Usha Kiran Raghupathula, Ph.D. Scholar in English, Andhra University. Visakhapatnam
&
Dr. Rama Naga Hanuman Alapati, Assistant Professor of English, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam
e-ISSN 2349-2155
Introduction
The history and progression of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been quite formidably attached to and has seen major strides predominantly at the school level. Technical education as a platform of teaching language, has not been seen as a platform in which supposedly radical ideas like these are usually employed. The typical Engineering curriculum and pedagogy usually lean towards what are tried and tested patterns and approaches.These approaches often value extensive knowledge and expertise over cognitive skill development and language teaching as they are often expected to be prerequisites. However, this outlook assumes students joining technical education to be already proficient in English, the language of instruction, which is most certainly not an accurate representation in the sample set of students we happen to see in India. This applies almost as a certainty to a large section ofstudents enrolling for technical degrees in the nation. This discrepancy in method and practicality is one of thereasons why there is an obvious need for the introduction and subsequent application of novel methods in teaching and the inclusion of new pedagogical approaches in technical education. This paper attempts to propose and thereby throw light on the feasibility of one such modern approach, Content and Language based learning in Engineering colleges.
Defining CLIL for Technical Education
CLIL as an approach, first had its beginnings in Finland, as it was initially proposed, developed, given a name, and finally employed at the University of Jyvaskyla in Finland and the European Platform for Dutch Education. These roots, however, are based at most, on broader assumptions of integrating language learning at a much deeper level. Since language is deeply integrated in the approach of learning as a functional system. Bonces (2012) clearly explains about the intrinsic relationship between subject learning and language acquisition:
The educational community needs to be aware that using a foreign language when teaching content incurs in language learning since structures, vocabulary, and pragmatics, among other linguistic features, are implicit in the topic being taught. (p.178)
This view established the premise that the process of language acquisition is rather ‘implicit’ in learning, and based on this premise, a call for a unified all-encompassing approach towards CLIL can be easily justified. However, translating this to an already established pedagogical system in the technical education level, has much more nuance to it.
Setting up the Standards
To approach the need of an approach like CLIL and its applicability in the scope of technical education, it is quite helpful to look at the current landscape and understand the core philosophy of the approaches and methodologies that are predominantly applied at this level. As a standard language learning is placed under the aegis of a standalone subject that which is compulsory. This comes under the approach of English for Specific Purpose (ESP), wherein language training is typically prioritized over literature. This makes an important case for the Engineering students, as its inclusion is strategically prescribed in the form of a subject with a separate examination in the first and third years owing to the vocational aspect of language acquisition as a major proponent in terms of helping the student thereby, vastly improving the chances of his/her potential employment.
To provide for an understanding of what aspects of the process of language learning are essential in technical education, one needs to consider the current curriculum and derive the requirements. A major emphasis is always placed on skill acquisition which greatly depends on providing an adequate amount of exposure to the student in all four skills (Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing). This, however, cannot be accomplished only by the commission of a separate class and curriculum for the sake of language learning, as it provides for a very specific, yet limited exposure time. Hence, the obvious need for a deeper integration of language learning into the core subjects is warranted.
Gaining an insight into the current fabric of teaching pedagogy will therefore, at a certain level, provide us with enough knowledge to understand its shortcomings in terms of the focus on language acquisition, thereby enabling us to perhaps consider changes to the approach. The current approach, which is having English as a standalone paper and the core subjects being purely pragmatic in terms of linear content delivery, does not prove itself to be effective in the wholistic development of the student’s language ability. However, Language learning being prescribed as a separate discipline, has its own fundamental benefits as it clearly provides an incentive for the student to approach language acquisition as a means and a reliable method of gaining academic credit. Therefore, its inclusion is somewhat beneficial to the overall structure of the language teachingprocess as it gives a tangible reason for the student to work on it.
ACase for CLIL
CLIL proposes exposure on levels that overseed a separate curriculum for English. It incentivizes a constant and relentless focus on language learning and language acquisition irrespective of the subject in question, and the class being taught. The focus on language is constantly set as a parameter in all parts of the learning process. This holistic approach of language centered pedagogy renders CLIL to not just be a set of parameters and suggestions of approaches, but an all-encompassing system that encroaches itself into all aspects of the teaching-learning process.
