CLIL: towards brain-compatible science-education

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

Y.L. TERESA TING, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALABRIA

CLIL: towards brain-compatible science-education Education will only be as effective as it is brain-compatible and CLIL makes it possible to establish this seemingly formidable criteria. Here, a set of CLIL-Science activities is presented and analyzed using a CLIL-Operational Flowchart. The Flowchart provides practitioners a concrete way to consider how each CLIL-activity can be designed so to equilibrate its Language-Cognitive-Demand or its ContentCognitive-Demand. The reader is invited to personally experience the CLIL-learning activity before evaluating how and why the CLIL-Science activities facilitate the learning of new content knowledge, in light of what we know about how the brain processes incoming information (or not). Science-education is clearly in need of renovation: CLIL, which advocates both language-aware instruction and contentaware education, provides a pragmatic set of guidelines for renovating 21st century science-education.

1. Introduction But is science-education not already brain-compatible? Even if we are not sure what would make for brain-compatible education, few would deny that science is often not at the top of most students’ ‘my favourite subjects’ list (Bransford et al., 1999). This lack of love for science is a spreading international malaise (PISA-OECD, 2006) and what is worrying is not only the steady decline in the number of students opting for secondary and tertiary-level science courses plus the high attrition from such programmes (Osborne et al., 2003). Given that basic science-competency is essential for socioeconomic progress (Halber, 2006), it is essential for 21st century education to delineate good-practices in science-education.

It is quite ironic that science education, of all things, is ailing in an era immersed in the joys of immense technological and medical progress, all of which would not be possible if not for scientific research, which, in turn, would not exist without valid science education. So why is science education suffering so? While science may not be the only “school subject” in trouble, but it is that which has received a lot of attention with the 2006 PISA-OECD survey indicating that science illiteracy is at a worrying level. What is worse is that being scientifically illiterate does not worry most people. For example, an Italian mother-journalist recently published a short piece which provided internet sites with explanations on elementary school algebra “for all those parents, who, like me, don’t know enough maths to help my 10year-old with her homework...” When a national newspaper publishes a piece so to help parents with their 10-year-olds’ maths homework, the nation should begin to worry for its future.

Interestingly, what ails science education may be the very language which science uses to be science. In fact, the April 23 2010 issue of Science, one of the most prestigious journals for scientific researchers, dedicated a Special Section entitled Science, Language and Literacy to suggest that science education will only improve if science educators become more language-aware and attend to the language used to teach science. In fact, authors in this Special Section made ample reference to Halliday and Martin’s landmark volume Writing Science (1993) in which they recognized that the language of science is ‘alienating’, if not 1

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

downright annoying. In fact, when our teachers adopted that concise and authoritative tone to explain odd-sounding phenomena that our young minds could neither see nor fathom, they transformed our mother tongue into a foreign language! And that feeling continues to haunt us, even as adults (Snow, 2010).

Ironically, this “way of languaging science” was not created to intimidate but to incorporate. One could say that modern positivistic science, as we know it, was launched in 1660 when the Royal Society of London introduced the motto Nullius in Verba and suggested that an objective expository voice be used in small-scale reports of reproducible and positivistic research (Gotti, 2005): formerly large tomes containing floral and literarily eloquent but subjective conjectures were replaced with small-scale expository research reports, enabling positivistic scientific research to proceed in small but objective steps. It is this science-speak, expository science-research genre, which allowed scientific research to replace alchemy and witchcraft, giving us the modern-day scientific knowledge which underlies the medical and technological advancements we often take for granted. The expository science-research genre thus had a noble beginning, providing a democratic voice by which all positivist researchers could share their small-scale findings regarding our natural world. Ironically, in time, this genre assumed the status of the way of ‘languaging facts’.

From a noble democratic origin, the science genre evolved into the very powerful role of ‘the language by which truth be told’.

Three issues concern (science)-education here. The first is that, since the expository science-research genre is the ‘truth-genre’, instructional science texts stray little from this way of languaging knowledge (Swain, 2006). Rightly so: explanations of our natural world should be distinguished and distinguishable from fables and fairy tales. At the same time, even the best instructional science texts are, at best interesting but usually so choc-full of details and alien-sounding terminology that one must read and re-read so to understand (or is it more so to memorize?). That is the first issue. The second issue is that science would not be science if not for the terminology that makes science, science (Halliday and Martin, 1993; Wellington and Osborn, 2001): as a mechanic must call a clutch a clutch and not “the pedal on the left that you push down to release the gear shift (term!)…”, so must a stamen be a stamen and a phosphate not be a nitrate. Science education must, therefore, also enable learners to learn and manage scientific terminology, no matter how tedious these are to learn.

