1. Content and Language Integrated Collaborative Learning

Content and Language Integrated Collaborative Learning

Sanjukta Sivakumar

Abstract

This paper examines Collaborative Learning (CL) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) as learner-centric, tech-friendly and task-based methods facilitating the development of language for analytical and critical thinking, leading to autonomous learning in students. The outcome, Content and Language Integrated Collaborative Learning (CLICL), enables motivation and autonomy through peer learning by facilitating language skills for information processing. This outcome is derived from a case study of three groups of students to analyse their use of English for higher-order thinking in real life. These students collaboratively created an iBook, computer games and a battery charger as self-initiated projects. Significantly, although these students scored average to low English grades at school, their use of language in real life was more cognitive, compared to others with higher English grades. The results of this case study, therefore, connect real-life language behaviour and higher-order thinking with instruction in CLICL.

Key Words:

Collaborative Learning, Content and Language Integrated Learning, Higher-order thinking, Learner autonomy, Technology

Introduction

In response to challenges posed by globalization, learners increasingly engage in critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making in extra-curricular learning contexts. Integration of Collaborative Learning (CL) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) have enabled co-construction of knowledge through an inter-disciplinary, learner-centric, tech-friendly and task-based approach replacing ELT in parts of USA, Canada, Australia and Europe. This integration is called Content Integrated Collaborative Learning (CICL), a term coined by this researcher to describe discursive learning through higher-order thinking with real-life applications. Discourse functions of critical thinking include negotiation, interpretation, discussion, query, negation, suggestion, argument, turn-taking and problem-solving.

Review of Literature

CLIL for learning content subjects in a foreign language originated in 1994, ranging from full immersion (Canada) to partial immersion (Europe, UK, USA). CLIL enabled proficiency in language and cognitive skills by redirecting language learning strategies to content subjects for interdisciplinary critical thinking (Dalton-Puffer 2008; Coyle et al., 2010). Collaborative discourse as a tool for higher-order thinking (Bakhtin, cited in Haworth, 1999) drew on dialogic learning (Vygotsky, 1986), cultural psychology (Bruner, 1996) and socio-cultural studies (Wertsch et al, 1995).

Peer-learning of cognitive, metacognitive, social and affective strategies led to the integration of CL with CLIL and Task-based Learning (Adey and Shayer, 1994). Thinking skills embedded in open-ended Content and Language Integrated Collaborative Learning (CLICL) tasks enabled learners to impose meaning, take decisions, examine multiple solutions, develop metacognition and accept responsibility for learning (McGuinness, 1999; Marsh et al., 2010). CLICL tasks became inter-disciplinary cognitive tools for analytical, critical and creative thinking in content subjects (Lipman, 1988, 2003), through scaffolding and Socratic questioning (Brown and Campione, 1993; Wegerif, 2005).

Emphasis on syllabus coverage in mainstream classrooms, however, led to teacher-talk displacing learner voices and discursive functions of dialogue for CLICL (Dillon, 1994; Nystrand et al., 2003). Integrating CLICL with mainstream curriculum, therefore, needs further research, for planning technology-enhanced tasks, generating critical collaborative discourse and engaging diverse learners (Ogden, 2000; Blatchford et al., 2003).

Research Methodology

The aim of the study is to identify the reason why some learners engage in extra-curricular higher-order thinking. The research question of the present study therefore, is:

· Can CLICL be instrumental in extending learning into higher-order thinking in real life?

Answers to the research question are sought through a case study, or an exploratory, descriptive and explanatory analysis of a specific learning event, conducted by the researcher as a non-participant observer, on a study sample consisting of three groups of twelve learners in an English medium CBSE school in Surat. The qualitative case study method is justified in the present instance, although its findings may not be generalised across a range of contexts, because:

1. An intrinsic non-interventional case study method is used to identify how and why learners apply language for higher-order thinking. The number of learners doing so does not affect this objective.

2. The study sample is not large enough for quantitative analysis.

Qualitative data analysis (Lee, 1989) alone therefore, ensures validity of this case study, unimpaired by the absence of quantitative data.

The researcher, in her role as school principal, observed groups of secondary school students, especially those scoring average or low grades in English, frequently collaborating in autonomous learning through higher-order thinking outside the prescribed curriculum. The school practiced CLICL, with English and content-subject teachers collaboratively framing tasks with integrated language and content learning outcomes matching the cognitive dimension of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT) (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). This case study analyses probable causative connections between the CLICL instructional method and autonomous learning through higher-order thinking in real life.

