CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning)
A few well-known bilingual education models include English submersion programs in the USA (Yu, Yeoman, & Han, 2009, p.22), French immersion programs and Content-based Language Learning (CBI) in Canada (Yu, 2019; Yu, Yeoman, & Han, 2009) and the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in Europe. I choose to mainly review the CLIL as it seems more applicable to the school education under the current educational policy environment in China. CLIL is a term coined by the European Union “as a generic umbrella term which would encompass any activity in which a foreign language is used as a tool in the learning of a non-language subject in which both language and the subject have a joint curricular role” (Marsh, 2002, p. 58). According to Marsh, the CLIL approach became more and more popular in practice and research mainly because it places “both language and non-language content on a form of continuum, without implying preference for one or the other” (Marsh, 2002, p. 58). Usually, explicit language instruction remains in CLIL programs, and content and language integration is limited to a few periods of instruction that amount to anywhere between 5% to 50% of the total curricular time. It is not unusual that in secondary school CLIL programs a language teacher and a subject teacher use the same target language to teach the language and the content concurrently (Garcia, 2009).
Marsh (2002) lists five major reasons and eighteen sub-reasons that can justify CLIL initiatives in European countries. Although these reasons, or benefits of the CLIL approach, really should be verified by later research, they provide a useful framework that helps a school to consider its existing or prospect bilingual program and the targeted benefits. The first culture dimension includes building intercultural knowledge and understanding, developing intercultural communication skills, learning about specific neighbouring countries/regions and/or minority groups, introducing the wider cultural context. The second environment dimension includes preparing for internationalization, accessing international certification, enhancing school profile. The third language dimension includes improving overall target language competence, developing oral communication skills, deepening awareness of both mother tongue and target language, developing plurilingual interests and attitudes, introducing a target language. The fourth content dimension includes providing opportunities to study content through different perspectives, accessing subject-specific target language terminology, preparing for future studies and/or working life. The fifth learning dimension includes complementing individual learning strategies, diversifying methods and forms of classroom practice, and increasing learner motivation.
Marsh (2002) also reviews practices and the effectiveness of existing CLIL programs in Europe. It seems that some of these practices can be modified and applied to other linguistic situations such as Chinese-English bilingual schools in China. For example, a secondary school network in Netherlands sets up CLIL programs for about Dutch-speaking students. The target languages are English or German. At least 50% percent of the curriculum must be taught in Dutch in line with national education policies while the other half is taught either in English or German. The schools offer at least one CLIL subject out of three clusters of subjects—Sciences and mathematics, Social sciences, and Arts and sports. Interestingly, final examinations in these schools are still conducted in Dutch. This is also a requirement of the Dutch education policies. Another network of urban schools in Finland offers CLIL programs to students who study in a Finnish curriculum. English and Swedish were the initial target languages, but other languages were included later on. The exposure of the selected additional language(s) varies and continues as students move up the grades. However, the instructional language in the final year of secondary school is changed back to the first language because of the national examination. Content is the primary focus during these CLIL periods while strategies of teaching language are applied at the same time. Students rely on their mother tongue at the beginning and then increase the use of the target language as they enter higher grades.
CLIL programs in Sections Européennes in France use English or German or other languages as the target languages. Any subject except the French language and Philosophy in these CLIL programs can be taught in the target language up to 50% of the curriculum, only part of the selected subject(s) is taught in the target language. While the first language is still used to teach content knowledge, the target language is used in CLIL periods to help learners consolidate and apply knowledge in the new language context. Language teachers who teach necessary language knowledge and skills collaborate with subject teachers who focus on content knowledge. Language teachers’ support is made available to CLIL periods. Also, interdisciplinary and thematic learning are evident in some CLIL programs, especially at the elementary school level, although the degree of interdisciplinarity varies from program to program. For instance, in an Austria CLIL program language and subject learning are highly integrated in elementary schools whereas in the French example reviewed above only language and subject teachers collaborate (Marsh, 2002; Garcia, 2009).
To sum up, it is clear that the umbrella term CLIL encompasses many variations. One central feature of all the variations must be teaching and learning non-language subjects in the targeted second language on the top of teaching and learning in the first language. Also, student learning in these programs is regarded and supported as a cognitive development process in an environment where students need to apply what they learn in real life problems. The planning of a CLIL program should start at the school or program level. Also, the planning requires vertical and horizontal collaborations across grade levels and subject departments. CLIL is certainly not another label to be stuck to whatever bilingual programs. When a school starts to consider and plan a CLIL program or any research informed bilingual education models, the main features and other practical principles of these programs or models should be taken into deliberative consideration.
