Planning for CLIL

A general outline and thoughts on two micro features

Carmel Mary Coonan

Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia

0. Introduction

The reason for my having chosen the topic of planning for CLIL for this Convegno derives from a realisation that in Italy at the moment there is a lively interest in what is called CLIL (content and language integrated learning). I shall go on to qualify the term shortly but CLIL is an approach that is associated with the vehicular use of a foreign (or non-native) language and, more generally, with the concept of bilingual education. This lively interest, encouraged by the positive stance of such organisations as the European Commission, the Council of Europe and, as well, the law reform on school autonomy in Italy, has resulted in the promotion of several projects to implement initiatives in the field (as this one is being carried out in Piedmont). It is also leading to single one-off initiatives which need great care in enacting.

There is a need, in my view, to consider a whole series of variables that, combined, are capable of influencing (either negatively or positively) outcomes and expectations. It is important to realise this especially as the key concepts in education today are (as elsewhere) quality and standards. Thus planning a CLIL programme implies taking decisions at various levels and acting accordingly. It also implies monitoring (through action research cycles) the efficacy of the decisions once enacted. This paper is concerned with the first of the above.

1. CLIL models

CLIL is an approach that strives to promote two types of learning - the learning of non-language content and the learning of language. This dual objective must come about simultaneously and in an integrated manner such that each becomes a vehicle for the other (content is learned through the language and the language is learnt through the content[1]). Furthermore, the current meaning of CLIL implies that the vehicle language is a non-native one[2] (from the learner’s point of view). In the case of a vehicular foreign language, a CLIL situation can be characterised by the alternated use of the latter with the normal school language (thus there are two vehicular languages to mediate the curriculum content[3]). In the case of a vehicular second language[4] there will be no alternation as this is normally the language of the school.

In the present paper we will be exclusively concerned with CLIL and the foreign language.

As can be deduced from the above, CLIL models are by no means uniform. They are elaborated at a local level to respond to local conditions and desires. Indeed the characteristics of CLIL developments in Europe show a great variety of solutions, rarely imported as ready-made and ready-to use models. In other words, any attempt to force local conditions to fit into all-purpose models is avoided, the preference being to elaborate purpose-built ones that suit specific conditions and requirements. Hence, the need that those charged with the business of developing CLIL programmes be informed of the numerous variables that need to be considered during the decision-making process. It is in fact the combination of the choices with respect to the variables that produce a particular CLIL model as well also as defining its effectiveness vis à vis the overall aims.

To this end therefore I shall go through the variables indicated in the Checklist (Appendix) [5]:

· general aims underlying the choice to implement a CLIL programme;

· ‘external’ features of the programme (the macro-dimension);

· organizational and structural features of the programme itself (the meso-dimension);

· articulation of the programme itself (the micro[6]-dimension).

Following that, I shall focus my attention on one feature of the meso-dimension (team teaching) and one feature of the micro-dimension (a learning task) in order to illustrate in more detail the necessity to explore all the variables in detail in order to ascertain their various implications for the success of the programme.

2. General outline

Normally speaking the choice to organize a CLIL programme, and the whole decision-making process that takes place as a result, is dictated and influenced by a main motivation – there is in other words normally a reason for taking on the hard work involved. Indeed there may be several reasons that interplay with each other.

a. The driving force(s) and hoped for outcomes[7]

The motivations (or reasons) underlying the choice to activate CLIL experiences have been the object of a survey commissioned by the European Commission the results of which are produced in the CLIL compendium web site[8]. The reasons – or dimensions as they are called – have been categorised into 5 groups: cultural, environmental, linguistic, content, and learning. Essentially a school will wish to privilege one or even more of the dimensions and strive to achieve successful outcomes in them.

From the results of the survey one is struck by the variety of ‘reasons’. Let us view the five categories in slightly more detail as an indication of what the schools might aim to achieve:

Culture dimension:

