Forces driving clil. david marsh. córdoba2012

4,073 views
3,856 views

Published on

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,073
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2,325
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
32
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Forces driving clil. david marsh. córdoba2012

  1. 1. CEP Luisa Revuelta de Córdoba - 15 November 2012 - David Marsh Forces Driving CLIL
  2. 2. Change Agents in Fast Developing Systems & CLIL Adopting a holistic view of education which shifts towards learner-centricity Identifying key success factors such as equity and competence-based education involving problem- solving skills and pattern recognition Recognising that demand for change now requires a response as significant as the setting up of basic education systems which occurred at least a century ago and that these have changed little in this time Moujaes et al. 2012 Canada, New Zealand, Korea
  3. 3. Change Agents in Fast Developing Systems & CLIL Leveraging quality through focus on creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration Changing curricula from emphasis on what to learn towards how to learn, and activating this in rich learning environments Recognising the relevance of the newly emerging literacies & communication with respect to the impact of technology on the lives of young people Moujaes et al. 2012 Singapore, Finland, Australia
  4. 4. that occurred in different classes, and those variations depended mainly on the qualityof teaching in different classrooms. The Evidence-base Growing Globally since the 1960s Exhibit 5: The effect of teacher quality Student performance 100th percentile her teac 90th percentile ing* erform hi gh-p with ent Stud 53 percentile points 50th percentile Student with low -perform ing** tea c her 37th percentile 0th percentile Age 8 Age 11 *Among the top 20% of teachers; **Among the bottom 20% of teachers Analysis of test data from Tennessee showed that teacher quality effected student performance more than any other variable; on average, two students with average performance (50th percentile) would diverge by more than 50 percentile points over a three year period depending on the teacher they were assigned Source: Sanders & Rivers Cumulative and Residual Effects on Future Student Academic Achievement, McKinsey The negative impact of low-performing teachers is severe, particularly during
  5. 5. Enhancing Education takes Time – Finland 30 years 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
  6. 6. Innovation Paths: CLIL vs. Standard Education 6 5 4 3 CLIL Standard 2 1 0 2012 2014 2016 2018
  7. 7. Effects from Learning Activities – 0.40upwards considered Significant§  Self-reported grades 1.44§  Formative Evaluation 0.90§  Classroom Discussion 0.88§  Teacher-student Relationships 0.72§  Concept Mapping 0.60§  Cooperative Learning 0.59§  Visualization 0.55John Hattie Visible Learning (2012)Page § 7
  8. 8. Dimension 1Simultaneous Pressure for Change 1990-2012 Socio-political Top-down Pressure European Integration Equity of Access to Languages Educational System Transformation Educational Top-down Pressure Language Competences Language-learning Performance Educational Practices Transformation
  9. 9. Examining Existing Educational Practices Total Immersion Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol Partial Immersion Cognitive Academic Language Learning Double Immersion Cross-curricular Language Teaching Bilingual Education Content-based Language Teaching Two-way Immersion Task-based Language Instruction Dual language Immersion English as medium of Instruction Foreign language Immersion English for Specific Purposes Heritage Language Immersion Content-based Instruction Content and Language Integrated Learning CLIL
  10. 10. Stability over CLIL Definitions 1994 - 2012 a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language (EuroCLIC 1994) a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of content and language with the objective of promoting both content and language mastery to pre-defined levels (ECFT 2010) a general term to designate different types of bilingual and immersion education (Eurydice 2012)
  11. 11. O R G A N I S AT I O N SECTION II – FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROVISION IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIL IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATIONK-12 Current Status - Europe 2012 – 2006 (Eurydice) CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING IS PART OF MAINSTREAM PROVISION IN ALMOST ALL COUNTRIESIn nearly all European countries, certain schools offer a form of education provision according to whichnon-language subjects are taught either through two different languages, or through a single languagewhich is foreign according to the curriculum. This is known as content and language integratedlearning (CLIL – see the Glossary, Statistical Databases and Bibliography section). Only Denmark,Greece, Iceland and Turkey do not make this kind of provision. 2012 Figure B9: Existence of CLIL provision 2006 in primary and/or general secondary education, 2010/11 CLIL provision in all schools CLIL provision in some schools CLIL provision within pilot projects only No CLIL provision Source: Eurydice.Explanatory note Eurydice 2006 & 2012CLIL provision in some schools: The practice is not necessarily widespread. For detailed information on CLILprovision in each country, see Annex 2.This figure does not cover:
  12. 12. The CLIL Development TrajectorySummarising Dimension 1 1 Political integration Professional inter-linking of 2 language teaching with other disciplines Parent and student Trajectory 3 expectations Simultaneous with other 4 integrative trajectories influencing education Impact of competence- 5 building on curriculum
  13. 13. Dimension 2Mainstreaming and Student DiversitySpecial Needs Specific Needs(often through psycho- (often through Specialmedical paradigm) includes educational paradigm)single or multiple disabilities, includes migrantsor disorders Specific students, thosegenerally longer-term hospitalized,challenges giftedness generally shorter-term Mainstream challenges Placeholder
  14. 14. Significance of Scale: Special Needs Scale of Students with Special Needs Indicative Rates Around 20%Page § 14 Finland 30% of all students receive special education each year NNDR 2012
  15. 15. Significance of Scale: Special & Specific Needs Scale of Students with Special & Specific NeedsIndicative ratesvary considerablyand can be 40%+ UK 55% London primary students not having English as first language (2010) due to migration, National: 0.5m (MW 2012)