Genesee & Hamayan (2016) provide some principles when a school plans a CLIL program and bilingual instructions in it. (1) Additional language instruction is more effective when integrated with content instruction; (2) Explicit and systematic language instruction is important; (3) Student engagement is the engine of learning; (4) Both languages should have equally high status; (5) The first language can be a useful tool for learning the additional language and new academic knowledge and skills; (6) Classroom-based assessment is critical for programme success; (7) All children can become bilingual; (8) Strong leadership is critical for successful dual-language teaching (Genesee & Hamayan, 2016, p. 31). Although these key principles are drawn on practices in Europe and North America, they can provide a useful guidance when a school intends to create a CLIL program. The benefits of a CLIL program, and other bilingual programs really, cannot be achieved automatically if the program does apply some key principles of the desired bilingual education model. In Chinese-English bilingual schools, for instance, the school leaders could forget to give English and Chinese an equal status. This neglect would harm learners, especially young learners who are still developing their first language. Moreover, the loss of native cultural knowledge and identity might be an even bigger issue that could harm the learners’ future wellbeing.
Analysis of the SPE Bilingual Education Model
As I mentioned at the beginning, a bilingual curriculum framework of SPE outlines the developmental goals of SPE learners. These goals are shaped by Chinese educational traditions and resources and international curricular components that are integrated in the school curriculum. Formal lessons are delivered separately or collaboratively by Chinese and international teachers who come from different cultures and educational traditions. Other extra-curricular Chinese, bilingual or English learning activities, for instance extra-curricular activities led by international teachers and STEAM festivals where English is the working language are provided by the teachers too. Arguably, these activities carry linguistic, cultural and pedagogical messages from the diverse teaching staff and resources and the school creates an effective environment that support bilingualism. In sum, it is fair to say that the SPE has created a good model of bilingual education that should benefit Chinese students personally, academically, and socially with linguistic development clearly being a highlight of the education. Moreover, the learning opportunities in SPE bilingual schools are not just fostering bilingualism and academic development but also preparing learners to thrive in a culturally integrated society and world.
By design, SPE bilingual education follows the principles of the additive model in which students develop competences in both Chinese and English languages. To achieve the goals of the additive model, it is suggested that perhaps a clear language policy that outlines how the two languages are used in the school and are allocated in the curriculum needs to be put in place. This language policy document should provide the whole staff with a shared vision in terms of the bilingual education offered by the school. Starting from the guiding document, the school leadership team can involve the staff in the discussion about targeted benefits of the bilingual education, considering particular characteristics of recruited students. Questions like why these students need a bilingual education in the first place and what advantages the bilingual education we offer can bring them in long run should be discussed at all levels in the school seriously and continuously. This discussion can be part of professional development related to bilingual education and bilingual teaching and learning. The school should encourage and facilitate professional learning that specifically addresses strategies of bilingual teaching, learning, and assessment. Some existing practices in SPE bilingual schools are already aligned with research findings and good practices, but some pieces have yet to be considered and developed. It is obviously wise to make informed decisions and changes instead of creating our own model blindly from scratch regardless of existing knowledge on bilingual education. Nonetheless, schools and teachers are certainly encouraged to creatively apply what have been learned from the research and good practices, by considering the particular context of the school.
In terms of bilingual teaching in classroom, the CLIL model operating in SPE bilingual schools seem to be a variation from the CLIL programs in Europe. CLIL periods in European programs are usually taught in the target language by non-native speakers of the target language individually. In SPE schools, although this classic European model does exist in subject areas like Mathematics and Sciences, more often two teachers are involved in teaching a subject collaboratively. The two teachers could be two Chinese teachers (for example in mathematics), but more often they are one native English speaker and one Chinese speaker who teach content in separate English and Chinese classes. The two teachers in the SPE model have to collaboratively plan and deliver the curriculum, which combines Chinese national curriculum with some additional enrichment elements. Teacher collaboration also occurs in European CLIL programs, however, that collaboration is usually between language teachers and the teachers who teach CLIL periods or between different subject teachers who have planned common themes of teaching across the CLIL program. It will be worthwhile to investigate into and compare the effectiveness of these existing practices in SPE bilingual schools. Questions like how these practices work from a management perspective and how effective they are in terms of student learning need to be answered. These practices and the answers to these questions can be shared across existing and new SPE bilingual schools to inform the design and implementation of bilingual models in these schools.
