2.3 Integrated Language Learning Educational Provision
Following the 2033 European Year of People with Disabilities, the European Commission launched an investigation into the position of the teaching of foreign languages among learners with special educational needs. The resulting report, published by the European Commission (Marsh 2005) surveyed educational provision for learners with special needs across all member states. The report reviews good practices in the provision of language teaching and relates these to wider educational issues when handling children with diverse educational needs.
Some of these directly relate to provision of integrated language learning through examples of good pedagogical practice applied in contexts where students face cognitive challenges on a scale from minimal to serious.
The main objective of Special Educational Needs in Europe: The Teaching &
Learning of Languages (2005) was to review language learning provision across Europe and to identify best practice on the ground, with the aim of disseminating successful models more widely. The report observes that negative assumptions towards the ability of certain young people with special needs to succeed in education are considered widespread and active in perpetuating old arguments that create barriers to access to foreign languages.
In a 2003 report, The European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education summarizes the following professional activities as effective within inclusive education for learners with special needs.
• Cooperative teaching – teachers working together with other teachers (a specialist or colleague), the head teacher and other professionals;
• Co-‐operative learning – learners that help each other, especially when they have unequal levels of ability, benefit from learning together;
• Collaborative problem solving – for all teachers, clear class rules and a set of borders – agreed with all the learners – alongside appropriate (dis)incentives have proved particularly effective in decreasing the amount and intensity of disturbances during lessons;
• Heterogeneous grouping – mixed ability level groups and a more differentiated approach to teaching are necessary when dealing with a diversity of learners in the classroom;
• Effective teaching and individual planning – all learners, including those with SEN, achieve more when systematic monitoring, assessment, planning and evaluation is applied to their work. The curriculum can be geared to their needs and additional support can be introduced effectively through an Individual Educational Programme (IEP) that fits with the normal curriculum. (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education, 2003:15)
In 2010, The European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) published the European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education (Marsh, Mehisto, Wolff, Frigols Martin, 2010). It outlines key competences required for CLIL, some of which directly correlate with those required to implement the optimal activities reported by the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2003), and other publications, on special needs (see, for example, Holmes 1991; Cloud 1994;
Echevarria & Graves, 1998; Robertson 2000; Sparks & Miller 2000; Crombie &
McColl 2000; Miller & Gillis 2000; Donley 2002; Poór, Z. et al. 2004; Hutchins and Engels 2005; Blaz 2006; Leons, Herbert & Gobbo 2009).
The European Framework for CLIL Teacher Education introduces eight sets of competences involving application of knowledge and theory into practice. These include focus on cooperative teaching and learning which is especially significant for types of both special education needs and CLIL contexts (see, Frederickson &
Cline 2009).
In special needs education contexts one of the major features of the trends towards inclusion over recent years has been prone to ‘inevitable tensions that arise during major re-‐structuring’ (Marsh 2005:2), and ‘tension resulting from the move towards inclusive non-‐segregated education for special needs learners reportedly affecting both schools and teachers … (see, for instance, European Agency for Development in Special Needs, 2003:15-‐16). This tension is noted in relation to
shifting focus from special to mainstream schools, and moving more educational responsibilities from special to mainstream teachers. The transformation is said to imply huge consequences for special needs education’ (Marsh, 2005:10). It is also significant in blending content and language in CLIL contexts where cooperation between educators, and cooperative methodologies used between students is a fundamental feature of professional and curricular integration. (see, for instance Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010:14-‐26).
A second aspect is collaborative problem-‐solving through use of productive pedagogies which provide appropriate levels of intellectual challenge for the students involved. This is particularly significant with respect to the risk of underestimating the capacities of certain special education needs students, and the inter-‐relationship of needs with respect to other groups such as ‘gifted and talented’ (Ruiley et al. 2004). In this respect, McColl, McPake & Picozzi (2002) observe that ‘…we need to be aware of the danger of interposing our own barriers between learners and their potential learning. Believing that a particular student cannot or should not be learning a foreign language, for whatever reason, be it diagnostic or otherwise perceived, will inhibit the search for solutions. Similarly, the student who is allowed to develop that belief is less likely to succeed’
(2002:15).
Underestimating the capacity for students to successfully learn, or otherwise keeping students with special education needs isolated from other students in a classroom may be prevalent in some regions, ’the use of terms such as difficult or disorder may be counter-‐productive when considering equality of access to foreign language learning. An alternative approach involves not having predominant focus on learning disorders and disabilities, but rather on different kinds of learning ability’ (Marsh 2005:5).