· build intercultural knowledge and understanding

· develop intercultural communication skills

· learn about specific neighbouring countries/regions/and/or minority groups

· introduce a wider cultural context

Environment dimension

· prepare for internationalization, specifically EU integration

· access international certification

· enhance school profile

Language dimension

· improve overall target language competence

· develop oral communication skills

· deepen awareness of both mother tongue and target language

· develop plurilingual interests and attitudes

· introduce a target language

Content dimension

· provide opportunities to study content through different perspectives

· access subject-specific target language terminology

· prepare for future studies and/or working life

Learning dimension

· complement individual learning strategies

· diversify methods and forms of classroom practice

· increase learner motivation

As can be seen, the driving force is not merely linguistic. It is also linguistic but even then not even merely instrumental. What strikes one is the range of motivations that concern questions of a more formative type – that concern learning in general and the preparation of the student for life in Europe, an integrated individual with an understanding of his neighbours and their different cultures.[9]

b. The macro dimension

Of course the degree to which the above outcomes can be successful depends to a great extent on the conditions in which one is operating. It is thus worth one’s while taking a look at i) the local, social, and ‘political’ context; ii) the school context to ascertain to what extent the CLIL experience finds itself on firm ground. Questions such as the following might guide reflection:

Local, social and ‘political’ context:

- family: are they to be informed? Can they opt out of the experience? do the families work closely with the school? Are they generally welcoming of innovation? Would they help if this were necessary? What do they expect in terms of outcomes?

- socio-linguistic/cultural context: are other autoctonous languages present in the area? Are other more recent languages present in the area? To what extent is there diglossia? To what extent is there individual bilingualism? How are these other languages generally viewed? To what extent is there cultural integration between speakers of the different languages?

- socio- economic context: is the area run down? Is there unemployment? Would local

businesses be attracted by the educational outcomes of the programme? Would local businesses contribute funds? etc.

- ‘political’ context: what are the educational authorities views on the topic? What degree of autonomy has the school to introduce this innovation? Are there any legal obstacles?

The answers to the questions should allow the school to measure the temperature (so to speak) of the external context that will allow the school to gauge the degree of interest and support the experience might enjoy.

School context:

- Whose was the original idea to introduce a CLIL programme? Is this the first year of

the programme? Does it have the support of the principal? Does it have the support of the rest of the staff? Is there/could there be a school policy concerning the issue?

What overall expected outcomes does the school have (see 2.a. above)?

Are there other CLIL experiences underway in the school/in the area? Is the school involved in European projects/school exchanges with other European countries? Are there mother tongue teachers?

The affirmative answers to these questions will indicate the availability of positive conditions for a successful realization of the programme because they indicate the degree of support, of interest and of the availability of means within the school itself.

c. The meso dimension

We now enter into the details concerning the participants and the programme itself. Decisions will need be taken concerning the following aspects many of which can be considered in synchronic terms (at one particular point in time) and in diachronic terms (over a time span):

Students:

- What part of the student population is going to be involved? The whole school? A ‘section bilingue’? one class only (grouped according to age)? A group (created on the basis of language competence)?

- Is the student offered the possibility of choosing to participate in the programme?

- What kind of ‘contract’ – if any – is drawn up between the school and the student and/or family?

- What is the age of the students involved?

- What is their level of competence in the vehicular language?

- What other foreign languages do they study?

- What are their expectation vis à vis the programme of study?

Length

- How long will the programme last (from the student’s point of view)? A whole educational cycle? One level of schooling (the scuola superiori)? A part of a level (the triennio only)? One year (the terza media)? One term? Less than a term?

Which content

- Will the contents be curricular or extra curricular? If curricular will the experience involve all the subjects? A broad range of subjects? A narrow range of subjects (2-3)? One discipline? Disciplinary or interdisciplinary thematic content from one or more disciplines?

The teacher

- Is only one teacher involved in the programme? If so, is it the discipline teacher or the foreign language teacher? If two (a team) are involved what modality of team-teaching is adopted[10]. What mother tongues do they have? Must they be bilingual?

Weight of the foreign language

Within the overall time afforded to the CLIL experience, will this be conducted entirely in the foreign language (therefore through monolingual delivery)? Or will there be bilingual delivery? If so what percentage of time will the foreign language occupy overall (75%, 50%, 25%, less?)?

General pedagogical and methodological underpinnings

- Teaching organization (collaborative planning? co-teaching?). Instructivist/constructivist approach? Individual - whole class - groups ?

- Working model: the module? Unit? Single lessons?

- What criteria for language alternation will be adopted (concomitant such as: one person-one[11] language; skills; materials; or separate such as: time of day? Alternate weeks, etc[12]) ?

- What agreement for language use on the part of the students?

The decisions taken above at the meso level are those that, when combined, create the profile of the model and explain why one model is so different from the other. They will also have been chosen for the combined potential in helping to achieve the expected outcomes.

d. The micro-dimension

The influence of the expected outcomes however makes itself particularly felt within the programme proper – the programme that will be implemented within the model.

