Mohan (1986: iv) argues strongly for the combined teaching and learning of content and (foreign) languages and points out that 'linguistic content is inseparable from linguistic expression. In subject matter learning we overlook the role of language as a medium of learning. In language learning we overlook the fact that content is being communicated.' (Mohan, 1986: 1)
The role of language for learning is currentiy being addressed through the National Literacy Strategy (DfEE, 2000). However, as pointed out in Part 1, section 5, it seems to ignore the role that foreign language teaching and learning could have as becomes clear from Mohan's arguments. He focuses on two key factors in CLIL: the combination of content and (foreign) language teaching and learning. In order to apply his general argument to the learners, 1 discuss potential learner benefits as a result of combining content and foreign language learning. and O'Malley (1994) argue that 'content is motivating' (Chamot-Uhl and O'Malley,
1994: 27):
Content is motivating. Content-based ESL is not only important for developing academic language skills, but is also inherently more interesting to many smdents than classes which focus on language only. [...] ESL smdents can be motivated not only by the topics presented but also by knowing that they are developing the concepts and skills associated with these subjects, in other words, that they are acmally doing 'real' schoolwork instead of merely learning English. ESL teachers have also reported increased personal motivation as they rediscover areas of knowledge outside their own field of specialization.
(Chamot-Uhl and O'Malley, 1994: 27)
Learning content in a foreign language is motivating, because it allows the learners to examine topics and to develop in a foreign language concepts and skills associated with these topics: classroom interaction in the foreign language becomes more 'real' by using the foreign language for a purpose that is relevant for the learners within a
classroom setting. Phrased in more general terms, the focus of instruction in CLIL is on meaning. Met 38) describes this focus on meaning:
In content-based instruction, meaning is always the focus of instruction, learning experiences and tasks. Students need to communicate with the teacher, one another, or texts, in order to access or apply content. In so doing, the cognitive demand of tasks requires smdents to call upon their existing knowledge, concepts, skills and strategies. This strengthens the connections between the elements of language being practised/learned and previous knowledge. As we have seen, research indicates that strengthening and making connections among concepts and knowledge increases learning and retention.
(Met, 1998: 38)
By focusing on meaning, Met points out the need for the learners to be able to 'make connections.' This need and usefulness of 'making connections' is further supported by Smith and Paterson (1998: 1) who argue for cognitively demanding work:
Research has shown that cognitively undemanding work, such as copying or repetition, especially when there is little or no context to support it, does not enhance language learning and can seriously disadvantage bilingual pupils by denying them full access to the curriculum. By actively involving pupils in intellecmally demanding work, the teacher is creating a genuine need for pupils to acquire the appropriate language.
(Smith and Paterson, 1998: 1)
The 'genuine need for pupils to acquire the appropriate language' through CLIL is also reflected in the writings of CLIL advocates (e.g. Bragger and Rice, 1999; Crandall and Tucker, 1990).
Summarising the previous arguments about content and meaning, it becomes clear that the learning of content in itself is not sufficient for increasing learner motivation. Content merely establishes a basis for meaningful learning activities. Meaningful learning activities based on content allow learners supported by the teacher to call upon and develop concepts, skills and strategies. In Smith's and Patterson's (1998: 1) words, 'by actively involving pupils in cognitively demanding work, the teacher is creating a genuine need for pupils to acquire the appropriate language.'
Motivation is established through content used for cognitively demanding work in the foreign language which in turn makes foreign language learning meaningful. Van Lier (1995: 47-48) argues for 'meaningful learning':
Meaningful learning, therefore, would hardly seem possible within a traditional grammar approach. Learning an abundance of grammatical facts, and amassing a vast vocabulary, do not prepare a language learner adequately for real communication, since in a specific context the most important clues may be missed because they are 'unreadable'. Learning to read contexmal clues, and to design such clues effectively into one's own messages are skills that are learned through participating in events, and through becoming keenly aware of all the things that are given social and culmral meaning in the particular society in which we find
(van Lier, 1995: 47-48)
Van Lier (1995) relates 'meaningful learning' to the learners 'participating in meaningful events.' He remains fairly vague about what 'meaningful events.' Within CLIL, meaningful events are constituted through the learning of content and the related cognitively demanding activities. At the same time, the learning of content as such does not necessarily resolve entirely what constitutes 'meaningful' or 'meaningless' activities in a foreign language classroom as Seedhouse (1997: 339) points out when writing:
The issue of whether particular classroom activities are meaningful or meaningless is an extremely complex one, and 1 feel it has, in general, been oversimplified by the communicative approach, which has tended to imply that learners will find meaning-focused activities meaningmi, and form-focused activities meaningless.
(Seedhouse, 1997: 339)
Seedhouse points at the complexity of the notion of meaning in a foreign language classroom. He goes on to describe the relativity of the concept of 'meaning':
It is therefore vital to apppreciate the relativity of the concept of 'meaning' when applied to classroom activities, and to avoid imposing one's own preconceptions onto the learners; one has to find ways of discovering what the learners find meaningful.
(Seedhouse, 1997; 340)
Remembering my previous arguments based on Smith and Paterson (1998), it becomes clear that meaningful interaction in CLIL is not simply constituted by the learning of content in a foreign language, but through cognitively demanding
activities that are developed based on content and use the foreign language in relation to this non-linguistic content. order to re-examine the role of language in CLIL, it is useful to remember Mohan's comments (1986: iv) about the role of content in the language class. His argument contains implicitiy the answer to the question of what constittites meaning: By considering how content supports language learning and how language supports content learning, meaning is established not purely through the content itself, but through the interaction between content and language and the related learning activities.
In summary, meaningful foreign language learning in CLIL is established through a variety of factors:
• Learning content in a foreign language is motivating.
• Motivation stems from cognitively demanding work done in the foreign language.
• The use of the foreign language is supported through cognitively demanding content-based work.
• Cognitively demanding content-based work is supported through the use of tiie foreign language as it forces both the teacher and the learners to rethink teaching and learning approaches.
So far, I have established some general CLIL principles. These key features need to be considered a wider context, as has become clear when reviewing the current CLIL situation in Europe and England: tiie implementation and practice of CLIL also depends on other factors such as school, local, regional and national contexts for foreign language learning in general and CLIL in particular.
It has also become clear that meaningful learning in CLIL is established through content-based activities conducted in a foreign language, designed by tiie teacher and facilitating classroom interaction about content between the teacher and the learners.
In order to examine key features of classrooms in relation to my BFC classroom, I discuss these in the next section by considering BFC benefits as described by the headteacher, myself as teacher-researcher and my learners.