Search

Arising in Europe in the early 1990s, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has become a popular educational approach. CLIL involves a dual focus on content and language learning with an additional language used as the medium of instruction. Although CLIL has received much attention and spread widely around the world, there is limited discussion that critically examines CLIL in relation to its core construct of integration between content and language learning. In particular, the phrasing of 'content and language integrated learning' gestures towards viewing language and content as separate entities. With these fundamental issues in mind, we discuss ways in which translanguaging pedagogies can provide a fruitful direction towards a critical integration of content and language learning in multilingual settings. With a view to contributing to a dynamic integration of content and language learning, we argue that CLIL pedagogies informed by translanguaging allow fluidity in meaning-making practices and critically re-examine the construct of language in CLIL. This approach responds to recent calls for more critical approaches to CLIL in order to challenge 'English-only'/target-language-only pedagogies, 'native-(English-)speakerism', and unequal power relations between content and language teachers in many CLIL programs. Implications of this approach to CLIL classrooms in diverse settings are also discussed.

Although people may readily refer to Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. as Anglophone countries, recent demographic and sociolinguistic profiles of these countries indicate that they are actually both Anglophone and multilingual, and in some of their cities, even more multilingual than Anglophone. Recent research also indicates that when plurilingual approaches to teaching and learning were tried out in these settings challenges arose due to the 'either-or' binary thinking often found in institutional policies and among some instructors. In this paper, the rich semiotic practices and repertoires of migrant and international students are discussed to call for a shift from a deficit model to an asset model of teaching. Some possible ways to break through these 'either-or' binaries are offered through using a heteroglossic, plurilingual lens.

In this article, the role of translanguaging in facilitating content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is examined in connection with the notion of academic language across the curriculum in multilingual contexts. Ethnographic naturalistic observations and interviews were conducted to analyse translanguaging in the dynamic flow of interactions among South Asian ethnic minoritized students and their science teacher in a CLIL classroom in Hong Kong. The analysis shows that despite dominant school and government policies that impose a monolingual medium of instruction, translanguaging naturally flows from the dynamic interactions and activities in the classroom as both teacher and students are intensely engaged in meaning making about the lesson topics. Drawing on a recent theoretical explication of translanguaging and flows, the notion of translanguaging is further explicated with new theoretical and empirical import from the distributed language view. Pedagogical implications for CLIL are discussed.

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is a rapidly growing area of both research and practice in all parts of the world, especially in Europe and Asia. As a young discipline, CLIL has a good potential of distinguishing itself from monolingual L2 immersion education models by becoming more flexible and balanced about the role of L1 in CLIL lessons. Although recent years have witnessed increasing research on the potential role of L1 in foreign language teaching [e.g. Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. 2009. First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. "Language Teacher," 42, 1-14], monolingual immersion ideologies are still dominant in many contexts in the world (especially in Southeast Asia) because of a whole host of ideologies. The beliefs affecting medium of instruction policies and practice have their roots in the traditional tenets (e.g. the maximum input hypothesis) in the discipline of second language acquisition (SLA). Although these tenets are increasingly being countered by recent research in multilingualism [see May, S. (Ed.). (2014). "The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education." New York: Routledge, for a critique of these tenets], SLA still has an influence on pedagogies in both immersion and CLIL programmes. In this paper, I shall first critically review these deep-rooted monolingual tenets. Then, I shall discuss how we can conceptualise the potential role of L1 in CLIL and by extension in content-based instruction (CBI), as both CLIL and immersion programmes are considered to be key approaches to CBI. I shall conclude with suggestions for future research in CLIL.

Contemporary TESOL methodologies have been characterized by compartmentalization of languages in the classroom. However, recent years have seen the beginning signs of paradigmatic change in TESOL methodologies that indicate a move toward plurilingualism. In this article, the author draws on the case of Hong Kong to illustrate how, in the past four decades, deep-rooted ideologies of linguistic purism combined with dominant TESOL knowledge claims have made it difficult to develop locally appropriate methodologies. She outlines the innovative work of some teachers who build up plurilingual pedagogies in content classrooms despite these difficulties, and on this basis proposes suggestions for future work.

