English language teachers' new role

Home Page

Thursday March 26th 2009

As education authorities around the world set ambitious targets to raise English skills, this is the time for English language teachers to share their expertise and views on how to combine content and language in the same lessons, say leading Clil experts David Marsh and Peeter Mehisto. They call for more cooperation across the curriculum and highlight the issues that will be raised at our special debate Clil: Complementing or Compromising English Language Teaching?

Thursday March 26th 2009

Primary school students develop their communication skills in South Korea

As economies falter, both globalisation and English language training find they are not immune to the troubles. The scramble for re-alignment has enhanced the value of English as a commodity because making the most of opportunities requires access to the major global language.

There is a new supply chain in English language education, namely teaching content subjects through this language. Alongside a surge of demand for language teaching itself, we also have unprecedented numbers of students learning content subjects through English around the globe.

The current financial upheaval marks a watershed for some of us involved with English language teaching. As demand for English increases, we may assume that our jobs are secure, if not strengthened. But, as with the value of oil and basic commodities, English language teaching’s stock is volatile rather than rising. Instead of more of the same, societies are exploring alternative and more cost effective ways to satisfy demand.

In education, from Korea to Malay­sia, the United Arab Emirates to Europe, Mexico to Argentina, teaching through the medium of English has already established itself as a viable alternative option. The professional response to this change has been to develop Content and Language Integrated Learning (Clil). This methodology provides curricular integration of both English and content teaching. It is not language teaching, nor content teaching, but a fusion, resulting in innovation that goes beyond communicative or content-based learning. It also extends beyond the problem-based approaches found in content teaching.

We now have a situation in which demand for teaching content through English is changing the status quo. The question we face is whether the Clil change is an opportunity to supercharge the profession or risks short-circuiting the position of ELT.

In Clil, language development ceases to be the sole domain of the ELT teacher. It calls for inter-disciplinary dialogue between language and other subject specialists. What happens is that a relationship of mutually bene­ficial interdependence develops between content and language teachers. Clil requires that ELT teachers play an expanded role or risk being sidelined.

Large-scale teaching-through-­English programmes are being introduced in the private and public sectors in Asia and Europe. But the example from South Korea, where a proposal to introduce English immersion programmes for all schools met with strong opposition from citizens, shows that plans to raise English skills across an entire school population cannot be achieved without the increased involvement of many stakeholders, including ELT teachers.

South Korea is rethinking how to move forward on teaching through English. There, as elsewhere, developing Clil requires time, bringing English and subject teaching closer, and spreading methodologies.

This year the Malaysian government will decide on the future of its large-scale English-medium programme (TesME), which began in 2003 and now involves 5.5 million students studying science and mathematics through English in mainstream education. As always in national educational debates, the Malaysian situation is being looked at from multiple angles including economic performance, the cognitive demands of  studying science, the position of the state language and the professional development of staff.

No matter what road is chosen, Clil calls for co-operation among a host of stakeholders. One of the stakeholders is the ELT teacher who has much ­expertise to share. However, ELT teachers will need to renegotiate their role in the Clil context.

Remaining simply and solely a provider of English language teaching is not a viable option in Clil.

Austria and the Netherlands are both examples of Clil-based integrated approaches to education in English. Dialogue between the disciplines involved, which are essentially ELT and content specialists, reduces the potential for confused aims and the failure to teach either the subject or English effectively. In Austria 65% of upper technical schools have adopted Clil, and in the Netherlands 15,000 students study up to half of the secondary curriculum through Clil.

Not only does Clil offer to students the promise of improved language and content learning, it presents ELT teachers with an opportunity to make a professional leap. An increasing number of publishers are moving into Clil, or using it as a means to market products. Meanwhile neuroscience is  providing insights that help explain some of the reasons for Clil’s success.

As Clil gains momentum, the ELT profession has a pivotal choice to make. Either it will allow itself to be sidelined and be weaker for it, or it will harness the opportunities presented by Clil and supercharge the profession.

• David Marsh is a leading expert on Clil and is working on ­language learning, creativity and the brain. Peeter Mehisto has extensive international experience developing successful Clil programmes.

  

Submit article to the following:  |  del.icio.us  |  Newsvine