Motivations Context

CLIL programme

General pedagogical and methodological underpinnings

The programme is an ‘expression’ of the influence of three aspects so far illustrated (motivations, context and general pedagogical and methodological underpinnings). It is also an ‘expression’ of other influences deriving from decisions made at a more micro-level. These decisions are to do with the choices that lead to the elaboration of a CLIL programme articulated in terms of objectives, syllabus specification (content), skills, evaluation, time (see table below).

The difference that exists between CLIL and the ‘traditional’ way of learning language (through teaching it as an object in itself) is evident even at the level of syllabus specification.

i) a foreign language syllabus (even when a ‘topic’ syllabus) has as its prime objectives the

teaching of language (whether that be grammar, functions, lexis, micro-language, etc).

The CLIL syllabus, on the other hand, has as its prime objectives those associated with the non-language content (with the discipline, etc). Whatever language objectives or expected language outcomes there might be, they are secondary and anyway derived from the content.

ii) the foreign language syllabus identifies language needs on the basis of the specified aims of the programme and L2 entry competence levels. Thus the language needs are transformed into objectives to be reached.

Language needs in the CLIL syllabus however are derived from the content and content objectives and the relation of these to the student’s existing competence level in the L2. They are not in other words the driving force for syllabus specification, nor do they become prime objectives in themselves. It is perhaps easier to consider them more in terms of learning needs rather than language needs proper, as they constitute the language needed by the student to reach the learning objectives of the content.

The language needs for the CLIL programme can also be viewed in terms of language development [13]as any focussed attention devoted to the identified language needs can potentially lead to the incorporation of these language needs into the student’s interlanguage thus leading to the growth of his language competence[14].

We can visualise a CLIL programme in the following terms and specifications will be provided for each of the items indicated in bold print:

Module/teaching unit/lesson

Curriculum area: …………………………..

Topic: ………………………………………

Content learning objective: - knowledge: ………………….. L2 needs-L2 development - competences: ………………..

- capacity (level): ……………..

Skills activated - cognitive processes:…………..

- language skills: ………………. L2 needs-L2 development

- study skills: …………………..

Basic vocabulary: …………………………..

Materials: …………………………………... L2 needs-L2 development

Tasks and activities: ………………………..

Form(s) of evaluation: ………………………

Overall time: ………………………………..

3. Collaborative teaching

My attention will now turn to the first of the two variables I would like to look at in more detail. It concerns the quality of collaborative teaching in a CLIL experience and my interest in the question derives from the results of a questionnaire carried out by Pavesi e Zecca (2001). The questionnaire was carried out to ascertain a number of issues connected with the vehicular use of a foreign language[15]. The issue of interest here concerns the alternated use of the L1/L2 and co-teaching. In their report Pavesi and Zecca point out that:

- code switching is common;

- less than half the respondents use the L2 exclusively to present content;

- the direction of the code switching is from the L1 to the L2 (30%);

- content is first presented in the L1 and then after in the L2 (30%);

- co-teaching is prevalent and would seem to be the model most commonly adopted in Italian schools in CLIL contexts.

The two authors make a connection between collaborative teaching (in compresenza) and the alternated use of the L1 and L2:

E’ comunque probabile che la dipendenza dalla lingua materna e l’inattesa precedenza della L1 sulla L2 al momento della spiegazione complessa sia almeno in parte riconducibile alla compresenza tra l’esperto madrelingua e l’insegnante italiano della materia disciplinare.

What is the implication here? What might such a situation lead to if planning for co-teaching is not carried out by the parties involved?

Unfortunately it is not all clear what the functions of the two teachers in co-presence are. It could be that the underlying idea of the co-presence[16] in the sample of schools investigated is that the teacher of the discipline present his content through Italian (his mother tongue) and then that the other mother tongue teacher (of the L2) intervene. However, what his intervention might actually consist of is also unclear? Is the intervention to be a focus on the language (a necessary feature in CLIL lessons for the development of L2 competence; cf. concept of Focus on form in Doughty & Williams, 1998). Or does s/he teach the content – replicating what has already been done? Or does s/he expand on what has been done? Does s/he conduct laboratory-like activities to help the students further grasp the concepts already presented? Does s/he do this and focus on form as well?

