Strengthening integrated learning: Towards a new era for pluriliteracies and intercultural learning

Do Coyle

Abstract


Over the last two decades, the expansion of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) on a global scale has brought to the fore challenges of how alternative, more holistic approaches to learning might transform classrooms into language-rich transcultural environments. Integrated approaches have the potential to offer learners the opportunity to engage in meaning-making and language progression through cognitively challenging and culturally-embedded sequenced activities, which are reflected in the 4Cs Framework (Content, Cognition, Communication, and Culture). However, the 4Cs also present many challenges—it is well documented that the potential of CLIL is difficult to realise due to the impact of complex contextual variables. The importance of classroom language is emphasised, as is the need for learners to access different kinds of language to enable them to learn effectively using a language which is not their first—as represented in the Triptych. Whilst the 4Cs bring together the components of CLIL, research by the Graz Group into how these might be integrated has led to the development of the Pluriliteracies Framework. The core of the Pluriliteracies model lies in the space where conceptualizing and communicating come together. Here learners are encouraged to language (or articulate) their learning in their own words. For this to happen, new ways of conceptualizing, planning, and sequencing activities that support learners in accessing new knowledge whilst developing existing and new language skills have to be shared and understood by teachers. The Pluriliteracies model is evolving, and there is a clearly a need for further work.


Full Text:

PDF

References


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, NY: Longman.

Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1992). Bilingual education. In J. M. Lynch, C. Modgil, & Sohan Modgil (Eds.), Cultural diversity and the schools: Vol. 1. Education for cultural diversity: Convergence and divergence (pp. 273–283). London, England: Falmer Press.

Bernaus, M., Andrade, A. I., Kervran, M., Murkowska, A., & Sáez, F.T. (2007). Plurilingual and pluricultural awareness in language teacher education: A training kit. Retrieved from the Council of Europe, European Centre for Modern Languages website: http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/publications/B2_LEA_E_internet.pdf

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. London, England: Longmans.

Bonnet, A. (2012). Language, content and interaction: How to make CLIL classrooms work. In D. Marsh & O. Meyer (Eds.). Quality interfaces: Examining evidence and exploring solutions in CLIL (pp. 175–190). Eichstätt, Germany: Eichstaett Academic Press.

Bruner, J. (1982). The language of education. Social Research, 49(4), 835–853.

Crane, C. (2002, November 23). Genre analysis: A step toward understanding the different stages of advanced language instruction. Paper presented at the ACTFL/AATG conference, Salt Lake City, UT. Retrieved from http://data.georgetown.edu/departments/german/programs/curriculum/manuscripts/cranegenre.html

Council of Europe (2010). The languages of schooling. Retrieved from the Council of Europe website: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Schoollang_EN.asp

Coyle, D. (2002). From little acorns. In D. So & G. Jones (Eds.), Education and society in plurilingual contexts (37–55). Brussels, Belgium: Brussels University Press.

Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0

Coyle, D. (2009, February 27). CLIL for the new curriculum. Paper presented at CLIL conference, Willink Specialist Language College, Reading, UK.

Coyle, D. (2010). Language pedagogies revisited: Alternative approaches for integrating language learning, language using and intercultural understanding. In J. Miller, A. Kostogriz, & M. Gearon (Eds). Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: New Dilemmas for teachers (pp. 172–195). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.

Coyle, D. (2011). Investigating student gains: Content and language integrated learning. (ITALIC Research Report 09-0670). Retrieved from the University of Aberdeen, ITALIC website: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/italic/documents/ITALIC_Report_-_Complete_Version.pdf

Coyle, D., & Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2007). Research on content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 541–542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050708668197

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Dahllöf, U. (1991). Towards a new model for the evaluation of teaching. In U. Dahllöf, J. Harris, M. Shattock, A. Staropoli, & R. Veld (Eds.), Dimensions of Evaluation (pp. 116–152). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Eagleton, T. (2000). The idea of culture. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Retrieved from the Istituto Nazionale di Documentazione, Innovazione e Ricerca Educativa website: http://www.indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_file/eurydice/CLIL_EN.pdf

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London, England: Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/3897.Rich_Seam_web.pdf

Gee, J. P. (1989). What is literacy? Journal of Education, 171(1), pp. 18–25.

The Graz Group. (2014). Literacies through content and language integrated learning: Effective learning across subjects and languages. Retrieved from the Council of Europe, European Centre for Modern Languages website: http://www.ecml.at/F7/tabid/969/language/en-GB/Default.aspx

Halliday, M. A. K., & Mathiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional grammar. London, England: Arnold.

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. English Language Teaching Journal, 64(4), pp. 376–395.

Llinares, A., Morton, T., and Whittaker, R. (2010). The Roles of Languages in CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE – The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential (European Commission Report, Public Services Contract DG EAC 36 01 Lot 3). Retrieved from the University of Jyväskylä, UniCOM Continuing Education Centre website: http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/doc491_en.pdf

Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – Mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 41–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924

Orban, L. (2008, September 26). Address to the EU Language Strategy Conference, Paris, France.

Polias, J. (2007). Assessing learning: a language-based approach. In M. Olofsson (Ed.), Symposium 2006: Bedömning, flerspråkighet och lärande. Stockholm, Sweden: HLS förlag: Nationellt centrum för SFI och svenska som andraspråk.

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2013). CLIL implementation: From policy-makers to individual initiatives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 231–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777383

Stigler, J.W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York, NY: Free Press.

Van Lier, L. (2008). Ecological-semiotic perspectives on educational linguistics. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 596–605). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean – scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 161–195). London, England: Continuum.

Vollmer, H. J. (2008). Constructing tasks for content and language integrated learning and assessment. In J. Eckerth & S. Siekmann (Eds.), Task-based language learning and teaching: Theoretical, methodological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 227–290). Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany:Peter Lang.

Wolfe, S., & Alexander, R. (2008). Argumentation and dialogic teaching: Alternative pedagogies for a changing world. Retrieved from the Beyond Current Horizons: Technology, Children, Schools, and Families website: http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/argumentation-and-dialogic-teaching-alternative-pedagogies-for-a-changing-world/


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Indexed in: Emerging Sources Citation Index, ERICDOAJLinguistics Abstracts OnlineGoogle ScholarsMLA Bibliography - Language, Linguistics and LiteratureOpen J-GateDirectory of Research Journals Indexing, EBSCO, ProQuest, e-revist@s,

Email: laclil@unisabana.edu.co