Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) – A Review

Although there are numerous definitions of CLIL, majority of them include foreign learners. However, this study requires a definition that incorporates second language in CLIL environments. This was because the sample of the study was slightly aware of the English language, and therefore they did not call it a foreign language. Also, this research intended to check the impact of CLIL materials on their English language and partly, content learning. Accordingly, the operational definition must have assimilated these requirements for the success of this investigation. Coyle et al. (2010) defined CLIL thus: “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” (p.1). It is the operational definition for this research. Generally, researchers who are exposed to different CLIL definitions believe that the additional language is a foreign Language for learners. Hence, they feel CLIL does not incorporate the second language or first language of the learners. However, Coyle et al. (2010) clarified that “an additional language is often the learner‟s foreign language, but it may also be a second language or some form of heritage language or community language” (p.1). So, it was pleasing to know that CLIL is not language specific and in fact, it is open to all the languages. In this present era of globalization, where ideas and expertise are quickly shared from various outlets, young learners understand the value of acquiring strong English language skills. As Lal and George (2017) have noted, school is the primary source of English language learning for a significant number of young learners in India. According to Dale and Tanner (2012), teachers as well as materials will be able to satisfy the demands of today. Since the key demand is to make the learner to give equal priority to content as well as the use of language, it is imperative to update the tools. Eurydice (2006) believes that the current methods of English language teaching do not create much interest among the learners. In addition, learners are generally introduced to content areas in conventional approaches even though they know learning the English language. Consequently, Banegas (2011) indicates there is a clear need to follow the approaches that teach English as well as a topic of content together. When there is an exceptional approach because of its specific characteristics, it will certainly be sought out. Marsh (2002) suggests that if the learners acquire additional information that will be useful for their whole lives other than the language and material, then they will acquire an enriching experience. It is where Content and Integrated Language Learning (CLIL) will in fact prove beneficial to the learners. CLIL is an education-related method that uses various language recognition strategies that contribute to a form of teaching that brings both language and material value (Coyle, Hood & Marsh, 2010). Therefore, CLIL includes learning both content and language, since it is of great combines curriculum content teaching with non-native language teaching" (p.5). Hence, the focus of content is often drawn from the learners' current curriculum. Van de Craen (2006) said it is a valid, based form of content learning along with language learning. It was described by Marsh (2002) as an approach that addresses languages, cultural knowledge between various communities, grasping cognitive skills, and globalization growth. It can however deliver much more than the normal learning in the regular English language classrooms. Coyle (2007) explained that CLIL varies from other mainstream approaches because it relies on a well-considered context-specific integration of information, perception, connectivity, and community. Community may also be overshadowed by democracy at times. It is recognised inside the CLIL universe as the 4C's program. Coyle et al. (2010) introduced the idea simply in image form.

Figure 1.1 demonstrates that all 4C's are interwoven and are implemented by taking into account the meaning in order to satisfy the learners' specifications. A learner thus not only learns vocabulary and information in a CLIL classroom but also evolves cognitively. Coyle et al. (2010) proposed that "the terms language and connectivity shall be used interchangeably within the context of the 4C" (p.42). This shows that CLIL is at the heart of promoting meaningful dialogue in the target language. This helps to develop the students ' personal skills. Besides that, it always promotes the ideals of good citizenship and openness to various communities. Therefore, CLIL seeks to improve the learners in various important aspects of their student life, personal life and social environment. According to Coyle et al. (2010), CLIL settings do not distinguish between shape and meaning, but give importance to both depending on the specific CLIL environment. Therefore, learners have opportunities

