Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)

Learning and teaching processes in schools demand didactical approaches. These approaches should i.a. enable a transfer between theory and practice effectively.

Therefore, a didactical approach which enables the depicted symbiosis needs to be recovered. It can be found in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). CLIL

“(…)is an umbrella term covering a dozen or more educational approaches (e.g., immersion, bilingual education, multilingual education, language showered and enriched language programmes)” (Mehisto et al. 2008: 12). Based on Coyle et al.

(2010),

“Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language. That is, in the teaching and learning process, there is a focus not only on content, and not only on language. Each is interwoven, even if the emphasis is greater on one or the other at a given time” (Coyle et al. 2010:

1).

Therefore, content and language are treated equally in this approach while the vehicular language is not restricted to a foreign one of the learners. “An additional language is often a learner's 'foreign language', but it may also be a second language or some form of heritage or community language” (Coyle et al. 2010: 1). Coyle et al.

(2010) have developed a model in order to specify the dual-focused linkages between content and language areas and to highlight main areas of concern in the setting. Four dimensions need to be considered in CLIL: (1) Content, (2) Communication, (3) Cognition, and (4) Culture. The set-up of these dimensions is called the 4 ‘C’s model while also considering a possible fifth expansive dimension: (5) Context (Coyle et al.

2010). The first dimension focuses on content as a “(…) progression in new knowledge, skills and understanding (…)” (Coyle et al. 2010: 41). This dimension does not singularly center knowledge acquisition but rather chooses a progressive approach in which the content should be holistically interpenetrated. It is important that content areas are broadened while not being restricted to the recommended areas of the curriculum (Coyle et al. 2010). The second dimension of communication highlights the dual character of language itself since language is used and learnt in the context of CLIL (Coyle et al. 2010). This approach transcends the mere grammatical structure through which structures are actively applied. However, “(…) the essential role of grammar and lexis in language learning [is not rejected]” (Coyle et al. 2010: 54). The title of this dimension is not language, which would also encompass the application process, but would not prominently strengthen the interactive character of communication. The third dimension of this approach is called cognition. Here, CLIL needs to “(…) challenge learners to create new knowledge and develop new skills through reflection and engagement in higher-order as well as lower-order thinking”

(Coyle et al. 2010: 54). This dimension is extremely important when it comes to the development of subject-based concepts. In order to be able to learn and to broaden the concept of space, learners need to reflect on their (prior) knowledge structures. This becomes even more important and complex if multiple languages are introduced to the process. The complexity of multiple languages in the learning process is also highlighted by phenomena such as “ ‘Self’ and ‘other’ awareness, identity, citizenship, and progression towards pluricultural understanding” (Coyle et al. 2010: 54). This

fourth dimension is called culture and is partially neglected in the pursued approach since it operates as an ambiguous term. In light of the research focus on language-sensitive concept development, culture is reflected, however not centered upon. The final dimension, which was not originally introduced in the 4 ‘C’s model, is set out by the given context. Each CLIL setting differs in relation to its context since in Germany, learning sequences may focus on different dimensions than in Spain (Coyle et al.

2010). In light of this approach, the above-stated concepts of space and plurilingualism can be equally regarded in the didactical setting of CLIL, which allows the learners to develop a plurilingual concept of space. However, CLIL approaches are not new to the field of language-sensitive didactics as they were firstly introduced to the European context in 1994 (Coyle et al. 2010). Based on this development, a wide array of research findings needs to be emphasized in the CLIL context: the role of language and communication (Dalton-Puffer 2007, Järvinen 2007, Lasagabaster 2013, Llinares et al. 2012); the role of culture (Coyle 2009, Sudhoff 2010); the development of teaching materials and methods (Dale & Tanner 2012, Ioannou-Georgiou 2010, Massler & Ioannou-Georgiou 2010, Steiert 2010); the role of evaluation (Massler 2010, Massler et al. 2012, Massler et al. 2008); and research based on level-specific education (Egger & Lechner 2012) as well as multiple contexts (Ruiz de Zarobe et al.

2011). Summarizing the debate on CLIL, the discourse in research as well as in practical teachings has been strongly dominated by linguists rather than subject-based scholars.

Considering CLIL education in the context of Germany, most of the realized research can be described as bilingual education. Based on García (2009), “[b]ilingual education refers to education in more than one language, often encompassing more than two languages (…) [and using] the language as a medium of instruction; that is, bilingual education programs teach content through an additional language other than the children's home language” (García 2009: 5–6). In the context of Germany, bilingual education mainly refers to the use of a foreign language as a medium of instruction (Bonnet et al. 2009). Diverse research projects focusing on the role of bilingual education and using a foreign language as a medium of instructions in content areas have been carried out in the German context (Bonnet & Breidbach 2004, Bosenius 2004, Breidbach et al. 2002, Breidbach & Viebrock 2013, Doff 2010). Especially in terms of the school subject of geography, research focusing on bilingual education has been discussed (Hoffmann 2004, Lenz 2002, 2004, Meyer 2009, Viebrock 2007).

Although Coyle et al. (2010) highlight the role of additional languages in CLIL education, in the German context, teachings and research mainly focus on the application of a foreign language in the CLIL setting. Hereby, the issue of the role of the

school language is still being highly debated (Kiely 2010). Butzkamm (2000) talks about the effective incorporation of the mother tongue while referring to the German language. The incorporation of linguistic and cultural resources due to migratory processes is not pursued in a classroom of the 21^st century (Dirim et al. 2008).

Therefore, the plurilingual potential of the learners is not recognized in CLIL programs in the German context (Weißenburg 2015).

The presented paper can therefore be seen as a contribution to the stated research desideratum as it applies characteristics of the CLIL approach onto the context of plurilingual subject-based education. However, in order to effectively link the development of subject-based concepts to approaches of plurilingualism, a language-sensitive approach in the field of didactics is needed. Therefore, the didactical approach by Coyle et al. (2010) is applied while not drawing on parameters of the bilingual education discourse in the German context because this only focuses on the effective application of a foreign language through a content area. The pursued approach centering on spatial education as a subject matter with a high language sensitivity regarding migratory languages will be called plurilingual spatial education in the following.