Any teaching that is collaborative in form must establish very clearly what the functions and roles of the two teachers is to be because otherwise there is a high probability that there will be a negative consequence concerning the amount of exposition to, and use of, the L2 by the students. What the two authors above seem to be alluding to is the fact that perhaps the combined influence of the difficulty of the subject matter with the strong language identities of the two teachers might lead to a marked division of language roles with Italian being associated with the discipline teacher (a mother-tongue speaker of that language) and the foreign language with the other teacher (mother tongue speaker of that L2 language). Obviously, the ‘weight’ enjoyed by the two teachers within the lesson will have a direct influence on the amount of L2 that is used in the lesson both by the teacher concerned as also by the student(s). Furthermore, in the case of the L2 teacher being assigned the function to deal with language problems only, we could arrive at the paradox that what is planned to be a CLIL lesson with a vehicular use of the L2 could be inadvertently reduced to that of a language lesson through an insufficient awareness of the role and weight of the two languages present in the classroom.

Planning therefore, at this level of teaching organisation, is essential to avoid hitches like the above.

3.1. Planning for collaboration between teachers

We take the view that CLIL can only be said to be implemented if attention is paid both to content and to language (without however the latter taking precedence or in some way altering the approach to the teaching and learning of the discipline). It is also our view that for this to be successful (in terms of learning outcomes) some kind of synergetic action has to be carried out between the discipline teacher (doing the vehicular teaching) and the LS teacher (the normal LS teacher). This type of synergetic action can be carried out in several ways as can be seen from the graph below:

Degrees of collaboration between teachers

- synergy

Separation

No contact

Separation

Simple exchange of information and ideas

Separation but sharing

Content themesà normal LS syllabus

Language of content à normal LS syllabus

Co-presence: CLIL + CLIT

Teaching and learning are integrated and balanced

+ synergy

At one extreme there is no synergic action whatsoever. The two teachers work in their separate areas with no attempt to share ideas or help each other. In other words, they work in isolation. Synergy begins when there is an awareness that contact of some sort can lead to ‘better’ action and learning outcomes.

For ease of exposition we can divide collaboration into two types:

a. autonomous collaboration

b. convergent collaboration that normally implies co-presence.

Let’s take the first type.

The adjective ‘autonomous’ has been used to try to capture the idea that although there is a degree of collaboration, and that therefore there is a ‘team’ so to speak, the two (or more) teachers act independently of each either teaching at separate times to the same group or even to different groups.

Teacher	Classes/groups
A	¯ § ž

B	¯ ã š ¢

In what therefore can the collaboration consist?

Teachers (different groups):

o share resources such as materials, books, lesson plans, etc. The sharing can be made

possible through the establishment of a ‘teacher’s centre’ or even a virtual area on-line where the above can be downloaded.

o discuss what content to teach but then teach separately.

Teachers (same groups):

o plan lessons together but then each teacher teaches his own ‘speciality’ separately through rotation.

With reference to this last, a typical CLIL situation consists in the L2 teacher assuming a certain amount of responsibility for preparing the students linguistically for the lessons mediated through the L2 and for solving linguistic problems as they appear during the programme[17]. This can be done by the teacher, together with his discipline colleague, singling out language content which is considered obligatory, necessary or problematic and teaching it during L2 lesson time. Alternatively the L2 teacher can take content and use this to teach language (or language skills). Thus, the students meet, alternately, the L2 teacher and the discipline teacher, each of them teaching their own speciality separately with the difference that they are acting in sinergia one with the other

In the second type – convergent collaboration – however, there is a maximum degree of synergy because the teachers not only plan and share but they transform the teaching team into team teaching. In other words, they teach together in co-presence. It is a situation in which not only is there a strong potential for CLIL (content and language integrated learning) but there are also the conditions for CLIT (content and language integrated teaching). Indeed, the latter can be considered a precondition for the former.

In this type of collaboration the teachers are co-present during the lesson but this does not necessarily mean that they work together with the same group. The class can be divided up into groups and the teachers work ‘separately’ with them. There are similarities in this last case with the ‘rotation’ model mentioned above.

Lesson: co-presence- same time - 1 group (entire class)

Lesson: co-presence – same time - 2 groups (same class)

A £ B Î

There are various types of convergent collaboration as can be seen from the graph below:

Category A

Convergent collaboration

Model	Caracteristics	Typical grouping
Traditional	Choice of content and its presentation is shared equally between the team members.	Entire class
Collaborative	Slightly different from the above in that monologic presentation by the teachers in turn gives way to interactive dialogue between them. The lesson content is presented in the form of a conversation and of discussion and exchange of ideas between the team members.	Entire class
Support	One teacher is responsible for the presentation of content while the other is responsible for elaborating and then doing support activities of integration.	Entire class
Monitoring	One teacher is responsible for teaching whilst the other monitors for comprehension, behaviour, etc.	Entire class
Parallel	Choice of content and presentation is shared the class is divided into two groups and the same content is presented by the teacher to his own group.	Class in groups
Differentiated	The class is divided into two groups according to competence. Teachers collaboratively decide on content which will be different according to the level and needs of the two different groups.	Class in groups

Generally speaking, knowledge of what collaborative teaching is and of the problematical issues surrounding teaching in co-presence is lacking where mainstream language teaching is concerned. In our view situations of CLIL teaching are no exception to this either even though close integration is called for.

