CLIL: Internationalisation or Pedagogical Innovation?

CLIL, the popular acronym for Content and Language Integrated Learning, refers to the learning/teaching of a subject in a foreign language and was first officially introduced in Italy in 2010 with the Riforma della Scuola Secondaria di secondo grado and, specifically, in Trentino in 2014 with the Piano Trentino Trilingue. In the latter context, the introduction of mandatory CLIL has meant a massive increase in subject teaching in English and in German throughout Trentino schools, from primary to secondary levels. This significant change to the traditional school curriculum has brought to light both the advantages and disadvantages of internationalisation at the didactic level, which is the general focus of this chapter. Most of the challenges associated with CLIL in the transformation of education in the province of Trentino have not been exclusively related to the linguistic competences of learners, but rather to the wider didactic-pedagogical guidelines provided to teachers for its implementation. In fact, learners, teachers and families are generally very interested in the development of multilingual competences, while the epistemological and didactic reforms necessary for an internationalisation of the curriculum often arouse scepticism, if not outright rejection. The design and implementation of the Trentino CLIL policy has thus generated a lively scientific debate, one which focuses on three main research questions: (1) Can an understanding of linguistic competence, which is often narrowly conceived as knowhow in everyday communication, be broadened and expanded through CLIL? (2) What are the concrete objectives for the development of linguistic competence in nonlinguistic subjects? Which of these aims can be realistically achieved by a majority of learners? (3) What are the basic principles that can contribute to the creation of a genuine CLIL epistemology? Part of Mastellotto, L. , & Zanin, R. (Eds.). (2021). EMI and beyond: Internationalising higher education curricula in Italy. bu,press. https://doi.org/10.13124/9788860461827 Federica Ricci Garotti 242 This paper examines these questions by presenting the results of a study carried out in Trentino schools as part of the scientific monitoring of the implementation of the province's 2014 CLIL policy, including teacher training for CLIL. The Trentino CLIL plan is a case study of a controversial and complex vision, but one that represents an opportunity for curricular innovation that goes in the direction of the internationalisation of Italian and European schools. Although the case studies analysed here are not strictly linked to EMI contexts in higher education, there is, nevertheless, an implicit connection between CLIL and EMI: the various pedagogical and didactic aspects and critical issues elicited through the introduction of CLIL in a primary and secondary school habitus can also be found in the implementation of EMI in tertiary education. Introducing a foreign language as a vehicle for instruction at all levels of education requires an undeniable change in didactic and pedagogical approaches, which is often difficult to embrace; it is not merely a question of taking on an additional activity, but of a real and profound shift in perspective affecting every single part of the curriculum and all the actors in education. For these reasons, they are worthy of attention and further discussion. 1. CLIL Origins and Meaning Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) was historically born as a European response to non-European language immersion programmes, especially Canadian ones. These programmes have as their objective the formation of a bilingual population in a social context of diglossia, or the defence of the weaker language where a lesser-used language risks being overwhelmed by the dominant majority language as in regions such as Catalonia, the Basque provinces, the Canton of Grisons in Switzerland, the Swedish provinces in Finland, and many others. Basically, CLIL is the teaching and learning of non-linguistic disciplines in a foreign language, a form of education that is not so novel or revolutionary, if we think that it was practiced over 5000 years ago: What was the education in Latin for the children of the Roman Empire who did not have Latin as their first language (L1) if not CLIL? Or the diglossia of numerous parts of Italy (as well as Africa) in which Greek was still spoken (and not Latin)? This created the paradox that led Horace to write in his Epistles: Graecia capta ferum vincentm cepit? (2006, CLIL: Internationalisation or Pedagogical Innovation? 