The third issues lies in the ‘truth-factor’ of the science genre (Swales, 2004). In today’s “knowledge-everywhere world” (Alberts, 2010: 405), learners must be empowered with a solid understanding of core science concepts with which they can discern fact from fiction when inundated with information following a Googling-click. In fact, mixed with 21st century technology, scientific-sounding digital text can spread far and wide, be it written for the purpose of democratizing knowledge or confabulated for personal gains (Fairclough, 1991; Knorr-Cetina, 1981). This is the main reason why 21st century education must enable learners to recognize, work with and even generate science discourse (Osborne, 2010) becomes essential for both pro-active as well as defensive 21st century citizenship (Pearson et al. 2010; Webb, 2010). The issue with ensuring science-literacy is therefore not that the planet Earth needs more scientists but that 21st century citizens cannot afford to be scientifically illiterate (Schleicher, 2010). This is a concern for all educators.

We therefore face a dilemma: science-educators are realizing that the way scientific knowledge is languaged is not conducive to learning science and yet they must teach this way of languaging science so that learners not only language their understandings appropriately, but, more importantly, become informed 21st century citizens. Thus the importance of CLIL. What makes CLIL extremely innovative – and powerful – is that it can be interpreted ‘mathematically’ so to provide (science-)teachers concrete guidelines for renovating their practice, transforming classrooms into learning contexts which prepares learners for 21st 2

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

century citizenship. It is this interpretation and some concrete guidelines I would like to discuss here, contextualizing them within a set of CLIL-Science activities so to make my point also concrete.

2. Interpreting CLIL mathematically After almost 15 years in neuroscience laboratories researching rats’ brains, in 2000, I was approached by a local science lyceum with the dream-job of everyone with a PhD in neuroscience: teach “Science in English to Italian high school students (with brains)...and use CLIL”. I had expected to find a step-by-step ‘CLIL-procedural protocol’, much like that for scientific experiments. However, without a protocol defining how this “dual-focused learning environment” (Marsh 2001: 10) was to be pragmatically dually focused and, being of a positivistic mindset, I interpreted the acronym mathematically. I thus began to implement CLIL-Science learning contexts characterized by a [50:50/Content:Language] ratio (Ting, 2010) which ‘attends to both language and content’ as per Marsh (2005). In fact, if we consider the [50/Language] component of this ratio, we automatically attain a central way of reasoning – the Core CLIL-Construct – which lies in the question, “whose language? Does this [50/Language] component cater to?” (Ting, forthcoming). Since the answer is obviously the language of the learner, not the teacher, this Core-CLIL-Construct focuses our attention on the process of learning and not the act of teaching: is the learner acquiring, using and mastering the foreign language (FL)?

Figure 1. A mathematically-derived CLIL-Operational Flowchart

3

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

In turn, this Construct automatically provides teachers three very concrete ways of proceeding – three CLIL-Operands. The first two come from the fact that we have chosen to use a FL for content-education: First of all, as learners must acquire content-knowledge through a FL, for which they have limited linguistic resources, the CLIL-teacher must naturally consider if the input-language, that used for instruction, is comprehensible. CLIL-Operand-1 thus asks “Do learners even understand the language that I, the teacher, or the book is using?” Secondly, if the purpose of using a FL is so learners can master it, CLIL must cultivate not only the receptive skills of reading and listening but also learners’ productive skills of speaking and writing. CLIL-Operand-2 thus asks “Can learners use language effectively to obtain information, negotiate understanding, discuss hypotheses and convey knowledge?”

Approaching CLIL in these concrete terms thus made me realize that my blabbling about physics in English was not what CLIL was about. In addition, in time, the two aforementioned Operands which regard language-instruction catalyzed an important change in content-education: When a teacher is sensitized to the fact that the input-language must be comprehensible, it comes naturally to also consider whether the input-content is comprehensible. CLIL-Operand-3 thus asks “Is the content presented in chewable and digestable aliquots?” Done well, CLIL thus implements language-aware instruction which naturally leads to content-aware education. Figure 1 illustrates how the Core-CLIL-Construct coordinates the three CLIL-Operands into a CLIL-Operational Flowchart.

2.1. Implementing a brain-compatible [50:50/Content:Language] learning-context Before proceeding on to an analysis of what a [50:50/Content:Language] activity might look like, the reader is invited to do the activity in the Appendix so they can experience what it feels like.