Probably, this arrangement of one Chinese teacher collaboratively teaching one subject with one international teacher is more determined by practical reasons than pedagogical considerations. Most subjects in the Chinese national curriculum are required to be delivered in Chinese and the bilingual education in SPE is not a government-sponsored initiative. That is to say, SPE bilingual schools are not permitted to design their bilingual curriculum by compromising the core requirements of Chinese national curriculum. Also, it is not easy to recruit many qualified Chinese teachers who are able to teach in the targeted English language. Although the similar issue of teaching staff occurs in Europe too (Garcia, 2009), this kind of shortage in China might be severer. In long run, when the issue of qualified bilingual teachers is available, it might be a better model to use more Chinese native speakers to teacher CLIL subjects in the target language. According to the European experience, subject teachers who are not native speakers in the target language can probably do a better job than native speakers, if all aspects of a bilingual education including content, communication, cognition, and culture and citizenship are seriously taken into account. To make this modification in SPE bilingual schools, however, one prevalent perception on bilingual education needs to be challenged and changed. Many parents and possibly school leaders and teachers seem to believe English is best to be taught by English native speakers regardless the context of language learning. As far as content and language integrated learning is concerned, this perception should be bent. The European experience clearly suggests that this perception is not true if CLIL is considered from a more holistic education perspective instead of a mere language learning perspective.
Similar to European CLIL programs, separate English language teaching is also provided in SPE bilingual schools in order to improve students’ general language skills at the same time when CLIL lessons or units are provided. However, it is not suggested to ask English subject teachers to teach other subject-related vocabulary as these words will be taught by the two collaborating teachers of the particular subject, for instance Physics. Between the two subject teachers, the Chinese teacher could teach completely in Chinese or bilingually. How much English the Chinese teacher uses depends on the teacher’s English competence. However, it is likely that the Chinese teacher is not able to teacher in English at all. In this case, the collaboration between this Chinese teacher and the partnering English-speaking teacher needs language support. According to available staff and experiences of the teachers, the school can experiment with different combinations between specific English language teaching lessons and language teaching in subject lessons. It does not seem to be necessary to align these two types of language learning, however, the provision of both is recommended for CLIL like programs.
There are interdisciplinary CLIL components in SPE bilingual schools too. Thematic or interdisciplinary teaching and learning practices are reported in those European CLIL programs (Marsh, 2002). In SPE bilingual schools, interdisciplinary classes are mainly taught by native English speakers, however, exceptions do exist too, for example, STEAM classes in primary schools could be taught by Chinese teachers bilingually. In any event, it is expected that these teachers who teach interdisciplinary periods should collaborate with other subject teachers and English language teachers for the same group of students. SPE bilingual schools use one international curriculum for the interdisciplinary learning materials, also STEAM is part of the curriculum. Some selected interdisciplinary units are translated into Chinese so that they are more accessible to Chinese teachers when international teachers who lead teaching these units collaborate with them. These translated units can also be given to students as appropriate in a way that assists the Chinese students to learn in the second language and helps them to communicate with others what they learned in both languages. More importantly, these interdisciplinary learning opportunities provide students with opportunities of learning and applying English, as well as Chinese, in a broader academic context instead of separate subject areas only. Given these interdisciplinary learning opportunities, it is more likely for learners to experience bilingual learning as both a cognitive process and a social and interactive process.
Many European CLIL programs select several subjects to be taught in the target language and the teaching and learning in the language usually does not exceed 50% of the curricular time. The SPE CLIL model starts with a half-half expectation in the elementary school (Grade 1-5) and then increase to a 70% English and 30% Chinese expectation in the middle school (Grade 6-9). However, given the mandatory Chinese national curriculum during the compulsory education stage (Grade 1-9), it seems more realistic to set target below 50% or even less. If the high school entrance examination was made compulsory by the Chinese government in the future, it would be wise to decrease English exposure time in Grade 9. This reversion to the teaching and learning in the first language is found in some European CLIL programs as students have to take final examinations in their mother tongue or the language required by the national curriculum. It makes more sense to set a 50%-50% expectation if the principles of the additive model of bilingual education is taken seriously. Remember this bilingual education model is to prepare students’ social and academic competences in both languages.
The main instructional language in the IB high school division in SPE bilingual schools is English, which is the second language of Chinese students. Therefore, in a way, SPE high school curriculum is not a CLIL program any more. Examined from a bilingual education perspective, it is more like an English immersion program in which all subjects except Chinese language, are taught in the second language. English is still offered as a separate subject though because it is required by the IBDP. At the same time, Chinese language and/or literature is also taught in a separate subject. Other subjects, for instance Physics, can be taught by native speakers of English or non-native speakers, depending on teacher availability. However, the instructional language is English. This can be an unlikely situation in a typical immersion program in which subjects are usually taught by native speakers of the targeted language. In this sense, SPE high school program can be also regarded as a hybrid product between CLIL program and immersion program involving Chinese and English languages. The former usually has lower target language exposure with limited CLIL subjects taught by non-native speakers while the latter uses the target the language as the primary language of instruction. Given the possible immersion-CLIL hybrid setting, maintaining and further developing the competence in Chinese mother tongue and Chinese cultural awareness may become an additional but important piece of the SPE high school curriculum. The schools might consider opportunities outside the set academic curriculum so that students can further study and practice Chinese language and culture. Again, this message should find its place in the language policy of the school.
댓글