243 II:1, 156). "A conquered Greece in turn conquered its savage vanquisher" (Author's translation). This chapter presents the most relevant findings emerging from a study conducted in Trentino, where a political decision by the local government introduced CLIL in German and English in 2014 as an obligatory form of teaching/learning for every class of the Region from primary school onwards. The research project is based on five case studies comprising classroom observations in CLIL classes, questionnaires, focus groups, and interviews with the teachers and learners involved in CLIL. The project was planned and coordinated by me with a research team consisting of five tutors, one for every year group, who were all expert CLIL teachers, certified with a Master's degree in CLIL Methodology from the University of Trento1. The results of the empirical research are summarised for each of the five cases, signalling how single realities benefit from CLIL. On the other hand, tensions or critical issues that also emerged in the analysis of these individual cases help to shed light on the overall Italian school system, as discussed below. By taking into account both the strengths and weaknesses revealed through the study, a favourable context for CLIL to thrive in the Italian school system and more generally can be defined. The specific aspects examined in the study include: the importance of the language of and in the discipline; the disciplinary programme (as both a constraint and a resource); the relationship between Italian and the foreign language in CLIL; classroom interaction; the co-presence (in some cases co-teaching) of the subject teacher and foreign language teacher. The analysis of findings is followed by a brief conclusion which, on the basis of the data presented, seeks to answer two research questions: Is the Italian school system ready for CLIL? What are the most favourable conditions for CLIL in Italy and abroad?  1 For the scientific analysis and results of the project, see Federica Ricci Garotti (2019). Federica Ricci Garotti 244 2. Disciplinary Language is Not (Only) Terminology A critical issue that emerged from the classroom observations conducted centres on the language used in CLIL, which often, especially in lower secondary school (years 6, 7 and 8) where learners have weak L2 skills, is limited to a long list of subject-specific terms to memorize. This approach obviously requires a great mnemonic effort on the part of learners as well as the families who support them in their homework. Subject teachers would no doubt agree that their own disciplines cannot be reduced simply to a nomenclature, or list of technical terms for which it is deemed sufficient to acquire the specific terminology rather than the underlying concepts. Although the expression of ideas obviously requires the knowledge and use of specific terms from that discipline, these are not the main focus of the teaching/learning process across subjects. However, using generic or everyday language in the context of a disciplinary lesson would imply sacrificing the specific conceptual dimension of the discipline. For example, accepting an expression such as 'to have strength' in a physics lesson would mean renouncing the discipline-specific concept being expressed (i.e. to exert a force), as Leisen (2004) illustrates. Such an expression might not require much mnemonic effort, but it implies an exhaustive process of indirectly approaching or circling an understanding of specific phenomena. The problem is, therefore, not a linguistic one per se, but a disciplinary one. Consequently, a disciplinary problem must be solved through the means of disciplinary teaching, not with the strategies of language teaching, and certainly not with a long list of words applied to, at best, vaguely understood concepts. Insisting above all on accurate terminology, as if that were the only concern of CLIL, means using a mainly demonstrative and non-argumentative form of language — showing or describing phenomena — and then being satisfied with the verbal, equally demonstrative, reproductions of learners. By contrast, a positive example emerging from one of the examined cases demonstrates the vast potential of a CLIL lesson that uses lexis to draw attention to concepts. By focusing on the names for different types of leaves, drawing attention to their individual etymologies and definitions, a CLIL CLIL: Internationalisation or Pedagogical Innovation? 245 lesson adopts an inductive strategy that supports the understanding of the meaning (content) through an understanding of the form (language). In this way, the teacher ensures that the term is memorised only when associated with the information; clearly, for this type of activity, the combined use of verbal and non-verbal language is highly recommended. This combination of conceptual meaning and linguistic form lies at the vital centre of CLIL, in which the two components are absolutely inseparable: without reflection on the form, the concept is incomprehensible, whereas an abstract understanding of the concept, when not recorded through the form, does not facilitate acquisition. In fact, Leisen (2004) defined the union of form and meaning as a language-sensitive lesson but, in reality, it is simply the awareness needed for the learning/teaching of any discipline, which consis