The publications and books on CLIL always focus on second language acquisition. But one might argue that the CLIL methodology can also be applied to a first language lesson.

When this was discussed in the CLIL Community Facebook group, an interesting discussion ensued. In this post I want to share my opinion and explain my reasons.

Some information in this article has been published before in an article in CLIL Magazine Spring 2016, written by Rick de Graaff.

Before anything can be said related to CLIL in a different setting, a couple of things need to be clear. 

The most obvious first thing we need to agree on is: What is CLIL?

I already shared my opinion on this, but please allow me recap it shortly:

CLIL is motivating students to actively engage with a second language

Yes, I know, in my 'definition' of CLIL I also mention the second language.

End of discussion?

Not, not just yet!

I care more for the actual application of CLIL in a lesson. In my opinion a CLIL activity contains of two elements:

1) A language element (preferably output)

2) A engaging element

If these two elements are present, I would argue the activity is CLIL.

For the record: you do obviously need subject specific goals as well. There can be no CLIL without content.

Now that my approach to CLIL is clear, let's move on to the next important thing to be aware of.

Is a CLIL student the same as 'any' student? Can we compare CLIL students with 'regular' students and determine similarities and differences?

Rick de Graaff mentions in his article: "Several researchers such as Bruton (2015) in Spain and Rümlich (2014) in Germany claim that CLIL students are usually preselected for cognitive abilities and/or motivation."

In my personal experience, this happens in The Netherlands as well. Simply because schools argue CLIL education is a little harder compared to regular education, the least we can ask is a little bit of motivation to put in the extra work.

This means comparing the two can be tricky, because the latter group may have lower cognitive abilities or be less motivated.

As a CLIL coach, I talk with teachers a lot about how to use CLIL in a lesson.  

Often we come to the conclusion teachers already use a lot of CLIL, without realizing it.

Even more so: they use these activities in a regular, L1 lesson already.

When I changed schools a couple of years ago and started teaching in L1 again (Dutch in my case) I noticed I could still use a lot of activities and ideas I used in my CLIL lessons before.

Rick de Graaff mentions the same in his article: "many CLIL teachers - who may also teach their subject to mainstream classes in L1 – come to realize that language plays an important role in content teaching and learning in any language context."

A question that quite often appears when teachers start working with CLIL is: do I still have time to focus on the subject?

I find this to be an interesting question, because it suggests teachers need to focus on language as if it is unrelated to the subject.

CLIL stands for Content and Language Integrated Learning.

The two things have to be combined.

Yes, I sometime use language activities in my lesson, because I think they are fun.

But also because I think students need them to develop their subject language.

Think about all of the subject related words and phrases students have to study for your subject in L1.

You need to support that language as well, don't you?

Whenever I explain the properties of a "perpendicular bisector", the explanation in Dutch or English would be the same. ​

Students in both L1 and L2 lessons have no idea what it is and need scaffolding and instruction in order to understand.

Rick de Graaff als mentions this in his article: "many subject teachers in CLIL contexts experience that they are co-responsible for the language development of their pupils (de Graaff et al., 2007). They are aware of the fact that it is through language that pupils learn subject knowledge. This is what Coyle (2007) has called ‘language for learning’. On the other hand, it is also through content learning that pupils develop language: ‘language through learning’."

My conclusion from this part of the article is: Language is not so much a goal in and of itself. It is an integral part of your teaching.

Or, as Phil Ball has said before:

"We did not invent language as a subject until we started schools.

Before that, we just used it."

Okay, so if CLIL means focus on engaging activities (which I think is just good teaching) and keep an eye on the language element, does that mean CLIL teaching can be used in any L1 setting as well?

Rick de Graaf concludes: "Bilingual education as such is no guarantee for
increased motivation. Perhaps it is effective CLIL pedagogy that supports motivation development, as it stimulates pupils to be active, interactive, reflective and language-conscious. If CLIL pedagogy is indeed effective, it should be of use for any teacher and any class, in bilingual as well as in monolingual education."

In other words: yes, CLIL pedagogy can be applied to L1 education.

Yet...

This does not mean you can just copy-and-paste. 

Just like with your CLIL lessons, you should think about how to approach the language elements of your lesson. 

This can be by asking students to identify difficult words, focus on actual words during recaps or even asking for the explanation of words in tests.

I am always a little shocked whenever I check tests and ask for explanations of certain key phrases. There are always students who do not know the words. This in turn means they have no idea on what they are doing. 

That scares me a little and only proves the importance of language involvement.

My opinion is: CLIL can certainly work in an L1 lesson. The two main focus points of CLIL (engaging activities and the involvement of language) can and should be applied in regular L1 lessons.

Rick de Graaff concludes his article with a comparison: 

"If subject learning is about travelling through and discovering new territories, then language would be the transport type we can use for this purpose.

Let’s take a bicycle, for instance.​

Riding a bike is a skill that has to be developed, but once you can do it, you won’t forget it anymore.

Children learn to ride the bike with the support of their father or mother.

Practice makes perfect. 

Cyclists can train in the gym as well. But for a successful trip or a joyful discovery one needs to be prepared for and used to the specific environmental conditions. ​

Such a preparation is best realized through cycling in the countryside: learning by doing.

But also by doing by learning: it is both the countryside as a context for bike riding, as well as bike riding as a tool for travel and discovery.

And most importantly, perhaps: it is about the joy of cycling, whenever you are
able and willing to appreciate the countryside and the weather (whatever its conditions).

You see more when you enjoy the ride.

You enjoy more when you are well prepared."

Now you understand the image used at the beginning of the article 😉