IMPLEMENTATION OF CLIL (CONTENT LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING) MODEL AT TRILINGUAL SCHOOLS IN KAZAKHSTAN

Abstract

The importance, role and function of using CLIL model in teaching English have been investigated and displayed in this article. Gaining CLIL methods  can motivate students to learn the language because they realize the obtained knowledge and ability in communication. Due to lessons frequency 1-2 academic hours a week, it is not always possible to practice English language  satisfactorily, particularly in an artificial classroom environment. CLIL is believed to be one of the effective ways of coding knowledge in oral cultures since it made them more memorable and easily passed on to others. In this article we will search and discuss benefits of using CLIL methods in school subjects.

Teachers are faced with the challenge of teaching language through English as a second language (ESL) or foreign language immersion settings. They need to develop the required language skills for participating in all aspects of schooling . Many educators have found that combining language and content instruction can be an effective way of helping  students to progress toward both goals.

In the strategy of Kazakhstan -2050 the trilingual policy emphasized equal acquisition of the third English language in the bilingual country. It is supposed that through learning subject content in three languages students will get access to additional information, new perspectives, and deeper understanding of other cultures [1, p. 5]. The created trilingual environment increases students’ potential, develops their flexibility, critical and creative thinking, and ability to cross-cultural cooperation, fosters respect towards themselves and others, and increases their willingness and sкіlls to learn the lаnguagеs. In this regard CLIL approach in education might be the  solution which combines the content of the curriculum and teaching in a foreign language. “CLIL is an umbrella term covering a dozen or more educational approaches (e.g. immersion, bilingual education, multilingual education, language showers and enriched language programs) [2] . If learning content through languages has been practicing in Kazakhstani tertiary education, for secondary schools it still needs developing and determining ways of implementation [3]. According to the last elaborated curriculum for these schools, History of Modern Kazakhstan, Kazakh language and Literature are taught in Kazakh, the language of instruction for Russian language and Literature is Russian, subjects like Visual Arts, Global Perspectives, Economics lessons, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics, and Physics are taught in English. A lot of scientific researches has shown that, to implementing CLIL model  to education system may lead to understanding other subjects better and brain’s potentials will be developed.

CLIL was developed in Europe in the mid-1990s as a way to facilitate the coming together of a common concept behind a variety of teaching and learning frameworks in European secondary schools aiming to integrate other languages and subject/thematic content [4]. CLIL is still promoted as a distinct pedagogical practice in second language acquisition, distinct from bilingual education, content-based instruction and immersion [5].

Some studies have shown that, if implemented properly, the language and the content learning will improve concurrently; however, this does not mean that all programs attain that level [6]. Other studies found that CLIL students did better than non-CLIL students in all four language skills in various foreign languages [7].   The successfully implementing this kind of program, it is crucial for teachers to arrange the classroom environment so that both language proficiency and knowledge of the content may develop effectively. It is also important to keep in mind some external constraints that CLIL teachers will face in these programs, such as curriculum constraints not related to language development, economic challenges that may influence student-teacher ratio, and the political context of the role that mother tongue shall constitute in CLIL classrooms [8].

We explore the integration of language and content and suggest some specific strategies for teachers to use in the classroom. Such integration may be twofold [9, p. 140]:

1) Content material is incorporated into language classes. Material from academic content areas provides practice in using specific terminology, types of reading passages, required writing styles (e.g., science lab reports), and cognitive thinking skills. This type of instruction, referred to as content-based language instruction, prepares the students for the academic demands that subject area classes impose.

2) Accommodation is made for the students’ limited language proficiency in content classes. This occurs through the adaptation of language and materials and the presentation of information that is more comprehensible to these students. This type of instruction referred to as language-sensitive, or "sheltered," content instruction, assists these students in their pursuit of academic success.