Though CLIL only came into being in the early 1990s, it is much older than that. Mehisto et al. (2008) wrote that the Akkadians used Sumerian language in today's Iraq about 5000 years ago to study subjects like theology, botany and zoology. Mehisto et al. (2008) claimed that although it was not entirely CLIL, Latin has been used as a second language in European universities teach science, law, medicine, philosophy, and theology. Therefore, CLIL's origins were there for thousands of years. Coyle et. al. (2010) has confirmed that the distribution of college instruction by using an extra language occurred after the enlargement of the Roman Empire, when Greek hegemony was invaded 2,000 years ago. Nevertheless, not all parts of society have had such a system of study. Only those who were part of the elite segment of society were privileged to be a part of such advanced courses. Content was always in the forefront of many academic courses. Language was given prominence only after the content areas. Coyle et al. (2010) added that there was a curiosity in finding out a method to introduce language teaching when the students learn different content areas so that they get more familiarity to the languages in general. This was to make sure that they learn new languages without losing focus on the content areas. Along with the content knowledge, some language practitioners also felt the need for a method that can improve the learners‟ language proficiency. They argued that some have also pondered for the pertinent teaching methods to develop learner interest, necessity for superior communication and language producing abilities. Hence, there was a need for an approach that could almost improve the overall language abilities of the learners. They also reported that the academic interpretation was aimed at achieving superior level of language comprehension in the latter stages of the 1990s. It is clear that language learning has only gained more prominence in the last few decades. It led to the emergence of CLIL. Graddol (as quoted in Linares, Morton & Whittaker, 2012) confirmed that the word CLIL was invented in Europe in 1994 and has become a global trend in the curriculum as medium of instruction since English language has attained the status of an international link language. Marsh (as quoted in Kupetz & Becker, 2014) told that since the early 1990s CLIL has been a well- known method in Europe. It was used to combine teaching content with a second, foreign or extra language which acts as a teaching medium. Therefore, it was during the 1990s that CLIL

This strategy has also gained attention because it is timesaving for a learner. Coyle et al. (2010) were in favour of the argument that more than usual hours allotted for the language teaching if one wants to have acceptable results. They pointed out that although the impetus for learning a language changes from place to place, the standard objective is to achieve excellent results in a short of time. CLIL provides for two subjects to be taught in one class, saves time, and thus paves the way for the desired results to be achieved. It is only during the mid-2000s that CLIL has started expanding to other countries. Eurydice (2006) informed that CLIL became a rapidly growing event by the year 2006. Breidbach (as cited in Kupetz & Becker, 2014) has clarified that in CLIL schools, students‟ selection depended on the proficiency of their target language. It was believed that learners who have weak language proficiency were not suitable for CLIL and might interrupt the CLIL classes. Hence, initially, it was available only for good language users, but over the years, the situation has improved. Coyle et al. (2010) noticed that CLIL has made the combination of learning of content and language available for a wide spectrum of students unlike in the recent years when it was available only to those from the upper-class families. Thus, CLIL is also playing a part in educating the weaker sections of the societies. Mehisto et al. (2008) asserted that “the world is rapidly becoming a mixed global village” (p.10). They also informed that since the world is interconnected, mixed learning is growingly seen as a present-day model to render education. With CLIL, the learner is endowed with the skills and information to face globalisation. Hence, CLIL has all the modern-day requirements that are needed from an approach and it is one reason why it has emerged so rapidly.

This is believed that the teacher would have had his or her own view of the world around, because the CLIL approach was used in a formal language classroom. It is agreed that this understanding would form the basis on which CLIL should be applied as both the subject matter and the second language teaching method. The teacher's learning goals set in a classroom could be either „subject-led‟ or „language- led‟. The learner appreciates the instructor only when the learning goals should always be subject- led. The need for learners to study the language of the subject matter added and learned is 'language-led' if the learning goals set by the instructor are determined in the class. The researcher believes this. important. CLIL provides opportunities for limitless creative activities which are conducive to subject learning and second language learning. At the heart of teachers adopting CLIL in second language teaching, lay the ability of the innovativeness of teachers, and how well the opportunities being presented to them are being used. Innovation in turn has its basis on how the knowledge of both content and second language is used to perceive the wider world. If possibilities of this are being researched upon, then exploration of these academic research practices and data for such research would present itself in the classroom where CLIL is implemented. Opportunities for endless innovative practices would enable teachers to test hypothesis, make observations and document findings for further research in second language teaching. The 'language-led' approach to CLIL opens the door for learners to develop their language skills whilst studying the subject matter. The grammatical techniques are improved, and the usage of appropriate words has a wider reach. Communication skills in a second language are gaining momentum. The combination of a second language with material makes second-language learning important. The 'subject-led' CLIL approach often opens up another avenue of how, in verbal form, the information gained as material is learned can be communicated in academic or technical contexts routinely and creatively. Students are therefore expected to be guided in the articulation of these thoughts.