This article drew on the recent dynamic, distributed view of translanguaging and flows and the New Materiality view of meaning making to explore content and language integrated learning (CLIL) activities in an English-Medium-Instruction (EMI) secondary Science classroom. Fine-grained analysis of the multilingual and multimodal classroom interactions between a Cantonese-speaking Science teacher and her Urdu-speaking students exemplified how students and teacher engaged in dynamic translanguaging, trans-semiotizing and trans-registering. The analysis supports the dynamic, heteroglossic, trans/languaging view of language learning and sheds light on some of the current queries about translanguaging. 本文應用學者近年提出的動態分散性超語流動觀 和新唯物意義構建觀 兩種理論對以英語作爲教學語言(EMI)的中學科學課堂中内容與語言融合教學 (CLIL)的活動進行了探索, 透過精細地分析課堂上母語為廣東話的科學教師與其母語為烏都語的學生之間多語多模態的課堂互動, 為師生如何投入動態超語, 超符號及超語域的交流提供了示例。 數據分析支持動態的、話語混雜的、超語的語言學習觀, 並為目前有關超語的一些疑問提供了解釋。 This article explored the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) activities in an English-Medium-Instruction (EMI) secondary Science classroom based on two recent theories of translanguaging and meaning making. The detailed analysis of classroom interactions between a Cantonese-speaking Science teacher and her Urdu-speaking students offered an example of how students and teacher engaged in multilingual and multimodal interactions during CLIL lessons. The findings of this research shed light on some of the current queries about translanguaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Upholding a critical, ethical, multilingual stance presents numerous challenges amidst a myriad of institutional, infrastructural, and societal pressures. Despite significant breakthroughs, such as translanguaging theories and pedagogies and the evolution of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) principles, the journey towards a more inclusive and equitable English language education remains fraught with difficulties. Monolingual English continues to dominate assessments and academic publishing, and critical scholarship often appears powerless. I discuss the need for critical research to be grounded in praxis and discuss the struggle of EMI researchers against entrenched and renewed coloniality within increasingly neoliberalized academic institutions. I explore these contradictions in an imaginary dialogue between multiple voices. I then propose a research initiative ('PAA-STELE') aimed at overcoming the dominance of monolingual English assessment. I conclude that through collective action and a steadfast commitment to critical-ethical principles, we may effect change, albeit slowly and incrementally, within the English language education field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arising in Europe in the early 1990s, content and language integrated learning (CLIL) has become a popular educational approach. CLIL involves a dual focus on content and language learning with an additional language used as the medium of instruction. Although CLIL has received much attention and spread widely around the world, there is limited discussion that critically examines CLIL in relation to its core construct of integration between content and language learning. In particular, the phrasing of 'content and language integrated learning' gestures towards viewing language and content as separate entities. With these fundamental issues in mind, we discuss ways in which translanguaging pedagogies can provide a fruitful direction towards a critical integration of content and language learning in multilingual settings. With a view to contributing to a dynamic integration of content and language learning, we argue that CLIL pedagogies informed by translanguaging allow fluidity in meaning-making practices and critically re-examine the construct of language in CLIL. This approach responds to recent calls for more critical approaches to CLIL in order to challenge 'English-only'/target-language-only pedagogies, 'native-(English-)speakerism', and unequal power relations between content and language teachers in many CLIL programs. Implications of this approach to CLIL classrooms in diverse settings are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although people may readily refer to Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. as Anglophone countries, recent demographic and sociolinguistic profiles of these countries indicate that they are actually both Anglophone and multilingual, and in some of their cities, even more multilingual than Anglophone. Recent research also indicates that when plurilingual approaches to teaching and learning were tried out in these settings challenges arose due to the 'either-or' binary thinking often found in institutional policies and among some instructors. In this paper, the rich semiotic practices and repertoires of migrant and international students are discussed to call for a shift from a deficit model to an asset model of teaching. Some possible ways to break through these 'either-or' binaries are offered through using a heteroglossic, plurilingual lens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the authors discuss topics within the issue, including content and language integrated learning (CLIL), the use of multilingual practices in CLIL, and how CLIL frameworks can impact English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students.

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is a rapidly growing area of both research and practice in all parts of the world, especially in Europe and Asia. As a young discipline, CLIL has a good potential of distinguishing itself from monolingual L2 immersion education models by becoming more flexible and balanced about the role of L1 in CLIL lessons. Although recent years have witnessed increasing research on the potential role of L1 in foreign language teaching [e.g. Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. 2009. First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teacher, 42, 1–14], monolingual immersion ideologies are still dominant in many contexts in the world (especially in Southeast Asia) because of a whole host of ideologies. The beliefs affecting medium of instruction policies and practice have their roots in the traditional tenets (e.g. the maximum input hypothesis) in the discipline of second language acquisition (SLA). Although these tenets are increasingly being countered by recent research in multilingualism [see May, S. (Ed.). (2014). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education. New York: Routledge, for a critique of these tenets], SLA still has an influence on pedagogies in both immersion and CLIL programmes. In this paper, I shall first critically review these deep-rooted monolingual tenets. Then, I shall discuss how we can conceptualise the potential role of L1 in CLIL and by extension in content-based instruction (CBI), as both CLIL and immersion programmes are considered to be key approaches to CBI. I shall conclude with suggestions for future research in CLIL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]