Basically, we are of the view that:

- autonomous collaboration is insufficiently developed. It would seem that i) in those situations in which the L2 teacher is not present in the classroom, the role of the L2 teacher and his contribution to the CLIL programme overall is rarely considered or planned; ii) there are numerous CLIL experiences underway in schools where materials and ideas are developed and elaborated but with vary little circulation of them (except when the experiences are developed within the framework of a project as in the case of the Turin project). For example, the materials, work sheets and lesson plans developed by a colleague in Trento could be useful for a colleague in another part of Italy. However, these cannot be shared as no planning has gone into providing a channel whereby sharing and exchanging ideas can be made possible.

- convergent collaboration (as we have presented it here) would seem to be a characterising feature of a good number of CLIL experiences in Italy (Pavesi & Zecca, 2001)

…nella scuola italiana, la compresenza o collaborazione tra insegnante italiano della materia curricolare e insegnante della lingua straniera o esperto linguistico si prefigura come modello prevalente nell’apprendimento integrato di lingua e contenuti. Una didattica in stretta collaborazione è in effetti in molti casi la strada più facilmente percorribile per chi voglia inserire una materia veicolata almeno in parte in L2 nel curriculum scolastico del proprio istituto.

But how many of these teaching teams actually convert their actions into team teaching in the spirit of CLIT? How many are aware of the different models of team teaching and can alternate between them according to the different needs of the class? How many are aware of the potential inherent in co-presence for CLIL and language learning and content learning outcomes (see 3.2. below)?

Very often co-presence does not function well for several reasons:

- a cultural gap between the two teachers (especially the case when the two teachers

are of different linguistic and cultural origin: cf. Italian mother-tongue teacher of the discipline and L2 mother-tongue ‘lettore’[18]);

- difficulty in changing one’s teaching style;

- difficulty in adopting new teaching strategies;

- difficulty in working in a team

- difficulty in comprehending one’s ‘new’ role and the associated responsibilities[19].

A whole series of variables need to be considered when enacting team teaching in co-presence[20] the most important being to decide on:

- distribution of responsibilities: who chooses/prepares the materials, who teaches

what content; who evaluates; who corrects the homework; what is done together and what is done ‘separately’, who disciplines the students, etc;

- objectives and expected outcomes

- weight to assign to the L2/L1. In a CLIL situation the L2 is just as important as the

content. Consequently, planning needs to take account of: i) amount of use of the L2 with reference the L1; ii) who is to use the L2/L1; iii) possible outcomes for L2 language development on the basis of these decisions.

- weight to assign to the L2 and to the content

- organisation of the class

- teacher movement in the class (the need to avoid in other words as much as possible

a situation in which both the teachers are standing together in front of the class with only one teacher talking)

- role alternation (leader versus supporter, etc.).

A planning sheet can be used by the two parties involved to make and record some of their shared decisions about the above:

Planning sheet for the lesson in co-presence
Teachers: Prof. Rossi /Prof Bianco
Date:
Aim(s)
Weight use of L2/L1 (specify a percentage)
Weight attention to L2/content
Activities and materials (specify also classroom organization)
Model of co-presence
Specific duties of each teacher (here describe also who uses which language)		Prof. Rossi:
		Prof. Bianco:
Mode(s) of evaluation (content only? Content and language together?)

3.2 Benefits from planning for collaborative co-presence

If co-presence is planned well there is a plus value not only for CLIL itself but also for the learner and for the professional development of the teacher in general.

What can be gained for CLIL?

- greater attention from the teacher (because the teacher-student ratio improves[21]).