The process of learning language through content involves an approach that demands its teacher not only to be proficient in their subject and pedagogical practices, but also demands a certain level of command over the English language as well as the ability to adapt to a dynamic variety of pedagogical changes throughout the curriculum.
The TKT: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL); Teaching Knowledge Test Handbook for teachers, clearly states:
In CLIL, learning a curricular subject (Geography for example) in a second or third language involves drawing on effective pedagogical practice from a range of different educational contexts. (p.6)
However, this level of change requires amends at the institutional and administrational level. It is not just a mere coincidence that CLIL was a success in its application and execution at the school level. This is mostly because schools are more centralized in the aspects of administration and standards of teaching. Therefore, the application of a methodology like CLIL in technical education require substantial changes within the approach. Changes to the mode of teaching, the language employed in the content and the material supplied, and almost each and every interaction within the classroom need to be addressed in separate contexts that take into consideration the feasibility and contextual awareness of the faculty.
Understanding Tangible Outcomes
The central benefit of an approach like CLIL is that it ismostly based on a set of principles that guide an approach rather than having a distinct set of fixed rules. This provides for a greater amount of flexibility to customize individual approaches to individual cases. The approaches can be very varied and concerned with a wide and dynamic range of applications. Hence, a clear understanding of the fundamental concept of CLIL; and the overarching philosophy of the approach will provide for a greater understanding into producing concrete and tangible approaches customized to the target institution. This overarching philosophy shall be discussed in brief in the next part.
Some of the methods in which CLILcouldbe applied in technical institutions with little to no changes to its fundamental fabric of pedagogical practice are discussed below, these range from pragmatic suggestions to inferences to the ideal.
1. Opting for self-written assignments that include high-level cognitive questions and prompts instead of written exams that usually test basic levels of comprehension and the memory of students. Assignments provide an opportunity to test and thereby to incentivize teaching writing techniques for the students. These enable the student to present what s/he had learnt and acquired in a more stress-free environment (as opposed to a stress induced examination) apart from developing his/her individual ability in writing.
2. Replacing typical viva-voce sessions with presentation sessions that promote teamwork and greatly increase opportunities for a large amount of exposure to the student. This helps the student to view his material in different perspectives often unbeknownst to him/her while preparing for an examination. The structure of a presentation provides for the student to engage with the material in a much deeper and wider set of contexts that open many ways of comprehension that s/he would be apathetic towards in a conventional set of teaching application.
3. As envisioned by Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956), questions that are at the level of ‘creation’, ‘evaluation’, and ‘application’ demand subject knowledge along with an ability to apply language effectively at different circumstances. The way questions are posed in a subject examination go a long way towards demanding and thereby improving the student’s level of thinking. This helps the student to transform from that of a plain receiver of subject information, into one who can understand and analyze certain concepts and use language to better present and utilize the subject knowledge he gains.
The Philosophy of CLIL
To get into grips with the philosophy behind CLIL, onewould likely benefit by an exercise in reading and comprehension far beyond the boundaries of this paper. However, in a certain attempt to fathom the ideology behind thisapproach, the 4c’s of CLIL, stated as ‘Cognition, Culture, Content and Communication’ (Do Coyle, 2003) are a suitable set of definitions:
The 4Cs Framework seeks to assure quality in terms of guidance for:
Content ~ progression in knowledge, skills.
Communication ~ interaction, language using to learn.
Cognition ~ engagement: thinking & understanding.
Culture ~ self and other awareness/citizenship.
- Coyle, D. (2008)
To reiterate this wholistic process would indeed be a gross injustice to the work done by Coyle. Therefore, a rather elementary explanation would be that CLIL is most certainly an approach, in its fundamental ethos, that pertains to a much deeper level of pedagogical goals than simple language teaching. Apart from ‘content’ and ‘communication’, the remaining two C’s, ‘Cognition’ and ‘Culture’ indicate a much wider philosophical standpoint. It focusses on crafting the personality and overall capability of the student. This aspect of an all-encompassing pedagogical approach towards language acquisition is the theoretical basis in which CLIL is executed on.