CLIL has many benefits to offer to all the stakeholders including students, learners, parents, creators of materials and administrators, etc. Firstly, CLIL is not confined to any one language or field of content. Bentley (2010) briefed that several CLIL modules establish associations between different subjects of the curriculum. This means that a CLIL teacher can actually bring in and teach content from two or more curriculum subjects using a target language. It is useful in certain aspects of certain subject areas where the learners are weak. Here the language teacher can help the material teachers obtain the desired results. Second, the content used gives a lot of gains for the learners. Coyle et al. (2010) stressed that the content should help in gaining information and expertise, as well as helping the learners build their Mehisto, Frigols and Marsh (2008) subsequently stated that CLIL offers scaffolding, efficient instruction, stakeholder engagement, legitimate priorities and incentives on many facets of teaching and learning. A CLIL learner is introduced to approaches that help his language and knowledge learning by creating a direct connection to his real- life scenarios. So, he gets an environment that seems to him to be very natural resulting in learning and acquiring language. This approach is also quite engaging for the stakeholders since they need to monitor students ' progress and requirements very closely. Thus, it is subject to improvements even in the course, unlike in conventional strategies where the syllabus is fixed, and the stakeholders have a very limited amount. It is also advantageous for the learners as improvements to the course may be made to achieve the desired behaviour based on their response. The students also obtain encouragement in the form of scaffolding from their peers and teachers resulting in better learning. Another important contribution of CLIL is that it gives much importance to the learners' cognitive development. It focuses on producing students who, in difficult circumstances, are not only able to acquire knowledge but also to apply that knowledge. Bentley (2010) advised that when the learners are very young the cognition-related skills develop. So, this research aimed to interact with high school- level young minds. The emphasis was on Bloom's revised taxonomy: Later Bloom‟s views on thinking skills received ample support. (Anderson and Krathwohl (2001)). The learners switched from lower order thinking skills which are nostalgic, knowing, applying skills such as assessing, evaluating, and developing to higher order thought. Bentley (2010) proposed that the cognitive abilities of the learners could be improved using challenging tasks and activities tailored to the subject field. As a result, CLIL learners are usually given tasks that are much higher to their scope so that they can work hard and drive themselves to seek knowledge. Additional advantage is that the CLIL materials are very clear regarding the learning findings. Apart from the 4C curriculum, the materials also give prominence in helping the learners understand the learning process. Bentley (2010) told that the end effects of teachers' learning aids provide a straightforward interpretation of the courses and a clear flow of lessons. The end-learning results also help the teacher focus on the entire class and generate a clean assessment path for students. Consistency receives the support of many educationists in teaching and learning activity. attending only one course. Coyle et al. (2010) explained that CLIL teachers often face the problems in vocabulary, content or both. They stated, however, that this depends for the most part on the results of the module delivered to the learners. CLIL also provides the value of saving time. A learner may get access to two different facets of schooling without wasting much time in the same class. Students may also study the target language in various subject classes on a given day, using the same period they spend in the classroom. It is also a competitive situation for management because there will be more speed advantages spending less time. CLIL is important because often the learners feel inspired because the content is taken from their mandatory curriculum. Fernandez (2014) wrote that the CLIL teaching accommodates learning in a purposeful sense which is not present in the classrooms of traditional English. All this generally gives the learners the idea that CLIL can also be useful in their key material courses end up paying extra attention. Gardner (1985) proposed that second-language learners with a favourable attitude towards a culture and people become successful in learning a language better than those who have negative attitudes. The 4C program opens the learners up to diverse backgrounds and citizenship values. The students should develop a positive outlook for a community that leads with the aid of the teachers to increased motivation to study the target language.

