “Western Civilization” (for further examples cf. Wildhage 2003: 81). These differences in terminology are a major reason why CLIL-students might find it difficult to verbalize concepts like the ones quoted above in their L2. Whereas the functional language competence of CLIL-leaners in their L2 has been established repeatedly in comparison to a non-CLIL control group (DESI: 2008), advantages in subject-matter competence are only based on thinner evidence. Thus, the aim remains to integrate the domains of language and subject-matter knowledge within an innovative foreign language teaching approach. (cf. Bonnet 2012: 69)

Any critical analysis of CLIL confirms the difficulty of achieving a balance of language and content, especially because some scholars now consider CLIL in largely curricular terms. But as one of the most representative and seminal scholars of CLIL points out “there is a lack of cohesion around CLIL pedagogics. There is neither one CLIL approach nor one theory of CLIL” (Coyle 2008: 101, quoted in Cenoz 2013: 245). In “the continuum from content-driven to language driven instruction” (ibid.: 248) the key building block of bilingual programs remains content, often considered its innovative element (cf. Wolff: 2011), while the use of the target language (L2) is a contentious issue, as far as the inclusion of L1 is concerned. Although difficult to establish in concrete numbers due to changes in teacher training, a majority of CLIL instructors are subject specialists without formal qualifications in foreign languages. And part of this circumstance is the fact that CLIL is more often taught in Europe whereas immersion programs are more frequent in Canada and the US (see: 5.2 & 5.4). But since bilingual programs tend to pursue improved methods of language instruction, not least because of the need for deeper content analysis and differentiating terminological concepts, there is a tendency to follow a “bandwagon effect” and fall for the “evangelical picture” (cf. Heinemann 2018: 13) of this teaching approach. Critics have pointed out that “a concept associated with unrealistic hopes can be quickly sidetracked” (Bonnet 2012: 66) and “there is a need for more balanced reflection on both the strengths and shortcomings or gaps in our understanding of CLIL and its effectiveness in diverse contexts” (Cenoz 2013: 256).

Coming back to “killing two birds with one stone” (Dallinger 2016), this CLIL-tenet is difficult to confirm and remains ambiguous. Investigating the competence development of more than 1.000 eighth-graders in Germany (CLIL and non-CLIL) has shown greater increase in English listening comprehension, but not in general English skills, whereas increases in subject-knowledge (History) were comparable and not detrimental to content-subject achievement (cf. ibid.: 124). Rooted both in CLT and CLIL methodology, speech errors were not corrected if the message could still be understood. At the same time, CLIL-students showed higher meta-linguistic and meta-cognitive awareness and greater problem-solving mechanisms could be detected:

… these benefits are caused by the constant switching between the two languages that students perform in a bilingual setting. As a result, bilingual children are linguistically and cognitively more attentive, more creative, more flexible, and process information more deeply” (ibid.: 127).

One of the linchpins of CLIL, connecting content and language, is the negotiation of meaning as part of the discourse functions to enhance the socio-pragmatic competences of learners. Their knowledge about the principles of how speech acts are organized, structured and arranged is subsumed under “pragmatic competences” in the Common European Framework for Languages (CEF 2001: 123). Pragmatic competences are

concerned with the user/learner’s knowledge of the principles according to which messages are: organised, structured and arranged (‘discourse competence’); used to perform communicative functions (‘functional competence’); sequenced according to interactional and transactional schemata (‘design competence’) (ibid.).

The Council of Europe document only mentions bilingual programs at random but reminds the user that

functional adaptation for a given domain also corresponds to situations of bilingual education, immersion (as understood by the experiments carried out in Canada) and schooling where the language of tuition is different from that spoken in the family environment“ (ibid.: 137).

In the CEF, discourse as the reflective form of speech activities (Habermas 2007) is described as functional competence

concerned with the use of spoken discourse and written texts in communication for particular functional purposes … Macro-functions are categories for the functional use of spoken discourse or written text consisting of a (sometimes extended) sequence of sentences, e.g.: description, narration, commentary, exposition, exegesis, explanation, demonstration, instruction, argumentation, persuasion (ibid.: 126).