This is a boon for the CLIL class where the learning environment can be more problematical than the more traditional language or content class;

- immediate, real-time assistance for LS and content problems. Again, whilst

important for any learning environment, it is especially important for the CLIL student where language obstacles might hinder content learning;

- different styles and strategies of teaching and learning. If we consider that behind

the choice to implement a CLIL programme there is very often a learning motivation and a cultural motivation (see 2.a.above), co-presence allows for a diversification of methodologies and therefore of strategies but also of styles - especially teaching styles which might also be culturally conotated as in the case of the presence of an L2 mother tongue teacher. Thus, the student not only learns a subject and a language (CLIL), he also goes through a different learning experience and a cultural experience.

4. Planning for L2 development: using tasks

The second feature of micro-planning I would like to turn my attention to concerns the role of tasks in the CLIL classroom for content and L2 learning.

Task-based methodology (Nunan, 1989; Willis, 1996; Candlin & Murphy, 1987) has already entered the field of language teaching but not necessarily that of CLIL learning environments (the more so in those situations where the role of the L2 teacher is totally marginal to the CLIL programme and where, as a consequence, the specific features of his professional training is less present). It is important however that this teaching tool be introduced because of its potential for promoting (language) learning.

However, in this paper I would like to highlight one particular aspect of the work that is being conducted on tasks that seems to be highly important for CLIL from the point of view of language development. The work I refer to concerns two categories of enquiry:

- task types, their internal structure and use (Nunan, 1989; Long & Porter, 1985; Long, 1989; Crookes & Gass, 1993; Pica et al, 1993) and the way these aspects encourage L2 production and negotiation of language and of meaning;

- that on task difficulty and its implication for language production and development.

With reference to the first category of enquiry, according to the literature certain task types influence the ‘quantity’ and quality of oral language production and of language growth. These are variables that have been singled out and are normally discussed as dichotomies.

1. one way versus two way task: a one-way task is one where one of the participants has all the information which must be passed on to the other participant in order for the task to be completed. In such a situation there is an imbalance in the distribution of the information between the participants. This leads to an imbalance in L2 production (rather one-sided) with little need, on the part of all the participants, to negotiate for meaning (considered a key process with reference to language acquisition). The two-way task on the other hand distributes the information equally among the participants - each having a bit which no one else has - such that only when the information is exchanged and pooled is it possible to conclude the task. In this case there is a need by all the participants to ask questions for confirmation, for explanations – to negotiate in other words. There is not only an information gap but also an in-built required information exchange which the one-way task lacks.

2. Shared information versus no shared information: the work here is usually discussed with reference to the presence of visual aids but it can equally refer to any kind of information be it visual or not. The point that is made is that when information is shared (e.g. the participants both have the same picture in front of them) there is less need to communicate verbally and articulate one’s meanings. Unshared information is a condition that stimulates the use of language.

3. Convergent versus divergent: in a convergent task all the participants work towards the same end. It’s a collaborative affair (e.g. all work together to find the correct solution to a specific problem. They know there is only one correct solution). This feature is conducive to language production by all involved whereas in the divergent task (e.g. exchange of ideas, etc.) such a condition is weaker.[22]

4. Closed versus open: this distinction is similar to the above but not exactly parallel. A closed task is one where the participants work towards a goal and they know when that goal is reached. A open task on the other hand has no specified goal and therefore no clear outcome. The former is more conducive to language production than the latter.

Related to the field concerned with the promotion of language use – but not exactly a task type – is the issue of question types.

5. Referential questions vs display questions: a display question is one where the respondent knows that the questioner already knows the answer. In such a situation the person answering does not feel ‘pushed’ to elaborate a response. He will produce the minimum necessary. With a referential question however the person asking the question does not have a preconceived idea of what the answer should be and is genuinely interested to know the respondents answer. The respondent knows this. He will explore his answer through the language. The language will be rich.

It is clear that an awareness of these variables and of the way they can be ‘mixed’ to produce the conditions for language production is fundamental when it comes to planning action in the classroom. If the objectives and expected outcomes include the development of oral language competence then the choice to use a task-based methodology and the incorporation of features that will stimulate language use can be considered useful.

Working within information processing theory, a series of task variables that influence the degree of difficulty of a task and, therefore, of the availability of attention for the student to dedicate to his oral language production, have been identified. The more difficult the task, the less attention the student will have for attention to form. Hence, the need to reduce this obstacle through careful planning of the tasks themselves.

Furthermore, features of a task that are more conducive to the promotion of accuracy in language and those more capable of promoting language growth (complexification of language competence) have been identified.