Depending on the amount of significance the language and content is given, CLIL is broken down into two forms. Bentley (2010) reported that Soft CLIL is a language driven as curriculum subjects become language program components and that Hard CLIL is a subject driven by the fact that 50% of subjects in the curriculum are taught in the selected language. The goals of the course also determine which form of CLIL will be included in a specific curriculum. In most cases, however, we initially incorporate soft CLIL, and as the learners are familiar with it, hard CLIL is introduced. Another essential feature of CLIL is that the instructors are qualified to manage the courses. Coyle et al. (2010) stated that teachers' participation is important because it is the beginning of a course design. Therefore, a specific type of CLIL can be used for a specific course depending on the teachers' expertise. The language teachers generally, teach soft CLIL

teach daily. Language teachers may have to spend more time knowing the type of material they can use in their classrooms. Similarly, teachers of content might need to understand the language-related aspects they plan to teach in their classrooms. It may happen independently or in conjunction with the other subject's instructors. Meshisto et al. (2008) explained that language teachers are helping subject teachers by helping learners draw the language needed to handle the content of various subjects. Dale and Tanner (2012) told that CLIL facilitates greater communication between language and subject teachers. Therefore, CLIL ensures teamwork among all schoolteachers which, due to the sharing of methodological knowledge, can in turn contribute to teacher learning. A language teacher should always help the content teacher updating the content to be used in the classroom. In the process, the content teacher should make the language teacher aware of updated versions of the language to be used in the classroom. This benefits the students because both the teachers are aware of the activities in the classrooms of each other and can pitch the lessons accordingly. Since the learners had never been exposed to CLIL, soft CLIL was used for this study. Dale and Tanner (2012) suggested a proper execution of CLIL would inspire the progress, transformation, renovation and thinking of the entire school. These programs not only motivate the learners but also encourage the schools to change positively in line with CLIL domain trends. The transition may vary from student testing to teaching methods.

