Which learners for CLIL?

It is important for CLIL to be implemented at various levels and in different

educational contexts in order for smaller-scale changes to have a more widespread

transformational impact (Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto, 2008).

Yet issues of equal opportunities where plurilingual education is concerned are also

often raised, at least historically; for instance, there is evidence that Languages are

perceived as a difficult subject only suitable for the few (Graham, 2004). In many

contexts, CLIL approaches are introduced for the more able; yet there is much scope

for the development of models such as CLIL when aimed towards lower ability

learners, in particular where motivation factors are considered (Coyle et al., 2010).

It is also often argued that primary education may lend itself well to the more

naturalistic integration of language and content learning. Singleton and Ryan (2004)

argue that early language learning capitalises on learners’ natural attributes, their

motivation, and provides scope for learning to take place over a longer period of

time, thus improving learners’ end level of linguistic competence. The motivational

benefits of early exposure to language learning have also been demonstrated by

Blondin and colleagues (1998) and Sharpe and Driscoll (2000). There also exists

some evidence to show that younger learners may develop better speaking and

listening skills (Blondin et al., 1998; Krashen, Scarcella & Long, 1979; Long, 1990;

Singleton & Ryan, 2004). Furthermore, there is evidence that learners can identify

with their own national cultural group(s) and form national stereotypes at a very

young age (Barrett, 2005), and that these early established views are less likely to

shift when compared to those developed at a later age (Jenkins, 2014). It would

therefore seem essential that some form of intercultural teaching should occur at

primary age (Driscoll et al., 2013; Hawkins, 1981).

Although there are limitations to primary learners’ scope for linguistic proficiency,

their opportunities to encounter otherness exist and should be fostered, including

within their own homes and school communities (Cable et al., 2010; Driscoll et al.,

2013). This view is also shared by Byram and Doyé (1999), who argue that many

aspects of intercultural competence can be developed in a primary context. Indeed,

when intercultural teaching is considered, rather than limiting potential gains in

terms of language acquisition, there remains much value for extending the learning

of languages to primary level learners (Sharpe & Driscoll, 2000). Indeed, there is

some evidence to show that learners, by being exposed to language learning at an

earlier age, can develop increased openness to others (Gangl, 1997). Furthermore,

Hawkins (1981) suggested that the ability to show empathy towards others,

especially where boys are concerned, tends to decline once learners reach adolescent

age, and it could therefore be argued that intercultural teaching would be better

delivered at primary level.

Language Awareness is one of the approaches adopted for intercultural teaching at

primary level in some contexts. It is often argued that such an approach can be

particularly suited to primary learners by offering them opportunities to develop an

understanding about their own and other languages, with a focus on developing an

ability to compare and contrast a wide range of languages rather than developing

linguistic competence in a single language, which in turn can provide a firm

foundation for future language and intercultural learning (Driscoll & Simpson, 2015;

Hawkins, 1984). Indeed, positive outcomes in terms of linguistic and intercultural

competence development have been reported (Candelier, 2003). In addition, this

approach would also require less curriculum time than a programme centred on

linguistic acquisition, and as such could prove a suitable solution to the often cited

time constraints imposed on the languages curriculum in many schools (Driscoll,

2003).

Recruiting teachers with the necessary skills to deliver intercultural teaching is a

challenge (Driscoll et al., 2013; Wade, Marshall & O’Donnell, 2009). Although

Pérez-Vidal (2002) attributes the increasing application of CLIL methodology in

primary settings to the perceived advantage which primary teachers may have over

their secondary colleagues, owing to their better understanding of a wide range of

curriculum subjects, Driscoll and Simpson (2015) note that primary teachers have

limited, if any, experience of foreign cultures, as many would not have had the

opportunity or need to live abroad as part of their degree-level education. As a result,

they may lack the necessary expertise required for in-depth intercultural teaching

(Beacco et al., 2010; Sharpe & Driscoll, 2000). Driscoll, Earl and Cable (2013) also

note that teachers have not yet capitalised on the opportunity to draw on the cultural

diversity of their learners at primary level, failing to take the opportunity that this

readily available source of intercultural learning offers. Driscoll and Simpson (2015)

advocate capitalising on learners’ own intercultural experiences, developing further

existing whole-school events and identifying key cultural themes which could be at

the core of cross-curricular planning. However, they also note that such a cross-

curricular approach to intercultural teaching, although supported by curriculum

policy documents, can only be possible if teachers receive relevant initial as well as

continuing in-service training.

In addition, other practical constraints must be factored in when considering the most

suitable learners for intercultural teaching approaches such as CLIL: curriculum time

afforded to language learning in primary schools is very limited (Driscoll &

Simpson, 2015; Wade et al., 2009). This is also accompanied by a lack of funding for

primary languages, challenges regarding primary teachers’ expertise and well-

documented issues of transition between primary and secondary language learning

(Beacco et al., 2010; Sharpe & Driscoll, 2000).

Whilst primary level learners can be suited to CLIL instruction owing to its more

naturalistic approach, there is also an argument for its benefits to be fully realised at

secondary level, as learners will possess more advanced linguistic and cognitive

skills (Coyle et al., 2010). In order to be successful, Sharpe and Driscoll (2000)

contend that early language teaching must take into account the cognitive maturity of

learners, rather than base its practice on secondary level models.

When considering this, the pressures of examination systems on both teachers and

learners, and the lower levels of linguistic and cognitive skills at primary level, may

make the lower-secondary learners ideal beneficiaries of a CLIL approach (Coyle et

al., 2010). Macaro (2008) therefore contends that increasing language teaching time

in Year 7 to a minimum of five hours per week would ensure the rapid progress

needed at KS3 in order to maintain learner motivation and their level of competence,

especially where lack of progress is seen as a key cause of demotivation, in particular

amongst boys, including in the early stages of secondary education (Davies, 2004).

The view that lower-secondary learners would make the most suited CLIL audience

is also shared by Barton (2001), who notes that there is evidence suggesting that,

while girls’ attitudes towards language learning does not decrease significantly

between KS3 and KS4, boys’ attitudes, already less positive than girls’ at KS3,

decrease even further at KS4. This gender/age concern is also supported by Davies

(2004), and in light of the particular context of the English curriculum, where –as we

have previously discussed- issues of gender and performance are key considerations,

gives further strength to the argument for developing further the intercultural

teaching which takes place at Key Stage 3.