Collaborative problem-‐solving is common to good CLIL pedagogies which ‘ propose instructional strategies that take into account social constructivist theory, including exploratory and other forms of discourse that promote dialogic teaching and learning’ (Marsh, Mehisto, Wolff, Frigols-‐Martin 2010: 3). This is in accordance with the view that knowledge is built on previous learning (OECD 2007), and that enabling peer groups to synthesize ideas can provide learners with options for accessing learning (Gardner 1983).
Through collaborative problem-‐solving peers can help provide appropriate scaffolding (Vygotsky 1978) that may be individualized according to need within a specific group. What is significant in collaborative learning with both special needs learners and CLIL is that it gives the teacher extra support in identifying specific input needs, and the learner more options for accessing learning. For example with CLIL, ‘If dialogic learning takes place in a context where learners are encouraged to construct their own meanings from activities requiring interaction with peers and the teacher in the vehicular language, then learners will need to be able to access language relating to the learning context’ (Coyle, Hood & Marsh 2010:35).
Fundamental to good practice in both special needs provision and CLIL is the concept of autonomous learning. This encourages learners to develop the capacity to plan, monitor and edit personal progress by way of internalised experiences.
The teacher changes role from being the feeder of information to the manager of learning resources and the facilitator of the learning process. Students learn to address problems with the teacher as a facilitator who guides rather than instructs.
The learner takes on responsibility for the learning with the teacher encouraging and supporting rather than directing the process.
The third aspect, which concerns mixed-‐ability groups, is a significant feature in both special needs education and CLIL contexts. In special needs there can be high levels of heterogeneity with respect to preferred learning styles and potential for educational achievement. This is why the shift towards individualized learning paths has been so significant in developing special needs education, and through it resources such as Individual Education Plans (IEP). One basic premise is that teaching and learning should be multi-‐mode and multi-‐variant so that they enable auditory, visual, kinesthetic, social and emotional, and meta-‐cognitive interests and needs to be met. Mixed-‐ability groups also influence assessment procedures. In recent years the issue of testing students who have varied and possibly alternative abilities has been much attention. This has led to the development of assessment tools which have alternative performance descriptions suitable, for instance, with assessing students with significantly below-‐age expectations, and through portfolio approaches where sometimes specific types of achievement can be recognized. In reviewing a national assessment framework (QCA, 2001), Marsh comments ‘These are not only low end descriptors, but alternative ability descriptors which are particularly suitable for certain types of SEN learners…. Not only does this enable the learners and teachers to work towards tangible and achievable targets, but it also helps with the design of foreign language programming and the provision of certification’ (2005:99).
Mixed ability grouping is a core feature in CLIL contexts where it can be demanding to place a cohort of students on any given development continuum. ‘The theme of assessment is a difficult and sometimes contentious area amongst CLIL teachers.
In some respects it lies at the heart of the question of how to define the level of content–language integration, because, ultimately, no matter what is taught and how it is taught, the mode of assessment determines how the learners perceive the
teacher’s intention and, of course, also shapes performance data’ (Coyle, Hood &
Marsh 2010:112). In CLIL, the age of the students and the cognitive demands of the curriculum and resources may not easily match due to competences in the vehicular language. In addition, competences in the language may be highly heterogeneous in relation to skills but also significantly domains of use. Then there is the question of what to assess, the content or the language, and in which language to carry out the assessment and so forth. In CLIL contexts one can assume that very often the teacher faces much the same challenges as with special needs due to heterogeneity of knowledge and skills, diversity of ability, and possibly motivation.
In commenting on language assessment Zangl (2000:257) outlines basic parameters that apply to good CLIL and SEN testing. Although she writes of language competence, this can apply to CLIL contexts regardless of the students involved: (1) assess the learner’s proficiency within a multi-‐component framework, comprising not only domain-‐/structure-‐specific items, but also the use of language within the social context of the classroom; (2) capture both the learner’s individual profile and the performance level of the class as a whole; (3) trace the learner along his or her developmental path where time and experience act as constructive factors.
‘The overall major challenge, in the development and implementation of a teacher education curriculum in CLIL, is its integrative nature (Marsh, Mehisto, Wolff, Frigols Martin 2010:3). The same applies to special education needs, and education in general, because ‘it is fundamentally misleading to think about a single mind, a single intelligence, a single problem-‐solving capacity’ (Gardner 2003).
2.4 Applications of SEN Provision Integrated Content and Language Learning