3 CLIL as a theoretical concept

Whilst Chapters 1 and 2 have laid the foundations for exploring the development of CLIL, Chapter 3 explores the
theoretical implications o f integrating content learning and language learning. CLIL is not about ‘translating’
first-language teaching and learning into another language in the hope that learners will be immersed in a bains
linguistique and seamlessly learn in another language. Neither is CLIL an attempt to ‘disguise’ traditional
language learning by embedding systematic grammatical progression o f the target language in a different
type of subject content such as deforestation, photosynthesis or medieval history:

Teachers have found that content and language integrated learning is about far more than simply teaching non-
language subject matter in an additional language in the same way as the mother tongue . . . [It] is not a matter of
simply changing the language of instruction.
(Marsh, Enner and Sygmund, 1999:17)

All learning is complex, and understanding the potential of integrating content and language demands an
exploration o f emergent synergies. The word synergy comes from the Greek synergos which implies working
together‘in a dynamic state’ where the whole is greater than the sum o f the parts. Yet CLIL will not
automatically lead to realising this potential.
Instead, careful analysis of what can be achieved by integrative learning through a second or additional language
is needed, based on a conceptual theoretical framework. This chapter introduces the framework for integration
and the theoretical issues surrounding it.

3.1 Connecting content learning and language learning

In every kind of knowledge-based, progressive organization, new knowledge and new directions are forged through
dialogue . . . The dialogue in Knowledge Age organizations is not principally concerned with narrative, exposition,
argument, and persuasion (the stand-bys of traditional rhetoric) but with solving problems and developing new ideas.
(Bereiter and Scardamalia, 2005)

The content of learning

A useful starting point is to consider the content o f learning. The concept o f what constitutes content in a CLIL
context is much more flexible than selecting a discipline from a traditional school curriculum such as geography,

1
music, biology or physics. Whilst curricular subjects such as these might be appropriate for some CLIL
programmes, contextual variables such as teacher availability, language support, age o f learners and the social
demands o f the learning environment may mean that a different choice o f content is more appropriate. In
other words: what exactly is meant by ‘content’ in CLIL will depend on the context o f the learning institution -
an issue already raised in previous chapters. Content can range from the delivery o f elements taken directly from
a statutory national curriculum to a project based on topical issues drawing together different aspects o f the
curriculum (for example, the Olympic Games, global warming, ecosystems). Content in a CLIL setting could also
be thematic, cross-curricular, interdisciplinary or have a focus on citizenship, for example. Themes might include
issues-led investigations into climate change, carbon footprint or the Internet; cross-curricular studies might
involve inquiry into health in the community, water or genocide; interdisciplinary work which encourages
collaboration on a,common theme whilst maintaining the integrity o f each subject could, for example, lead to
designing an ecofriendly house; and citizenship might focus on global issues such as race, global communication
or learning across continents. CLIL, therefore, offers opportunities both within and beyond the regular
curriculum to initiate and enrich learning, skill acquisition and development.
The exact nature o f these opportunities will depend on the extent to which the CLIL context demands an
approach which is more content-led, more language-led, or both. However, the crucial point here is that, no
matter whether issues concerning the content or the language are more dominant at a given point, neither must
be subsumed or the interrelationship between the two ignored.

The learning of content: Synergies, scaffolding and social interaction

Identifying the type o f content involved does not, however, automatically address a fundamental question: what
is meant by content learning? It might be useful to start by considering some issues to do with content learning
in general, before identifying specific challenges presented through using a second or additional language as the
medium for that learning.
Syllabuses and programmes all have their aims and objectives, often with articulated goals and outcomes for
teaching and learning. But these alone do not address the how of content learning - only the what o f content
teaching. The impact o f general learning theory and how individuals learn, based on work from eminent
theorists such as Bruner, Vygotsky and Wood (see Bigge and Shermis, 1998, for an overview) does not always
directly influence classroom practice. But if CLIL is to build on potential synergos, then considerations o f how
effective learning is realized must be brought into the equation. In other words, CLIL demands an analysis o f
what is meant by effective pedagogies in different contexts.

Different pedagogic approaches have been debated across continents in recent times (see Chapter 1). The
dominant model in many Western societies has emphasized a transmission of knowledge where the expert (the
teacher) deposits information and skills into the memory bank o f the novice (the learner). This has been called a
‘banking model’ (Freire, 1972) and tends to be teacher-controlled and teacher-led. Alternative, social-
constructivist approaches to learning emphasize ‘the centrality o f student experience and the importance

2
of encouraging active student learning rather than a passive reception o f knowledge’ (Cummins, 2005:108).
Social-constructivist learning in essence focuses on interactive, mediated and student-led learning. This kind o f
scenario requires social interaction between learners and teachers and scaffolded (that is, supported) learning by
someone or something more ‘expert’ - that might be the teacher, other learners or resources. When learners are
able to accommodate cognitive challenge - that is, to deal with new knowledge - they are likely to be engaged in
interacting with ‘expert’ others and peers to develop their individual thinking.

Vygotsky (1978) introduced the term ‘zone o f proximal development’ (ZPD) to describe the kind o f learning
which is always challenging yet potentially within reach o f individual learners on condition that appropriate
support, scaffolding and guidance are provided. In settings shaped by social-constructivist approaches, the
teacher’s role involves facilitating cognitive challenge within an individual’s ZPD. This involves the teacher in
maintaining a balance between cognitive challenge for learners and appropriate and decreasing support as
learners progress.