The proximity of functional competence to task-verbs, such as describe, comment, demonstrate, argue, persuade etc. is pertinent and embedded in German language and CLIL curricula as “Operatoren” with the objective to support the learners’ language development by indicating the kind of communicative activities they are expected to engage in and they are structured according to lower and higher thinking order, so-called “Anforderungsbereiche” (levels of challenge). The three levels consist of reproduction (repeating and describing acquired information, using practiced skills = level I), reorganizing and transfer (independent explanation of concepts and subject content and using knowledge in different contexts = level II) and reflection and problem-solving (dealing with new information to comment, conclude and assess specific issues = level III). These task-verbs are part of task-based teaching and learning strategies and regularly employed in final examinations as a Scaffolding for student solutions (cf. Stark-Verlag 2020: VI f.).

Discourse functions and the negotiation of meaning will become essential parts of an integrative CLIL methodology, connecting the “two tales of CLIL” and leading to a decision whether “killing two birds with one stone” is more than an evangelical picture or jumping the CLIL bandwagon. They are even more important as most of the current research findings concerned with bilingual programs would agree that so far in the diversity of approaches there is a “lack of a standardized CLIL blueprint” (Cenoz 2013: 257) and even a systematic and science-oriented methodology is missing that explains and fleshes out the usage of two languages in these programs (cf. Bonnet 2012: 76; Cenoz 2013: 252; Wolff 2011: 75; Dallinger 2016: 162). In order to develop an integrative and consistent CLIL methodology in its fundamentals a closer look at the contexts of bilingual teaching (chapter 5) and the building blocks of CLIL concepts (chapter 6) will be useful.

Review—reflect—research

The story of “The Dunera Boys” might sound disturbing from a contemporary perspective. But you might wish to explain why the Tatura experience (Hirschfeld Mack) highlights bilingualism as a survival strategy in a foreign, unknown culture.

Consider why the “grammar first” position would conflict with Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).

The “two tales of CLIL” or “killing two birds with one stone” point at contentious issues in the CLIL community. Finding out more about further arguments one way or another will help to draw your own conclusions.

4.5 CLIL Example—Teaching “Bauhaus”
Professor Ingrid Zeller; Northwestern University
The “Bauhaus School” in the German Curriculum

The Bauhaus in Dessau © Ingrid Zeller

The benefits of bilingual education and CLIL are aptly illustrated in an ongoing interdisciplinary project and a corresponding course involving architecture and the Bauhaus School on the B1 level at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. The goal of the initiative has been to motivate not only general learners of German with interests in expanding their cultural knowledge and advancing their linguistic proficiency, but especially students with interests in architecture, engineering, the environment, and the STEM fields along with the arts, history, and politics. Through interaction, both in the classroom and outside of the classroom, with one another, the native German professor, German speaking architects, and bilingual tour guides from the Chicago Architecture Center, learners refine their personal, presentational, and interpretive communication skills in speaking and writing, and learn practical skills such as becoming an architectural tour guide for the community in the target language. Exposure to and discussion of multimedia, authentic resources, articles, films, and interactive videos, and the use of numerous selected state-of-the-art digital tools complement the activities in class, which are all geared towards providing learners with a forum in which to communicate effectively while engaging with meaningful and culturally relevant and motivating content. As “form follows function,” to quote modernist architect Louis Sullivan, the project demonstrates that “language follows content,” i.e. that effective development of linguistic proficiency is facilitated, shaped, and reinforced through active engagement with relevant and motivating cultural content.