  16. 16. Stresses a Triple Focus for Teaching & Learning The Learner If everyone is percieved as the same, we don’t find the need to think about thinking Content For SEN language experts cognition and student engagement is crucial Individualizing learning paths Language means combining cognition, content & language as in CLIL
  17. 17. Inclusion, Innovation & Integration Inclusion of special & specific needs students has expanded over 2000-2012 in most EU countries for different reasons This drives the need to explore alternative ways of ensuring equity of access to language learning, accelerated access to education, and ways of de-stigmatizing certain cohorts of learners SEN research describes research and examples of good practice where content and language are integrated This leads to the hypothesis that an integrated CLIL approach can enhance learning outcomes for a broad range of young people, those with special/specific needs and those without
  18. 18. The CLIL Development TrajectorySummarising Dimension 2 Inclusion into mainstream 1 classes, and equity of access to effective language learning Migration and changing composite 2 of classrooms Trajectory 3 Recognition & diagnosis Cognition, thinking skills & 4 individualized learning paths Understanding how to overcome learning challenges leads to 5 culture of individualized learning & implementation of solutions such as socio-constructivist holistic teaching and learning
  19. 19. Dimension 3CLIL as Holistic Practices & LA Coyle et al. 2010
  20. 20. Challenges, Constraints & Opportunities In this information-rich age language awareness is an increasingly significant competence in L1 and L2 Traditional education has often led to deficit in language awareness with responsibility solely with L1 & L2 language teachers Language teachers face major restrictions of time in the curriculum. Even if they wanted to develop language awareness time, and other constraints, are a challenge CLIL can provide both extra time, and crucially context, for developing both L1 and L2 language awareness, if the teacher has the pre-requisite skills
  21. 21. The CLIL Development TrajectorySummarising Dimension 3 Enhanced competences in language awareness is 1 a long-standing goal in quality language education Increasing access to digital 2 information requires acute critical thinking skills Media-rich lifestyles of Trajectory 3 young people impact on L1 and L2 Interactive basis of new digital landscape 4 strengthening case for socio-constructivist educational practices Power of language awareness 5 to promote learner autonomy
  22. 22. Dimension 4Impact of Languages on Individuals Recent expansion of evidence-base due to research within the neurosciences 1960-1979 1980-1999 2000-2009 Est. 2012EC 2009, plus projected
  23. 23. New Knowledge Driven by Innovative Research PracticesMBE: To improve the state of knowledge in & dialogue betweeneducation, biology, and the developmental & cognitive sciences University of University of Cambridge, Centre for Harvard, Graduate Neuroscience in School of Education Mind Brain Education Education International Mind, Brain & Education Society OECD:CERI
  24. 24. Significance of Plasticity for (Languages) Education‘Weak enough to yield to an influence, but strong enough not to yield all atonce’ William James, The Principles of Psychology (1890) cerebral architecture is heavily influenced by experiences such as when learning at school, or immersion in a new environment Mind BrainThe brain as adaptive andmalleable and not ‘hard-wired’ PlasticityAthanasopoulus et al. 2010
  25. 25. Significance of Plasticity on Media Use8-18 year olds – USA – hours of exposure 1999-2009 2009: Multi-tasking 1999: Multi-tasking alongside use at 6.19 per alongside use at 7.38 per 29% of time day day 16% of time. 51.66 per 43.33 per week week 6.21 per day 43.47 per week 2004: Multi-tasking alongside use atRideout, Foehr & Roberts 2010 26% of time
  26. 26. Core Findings on Enhancement through L2 Flexibility cognitive, affordances, interpretations, creativity, divergent and convergent thinking Problem-solving executive function processing, attentional control Metalinguistic awareness linguistic processing, enriched information processing Learning memory, abstract and symbolic reasoning, innovative thinking, hypothesis formation Interpersonal skills communicative sensibility, interactional competence, context understanding
  27. 27. The CLIL Development TrajectorySummarising Dimension 4 Ideas emerging from authentic neuroscience with 1 relevance for education (Howard-Jones 2011 ) Technological advances through fMRIs, PET, OT, and 2 others have a major impact on understanding processes of language & thought (Ojima et al. 2010) Advantages of using two languages on regular basis Trajectory 3 outweighs disadvantages (Bialystock 2010) Broad advantages from using two languages on a 4 regular basis that support learning of other subjects (EU 2009) The neurocognitive mechanisms for learning the L1 have 5 implications for learning an L2 in CLIL-type immersive environments (Morgan-Short et al. 2012)
  28. 28. non-language subjects are taught either through two different languages, or through a single languagewhich is foreign according to the curriculum. This is known as content and language integratedlearning (CLIL – see the Glossary, Statistical Databases and Bibliography section). Only Denmark,Greece, Iceland CLIL Provision Europe provision. - 2012 Reported and Turkey do not make this kind of - K-12 Figure B9: Existence of CLIL provision in primary and/or general secondary education, 2010/11 CLIL provision in all schools CLIL provision in some schools CLIL provision within pilot projects only No CLIL provision Source: Eurydice.Explanatory noteCLIL provision in some schools: The practice is not necessarily widespread. For detailed information on CLILprovision in each country, see Annex 2.This figure does not cover:
  29. 29. Student Admission - CLIL Programmes - K-12 - 2012-2006 2006 2012Eurydice 2006 & 2012
  30. 30. Status of Target Languages - K-12 - 2012-2006 2006 2012 Eurydice 2006 & 2012
  31. 31. Conclusion – The Development Trajectory§  development has been driven by real-time pressures§  no single blueprint for implementation or export§  requires facing challenges and re-thinking of practices§  strengthened by inter-disciplinary dialogue, breaking ‘silo’ mindsets, recognition of the potential of diversity, & professional capacity-building§  further strengthened by identified generic features of good practice in educational transformation, and research on mind & brain§  acts as open-source, different agendas, and differing approaches§  leading to educational experience relevant to language and literacy§  rising significance of language and literacies in education is likely to drive future development of CLIL
  32. 32. Thank  you!          

×