To complete Exercise 1a, learners must use their knowledge of elementary-level English to form grammatically correct questions. The answers to these questions are found in Exercise 1b and, upon completion of both parts of Exercise 1, the learners know both what experimental materials are needed for the experiment and also understand what they must do, the experimental procedure. Exercise 1c obliges learners to revisit these correctly formed question-answer pairs by rewriting them, in full, in the speech bubbles. While I am not familiar with any empirical research showing that writing out foreign language words facilitates the learning of that FL, rewriting these dialogues out by hand surely provides learners additional opportunities to reprocess the language and, if nothing else, notice how English words are spelt. In fact, despite even eight years of English, Italian university students still produce whit rather than with, and this is surely not for want of input since with is the 16th most frequent English word1: giving learners opportunities to write out even simple English sentences within a motivating context of preparing for a scientific experiment obliges learners to ‘output’ these FL words.

Exercise 1d asks learners to instruct the teacher to perform the experiment. This reverses more traditional classroom dynamics whereby teachers instruct learners on what to do. If the teacher chooses a learner to substitute him/her in the role of ‘teacher’ then all the students can instruct their ‘teacher-peer’ on how to do the experiment, using language which they have acquired in the preceding exercises to give instructions.

While Exercise 2a seems to be a language activity, it covertly provides learners with the lexis they will need to not only language their observations but also, and more importantly, know how to language correctly: learners are given the language and discourse necessary to give their observations a scientific explanation. In fact, at first glance, the 1

http://www.world-english.org/english500.htm

4

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

exercise simply asks learners to correct the grammatical mistakes in each sentence. Since the number of mistakes are indicated in brackets, learners may need to re-read each sentence several times to ensure they have identified the grammatical mistake(s) which need(s) correcting. In so doing, learners are covertly re-reading content knowledge – the scientific explanations of the Ink Experiment.

Here, since the content is unknown, attention should be focuses on the content: the content-cognitive-demand (CCD) is high. It is therefore necessary to ensure that the language in which this new content is embedded is easy: language-cognitive-demand (LCD) is low.

This complementary equilibrium between the content-cognitive-demand and the languagecognitive-demand is schematized in figure 2. Scaffolding which equilibrates between the CCD and LCD of the input is in line with what we know about working memory (e.g.

Bransford, 1979; et al., 1999; Kandel, 2006), a form of short-term memory which supports the rapid processing of input from various sensory sources, identifies which input is important and then codes these into a ‘piece of information’. Given the necessary conditions, such pieces of information are subsequently re-coded and stored into long-term memory (Kandel, 2006). The important point here is that this ‘piece of information’ has a size-limit. For example, when we must remember a new phone number only long enough to dial it, we can easily do so if the number does not exceed 7 digits (Bransford, 1999).

High CCD : Low LCD

High LCD : Low CCD

Figure 2. Cognitive-Demand Equilibrium of ideal CLIL-materials: Equilibrium between ContentCognitive-Demand (CCD) and Language-Cognitive-Demand (LCD).

Although there is no empirical data to tell us how much ‘CLIL-information’ would fill a 7digit working-memory space, common sense would suggest that, since learners must access new content through a FL, effective CLIL materials consider that our working memory has a limited capacity, making it essential to equilibrate between content and language cognitivedemands. One may envision, therefore, a scaffolding process between known-content-tounknown-language or known-language-to-unknown-content, much like what Coyle et al.

(2010: 95) call the “content and language familiarity and novelty continuum” where new content is scaffolded upon familiar language so that “language remains accessible as new concepts are introduced”. Exercise 2a, asks learners to simply correct the grammar mistakes embedded within familiar language but, in so doing, actually exposes learners to the language they will need to explain the experimental observations: the covert learning of new concepts comes through the overt act of correcting language. This ensures that, even if the languagecognitive-demand may be high, the content-cognitive-demand is quite low.

Exercise 2b calls upon several acts. First of all, although this exercise appears to simply ask learners to ‘put the sentences in the correct space’, it actually obliges learners to now consciously evaluate content knowledge which, to this moment, has only received 5

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

precursory attention in Exercise 2a: any understanding of how heat provides energy and thus increases molecular motion has only been covertly acquired. Bringing such knowledge to their conscious-fore (Act 1), learners must then work through it so to embed their newly acquired knowledge into real-life observations when inserting the sentences into the corresponding space (Act 2). In using the appropriate language to complete the activity, learners not only confirm their content knowledge but also personally engage with the scientific language that is used to speak about this particular scientific phenomenon (Act 3): Learners are acquiring the language of the community of practice (Wenger, 1998) However, since the learners are working with language they have already encountered and corrected in Exercise 2a, the language-cognitive-demand is very low while the content-cognitive-demand is increased as learners learn the content and become familiar with how to language their newly acquired content knowledge.

