1. Rethinking CLIL in Asian contexts John Adamson University of Niigata Prefecture Teaching TESOL in changing times, learning English in a new age TESOL Asia/Asian EFL Journal 14th Annual International Conference SITE Skills Training Campus Clark Freeport Zone Pampanga, Philippines August 21st, 2015

2. Growth of L2 Medium Instruction
French immersion in public school
Spanish – English bilingual schools
University classes in English and Spanish
Public education in colonial languages
European schools language immersion
Immersion in Asian languages
University classes in English, French, German, etc
“American” universities

3. Preamble
Content and Language Integrated learning (CLIL) Academic language & Content knowledge/skills Interdisciplinarity? L1 role? Autonomy?

4. ELT CLIL EMI ELT – CLIL - EMI Student-centered Language focus Autonomy
Intradisciplinary
L1 role?
CLIL
Teacher- or student centered
Content and language foci
Skills/strategies for EMI
Interdisciplinary
Mirroring EMI
EMI
Teacher-led
Little language focus
L1 role depends on context

5. Content and Language
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has a “dual focus” (Coyle et al, 2010, p. 1)
Met’s (2009) continuum
Hard CLIL 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Soft CLIL
Content-driven Language-driven
EMI/Total Partial Sheltered Adjunct Theme-based Language classes with use of
immersion immersion course model content for language practice

6. CLIL benefits
Cognitive benefits of learning content in a L2, 3.. (Lamfuss-Schenk, 2002)
Relevance to students’ content studies (Edsall & Saito, 2012)
Authenticity of CLIL materials, methods etc (Pinner, 2012)
Motivational for language learning (Lasagabaster, 2011)
Merging complimentary professional skills (Lucietto, 2008) between language and content teachers = “cross-fertilization” of skills (Klein, 1996, p. 4).

7. CLIL problems
Teacher expertise: Am I teaching EFL or content? (Lucietto, 2008); Mehisto (2008): “disjuncture” (p. 93) for teachers; “shadow structures” (Lemert, 1990, p. 6); How do I speak/write like a content specialist? (Dalton-Puffer, 2011)
Student understanding: Is this a language class or content class? (Wolff, 2007)
Assessment norms: From language or content classes? (Lucietto, 2008)
Achievement in language learning measured but in content? (Taiwan, see Yang, 2014)
“Bandwagon effect” (Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter, 2013) : lack of criticality.

8. Different teaching & research methodologies Institutional constraints
Interdisciplinarity
“Boundary work” problems (Klein, 1996):
Language norms
Different teaching & research methodologies
Institutional constraints
Cognitive restraints, experiences & perceived threats
Hierarchies/elitism among disciplines
Heintz & Origgi (2008), Lélé & Norgaard (2005)

9. cont..
The ‘inter’ and “boundary work” and “mapping knowledge” (Klein, 1996, p. 2-3):
Tribes and territories (Becher & Trowler, 1989)
Mode 1 (intra-) and 2 (inter-) (Gibbons et al, 1994);
Hessels & van Lente (2008): Mode 2 collaboration more “dialogic”, dynamic.
Moving from intradisciplinary collaboration to interdisciplinarity (Mode-1 to Mode-2 knowledge production)　(Gibbons et al, 1994)

10. Language and content teachers’ collaboration
Positioning of English on the institutional curriculum (Adamson, 2010) and in society (Seargeant, 2009) Clear conceptualization of the partnership (Davison, 2005) Dialogue with content ‘mainstream’ is “rough ground” (Arkoudis, 2006, p.415) Marginalization of English teacher expertise (Creese, 2002) Can “cross-fertilization” (Klein, 1996, p. 4) of teacher knowledge occur?

11. L1 use in L2 instruction
Cummins (1994): “two solitudes” separation of L1/L2
Lasagabaster (2013) Bilingual training
Benor (2010): “ethnolinguistic repertories”
Blackledge & Creese (2010): translanguaging mirrors reality in multilingual contexts .
Velasco & Garcia (2014): L1 use in process of L2 writing – agency/voice.
Garcia & Kano (2014): “interplay” or Canagarajah (2014): “shuttling” between local & Western academic literacies, i.e. Hornberger’s (2003) “biliteracy”
Donahue (2013): “decenter monolingual practice”
Levine (2011): “language choice” and autonomy-building
Lorimer (2013, p. 163): “develop an ear for difference” = “rhetorical attunement”
Martin (2005, p. 80): “safe” language practice for lower proficiency learners
But….
But Setati et al (2002, p.147): “guilt” in L1 use in L2 learning

