CLIL-AICLE: La Investigación basada en evidencia. Towards an evidence-base .

1. CLIL-AICLE:La Investigación basada en evidencia. Towards an evidence-base. CLIL Teacher Education-Capacity-building: Perspectives for the next decade based on current experience. Madrid, Ministerio de Educación 28-29 Noviembre 2010 Teresa Navés tnaves@ub.edu University of Barcelona GRAL Project (UB) & CLIL-SLA Project (UAB) www.ub.edu/GRAL/NavesCLILSLAProject@gmail.com

2. Beliefs vs. Mainstream Research • The age factor: The sooner the better (García-Mayo & García Lecumberri, 2003; Muñoz, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010; Navés 2006; Celaya & Navés, 2008)) • Study abroad (SA). (Pérez-Vidal, 2001, 2009. But  Llanes & Muñoz, 2009) • CLIL maybe  but the evidence comes from • Short-term studies vs Long-term studies. Statistically significant differences vs. Relevant educational gains. (Navés, 2010) • Quantitative vs Qualitative studies (Escobar, 2009; Whittaker, 2010) • Cross-sectional studies vs. Longitudinal studies (See SLA-CLIL project in Victori et al., forthcoming) • Linguistic-oriented studies vs Content-oriented and CLIL-oriented studies • Product-oriented vs Process Oriented studies • Comparison of existing curricula vs. finely-grained studies: The control of the variables: amount of instruction, type of school, etc. (García-Mayo, 2010; Muñoz and Navés, 2007; Navés, 2010) (See CLIL-SLA Project in Victori & Navés and Victori et al., forthcoming)

3. The best way to learn an L2: Teaching subject matter in the L2 • Using the L2 to teach subject matter is more effective than teaching the language directly, treating the L2 itself as the subject matter (Krashen, 1982). • Teaching subject matter in a second language is the best possible way to encourage second language acquisition. (Spada and Lightbown, 2002)

4. CLIL The European Commission’s (2005) report on foreign language teaching and learningclaims that an excellent way of making progress in a foreign language is “to use it for a purpose, so that the language becomes a tool rather than an end in itself.” (p.9)

5. European Council (1995):A1-A2 - B1-B2 - C1-C2 • Lowering the starting age and simultaneously 2) CLIL instruction

6. CLAIMS: CLIL > EFL • CLIL instruction is more successful than traditional form-focused EFL learning (Piske, 2008, Do Coyle, 2009). • CLIL methodology provides plenty of real and meaningful input to learners and raises their overall proficiency in the target language. (Coyle, 2002 p.258).

7. SLA foundations of CLIL • The transferabilty of skills (Cummins, 1991) • BISC vs CALP (Cummins, 1979, 2000; Collier, 1987; 1989) • The exposure factor. To increase SL and FL contact hours (Muñoz, 2007; Cenoz, 2003; De Keyser, 2001) • The quality of the input. Meaningful learning (Krashen, 1997) • Focus on Form (Long 1997; Doughty, 2001; Ellis, 2005)

8. SLA foundations of CLIL • CLIL promotes negotiation of meaning, through interaction (Lightbown and Spada, 1993; Long, 1983). • Comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985), is a necessary but not a suffcient condition. • Cognitively demanding but context-embbeded(Cummins, 1991) Learners also need an focus on relevant and contextually appropriate language forms to support content learning (Lyster, 1987; Met, 1991)

9. SLA foundations of CLIL • Creates conditions for naturalistic language learning • Provides a purpose for language use in the classroom • Has a positive effect on language learning by putting the emphasis on meaning rather than form and • Drastically increases the amount of exposure to the target language (Dalton-Puffer, 2007; Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2007; De Graaf et al. 2007; Muñoz, 2007; Muñoz & Navés, 2007; Navés and Victori, 2010, Navés, in press).