2.2. Why a [50:50/Content:Language] learning-context is more brain-compatible This entire set of CLIL-activities have therefore moved learners from what Cummin’s (1981) recognized as BICS (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills) into CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency). While BICS can be achieved after 2-3 years of instruction, CALP is at the other extreme of the communication spectrum and can take up to double the instruction time. However, CALP is essential for academic success in the FL and must, therefore, be an objective in CLIL instruction (CLIL-Operand-2). In fact, Coyle et al., (2010) have adapted Cummin’s oft-cited Framework for Developing FL-Proficiency for auditing CLIL-tasks and illustrate how tasks proceed from those low in both linguistic and cognitive demands into those which are high in both linguistic and cognitive demands. Adapting these frameworks for science-education, we obtain a schemata which considers the conceptcognitive-load of the science concept at hand (figure 3).

Language of instruction is ACADEMIC [academic and cognitively demanding task]

A’ Concept can be made visible by linking with real-life phenomena [context-embedded]

B’

A

B

Concept can only be abstractly linked to real-life phenomena [context-reduced]

Language of instruction is COLLOQUIAL [non-academic or cognitively undemanding task] Figure 3. A Science-Proficiency Framework for evaluating the efficacy of science-learning tasks adapted from that for the development of FL-proficiency (square brackets show original axial correlates (Cummins, 1984)).

Although Cummins’ original framework (1984) considered how cognitively demanding a FLlearning task is as a function of how familiar a communicative context is, Figure 3 illustrates how this Science-Proficiency Framework can provide a theoretical framework for evaluating the efficacy of science-learning tasks by intersecting how accessible the language of 6

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

instruction is for the learner with how familiar and tangible the science-concept can be rendered (van den Broek, 2010). However, the nature of science is such that there are concepts which can be made visible, found within quadrants A and A’ while others are very difficult to link to real-life phenomena. An example of concepts which fall within quadrants B and B’ would be gluons and bosons, much appreciated by those researching sub-nuclear particle physics but difficult to grasp for those outside this community. While there are concepts in Zone B which we must study in school – concepts which are difficult to visualize (e.g. atoms, electrons, orbitals) – most concepts underlying scholastic-level science can be made visible. In addition, as represented by the dotted arrow, Zone A concepts are a requisite for Zone B gluon-physicists.

For the purpose of this paper, we will work within Zone A and discuss how the Ink Experiment was developed into a CLIL-activity. Commencing in quadrant A we conclude in quadrant A’. The language-cognitive-load is low when commencing within quadrant A, taking into consideration both CLIL-Operand-1 and CLIL-Operand-3, “do the learners understand the input-language and input-content?” (see Fig. 1). The result is Exercise 1 of the Appendix which basically informs the learners what materials are needed and what the experiment will be about. And how does this compare with a traditional non-CLIL approach?

Excerpt 1 illustrates how the same information regarding the Experimental Materials and Experimental Procedures would be presented traditionally.

Excerpt 1.

Materials. For this experiment, you will need two glass jars, some hot water, some cold water and a syringe containing dark blue ink.

Procedure. Fill one jar with hot water and one with cold water and put a few drops of ink into each jar.

One may wonder if it is worthwhile to use up one entire sheet of paper and 15 min of CLILlearning time to accomplish a message that can be presented in three lines of text and takes less than 2 minutes to read. If the purpose of doing the experiment is to do something different from reading a text, then the answer could be “no”. However, since the main focus of CLIL is ‘cultivating the learner’s language’ (the Core-CLIL-Construct), the CLIL activities in Exercise 1 transform an otherwise mundane process of setting up an experiment into a language-using task. Most importantly, it involves all the students. In fact, there is probably nothing more ‘science-alienating’ than sitting passively and watching the three best (favoured) students hovering around the teacher to set up an experiment while we others do nothing. In attending to the learner’s language, CLIL advocates a learner-centred context in which the teacher is not speaking the whole time. As a result, CLIL automatically optimizes the amount of learner-involvement at every moment of a lesson since, if the teacher isn’t blabbing non-stop, the learners must have to do something!