The learning of content: Cognitive engagement, problem solving and higher-order thinking

Developing the arguments above leads us to summarize that, for content learning to be effective learning,
students must be cognitively engaged. CLIL teachers will have to consider how to actively involve learners to
enable them to think through and articulate their own learning. This in turn implies that learners need to be
made aware o f their own learning through developing metacognitive skills such as ‘learning to learn’. Interactive
classrooms are typified by group work, student questioning and problem solving. If in a CLIL classroom students
are required to cooperate with each other in order to make use o f each other’s areas o f strength and compensate
for weaknesses, then they must learn how to operate collaboratively and work effectively in groups. Leaving
these skills to develop by chance is not an option. Instead, we need to support students in developing life skills
such as dealing with the unexpected, observational skills, and constructing knowledge which is built on
their interaction with the world, yet purposefully guided by values and convictions (van Lier, 1996).

Therefore, for CLIL teaching to support effective learning, it has to take into account not only the knowledge and
skills base, but also cognitive engagement by the students. For example, the Queensland School Reform
Longitudinal Study (1998-2000) reported on the need to ‘shift teachers’ attention and focus beyond basic skills to
key aspects o f higher-order thinking . . . towards more productive pedagogies’ (Department o f Education,
Queensland, 2002: 1). Evidence showed that, to raise achievement levels, learners had to be intellectually
challenged in order to transform information and ideas, to solve problems, to gain understanding and to discover
new meaning. Effective content learning has to take account not only o f the defined knowledge and skills within
the curriculum or thematic plan, but also how to apply these through creative thinking, problem solving and
cognitive challenge.
Young people not only need a knowledge base which is continually growing and changing, they also need to
know how to use it throughout life. They need to know how to think, to reason, to make informed choices and to

3
respond creatively to challenges and opportunities. They need to be skilled in problem solving and higher-order,
creative thinking, in order to construct a framework through which to interpret meaning and understanding:

If learning is to be retained and to be readily available for use, then learners must make
their own construction of knowledge - make it their own - and must learn to take
responsibility for the management of their own learning.
(Nisbet, 1991: 27)

Towards a thinking curriculum: Dimensions and processes

So what is a thinking curriculum for CLIL? If the previous arguments about the importance o f cognitive
engagement are central to the CLIL classroom, it is not enough to consider content learning without integrating
the development o f a range of thinking and problem-solving skills. Since the publication o f Bloom’s taxonomy
outlining six different thinking processes in 1956, the categorisation o f different types o f thinking has been the
subject o f great debate (McGuinness, 1999). In 2001, Anderson and Krathwohl published an updated version o f
Bloom’s taxonomy by adding a ‘knowledge’ dimension to Bloom’s ‘cognitive process’ dimension (see Table 2).
This transparent connecting o f thinking processes to knowledge construction resonates with conceptualizing
content learning in the CLIL setting. The cognitive process dimension consists o f lower-order thinking
(remembering, understanding and applying) and higher-order thinking (analysing, evaluating and creating),
both o f which are integral to effective learning. The knowledge dimension provides a framework for exploring
the demands o f different types o f knowledge: conceptual, procedural and metacognitive.

A taxonomy (from Greek taxis meaning ‘arrangement’ or ‘division’ and nomos meaning ‘law’ ) is a system o f
classification which provides a conceptual framework for discussion, analysis, or information retrieval. A useful
taxonomy should be simple, easy to remember, and easy to apply. Bloom’s taxonomy (1956) is a good example
because it classifies different types o f thinking in a straightforward manner which we are able to apply to
content.
A more complex but logical framework is provided by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001). This classifies different
types o f thinking associated with different types o f knowledge construction. Other theorists have subsequently
continued to develop the idea o f taxonomies for different types o f thinking (Marzano, 2000). However, the
important point is not the choice o f taxonomy, but rather the transparent identification o f the cognitive and
knowledge processes associated with the CLIL content. This is essential not only to ensure that all learners have
access to developing these processes, but crucially that they also have the language needed to do so. We discuss
how to put this into practice in Chapter 4.

4
Table 2: Bloom’s taxonomy, revised by Anderson and Krathwohl
The Cognitive Process Dimension

Lower-order processing:
Remembering Such as producing appropriate information from memory, e.g.
• Recognizing
• Recalling

Understanding Meaning-making from experiences and resources, e.g.

Applying Such as using a procedure, e.g.

Higher-order processing:

Analysing Breaking down a concept into its parts and explaining how the parts
relate to the whole, e.g.
• Differentiating
• Organizing
• Attributing
Evaluating Making critical judgements, e.g.
• Checking
• Critiquing

Creating Putting together pieces to construct something new or recognizing

5
The Knowledge Dimension

Factual knowledge Basic information, e.g.

Conceptual knowledge Relationships amongst pieces of a larger structure that make them part
of the whole, e.g.
• Knowledge of classifications and categories
• Knowledge of principles and generalizations
• Knowledge of theories, models and structures

Procedural knowledge How to do something, e.g.

Metacognitive knowledge Knowledge of thinking in general and individual thinking in particular, e.g.
• Strategic knowledge
• Knowledge about cognitive tasks
• Self-knowledge
(Adapted from Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001: 67-8)