CLIL is important because many Indian graduates are deemed unfit for employers to recruit because they lack communication skills. That is one of India's major causes of unemployment among educated youth. Also, the critical stage hypothesis of Lenneberg (1967) suggested that it was a reasonable opportunity to learn a language that stopped at puberty. According to it, secondary school level is a suitable age for obtaining the foundation needed in studies. Therefore, the researcher felt the need for secondary level inquiry into CLIL. Typically, many learners in their fields of specialization are fine, involving mostly the subject matter but not the English language. Therefore, if CLIL is put into action at different rates, and if it works positively for these students, then it can produce fruitful results in lowering unemployment among educated youth in India. they were mindful that the use of material is important in language learning. However, implementing CLIL is not easy, as CLIL materials are scarce. Banegas (2011) noted that many studies in Argentina's secondary education suggested that the emphasis was on the materials and curriculum development. This means that although CLIL programs are widely implemented in Argentina, the materials are still in want. Banegas (2016) indicated that the content awareness of the teachers played a vital role in guiding their lesson plans where emphasis was laid on learning new material without neglecting language skills. Therefore, often content directs the way how materials should take a form. Banegas (2016) pointed out that the teachers in Argentina analysed their teaching time as guided by language, but prioritized material compared to languages. It should therefore be noted that the teaching time is mostly influenced by the goals of language learning. Banegas (2011) validated that many CLIL reports admitted that it relies on the knowledge gained by English students by participating in general foreign language classes and the content is normally derived from gripping cultural issues. Hence, the source of many research studies in Argentina is the English medium students, and culture is used as an important part of the content. Even though there are several studies at the secondary level, CLIL is also widely used at the tertiary level. Banegas (2011) after examining the findings of several conferences deduced that CLIL is mainly found at the tertiary level in Argentina. So far, the literature review presented here only revealed the efforts made by the teachers and the learners to implement CLIL in Argentina. The researcher also made efforts to know the contribution of stakeholders. Banegas (2016) noticed that there was an official call for using CLIL in the curricula of secondary level education in Argentina. The call also prescribed that the teaching methods and materials should suit the context and the first language curricula. Hence, it is evident that there is an official interest to use CLIL approach in Argentina. Banegas (2015) notified that in secondary and tertiary level education, Argentina appears to advocate the CLIL approach that is steered by language. Furthermore, it was important to understand the significant language aspects the CLIL teachers used. Banegas (2016) established that the teachers gave importance to developing learners‟ oral communicative skills, reading and written skills. He further added that the teachers mostly used visual aids to have the involvement of the students. He also found that three major fields of language items namely functions, grammar and skills. Inclusion of functions suggested that the teachers have given priority to the use of languages in everyday situations. Incorporating grammar and vocabulary also suggested that value was given to form. Banegas (2016) notified that many authors agreed that to make CLIL a meaningful and lasting encounter, we need to follow a holistic model. Thus, the practitioners in Argentina believe that both meaning and form are a part of CLIL. Efforts must be made to develop the overall aspects of the learners. Apart from the language and content, CLIL practitioners in Argentina gave a lot of importance to cognition. Banegas (2016) appraisal is that cognition and language learning result when teachers provide diverse activities to their pupils. Finally, assessment got the attention it deserved because it could play a key role in motivating or demotivating the learners. Banegas (2016) wrote that evaluation was based on both content and language, and there was a connection between the planning of the lessons and evaluation. Hence, the teachers always tried to ensure content validly in CLIL. Some researchers have also cautioned about the available problems in the CLIL implementation. Hillyard (2011) observed that generally, the content teachers mostly know a single language and do not realize the advantages of knowing more than one language. On the other hand in connection with CLIL teachers who teach a language feel that they are not capable of teaching other content areas like science or mathematics. Thus, he has raised concerns about the ability of the teachers to handle CLIL. Further, Hillyard reveals his observation that teachers who are good at language, content area and CLIL methodology are fewer in number. Thus, there is a need for quality teacher training to improve the standards of CLIL teachers in Argentina. Castaneda (2017) notified that Spain got influenced by the socio- economic difficulty resulting in the cutting of funds related to education. It has affected the standard of education leading to the suffering of students. Talking about the standard of education, Castaneda (2017) informed that the curricula of the education system in Spain have depended a lot on the memorisation of vocabulary and grammar. The curricula have also focused on translation by ignoring the communicative approach or the second language oral communicative skills. This resulted in the need for communication skills in the Spanish context. Tsuchiya and Murillo (2015) educated that Spain is made up of different communities, and there are various official languages such as Catalan, Spanish, Basque and Valencian. As a result, it is not easy to choose one language as many languages are used in the country. The decision to use certain languages for communication among its citizens rests with the policy makers. Tsuchiya and Murillo (2015) maintain European Commission, and the Commission of European Communities. They informed that initially, the Council of Europe created concepts to develop education on multilingualism in 1982. Thus, because of the diversity of important languages, not just one, but many were given preference in Spain. Nonetheless, a decision to select an appropriate approach which can help in achieving multilingualism was not taken. Finally, in 1990, it was the European Union that took a decision to promote languages using CLIL. Tsuchiya and Murillo (2015) disclosed that in European nations, CLIL was introduced in the mid portion of 1990s because there was an effort to follow multilingual plans of the European Union. After 1990, there were other policies too that were designed to promote languages. A case in point was the Common European Framework of reference for languages established in 2001. Later, in 1999, the Bologna Declaration was set up and finally, in 2003, the Action Plan from 2004-2006 was introduced to encourage the implementation of CLIL. Thus, a blueprint was developed for using CLIL across the country. Tsuchiya and Murillo (2015) maintained that in Spain CLIL prompted better understanding between a community and a community while making the movement of Spaniards on the world platform easier than earlier. Since CLIL gives the flexibility of introducing any language, encourages communication skills and intercultural knowledge, Spain believed CLIL could lead the students to globalisation. After knowing about the introduction of the approach, it is also important to understand the CLIL research in Spanish context. Tsuchiya and Murillo (2015) in their article on the language policies at tertiary level in Spain and Japan concluded that in Spain, CLIL is proactive because the policies of European Union related to bilingualism and multilingualism are obeyed. Costa & D‟Angelo (2011) informed that Basque institutions in Spain conducted a CLIL research on the Basque schools. It was found that the students from the study groups had higher speaking abilities than the control groups. Since the major aim of the policy makers was to develop the communication skills of the students, this study proved that CLIL was the right decision to achieve this objective. This study motivated the researcher in the present context as his research was also based on developing oral communicative skills using CLIL. However, Costa and D‟Angelo (2011) followed an experiment design by using control group and experimental group. Here, the present researcher employed the parameters of a single group pre-test and

