This reports is about content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in multilingual primary classrooms. While in theory CLIL offers many opportunities for inclusive education in multilingual settings, questions remain as to how integrated language teaching can be realised, and what teacher knowledge is required for this. This research used a CLIL Teaching Wall activity and interviews with UK and Dutch primary school teachers to capture teacher knowledge underlying decision-making in actual multilingual classrooms. The report presents a framework of CLIL teacher knowledge that emerged from this work.
Introduction The CEFR offers a framework for language teaching, learning and assessment for L2 learners. Importantly, the CEFR draws on a learner’s communicative language competence rather than linguistic competence (e.g. vocabulary, grammar). As such, the implementation of the CEFR in our four years bachelor program Teacher of Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT) caused a shift in didactic approach from grammar-based to communication-centered. It has been acknowledged that didactic approaches associated with the CEFR are scarcely documented (Figueras, 2012) and the effectiveness on learner outcomes have not been investigated systematically. Moreover, for many languages the levels of the CEFR are not supported by empirical evidence from L2 learner data (Hulstijn, 2007). Purpose We will i) describe our communication-centered approach in detail and iii) present some preliminary findings on the effectiveness of this approach on student’s outcomes. Method We followed four student cohorts longitudinally: students in the first cohort (n=14) were taught in a grammar-based curriculum, students in the second (n=6), third (n=9) and fourth (n=14) cohort in a communication-centered curriculum. Data involved production (interviews) videos that are transcribed using ELAN. Results Comparing students in their first and second year, results show that students who followed a communication-based curriculum show more grammatical variability as compared to students who followed a grammar-based curriculum. Conclusions Interestingly, the communication-centered approach stimulates the development of linguistic competence. We attempt to fit the empirical evidence of L2 learners within the CEFR-levels. References Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66, 477 – 485. Hulstijn, J. (2007). The shaky ground beneath the CEFR: quantitave and qualitative dimensions of language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 663 – 667.
In L1 grammar teaching, teachers often struggle with the students’ conceptual understanding of the subject matter. Frequently, students do not acquire an in-depth understanding of grammar, and they seem generally incapable of reasoning about grammatical problems. Some scholars have argued that an in-depth understanding of grammar requires making connections between concepts from traditional grammar and underlying metaconcepts from linguistic theory. In the current study, we evaluate an intervention aiming to do this, following up on a previous study that found a significant effect for such an approach in university students of Dutch Language and Literature (d = 0.62). In the current study, 119 Dutch secondary school students’ grammatical reasonings (N=684) were evaluated by language teachers, teacher educators and linguists pre and post intervention using comparative judgement. Results indicate that the intervention significantly boosted the students’ ability to reason grammatically (d = 0.46), and that many students can reason based on linguistic metaconcepts. The study also shows that reasoning based on explicit underlying linguistic metaconcepts and on explicit concepts from traditional grammar is more favored by teachers and (educational) linguists than reasoning without explicit (meta)concepts. However, some students show signs of incomplete acquisition of the metaconcepts. The paper discusses explanations for this incomplete acquisition.
