Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A Methodology of Bilingual Teaching. Bernd Klewitz

recently by learning theories based on constructivism and findings of neuro-science. Common to these shifts in the theory of practice is that they do not take a language-specific mental module for granted (like in the UG and its minimalist version). They rather assume that language acquisition and learning7 are creative processes and occur in processing information in multiple ways.

      In a succession of consecutive steps to explain the relationship between language acquisition and learning, Krashen’s monitor hypothesis (1977) can be regarded as an important starting point and building block in assigning the learning system the role of monitoring or controlling utterances, whereas the acquisition system would act as the initiator of language production. His further theoretical assumptions, namely acquisition-learning, natural order, input, affective filter and reading hypotheses, were instrumental in discovering stages of language development referring, for instance, to basic grammar domains like English negations or German syntax as partly conscious and partly unconscious processes. One paradigm evolved concerning knowledge learned which cannot be transferred into knowledge acquired directly, but more recently it is suggested that previously acquired implicit knowledge can be turned into explicit knowledge of rules by reflection and analytical access through learners. Accordingly, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe: 2001) distinguishes four different kinds of general competences:

      Declarative knowledge—savoir Practical skills and know-how—savoir-faire Attitudes, motivation, cognitive styles …—savoir-être Ability to learn—savoir-apprendre (ibid.: 101-106).

      These areas of knowledge were complemented by Byram’s components of Intercultural Competence (1997), especially critical cultural awareness (savoir s’engagé) and will be further explored as pertinent parameters of an integrated bilingual teaching strategy in chapter 6.

      Constructivist learning theories are a further development of the cognitive approach because they perceive the learner as an active agent, learning as an autonomous process of construction and gaining knowledge as a variable process in every individual. The most important conclusion would be that every learner gained something different from the same input (cf. Riemer: 279). But only linguistic input enables the learner to build on and restructure their language knowledge and performance:

      For this to work, the input must be comprehensible. Interactionist approaches highlight the importance in this context of the conscious perception of linguistic forms. With respect to the linguistic interaction between target language speakers and target language learners (as well as among target language learners), they assume that input is made comprehensible for the learners through processes of negotiated meaning, for example via feedback, corrections or requests for clarification, and can then be processed by them in the optimal manner (Ohm: 2015 n.p.).

      Interaction and cooperative activities in groups were considered to be the most supportive conditions for effective leaning. Yet, following the output hypothesis (Swain 2008), language input is not sufficient for successful L 2 acquisition, rather the language to be mastered needs to be actively practiced and used.

      The output hypothesis completes this model of the cognitive and interactionist approaches by adding the idea that the learner’s production of the target language plays a central role in the learning process. The starting point for this is the observation that learners can frequently infer the meaning of target language input from the linguistic and situational context and thus focus their attention only to a limited extent on linguistic forms. On the other hand, when producing their own target language output, they are required for example, to engage to a much greater extent with the rules of word formation and inflection, as well as with word and sentence order (ibid.).

2.6 Language Learning as a Social Process—The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

      Considering both input and output hypotheses, language learning is then seen as a social process guided by interaction and fostered by cognition. In the tradition of Lev Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky: 1962, see above) the origins of cognitive and mental activities are embedded within the social domain. The guiding concept here is the ZPD within which learning is enabled by problem-solving activities of learners if these are acting supported by more knowledgeable peers or teachers.

      Writing about the relation of thought and language (Thought and Language 1962), Vygotsky devises a concept of (language) development and combines with it a theory of education. More based on common sense and observation than systematic scientific research, he monitored children learning to talk and solving problems. His concept of ZPD not only influenced contemporary Soviet psychologists but also elicited comments by leading Western educators like Jean Piaget and was only much later—and in fact after the end of the Cold War—known and appreciated in mainstream learning theories.

      A further step needs to be discussed in this context. With the growing importance of cognition, the aim to acquire curricular content at the same time as language itself is connectable to language awareness. In the United Kingdom, for example, this process was embedded in the challenge to enhance literary education where children’s needs of language learning needed to be met (cf. the findings of the Bullock-Commission in Great Britain 1972-75). In order to link linguistic demands and content challenges it is generally expedient to realize that pragmatic speech functions and macro-operations correspond with each other and are intensified by reciprocal support—as expressed in task-verbs like describe, illuminate, assess, conclude etc. Content-based teaching, according to the language-across-the-curriculum approach (LAC; cf. Meisel: 160 ff), has always to be considered as language teaching, because linguistic and cognitive development show a close connection. The LAC approach has been interpreted as a specific version of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) and is also closely associated with CLIL and immersion programs (cf. ibid.: 161).

Interdisciplinary teaching in the sense of LAC is not only of professional benefit for instructors but also facilitates the enhancement of literary competence in the classroom discourse where more often than not certain gaps have become conspicuous. This is particularly true for students with a migration background, but deficits in the “language of schooling” are visible in mainstream cohorts as well. The aim to develop aspects of academic language in all subject areas is still as much part of the aforementioned theory of practice as it is not consistently part of everyday classroom routines. Some initiating guidelines for this LAC approach have been explored by language-sensitive curricula, namely “40 learner tools” by the German teacher trainer and physics professor Josef Leisen8, but a comprehensive methodology does not seem to be available so far (cf.: Wolff 2011: 81).

      “Language of schooling”, however, remains important within the constructivist theory of encouraging students to creatively build their own learning cycles and thus—at least in the long run—become their own teachers. This is at the heart of Visible Learning (VL), which according to the aforementioned NZ educationalist John Hattie, occurs when teachers see learning through the eyes of their students and help them close the gap between their prior knowledge and the intended learning outcomes, language- or content-wise. Hattie’s concept of VL with Direct Instruction as one of its key components (see above) was developed more than ten years ago and has since become a world-wide influential approach to effective teaching and successful learning (cf. De Florio: 2016). It is based on his meta-analyses with data obtained from more than 300 million students comparing developments from the Australian, American and British education systems (Visible Learning 2009).

      Key factors like cognitive task analysis, scaffolding, reciprocal teaching, feedback, direct instruction and behavior organizers will be discussed in detail in the context of dimensions of bilingual teaching (chapter 5 & 6), but at this stage it should be noted that three kinds of achievement factors played a major role for successful learning according to the data collected, i.e. feedback, student expectations and formative evaluation. These aspects represent strategies of best