The focus of many language classrooms today is on the development of oral communication skills in order to help students talk about themselves, relate to their peers and teachers, and function appropriately in the language. This development of interpersonal communicative skills is important, but it is not enough. We also need to provide students with meaningful content area instruction and contexts upon which to base their language skills. Students who speak English as a second language need to master more than conversational skills in order to do academic work in English. They must also be able to use English to read science books, do math word problems, or reflect upon and evaluate history lessons. These latter skills, referred to as Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) by Cummins(1981), take longer to develop (five to seven years) than interpersonal communicative skills (or BICS, Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills). Both facets of language proficiency can and should be developed together. By using academic content as a basis for language lessons, teachers can focus attention on higher-order thinking skills such as analyzing, synthesizing, or predicting, and can provide students with the appropriate language labels and conventions for participating in content classes. [10, p. 145]

This approach is not limited to the language classroom. All teachers can make content instruction more meaningful by using hands-on approaches that relate math and science, for example, to real life activities. Example presented a language-sensitive content classroom where a science teacher used language teaching methods and techniques to facilitate both content learning and language acquisition for little second language proficiency students. Students get needed support after transition if the mainstream or content teacher uses a language-sensitive approach in the Classroom. Further, research suggests that second language learning is facilitated when the learner is taught using meaningful input, when new information is presented and linked to already known information, and when the learning environment is relaxed and motivating [11, p 100].

There are a number of models which can be used to help plan lessons which work towards the aims of CLIL. One of them is the 4C Framework, which goes back to Coyle (1999) (Coyle, 1999, p. 53).

Coyle’s 4C Framework lays down four competences CLIL lessons should work towards: Content, Cognition, Communication and Culture. Those keywords are to be understood as follows: (Biederstädt, 2013, p. 7):

Content: The content is determined by the subject and the focus is on the conveyance of subject-specific knowledge and methods.

Cognition: The disposition of cognitive performance is at the center of learning. Tasks and problems have to be solved autonomously and adequately by applying subject knowledge, skills and abilities as well as strategies and routines. The results have to be evaluated.

Communication: Learning processes at school are characterized by different patterns of interaction and communication. Special attention has to be paid to communication about a subject matter in a foreign language within the learning group.

Culture: The aim of intercultural learning is the perception and appreciation of other cultures and the relativisation of one’s own point of view in both a cognitive -content and emotional-affective manner.

Teachers can integrate language and content area instruction in ways that make learning each one more effective. Although some careful preparation is needed in advance to plan the lessons, it is well worth the effort.[12, p 45]. The significance of shifting the focus from a language as a subject to a language as a tool is that through learning subject content in these three languages students will get access to additional information, new perspectives,and deeper understanding of other cultures.

Conclusion : CLIL educate, teach, illustrate, enlighten, and inspire. They give relief from the routine and stimulate the minds. СLIL is  great motivators for teachers as well as for students. All teaching methods and suggestions in this article may be adapted to foreign language teaching at different grade and proficiency levels depending upon the type of  chosen models.

Bibliography:

1. Marsh, D. CLIL/EMILE: The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresightpotential. European Commission. 2002 http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/doc491_en.pdf.
2. Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010.
3. MES. (Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan)  National report on current state and development of education system of Kazakhstan. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.kz. 2017 
4. Coyle, D. CLIL: A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl, & N. 2008.
5. Coyle, D. Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. 2007.
6. Lyster, R. Speaking immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review, 43(4), 701–717. 1987
7. Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. & Moore, P. The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education:   Key findings from the Andalusian Bilingual Sections Evaluation Project. Applied Linguistics, 31, 418-442. 2010
8. Hoare, P., Kong, S. & Bell, J.Using language objectives to integrate language and content instruction: A case history of planning and implementation challenges. Language and Education, 22(3), 187-205. 2008
9. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd ed., pp. 97-111). New York: Springer.
10. Christian, D., et al. (1990). Combining Language and Content for Second-Language Students. In: A. Padilla, H. Fairchild & C. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education. Issues and strategies. P. 141-148 Newbury Park: Sage publication
11. Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983).The natural approach. San Francisco: Alemany.
12. Christian, D. (1994). Two-Way Bilingual Education: Students     Learning Through Two Languages. National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity andd Second Language Learning. UC Berkeley