Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) 42 

CLIL is defined as ‘a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language’ (Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols, 2008:9; Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010: 1). An additional language (AL) is basically referred to as learners’ foreign language (FL); however, it might also include learners’ L2, according to Coyle, Hood and Marsh, (2010: 1). AL, FL and L2 are also called CLIL language (Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols, 2008; Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010). For the present study, AL, FL, L2 and CLIL language mean English. As mentioned earlier, CLIL focuses on the integrated learning of both content and language which is similar to CBI. However, CBI is likely to be implemented in language classroom (Owen, 2002; Brinton, Snow and Wesche, 2003; Hu, 2008).

In CLIL programme, learners’ FL and so on is the language of instruction of each and any subject. CLIL requires the collaboration among school staff especially content teachers (subject teachers) and language teachers (English teachers). Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008: 11) explain that content teachers teaching content e.g. maths, science, art, business, etc. in CLIL programme play a role in supporting their students in understanding a particular part of language knowledge necessary for becoming skilful in the learning content. Language teachers do not only teach the language, in accordance with the school curriculum but they also help their students acquire language essential to effectively learning the content. The teachers’ role in accordance with CLIL approach is reported by Suwanarak’s (2013: 186) study which reports that particular aspects of English language are taught to facilitate Thai primary students in the immersion bilingual education school to comprehend key concepts of Science and Maths.

43

Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010: 3) state that the attention in the CLIL

programme is driven by different ‘language-supportive methodologies.’ Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010: 36) propose that these different ‘language-support methodologies’ belong to the concept of the ‘Language Triptych’ which

comprises ‘language of learning’, ‘language for learning’ and ‘language through learning’ (Figure 3.2).

Figure3.2: The Language Triptych by Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010:36)

‘Language of learning’ includes genre analysis which plays an important role in revealing ‘the need to acquire language specific to subject and thematic

content’ (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010: 37). The use of genre analysis becomes clear when looking at Coyle’s, Hood’s and Marsh’s (2010: 35) example that students are assigned to describe an experiment in a science class. Subject and language teachers of CLIL programme realise in agreement that students need to acquire ‘the concept of pastness and past markers’ (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010: 37). With genre analysis, the sample

sentences and verbs conjugated in the past tense are selectively introduced based on the content of learning (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010: 37). Through

44

this teaching and learning process, the concept of past tense as well as students’ AL is used in a meaningful way. With the ‘language of learning’ perspective, language areas which learners need to understand and master concepts and skills relevant the thematic or topical subject are analysed (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010: 37).

‘Language for learning’ is originated by the perception that AL is a tool for communication with peers and teachers in CLIL classrooms. Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010: 37) point out that ‘language for learning’ mainly focuses on classroom language which includes the development of repertoire of speech acts. ‘Language for learning’ aims to enable learners to learn the subjects through AL and to discuss, dispute, as well as ask questions relevant to the subjects by using AL (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010: 37). Further, ‘language for learning’ appears to relate to the interaction with language models. According to Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008: 107), language models include CLIL teachers and guests who are invited into the classrooms. Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008: 107) also propose that ‘language for learning’ could be developed by engaging in field trips, a buddy system, and international projects in which students discuss and solve problems with different people and at the same time absorb certain aspects of AL necessary for learning the subjects (Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols: 107).

‘Language through learning’ relates to capture learners’ language problems, address the emerging problems of language in the learning situation and readdress them for further language development (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010: 38). ‘Language through learning’ is promoted by classroom interaction and speaking activities (Coyle, Hood and Marsh, 2010: 37) which necessarily require a safe learning environment and praising system, similar to the

traditional language classrooms. Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008: 105) point out that both teachers and students are responsible for creating the safe learning environments i.e. being free from ‘ridicule’, ‘sarcasm’ and ‘physical aggression’ to the communication in AL in CLIL classrooms. Instead, positive and constructive feedbacks are given to students in order for them to analyse, to cope with content and language problems and at the same time to improve their language. (Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols, 2008: 105). An activity within the concept of ‘Language through learning’ includes students’ display and oral

45

reports on their success in the assignments on which teachers, head teachers and parents can give feedback (Mehisto, Marsh, and Frigols, 2008: 109). Section 3.3.2.1-.3.3.2.2shows that CBI and CLIL are referred to as the two teaching approaches used in immersion bilingual education where EMI is implemented such as in Thailand. Unlike CLIL, CBI means to develop learners’ language proficiency through integrating particular content into language

lessons. CLIL facilitate learners to achieve in learning language and content simultaneously through the cooperation between the language and content (subject) teachers. This is supported by Owen (2002), Brinton, Snow and Wesche (2003), Hu (2008), Mehisto, Marsh and Frigols (2008), Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010), and Suwanarak (2013). Both teaching approaches appear to be implemented in immersion bilingual education. It might be argued that it is important for pre-service teachers to learn how to teach through CBI and CLIL during their teacher education programme because the understanding and being skilful at two relevant teaching approaches would enable them to teach effectively in bilingual schools. In what follows, Section 3.4 presents

requirements of an (English) teacher education programme should take into consideration for training its pre-service teachers.