The most significant advantage of CLIL for science-education through is illustrated in Excerpt 2, a text which shows how the concept of molecular motion would probably normally be presented in an instructional text. Again, the CLIL-activity covering this information uses a whole side of A4 paper and would require about 30 min to complete while the traditional text is comprised of 132 words takes about 3 minutes to read. Yes, 3 minutes to read but many more to actually understand it. Or would it be more like memorize it? Actually, how easy are these 132 words to digest? Leaving aside the term kinetic molecular theory of matter, of the words in the first sentence, the words state and matter may be confusing since the everyday non-scientific connotation of these words correspond to quite different meanings (and thoughts). Likewise, if we take the sentence “In other words, atoms and molecules are constantly moving, and we measure the energy of these movements as the temperature of the 7

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

substance”, it may be possible that Anglophone learners know most of the words which are not field-specific (i.e. atoms and molecules), but it is unlikely that, encountering this for the first time, learners will find this sentence easy to digest: CLIL-Operand-3 is not implemented here.

Excerpt 2.

To understand the different states in which matter can exist, we need to understand something called the Kinetic Molecular Theory of Matter. Kinetic Molecular Theory has many parts, but we will introduce just a few here. One of the basic concepts of the theory states that atoms and molecules possess an energy of motion that we perceive as temperature. In other words, atoms and molecules are constantly moving, and we measure the energy of these movements as the temperature of the substance. The more energy a substance has, the more molecular movement there will be, and the higher the perceived temperature will be. An important point that follows this is that the amount of energy that atoms and molecules have (and thus the amount of movement) influences their interaction with each other. http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=120

Although there are no direct empirical studies based on academic texts, there is ample neurobiological research to indicate that such academic texts are probably not highly ‘braincompatible’. Using surface electrodes to record evoked response potentials (ERP), sentences such as “he spread his toast with butter and socks” elicit a neuroelectrophysiological response called the N-400, an electrical negativity 400 milliseconds following the semantically incongruent input, ‘socks’ (Kutas and Hillyard, 1980). Likewise, sentences such as “the horse raced by the barn fell” elicit a P-600, an electrical positivity 600 milliseconds following the completion of the reading of an syntactically opaque text, input which must be reprocessed so to be understood (Hinojosa et al., 2001). In fact, if one were to simply underline the words in Excerpt 2 which may cause some N400 or P600 blips in the brains of learners who are encountering molecular motion for the first time, it becomes clear why this way of languaging knowledge is probably not very brain-compatible: it would not be surprising at all if the reading Excerpt 2 would elicit various neuroelectrophysiological blips as learners struggle to assimilate the meaning contained in 132 words. Unfortunately, this way of languaging scientific understandings is the staple of science-education – read, read and read some more.

The CLIL activities in the Appendix make it possible for learners to not only see and understand the scientific concept, but also provides them with the necessary language for putting into words (scientifically correct words) the fact that molecules move and do so faster when given more energy in the form of heat. From here, understanding the few new notions and terms in Excerpt 2 is much easier as the amount of information which would otherwise elicit N400 and P600s has been reduced: content information has been re-dimensioned into chewable aliquots, CLIL-Operand-3.

3. Conclusions One may believe that merely having learners do the experiment would have achieved the same benefit as the CLIL-activities – and save on paper. However, studies have shown that simply doing an experiment does not ensure that learners have thoroughly comprehended the science behind their observations (Wellington and Osborne, 2001): although better than 'read pages 3 to 300”, hands-on activities alone are not enough. Hands-on must be followed closely by minds-on to ensure that learners have appropriated the concepts and the language to speak about such concepts. However, and more importantly, minds-on activities ensures that learners do not walk away with misconceptions about their hands-on experience (Wellington and Osborne, 2001; Webb, 2010). In the Science-Proficiency Framework (fig.

8

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

3), molecular motion can be considered a “concept which can be made visible by linking with real-life phenomena” – made visible using the Ink Experiment. However, used as is, the experiment would have remain only hands-on. CLIL-Operand-2, “Can learners use language effectively to obtain information, negotiate understanding, discuss hypotheses and convey knowledge” obliges CLIL-practitioners to take this Ink Experiment many steps forward into a minds-on activity that involves all the learners, even those who are ‘not-so-favoured’.