10. CLIL benefits for Content from Llinares (2009) • Learners are more successful and moremotivated than those in traditional content subject classrooms (Wolff, 2004) • Learners look at content from a different and broader perspective when it is taught in another language (Multi-perspectivity) (Wolff, 2004) • Learners develop more accurate academic concepts when another language is involved (Lamsfuss-Schenk, 2002) • In CLIL content subject related intercultural learning takes place (Christ, 2000)

11. But… • Not all content-based instruction results in good language learning (Swain, 1988) • CLIL provides some of the necessary conditions for good effective language learning to take place but is not a guarantee of success (de Graaf et al. 2007; Muñoz, 2007; Navés in press)

12. The most successful language learning programmes: Canadian Immersion Canadian Immersion Programmes are by far the most highly acclaimed language learning programmes. SLA researchers, teachers and parents fully agree that the immersion programmes in Canada have been extremely efficient and successful. (Swain, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1982). (See Navés, 2009, 2010)

13. Limitations to L2 learning in immersion: more focus on form/s needed • However, the question of whether immersion, especially ‘early’ immersion, is the best model for students in all sociocultural and educational settings has not been satisfactorily answered. Some researchers have found that there are limitations to L2 learning through subject matter teaching alone and have suggested that more direct L2 instruction needs to complement the subject matter teaching (Harley, 1989; Lyster, 1994; Swain, 1988). Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)

14. Limitations (2) complex subject matter • In addition, some educators and researchers have expressed concern about how well students can cope with complex subject matter taught in a language they do not yet know well (Cummins & Swain, 1986). Source: Spada and Lightbown (2002)

15. Short-term statistical significant differences versus long-term relevant education gains. Lindholm-Leary (2007) ELLs’ Long-term Achievement on Standardized Tests in English Reading Compared Across Six Program Models

16. Characteristics of Successful CLIL Programmes (Navés, 2002, 2009) • Respect and support for the learner’s L1 language and culture • Extremely competent bilingual teachers • Mainstream (not pull-out) optional courses • Long-term, stable programmes • Parents’ support for the programme

17. Characteristics of Successful CLIL Programmes (Naves, 2002, 2009) 6. Joint effort of all parties. Cooperation and leadership of educational authorities, administrators and teachers • Dually qualified teachers (in content and language) • High expectations and standards • Availability of quality CLIL teaching materials • Properly implemented CLIL methodology.

18. Empirical Research CLIL>EFL Writing Performance: Ackerl (2006) Carrilero(2009); Huttner et al (2006) Lasagabaster (2008) Loranc-Paszylk(2009) Navés and Victori (2010) Navés (2010) Miret (2009) Miret & Navés (in preparation) Vallbona & Victori (in preparation) English Proficiency : Admiraal et al.(2006) Jiménez et al.(2006) Kasper (1997) Lasagabaster (2008) Navés and Victori (2010) Vallbona (2009) Pérez-Vidal (2010) Lorenzo et al. (2009, 2010) Ruiz de Zarobe & Jiménez Catalán (2009) Villarreal Olaizola & García Mayo (2009) García Mayo & Villarreal Olaizola (2011)

19. Met (1994) highlighted the need to have a well-balanced language and content planning for the CLIL lessons. Darn (2006) proposed that language and content should be taught and learned together in a dual-focussed classroom context. Järvinen ( 1999) Ting (2007)examined the positive attitude of CLIL learners.

20. CLIL features • Following SLA research, CLIL may fulfill what is necessary for successful learning of a SL (Muñoz, 2007, De Graaff, 2007): • Real World language • Highly contextualised • Enough Comprehensible Input • Interaction • Cognitively demanding tasks • Meaningful learning

21. Previous Research on CLIL & Writing Muñoz and Navés (2007) Overview of empirical studies show a 2 year advantage for CLIL learners. Dalton-Puffer (2007) predicted CLIL would not have significant effects over productive skills Navés and Victori (2010) CLIL provided an advantage between one and two grades in overall proficiency and writing performance. .