Deeper Integration of CLIL Pedagogical Practices
The process of the application of an approach like CLIL in technical education, is quite uncommon in practice. The inclusion of practices far removed from that of the typical lecture system is quite definitely, a novel change in technical education, where fundamentally, the transfer of subject knowledge and technical know-how typically supersedes all the other aspects of learning. Learning as a pedagogical aspect includes not just the delivery and reception of information and its effectiveness, but also a wide set of extracurricular concerns that need more attention. Especially as colleges tend to craft the personality and overall capability of the student not just as a product of knowledge and as an effective member of the workforce, but also as an effective citizen, this aspect of an all-encompassing pedagogical approach towards language acquisition becomes even more important.
To ascertain a deeper understanding towards the challenges and determine the overall feasibility of implementing an approach like CLIL, one must be poised to investigate practical considerations like the ability of the individual teachers who are required and the infrastructure of the institution in question. The national wide availability of English Language labs is a welcome addition to the infrastructure of most colleges. And when it comes to the faculty, one should consider the requirements that are accepted to be the norm. TheCLIL Teachers Competency Grid(2019) outlines the qualities that are essential for a teacher in the CLIL framework as follows,
1. Knowledge of methodology for integrating both language and content.
2. Ability to create rich and supportive target-language environments.
3. Ability to making input comprehensible.
4. Ability to use teacher-talk effectively.
5. Ability to promote student comprehensible output.
6. Ability to attend to diverse student needs.
7. Ability to continuously improve accuracy.
These qualities on a wider scale can be most practically expected from the technical faculty in most institutions across the nation, when in comparison with the schools. Changes to the pedagogical approach are fundamental in nature. However, as opposed tothe school level, it helps that the faculty typically employed in technological institutions is usually much more capable or at least more acquainted with the learning and teachingof English language owing to the aspect that all masters courses in the nation are confined to the English medium in instruction. Adding to this, the prerequisite of an excellent record in academics and research writing for the post of an assistant professor in an Engineering college in most institutions, provides for arather certain availability of faculty with, on average, a much greater ability to adapt approaches like CLIL into practice. This, in comparison to that of the typical school, wherein the students are also expected to be much more limited in the aspects of cognitive ability because of their age, makes the proposition of CLIL in the college level to be much more pragmatic. Therefore, the implementation and proper execution of CLIL has more psychological and political barriers than that of practical ones. It is important for the institution as a whole to balance its priorities in language teaching and core competency to provide for a wholistic improvement.
Conclusion
There is no denying thecertainty that CLIL improves the ability of the student in terms of language acquisition; and in the same breath, drastically increases the level of understanding and applicability of the content and skillset of the subject concerned. As opposed to learning just the technical jargon in a conventional subject class, the student will be able to ingrain within himself, the very crucial aspects of understanding the contents in levels much deeper than that possible without a language focused approach. This method entails for a much richer experience of the process of learning and is perfectly scalable to the levels of higher education, as the comparatively more advanced cognitive abilities of the students is a major advantage. In conclusion, this paper proposes CLIL to be mutually beneficial in a sense wherein the students are deeply ingrained in the subject matter and language acquisition becomes more of a powerful tool rather than that of an additional burden.
References:
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2016). Putting CLIL Into Practice (Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers) (UK ed.). Oxford University Press.
Bonces,Jaisson Rodriguez (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): Considerations in the Colombian Context.In Gist Education and Learning Research Journal. ISSN 1692-5777. No. 6, November 2012. (pp. 177-189) Universidad Central, Colombia.
Bertaux, P., Coonan, C., Frigols, M., & Mehisto, P. (2009). CLIL Teachers Competency Grid. Obtenido de CLIL Cascade Network.
Bloom, B. S. and Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:The Classification of Educational Goals, by a Committee of College and University Examiners. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York City, NY: Longman.
Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL – APedagogical Approach. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl, & N. Hornberger, Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2nd edition (pp. 97-111). Springer.
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Hillyard, S. (2011). First steps in CLIL: Training the Teachers. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 1-12.
Lexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). Comparing the Writing of CLIL and non-CLIL Students in Higher Colleges of Technology. Language use and Language Learning in CLIL classrooms, 7, 169.
TKT: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL); Teaching Knowledge Test Handbook for Teachers.(2019). Cambridge University Press.