The Core-CLIL-Construct reminds us that the [50:Language] component attends to developing the learner’s language, prompting CLIL practitioners to work towards a learningcentred classroom which in turn automatically implements the three CLIL-Operands, moving us into minds-on learning. As mentioned earlier, CLIL implements language-aware instruction which naturally leads towards content-aware education. This is the CLILpotential. While CLIL was originally introduced as the “European solution to the European challenge” (Marsh, 2002) whereby citizens must be fluent in not just one but two FLs, European CLIL-practitioners are increasingly recognizing that this CLIL-potential is what makes CLIL much more than simply a way to “increase FL-learning time”.

Interestingly, elsewhere in the world, educators are also realizing that language-aware instruction supports content-aware education. In fact, in the first of the aforementioned reports in Science, Webb (2010) reported that when ex-Anglophone colonies in Africa used English, an ‘elitist FL’, to teach science, the outcome was dismal: “teachers do most of the talking while learners understand little and remain silent and passive”. That is why CLIL is not immersion (Lasagabaster and Sierra, 2010) since a physics teacher blabbling about physics in a FL would impose all the challenges of an immersion-like curricula without the advantages of immersion-like extra-curricularity! Interestingly, the situation in Africa was redeemed when science-educators realized that, since the language of instruction was a FL, it was necessary to ensure that the language of instruction was comprehensible: CLIL-Operand1. Attending to the type of language used during science-education is therefore a necessary first step to making science, if not visible and tangible, at least linguistically comprehensible (Wellington and Osborne, 2001; Snow, 2010). This automatically led to two changes in practice. The first was the re-dimensioning of content-input into digestable aliquots (CLILOperand-3) and the second, the development of learners’ FL-production skills (CLILOperand-2). Together, these Operands advocated learner-centered hands-on learning which is subsequently refined and consolidated through minds-on learning (Webb, 2010).

Finally, while it may be difficult to CLIL concepts such as gluons and bosons without the “danger that new content is ‘dumbed-down’” (see Coyle et al., 2010: 95) a good part of scholastic science-concepts may be successfully understood through CLIL, as was the concept of molecular motion and its accompanying scientific language. Few would disagree that a ‘read and read some more’ way of learning is not what education is all about (Schmidt et al., 1997). Education will only be as effective as it is brain-compatible and that alienating sensation elicited by scientific texts is probably more to do with neuroelectrophysiology than Freudian psychology (Ting, 2010). In fact, when we see how much information young brains can absorb, be it good or bad, it becomes clear that the traditional information-download approach to science-education does not work: it is ‘a mile wide and an inch deep’ (Schmidt et al., 1997) and even if teachers have ‘completed the syllabus’, learners are confused only because questions are not presented in the same order as the textbook chapters (Bransford, 1999). Our brain is clearly an incredible learning-organ but this learning-organ clearly does not store any and all data which has been dragged and dropped into it. In this informationeverywhere 21st century reality, science-education must be renovated to become more braincompatible. And CLIL offers a pragmatic set of guidelines to proceed efficiently and effectively.

9

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

4. References Alberts, Bruce 2010. Prioritizing Science Education. Science. 328, 405.

Bransford, John. D. 1979. Human Cognition: Learning, Understanding, and Remembering. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Bransford, John D. / Brown, Ann L. / Cocking, Rodney R. 1999. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School. New York: The National Academy of Sciences.

Coyle, Do, Hood, Philip and Marsh, David 2010. CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, Jim 1981. Age on Arrival and Immigrant Second Language Learning in Canada: A Reassessment. Applied Linguistics. 11/2, 132-149.

Cummins, Jim 1984. Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Fairclough, Norman 1991. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gotti, Maurizio 2005. Investigating Specialized Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.

Halber, Deborah 2006.

U.S. Economic Health Requires Math, Science Literacy. <http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/hockfield-educate.html>.

Halliday, Michael A.K., Martin, James R. 1993. Writing Science. London: Falmer Press.

Hinojosa, Jose A. Martın-Loeches, Manuel and Rubia, Francisco J. 2001. Event-Related Potentials and Semantics: An Overview and An Integrative Proposal. Brain and Language. 78/1, 128-139.

Kandel, Eric 2006. In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. New York: WW Norton.

Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon.

Kutas, Marta & Hillyard, Steven A. 1980. Reading Senseless Sentences: Brain Potentials Reflect Semantic Incongruity. Science. 207/4427, 203–205.

Lasagabaster, David and Sierra, Juan M. 2010. Immersion and CLIL in English: More Differences Than Similiarites. English Language Teaching Journal 64/4, 367–375.

Marsh, David 2002. The Relevance and Potential of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for Achieving MT+2 in Europe. European Language Council Report, downloaded from <http://web.fu-berlin.de/elc/bulletin/9/en/marsh.html>.