Arribas (2016) conducted a study to know the receptive vocabulary results of the students. He also wanted to know the motivational levels of students for CLIL and English. He found that because the CLIL students were highly motivated, they scored higher marks in the assessment of receptive vocabulary when compared to the non- CLIL students. Llull (2014) conducted a CLIL study on the use of comics in CLIL in the field of social sciences. He found that comics motivated the learners and eased the process of learning. These two studies indicate that CLIL improves the vocabulary, eases anxiety and motivates the learners when compared to traditional approaches. Costa and D‟Angelo (2011) appraised that since 1996, a lot of bilingual courses were implemented across Spain using CLIL. Garcia (as cited in Tsuchiya & Murillo, 2015) notified that bilingual and multilingual programmes have boosted the level of languages in the Spanish context. Official figures suggest that 34 from a total of 77 Spanish universities offer bilingual and multilingual modules using CLIL. These programmes are mostly offered in English and the other two official languages. Other than the students, CLIL carried out research on teachers. Costa and D‟Angelo (2011) conducted a study to draw important guidelines for CLIL teachers. They found that the teachers should have the required expertise both in content and language. Whenever possible, there should be teamwork among teachers, and they should give importance to the evaluation of content and language both. Guillamon-Suesta and Renau (2015) conducted a research on CLIL at the secondary level to find if English was used for CLIL in Spanish secondary schools. They were also interested to know the attitudes of CLIL teachers. They found that some teachers implemented it at the nursery and primary levels. Both the language and content teachers exhibited satisfactory attitudes regarding the outcomes of CLIL from their learners. Finally, there were also some valuable suggestions from some researchers to improve the status of CIL in Spain. Arribas (2016) concluded that for the success of CLIL in Spain, the students should develop better abilities in English. This was because the CLIL and English as Foreign Language teachers verified that the learners have below par abilities to use English in the classrooms. This implies that in Spain, the problem is not only with the teachers in implementing CLIL but also with the learners, because they do not have the basics of English. Arribas (2016) suggested that teachers should make attempts to motivate the students because it impacts their attitudes, and positive attitudes lead the learners to academic achievements. Finally, the researchers believed that the sole motivators are Coyle et al. (2010) emphasized that it is among the top countries that apply and practice CLIL by using the English language. Breidbach and Viebrock (2012) told that CLIL modules were introduced in Germany after the Franco-German treaty was signed in 1963 with the goal of encouraging international relations. Business and economics have thus been primarily responsible for the introduction of CLIL in Germany. Initially, only French was provided in CLIL schools, Breidbach and Viebrock (2012) told. Nevertheless, English CLIL programs were widely marketed in the 1990s because English was gaining popularity as a foreign language. As Germany is a multilingual country, CLIL could be used with a wide variety of languages. Nevertheless, Germany chose to use English after initially using French. Classroom-based CLIL research and the use by participants of their language tools for learning and teaching, including such diverse viewpoints as pragmatic dialogue, speech acts, roles of academic language and gender, are discussed.

In language and subject teaching, the use of Material and Language Integrated Learning is considered a modern pattern for incorporating all sections (linguistic and factual) into teaching. Secondly, it addresses the needs of globalisation and uses lingua franca as a medium of communication within international communities. While it is very challenging for the participating learners and instructors, the realistic employment of this teaching method is expected. CLIL stresses positive learning outcomes, cognitive understanding, logical thinking, and the use of a language in the context of the subject in real life. Learners acquire the basic communication structures in a foreign language that are being created.

1. Mehisto, P., Marsh. D, & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning in Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Oxford: Macmillan Education. 2. Coyle, D. (2007). CLIL: Towards a Connected Research Agenda for CLIL Pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543-562. University Press. 4. Llinares, A., Morton, T., & Whittaker, R. (2012). The Roles of Language in CLIL. New York: Cambridge University Press. 5. Breidbach, S., & Viebrock, B. (2012). CLIL in Germany: Results from Recent Research in a Contested Field of Education. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(4), 5-16. Retrieved from http://www.icrj.eu/14/article1.html 6. Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT Course: CLIL Module. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 7. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London, England: Edward Arnold.

Research Scholar, Department of English, Sri Satya Sai University of Technology & Medical Sciences, Sehore, M.P.