22. Navés & Victori (2010) & Navés (2010 in press) • Four Proficiency tests • Michigan 50-item MC grammar test • 30-item Cloze (reading comprehension) • 50-word Dictation, • Listening comprehension. • Written Timed-composition task (15’) • Accuracy: Error-free clauses and EFS • Fluency: Essay length, S, Cl • Syntactic Complexity: Subordinate clauses, ClxS • Lexical Variety: Giraud’s index, TTR, Types

23. Lasagabaster (2008) Compared the overall proficiency and the four language skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking of three groups of CLIL and non- CLIL learners from grades 9 and 10 (N =198) at grade 10, CLIL learners significantly outperformed non-CLIL learners. 9th grade CLIL learners significantly outperformed non-CLIL learners from grade 10 in all the domains examined as well

24. Tests: proficiency & timed-essay Proficiency tests • Michigan 50-item MC grammar exam • 30-item Cloze (reading comprehension) • 50-word Dictation, • Listening comprehension. Timed-composition task (15’) • Accuracy: Error-free clauses and EFS • Fluency: Essay length, S, Cl • Syntactic Complexity: Subordinate clauses, ClxS • Lexical Variety: Giraud’s index, TTR, Types

25. Navés & Victori (2009) Study I

26. Study I. Proficiency Results CLIL 7th = Non-CLIL 9th & Non-CLIL 10th CLIL 8th > Non-CLIL 9th

27. Results

28. Navés & Victori (2009) Study II

33. Results CLIL 5th = Non-CLIL 7th (fluency) CLIL 7th = Non-CLIL 9th (syntacti complexity CLIL 9th > Non-CLIL 11th (syntactic complexity) CLIL 9th = Non-CLIL 12th (fluency), CLIL 9th = Non-CLIL 12th (accuracy)

34. Summary when learners are at grades 7 and 9 and have received CLIL instruction they achieve a level equivalent to or even higher than learners a couple of grades ahead in many of the domains of a language examined.

35. Limitations These promising results have, nevertheless, to be analysed with caution because • the amount of hours of instruction of the CLIL groups was not kept constant, • of the different types of schools involved • hours of instruction received.

36. The present studies have analysed the overall English proficiency and writing proficiency of CLIL and non-CLIL learners in a foreign language context and have found that 5th and 7th grade CLIL learners did as well as learners two grades ahead in all the proficiency tests except listening comprehension and in all the writing domains examined except in accuracy.

37. As de Graff (2007) and Navés (2009) argue, integrating content and language in CLIL, content-based, immersion, semi-immersion, and bilingual education programmes provide the conditions that applied linguistics in general and the field of second language acquisition in particular have long suggested need to be met for successful language learning to take place.

38. These results are in line with those found by Ruiz de Zarobe (2009), Lasagabaster (2008), García-Mayo (2009)

39. Naves (2010, in press) Study I: Proficiency

40. Study II. Writing (Navés, 2010)

41. Results Study I Proficiency Grammar Test

42. Results Study I: Proficiency Dictation

43. Results Study I Proficiency Cloze: Reading Comprehension

44. Study II WritingResults Fluency (Essay length)

45. Study II Writing Results Syntactic Complexity (clauses per sentence)

46. Study II Results Lexical Variety (Giraud’s index)

47. Summary of ResultsNavés & Victori (2010) and Navés (2010) • Overall 5th and 7th grade CLIL learners better thantheir non-CLIL peers from 5th and 7th and did as well as learners two grades ahead • in all the proficiency testsexcept in the listening test • and in all the writing domains examined except in accuracy.

48. Limitations These promising results have, nevertheless, to be analysed with caution because • the amount of hours of instruction was not kept constant • of the different types of schools involved • cross-sectional nature • product-oriented nature. • short-term nature.

49. Limitations and Conclusions • Limitations of these types of studies (See Muñoz & Navés, 2007) • Statistical significant differences vs. Relevant gains from an education and language policy perspective.

50. Final remarks • Unlike the results found when examining (a) an early start (b) stay-abroad (c) out-of-school instruction the preliminary results from short-term cross-sectional research on CLIL instruction --in spite of its limitations and confounds-- seem promising.