The History of the Bauhaus

While architecture and the influence of the groundbreaking Bauhaus School on the global scale are important and valuable research topics in their own right, the Bauhaus School has left a particularly strong mark on the skyline of Chicago and in many modern cities in the USA. Choosing this topic for the German curriculum thus lends itself well as a starting point for discussions and exploration of intersections between German and US-American history, culture, and aesthetic traditions. The Bauhaus School, the “Staatliche Bauhaus in Weimar,” was initially founded in 1919 in Weimar, Germany, by architect Walter Gropius, and conceived as a fusion between the “Großherzoglich-Sächsische Kunstschule” (Grand Ducal Saxonian School of Arts) and the “Großherzoglich-Sächsische Kunstgewerbeschule” (Grand Ducal School of Arts and Crafts). The School and ensuing movement soon revolutionized architecture and design worldwide. For the first time, students were given the opportunity to study the fine arts as well as the art of the craft in the same institution, whereby an interest in the latter had recently been revived by the Arts and Crafts Movement in England. Rooted in the bold and creative spirit of the beginning of the 20th Century and in many ways a child of the Weimar Republic, the Bauhaus School advanced the perception of design not only through its innovative approach to the arts, but also through its unique strategies related to its praxis-oriented curriculum. Its goal was to create and manufacture products that were functional, but also met a high artistic and aesthetic standard and were suitable for and representative of the industrial age. While the highest goal of the Bauhaus was “architecture,” the school also excelled in the production of avant-garde furniture, ceramics, household tools, toys, textiles, photography, painting, sculpture, music, theatre, and prints, all manufactured or created in the so-called “Werkstätten” (workshops). Characteristic elements of the Bauhaus style are its minimalistic approach to architecture and design, its focus on functionalism, the use of industrial materials, and the predominance of linear forms. The style was inspired by practical as well as ideological factors, as symbols of previous eras, often expressed in elaborate ornaments, were no longer deemed representative for the modern age.

The Bauhaus Influence Worldwide

Although the Bauhaus School operated in Germany only between 1919 and 1933, the ideas and theories that flourished in it immediately continued to live on in many parts of the world. Due to political tensions with the National Socialists and resulting budget cuts, the School moved to the industrial city Dessau in 1925, and, in 1932, to Berlin, where it closed its doors permanently in 1933. Among the famous teachers and students at the Bauhaus were Wassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee, Johannes Itten, Georg Muche, Oskar Schlemmer, Wilhelm Wagenfeld, Marianne Brandt, Laszlo Moholy Nagy, and Josef and Anni Albers, to name only a few. The three directors were all architects: The founder Walter Gropius (1919–1928) was fascinated by the idea of a fusion between the arts and technology, Hannes Meyer (1928-1930) was the most radical politically and joined the Communist Party, and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (1930-1933) focused almost exclusively on architecture. Many of the Bauhaus artists emigrated after 1933 and continued their innovative work in other parts of the world, including Tel Aviv, Israel, which features more than 4000 Bauhaus buildings and was designated a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage site, and the USA, which proved to be a fertile ground and welcoming space for modern architects. Walter Gropius became a professor at Harvard University, Josef and Anni Albers continued the Bauhaus curriculum at Black Mountain College, the visual artist Laszlo Moholy-Nagy founded the “New Bauhaus” in Chicago, which was later incorporated into the IIT (Illinois Institute of Technology), and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe was offered the position of the director of the IIT (formerly called Armour Institute), a post that he held until the end of his life in 1969. Considered one of the fathers of modern architecture and the Mid-Century Modern Style (formerly called “International Style”), which is thought to have developed from the minimalist Bauhaus style, Mies coined the motto “Less is more” and designed the entire campus of the IIT with its famous Crown Hall, and many other iconic buildings in the Chicago region, such as the Lakeshore Drive Apartments, the Federal Center Plaza, the Farnsworth House, and the AMA (American Medical Association) Building (formerly IBM). Mies and the generations of architects he trained at the IIT contributed significantly to shaping the Chicago skyline as it is known today, with its skyscrapers, curtain walls, glass towers, and steel structures. Bauhaus ideas also had a tremendous impact on the skylines of many other US American and global cities.