By María de la Lama E
In many private schools in Lima there is an increase in the number of
courses taught in English. Courses like Social Sciences, Mathematics and Literature have
boosted parents’ demand for such courses like never before. The term CLIL
(Content and integrated learning of languages) appeared in the nineties with
the aim of integrating the learning of a foreign language with the learning of
new content. In this methodology, language and content are two equally
important aspects and a special effort must be made to maintain the balance
that prevents one from eclipsing the other. The ultimate goal is to achieve
proficiency in the language by learning new content.
What are the main benefits of the CLIL methodology? To begin with, the
integration of the aforementioned content with language provides a real
communicative context, one of the main foundations for the acquisition of a
second language. In fact, CLIL seems to correct several problems of language
teaching. In CLIL courses, students have a real interaction in the language due
to their need to develop knowledge. On the other hand, in foreign language or
second language courses, there is frequently a very controlled interaction
between the students, enough to practice a new structure and, generally, in
contexts that may not be too attractive for them. In fact, CLIL courses expose
students to topics that are more relevant to them, increasing their motivation,
which in turn will promote the acquisition of the foreign language.
However, the integration of language and content, which is the heart of
the CLIL methodology, is not an easy task, especially due to the insufficient
number of teachers. For this methodology to be applied successfully, teachers,
if they are not native speakers, must have a native command of the language as
well as a solid knowledge of the content to be taught. But even if the
availability of teachers were not a problem, it must be asked whether students
really improve their performance in the second language with the CLIL
methodology compared to the results of the foreign language courses.
Research aimed at comparing the results in language acquisition with
that of traditional language courses shows that CLIL students improve their
listening comprehension, fluency, reading comprehension and their vocabulary
range. In an excellent paper entitled “Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL): Limitations and possibilities”, written by Ena Harrop, there are some
interesting research results worth to be considered. According to some authors,
CLIL students’ pronunciation and writing accuracy do not show a significant
improvement when compared to students that have been learning English as a foreign
or second language. Furthermore, according to Cummins (1998) in CLIL courses,
there is not enough focus on the form, which in may in turn cause the
fossilization of grammatical errors. Finally, CLIL courses can only favor the
development of receptive skills rather than the productive ones.
In summary, although CLIL courses can offer several advantages over
modern language teaching approaches, it seems that the balance between content
and language has not yet been reached. Much research still needs to be done to
point out the benefits of this methodology compared to the results of modern
language teaching approaches.
And now, your turn:
Are CLIL courses that good for boosting
foreign language acquisition?
How much do our students improve their
command of a foreign language when learning not the language per se, but
something else through that language?
Should schools promote the teaching of
subjects such as Literature, Social Science or Math in English?
References
BIODATA:
DE LA LAMA, MARIA, Bachelor in Education, has a master's degree in
Applied Linguistics and a Bachelor's in Linguistics, both obtained at the
University of California, Davis. She also holds an MBA from Universidad del
Pacífico. She currently serves as the Director of the Language Center at
Universidad del Pacífico.
Are