5. Task difficulty: on the basis of the work of Nunan, 1989, Brown & Yule, 1983,

Brindley, 1987 in Nunan, 1989, we present a brief synthesis, in graph form, of the main variables:

*Less difficult*	*More difficult*
Context available	Context reduced
Short text	Long text
Description, narration, instructions	Argumentative, giving opinions, explanations
Simple syntax	Complex syntax
Topic familiar	Topic not familiar
Easy topic	Complex topic
Ample redundancy	reduced redundancy
High frequency vocab. and/or specific words	Low frequency vocab. and/or general words
Orientated towards fluency	Orientated towards accuracy
Time for the task	Insufficient time for the task
Time to prepare	No time to prepare

6. Accuracy and complexity: Skehan (1998) has singled out those features of a task that contribute to accuracy and complexity.

accuracy	complexity
Familiar topic	Familiar topic
Retrieve information	Transform and interpret information
Concrete	Several points of view
Convergent	Divergent
Rich context	Reduced context
Planning time[23]

In order for the student’s language competence or interlanguage to grow and perfect itself the student needs to be able to pay attention to form. From the work on tasks we see that it is possible to plan for this by combining the variables between themselves in order to manipulate the degree of difficulty and maximise the conditions conducive to language production. The most important are:

o planning time

o task time

o familiarity (of topic, genre and task)

o shared information

but it is quite possible to plan other types of combinations (e.g. provide context and planning time if the content is complex and the activity to carry out on the content is also complex and not familiar; if the concepts are familiar one can propose a cognitively difficult activity, etc.).

5. Conclusion

The above is an attempt to show just how ‘in depth’ the process of planning can, and needs to go in order to identify and create those conditions that not only reflect local conditions and expectations and ’fit in’ with local restrictions but which also are capable of allowing expected outcomes to be reached.

Bibliography

Brindley, G. (1987) “Factors Affecting Task Difficulty” in Nunan, D. (a cura di), Guidelines for the Development of Curricular Resources, National Curriculum Resource Centre, Adelaide.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis, C.U.P., Cambridge.

Candlin, C. & Murphy, D. (a cura di) (1987) Language Learning Tasks, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Chamot, A.U. & O’Malley, J.M. (1987) “A Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A Bridge to the Mainstream” in TESOL Quarterly, XXI,2.

Coonan, C.M. (2002) La lingua straniera veicolare, UTET, Torino.

Crookes, G.& Gass, S. (1993a) Tasks in a Pedagogical Context. Integrating Theory and Practice, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Crookes, G.& Gass, S. (1993b) Tasks and Language Learning. Integrating Theory and Practice, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Gajo, L. (2001) Immersion, bilinguisme et interaction en classe, Didier, Paris.

Grenfell, M. (a cura di) (2002) Modern Languages across the Curriculum, Routledge/Falmer, London-New York

Hawkins, E. (1987) Awareness of Language, C.U.P., Cambridge.

Long, M & Porter, P. (1985) “Group Work, Interlanguage Talk and Second Language Acquisition”, in TESOL Quarterly, XIX,2.

Long, M. (1989) “Tasks, Groups, and Task-Group Interactions”, in University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, VIII,2.

Marsh, D., Maljers, A., & Hartiala, A-K. (2001) Profiling European CLIL Classrooms, Jyväskylä, Finland.

Nunan, D. (1989) Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom C.U.P., Cambridge.

Pavesi, M. & Zecca, m. (2001) “La lingua straniera come lingua veicolare: un’indagine sulle prime esperienze in Italia” in CILTA, 1.

Pica,T.et al. (1993) “Choosing and Using Communicative Tasks for Second Language Instruction”, in Crookes ,G. & Gass, S. (a cura di) (1993b), op. cit.

Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, O.U.P. Oxford.

Snow, M.A. & Brinton, D.M.(1988) “Content-based Language Instruction: Investigating the Effectiveness of the Adjacency Model”, in TESOL Quarterly, XXI, 4.

Snow, M. et al. (1989) « A Conceptual Framework for the Integration of Language and Content in Second/Foreign Language Instruction”, in TESOL Quarterly, XXIII,2.

Swain, M. (1985) “Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development”, in Gass. S. & Madden, C. (a cura di) Input in Second Language Acquisition, Newbury House, Rowley.

Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (a cura di) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, C.U.P. Cambridge.

Willis, J. (1996) A Framework for Task-Based Learning, Longman, London.

[1] It is important to keep in mind the fact that here we are referring to situations in which the LS is a vehicle for instruction and learning (just as Italian is in schools in Italy) of curriculum content learning. It follows therefore that the curriculum content objectives are paramount. Furthermore, and as a result of this consideration, it is paramount that the characteristics of the discipline, of the didactics of the discipline, etc, be maintained.