The twelve C-D grade language learners of the study sample constituted three groups, referred to as they called themselves:

· Authors (five members) wrote a digital iBook

· Gamers (four members) designed computer games

· Inventors (three members) created a battery charger-cum-torch

Qualitative data on the above groups was collected over one week through:

· Video-recorded interviews of learners, based on a questionnaire (Appendix)

· Report from science teacher evaluating content knowledge and thinking skills demonstrated in class

· Report from English teacher on language use for cognitive thinking

The above qualitative data is examined against criteria of critical thinking cited by Lipman (2003) and measured on the RBT scale of higher-order thinking as Analysis-Evaluation-Creativity. Triangulation of this qualitative data on language use for higher-order thinking is based on:

1. Learner interviews

2. English teacher report

3. Science teacher report

A positive hypothesis would be verified by data triangulation if qualitative data from all three above sources indicated that CLICL in the classroom motivated learners to use language for higher-order thinking in real life.

Results of the Study

The results of this case study are presented in three categories for triangulation:

1. Qualitative Data from Learner Interviews: An analysis of excepts from interview-transcripts is presented below (Table-1), indicating ten features of critical thinking (Lipman 2003) at three RBT levels of higher-order cognition by the Inventors, Authors and Gamers:

Table-1: Qualitative Analysis of Excerpts from Learner Interview Transcripts

Critical higher-order thinking is evident in language used for real-life innovative learning, which is described by learners as challenging, application-oriented and meaning-focussed (Table-1). Learners expressed satisfaction with autonomous learning from varied extra-curricular sources, connecting this with CLICL in the classroom and using it to counter unsatisfactory academic grades. They wished to interact with a global learning community, indicating thinking on a larger scale than that encompassed by curricular objectives.

1. Qualitative Data from English Teacher Reports: English teacher reports on language use by learners in class highlighted:

· Collaborative discourse of shared responsibility for learning, tolerance of differences, peer-learning strategies, peer feedback and cognitive thinking

· Average to high range of communicative fluency, but low to average performance in language accuracy, with frequent circumlocution, query, coinage, code-switching and pauses

· Frequent reference to thinking, analysis, self-correction and critical learning

2. Qualitative Data from Science Teacher Reports: Subject teacher reports evaluated the quality of thinking manifested by the learners in class:

· Collaborative, divergent and independent problem-solving

· Critical thinking levels beyond curricular cognitive objectives

· Innovative use of technology and online texts and discourse for class projects

· High self-esteem, intellectual curiosity and motivation

High levels of critical and creative thinking attained by learners was thus verified by triangulating the qualitative evidence from learner interviews with qualitative evidence from the English teacher and Science teacher reports.

Conclusion

Triangulation of data proves a positive hypothesis in response to the research question that CLICL in the classroom can extend to higher-order thinking for autonomous learning in real life. Learner motivation for higher-order thinking is verified by teacher reports that despite scoring low or average language grades, these learners used language for higher-order thinking beyond syllabus objectives. This indicates that higher-order thinking for CLICL in the classroom can be autonomously replicated by learners in real life.

Recommendations

It is therefore, proposed that teacher instruction should integrate CLICL to motivate discourse for higher-order thinking in real life contexts. Three basic features of CLICL are suggested:

1. Tasks integrating language skills with technology and content from other subjects

2. Task outcomes linking critical discourse functions (Lipman 2003) with RBT higher-order cognitive processing

3. Time for peer-learning, feedback and individual reflection

The resulting learner autonomy may increase the scope of learning beyond conventional curricular objectives of communicative fluency and accuracy to include discourse efficacy for higher-order thinking.

References

1. Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1994). Really Raising Standards: Cognitive Intervention and academic achievement. London: Routledge

2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

3. Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1-2), pp. 153-172.

4. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1993). Guided discovery in a Community of Learners. In K. McKilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.

5. Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

6. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

8. Dillon, J. T. (1994). Using Discussion in Classrooms. Buckingham: Open University Press.

9. Haworth, A. (1999). Bakhtin in the Classroom: The Dialogic Text. Language and Education, 13(2), pp. 99-117.

10. Lee, A. S. (1989). Case studies as natural experiments. Human Relations, 42, pp. 117-137.

11. Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy goes to School. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

12. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13. Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols Martin, M. J. (2010). European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education: A framework for the professional development of CLIL teachers. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages.

14. McGuinness, C. (1999) From thinking skills to thinking classrooms: a review and evaluation of approaches for development pupils’ thinking. Norwich: HMSO.

15. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analyis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

16. Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the Structure and Dynamics of Unfolding Classroom Discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), pp. 135-196.

17. Ogden, L. (2000). Collaborative Tasks, Collaborative Children: an analysis of reciprocity during peer interaction at Key Stage 1. British Educational Research Journal, 26(2), pp. 211-226.

18. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

19. Wegerif, R. (2005). Reason and Creativity in Classroom Dialogues. Language and Education, 19(3), pp. 223-237.

20. Wersch, J. V., Del Rio, P., & Alvarez, A. (1995). Sociocultural Studies of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.