Marsh, David and Marsland, Bruce 1999. CLIL Initiatives for the Millennium, Report on the CEILINK Think-Tank. University of Jyväskylä: Finland.

Marsh, David 2001. CLIL/EMILE, The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. University of Jyväskylä: Finland Marsh, David 2005. Adding Language Without Taking Away. Guardian Weekly 8 April. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,12674,1464367,00.html

Osborne, Jonathan 2010. Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse. Science. 328/5977, 463–466.

Osborne, Jonathan, Simon, Shirley and Collins, Sue 2003. Attitudes Towards Science: A Review of the Literature and its Implications. International Journal of Science Education. 25/9, 1049-1079.

Pearson, P. David, Moje, Elizabeth and Greenleaf, Cynthia 2010. Literacy and Science: Each in the Service of the Other. Science. 328/5977, 459–463.

PISA-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Program for International Student Assessment) 2006. <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf>.

Schleicher, Andreas 2010. Assessing Literacy Across a Changing World. Science. 328/5977, 433434.

Schmidt, William H. / McKnight, Curtis C. / Raizen, Senta, A 1997. A Splintered Vision: An Investigation of US Science and Mathematics Education. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publications.

10

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

Snow, Catherine E. 2010. Academic Language and the Challenge of Reading for Learning About Science. Science 328/5977, 450–452.

Swain, Merrill 2006. Languaging, Agency and Collaboration in Advanced Second Language Proficiency. In Heidi Byrnes (ed.) Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum, 95-108.

Swales, John M. 2004. Research Genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ting, Y. L. Teresa 2010. CLIL Appeals to How the Brain Likes Its Information: Examples From CLIL-(Neuro)Science. International CLIL Research Journal 1/3: 1–18. Available at <http://www.icrj.eu/13-73>.

Ting, Y. L. Teresa forthcoming. CLIL…Not Only Not Immersion But More Than the Sum of Its Parts.

English Language Teaching Journal,

van den Broek, Paul 2010. Using Texts in Science Education: Cognitive Processes and Knowledge Representation. Science. 328/5977, 453-456.

Webb, Paul 2010. Science Education and Literacy: Imperatives for the Developed and Developing World. Science. 328/5977, 448–450.

Wellington, Jerry and Osborne Jonathan 2001. Language and Literacy in Science Education. New York: Open University Press.

Wenger, Etienne 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

Appendix A Exercise 1a. Let’s Start…ask some questions about the experiment…: 1

Is the…

i)

…glass jars do we need?

2

What do we …

ii)

…syringe for?

3

How much…

iii)

…ink do we need?

4

How many…

iv)

…ink red?

5

What is the…

v)

…do with the hot water?

Exercise 1b. Answers (6) to the questions (5): A. Just a few drops is enough…

B. No it doesn’t…

C. No it isn’t…It’s dark blue.

D. Put some hot water in one of the glass jars…

E. Two…one for hot water and one for cold water…

F. You will see…it’s for getting the ink…

Exercise 1c. Now write these dialogues in the bubbles: Q1:

A1:

Q2:

A2:

Q3:

A3:

Q4: A4:

Q5: A5:

Exercise 1d. Now, tell your teacher how to do the experiment...

12

In Marsh, D. & Meyer, O. (Eds), Quality Interfaces: Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in CLIL. Eichstaett: Eichstaett Academic Press, Chapter 1 (pp 12-26), ISBN: 978-3-943318-05-0

Observing and Deducing Exercise 2a. Below are 10 statements which are conceptually correct but grammatically incorrect. Correct the grammar: the number of mistakes in each sentence is indicated in (brackets).

1. The temperature are higher (1) 2. There is fewer energy (1) 3. The ink dissipate more fast (2) 4. The ink stay compact more longer (2) 5. The water molecules move much fast (1) 6. There are less motion molecular (2) 7. There are more the energy (2) 8. Molecular motion are slower because there is less the energy (2) 9. Moleculeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s water haves more molecular motion (2) 10. Water molecules moves less because there is less the energy (2) Exercise 2b. Now put each corrected sentence in the appropriate space below.

HOT WATER

COLD WATER

13

Marsh David Meyer Olivei -^

â&#x20AC;˘

Lrsg.