[2] CLIL in fact is an approach to learning and teaching that can also apply where curriculum content is mediated through the mother tongue. This is because essentially it is a concept that indicates that the promotion of language development is the responsibility of the whole curriculum (and therefore of all the teaching staff of the school) and not merely that of the language teacher. This idea has been developed by Hawkins (1987) through his concepts of language awareness and language across the curriculum (see also Grenfell 2002 for a discussion with reference to CLIL).

[3] See the meso- level below at paragraph 2.c.

[4] The term ‘second language’ can refer however to two different types of situations. They can concern:

i) a non-italophone child learning the school curriculum through Italian (a non-native language for the child). The comment above about non-alternation (between the language of the child and the language of the school) refers to this particular situation.;

ii) an italophone learning all, or part, of the school curriculum through an autoctonous (regional) language (e.g. Friulan in Friuli, German or Italian in the Ladin-speaking areas of the Province of Bolzano, or French in the Valle d’Aosta, etc). In this last situation however there can obviously be an alternated use of the two languages (e.g. Friulan and Italian)

[5] The checklist is open. It does not in other words present an exhaustive list. It can be expanded and be more thoroughly detailed through further reflection and consideration

[6] The distinctions macro-, meso-, and micro- have been adopted to capture the different levels of decision-making – from the outer, socio-economic and political dimension (macro-), to that which is more focussed on the organizational and methodological dimension at the school level (meso-) and, finally, to the actual programme itself (micro-).

[7] See the contribution of David Marsh “ CLIL In Europe: Realization & Added Value” in this volume for a more complete presentation of the work of the Compendium.

[8] http://www.clilcompendium.com/. See also Marsh, D. Maljers, A. & Hartiala, A-K. (2001) Profiling European CLIL Classrooms, Jyväskylä, Finland

[9] The results are reproduced in great detail on the Compendium site.

[10] See ahead for a discussion of the question of team teaching

[12] A further two concepts adopted in the discussion on the alternation between the two languages is that of macro-alternation and micro-alternation (cf. Gajo, 2001). Macro-alternation concerns the ‘assigning’ of either of the two languages, synchronically as well as diachronically, to the disciplines in the school curriculum and to the teaching and learning events in the classroom (e.g. skills, materials, etc. Cf. above). Micro-alternation (also called code-switching) on the other hand concerns the actual change over from one language to the other in the course of the same interactional event. In Gajo’s view (p. 192) micro-alternation has an important part to play in promoting the learning of the content matter because “l’intervention ponctuelle de la L1 au niveau des pratiques peut aider à réaliser et preserver une tâche même complexe dont les enjeux linguistiques seraient définis par rapport à la L2 ».

[13] In a CLIL situation however it is not only through an identified language need that the language competence can be developed. Contact with the content in the L2 and the use of the L2 to grapple with the facts and concepts, etc, to be learnt also constitute an important condition for L2 growth.

[14] Typically the foreign language teacher can take on board the teaching of identified (identified by the students themselves or by the L2 medium teacher) language needs within his/her normal timetable.

[15] The schools involved were the licei (classici) europei and the licei ad indirizzo internazionale (overall 25 in number).

[16] Could it be also that the presence of the other teacher is seen as a sort of ancora di salvataggio for when the going gets rough (e.g. when students are having difficulty in understanding the input resort to using Italian leaving the use of the L2 to the other teacher)?

[17] See the CALLA model (Chamot & O’Malley, 1987); the Adjunct model (Snow & Brinton, 1988); and the ILCS model (Snow et al, 1989).

[18] This aspect was discussed in the four-day meeting “Co-presence and collaborative teaching within the curriculum of foreign languages” held in Venice, CRT Stefanini, December 2001.

[19] Here we are talking about planning for collaborative teaching in co-presence so the focus of our attention is on the teacher. It is possible however that the difficulties and problems mentioned for the teacher might also be the same as those that the student has to face in collaborative learning.

[20] See unpublished tesi di laurea “Team Teaching in Bilingual Education” by Marcella Menegale, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia for an exhaustive list.

[21] Obviously this is the case when a class is divided into two groups

[22] Most foreign language teachers will have experienced the silence or at least the poor response (except for the usual few students) when the class is asked to discuss ‘motivating and interesting’ topics.

[23] For Skehan planning stimulates accuracy and complexity. Lack of planning stimulates fluency.

←