Less is more

Content compression in CLIL

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2021.14.1.1

Keywords:

CLIL materials, content compression, critical ideas, big ideas, business education

Abstract

Pedagogical practices that are effective in content courses are often effective in CLIL courses too, yet one such practice – content compression – is generally neglected. Content compression is the purposeful reduction of the content to be taught; however, the CLIL literature often warns against the reduction and simplification of content for fear that it might harm students’ understanding of the subject content. This paper explains the ostensibly paradoxical result that content compression improves students’ understanding of content and shows why it is well suited to CLIL, if applied correctly. It presents content compression principles and techniques that are appropriate to content production and teaching practice in the CLIL classroom and shows how it was used to enhance language acquisition by students in a CLIL business course at a Colombian university over a period of three semesters. This experience suggested that content compression, in combination with other pedagogical practices, not only increased students’ linguistic confidence, but also enhanced their perceived learning in both content and language.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aikawa, H., Fukasawa, E., & Hemmi, C. (2021). The role of the essential question in eliciting critical thinking in CLIL classes at a Japanese university. In C. Hemmi & D. L. Banegas (Eds.) International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 107–127). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70095-9_6

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., & DiPietro, M. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey Bass.

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.

Ball, P. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL materials design. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1484036

Barabási, A. L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 288(5), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0503-60

Black, P. J., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. McGraw-Hill.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press.

Costa, F., & D’Angelo, L. (2011). CLIL: A suit for all seasons? Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2011.4.1.1

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language ­integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/978100

deBoer, M., & Leontjev, D. (Eds.). (2020). Assessment and learning in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms: Approaches and conceptualisations. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54128-6

Eguíluz, V. M, Chialvo, D. R., Cecchi, G. A., Baliki, M., & Apkarian, A. V. (2005). Scale-free brain functional networks. Physical Review Letters, 94(1), 018102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.018102

Feynman, R. P. (2011). Six easy pieces: Essentials of physics explained by its most brilliant teacher. Basic Books.

Forlim, C. G., Haghiri, S., Düzel, S., & Kühn, S. (2019). Efficient small-world and scale-free functional brain networks at rest using k-nearest neighbors thresholding. bioRxiv, 628453. https://doi.org/10.1101/628453

Frank, R. H. (2011). Less is more: The perils of trying to cover too much in microeconomic principles. In Hoyt, G. M. & McGoldrick, M. (Eds.), ­International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics (403–412). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781002452.00060

García-Herreros, C. A. (2017). The road to bilingualism: Cases of success. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 10(2), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2017.10.2.6

Gondová, D. (2015). Selecting, adapting and creating CLIL materials. In S. Pokrivcáková et al (Eds.), CLIL in Foreign Language Education (pp. 151–163).

Nitra. https://doi.org/10.17846/CLIL.2015.153-163

Gromov, M. (2011). Structures, learning and ergosystems. http://www.ihes.fr/~gromov/PDF/ergobrain.pdf

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I (pp. 99–127). World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814417358_0006

Lagasabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Language attitudes in CLIL and traditional EFL classes. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(2), 4–17.

Lipovetsky, S. (2009). Pareto 80/20 law: Derivation via random partitioning. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207390802213609

López-Pérez, M., & Galván-Malagón. C. (2017). Creating materials with ICT for CLIL lessons: A didactic proposal. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 633–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.029

Marsden, P. V. (2005). Network analysis. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 819–825). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00409-6

Martin, A. J. (2016). Using Load Reduction Instruction (LRI) to boost motivation and engagement. British Psychological Society.

Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for producing CLIL learning material. Encuentro, 21, 15–33.

Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality CLIL: Successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso, 33, 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924

Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting. Y. (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.

Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. ETL Project Occasional Report 4, University of Edinburgh.

Moody, D. L. (2004). Cognitive load effects on end user understanding of conceptual models: An experimental analysis. In A. Benczúr, J. Demetrovics, & G. Gottlob (Eds.), Advances in databases and information systems (pp. 129–143). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30204-9_9

Navarro, P. M. (2018). Are CLIL students more motivated?: An analysis of affective factors and their relation to language attainment. Porta Linguarum, 29, 71–90.

Raitbauer, M., Fürstenberg, U., Kletzenbauer, P., & Marko, K. (2018). Towards a cognitive-linguistic turn in CLIL: Unfolding integration. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2018.11.1.5

Rubio, R. A. (Ed.). (2007). Self-esteem and foreign language learning. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Ting, Y. L. T. (2010). CLIL appeals to how the brain likes its information: Examples from CLIL-(Neuro) Science. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 3–18.

Wentzel, A. (2019). Teaching Complex Ideas: How to Translate Your Expertise into Great Instruction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351058117

Wiggins, G. (1989). The futility of trying to teach everything of importance. Educational Leadership, 47(3), 44–48, 57–59.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design, (2nd Ed.) ASCD.

Wiggins, G. (2010). What is a big idea? [http://www.authenticeducation.org/ae_bigideas/article.lasso?artid=99].

Wyner, G. (2014). Fluent forever: How to learn any language fast and never forget it. Harmony.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016

Downloads

Published

2021-11-22

How to Cite

Wentzel, A. (2021). Less is more: Content compression in CLIL. Latin American Journal of Content &Amp; Language Integrated Learning, 14(1), 9–40. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2021.14.1.1

Issue

Section

Articles