"^f~

j**

'uality Interraces Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in OLE,

TableofContents Preface

7

Introduction

9

I. EXAMINING EVIDENCE

/

Y.L. Teresa Ting CLIL: Towards Brain-corapatible Science-education

2

12

Piet Van de Craen/Katrien Mondt/Jill Surmont What Content and Language Integrated Learning Has Taught Language Pedagogy and How to Explain it

3

Daniela Elsner/Jòrg-U. Kefiler Autonomous Learning and CLIL at Primary Level

4

JXJ

9

92

Xabier San Isidro/Esther Calvo The Fusion Effect of CLIL on Language-building and Content-learning

und

79

Francesca Costa/Jim Coleman Examining Input Presentation Strategies

8

67

Britta Viebrock Teachers' Mindsets, Methodological Competences and Teaching Habits

7

53

Laureila D'Angelo/Enrique Garcìa Pascual The Personal and Professional Profile of thè CLIL Subject Teacher

6

37

Carnei Mary Coonan Affect and Motivation in CLIL

5

26

103

Jennifer Valcke/Kristin Bartik/lan Tudor Practising CLIL in Higher Education: Challenges and Perspectives

141

II. EXPLORING SOLUTIONS

1

Rick de Graaff/Gerrit Jan Koopman/Rosie Tanner Integrateci Opportunities for Subject and Language Learning: Implementing a Rubric for Cross-curricular Learning Activities

2

157

Andreas Bonnet Language, Content and Interaction: How to Make CLIL Classrooms Work

3

Wolfgang Hallet Semiotic Translation and Literacy Learning in CLIL

4

191

Cristina Oddone Achieving Success in CLIL Through Web 2.0 Tools

5

175

202

Simone Smala CLIL Down Under: External Support Structures to Overcome thè 'Tyranny of Distance'

6

212

Marianne Hàuptle-Barceló/Margarita Gòrrissen Intercultural Communicative Competence and CLIL: How to Make it Work

7

Janine Laupenmùhlen Making thè Most of LI in CL(1+2)IL

8

237

Èva Poisel Competence Development Through Task-Based Learning

9

225

252

Ter esina Barbero/Fabrizio Maggi Assessment and Evaluation in CLIL

265

10 Henny Rónneper CertiLingua: Label of Excellence for Plurilingual, European and International Competences

279

Marsh David Meyer Olivei -^

â&#x20AC;˘

Lrsg.

"^f~

j**

'uality Interraces Examining Evidence & Exploring Solutions in OLE,

TableofContents Preface

7

Introduction

9

I. EXAMINING EVIDENCE

/

Y.L. Teresa Ting CLIL: Towards Brain-corapatible Science-education

2

12

Piet Van de Craen/Katrien Mondt/Jill Surmont What Content and Language Integrated Learning Has Taught Language Pedagogy and How to Explain it

3

Daniela Elsner/Jòrg-U. Kefiler Autonomous Learning and CLIL at Primary Level

4

JXJ

9

92

Xabier San Isidro/Esther Calvo The Fusion Effect of CLIL on Language-building and Content-learning

und

79

Francesca Costa/Jim Coleman Examining Input Presentation Strategies

8

67

Britta Viebrock Teachers' Mindsets, Methodological Competences and Teaching Habits

7

53

Laureila D'Angelo/Enrique Garcìa Pascual The Personal and Professional Profile of thè CLIL Subject Teacher

6

37

Carnei Mary Coonan Affect and Motivation in CLIL

5

26

103

Jennifer Valcke/Kristin Bartik/lan Tudor Practising CLIL in Higher Education: Challenges and Perspectives

141

II. EXPLORING SOLUTIONS

1

Rick de Graaff/Gerrit Jan Koopman/Rosie Tanner Integrateci Opportunities for Subject and Language Learning: Implementing a Rubric for Cross-curricular Learning Activities

2

157

Andreas Bonnet Language, Content and Interaction: How to Make CLIL Classrooms Work

3

Wolfgang Hallet Semiotic Translation and Literacy Learning in CLIL

4

191

Cristina Oddone Achieving Success in CLIL Through Web 2.0 Tools

5

175

202

Simone Smala CLIL Down Under: External Support Structures to Overcome thè 'Tyranny of Distance'

6

212

Marianne Hàuptle-Barceló/Margarita Gòrrissen Intercultural Communicative Competence and CLIL: How to Make it Work

7

Janine Laupenmùhlen Making thè Most of LI in CL(1+2)IL

8

237

Èva Poisel Competence Development Through Task-Based Learning

9

225

252

Ter esina Barbero/Fabrizio Maggi Assessment and Evaluation in CLIL

265

10 Henny Rónneper CertiLingua: Label of Excellence for Plurilingual, European and International Competences

279