12. cont..
Coyle et al (2010): “dual focus” (p.1) and “authenticity of purpose” (p.5)
Edsall & Saito (2012): motivational benefits of CLIL, esp. for lower proficiency L2 learners due to content use
Lasagabaster (2013): L1 in CLIL – merits of accessing L1 knowledge and culture; metadiscourse; “bilingual training”
Wolfsberger (2012): Lower proficiency multilingual writers use more translation
Elsherif (2012): L2 writers positive use of L1 as a resource in text construction

13. Autonomy
Is it practised in EMI classes?
If not, is its use in CLIL unauthentic?
Moves to distance study & larger tertiary classes – autonomy needed.
Autonomy critical in student choice of materials and language (Levine, 2012; Blackledge & Creese, 2010, p.105).

14. Conclusions Possibilities CLIL’s authenticity- motivation
Bridging ELT and EMI
Bilingual training (Lasagabaster, 2013)
“Cross-fertilization” (Klein, 1996, p. 4) and Mode -2
Challenges
Disciplinary border crossing
“disjuncture” (Mehisto, 2008, p. 93) and Mode – 1 conservatism
“shadow structures” (Lemert, 1990, p. 6)
Language or content achievement?
Are autonomy and translanguaging relevant to local Asian EMI practice?

15. References
Adamson, J. (2010). ‘I wonder why they don’t talk to us more’: Exploring Interdisciplinarity in Japanese higher education. RELT (Journal of Reflections on English Language Teaching), 9(1), Arkoudis, S. (2006). Negotiating the rough ground between ESL and mainstream teachers. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), Becher, T. & Trowler, P. (1989). Academic Tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and The Open Press. Benor, S. B. (2010). Ethnolinguistic repertoire: Shifting the analytic focus in language and ethnicity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14(2), 159–183. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and Teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94, Canagarajah, S. (2014). EAP in Asia. In Liyanage, I. & Walker, T. (eds.) English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in Asia. (pp ). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Cenoz, J. Genesee, F. & Gorter, D. (2013) Critical Analysis of CLIL: taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics DOI: /applin/amt011 Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Creese, A. (2002). The discursive construction of power in teacher partnerships: Language and subject specialists in mainstream schools. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), Cummins, J. (1994). The Acquisition of English as a Second Language. In Spangenberg-Urbschat, K. and Pritchard, R. (Eds) Reading Instruction for ESL Students. (pp ). Delaware: International Reading Association. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teachers: How do we know when we are doing it right? The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), Donahue, C. (2013). Negotiation, Translinguality, and Cross-cultural Writing Research in a new Composition Era. In Canagarajah, A. S. (Ed.). Literacy as Translingual Practice. (pp ). New York: Routledge. Edsall, D. & Saito, Y. (2012). The Motivational benefits of Content. OnCue Journal, 6(2),

16. Elsherif, E. (2012). Literature review on the use of first language during second language writing. Humanising Language Teaching, 6, Retrieved 4th April, 2014 from: Garcia, O. & Kano, N. (2014). Translanguaging as process and pedagogy: Developing the English Writing of Japanese Students in the US. In Conteh, J. & Meier, G. (eds.) The Multilingual Turn in Language Education: Opportunities and Challenges. (pp ). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H. , Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Heintz, C. & Origgi, G. (2008). Rethinking Interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplines. Retrieved 15th October, 2008 from Hessels, L.K. & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37, Hornberger, N. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy, 1, DOI: /A: Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville & London: University Press of Virginia. Lamsfuß-Schenk, S. (2002). Geschichte und Sprache: Ist der bilinguale Geschichtsunterricht der Königsweg zum Geschichtsbewusstsein? In Breidbach, S., Bach, G. & Wolff, D. (Eds.). Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht: Didaktik, Lehrer-/Lernerforschung und Bildungspolitik zwischen Theorie und Empirie. (pp ), Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), Lasagabaster, D. (2013). The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers’ perspective. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(2), 1-21

17. Colleges, San Francisco, 11th January.
Lélé, S. & Norgaard, R. (2005). Practising Interdisciplinarity. BioScience, 55(11),
Lemert, C. C. (1990). Depth as a Metaphor for the Major: A Postmodernist Challenge. Paper presented at meeting of Association of American
Colleges, San Francisco, 11th January.
Levine, G. S. (2011). Code choice in the language classroom. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lorimer, R. (2013). Writing Across Languages: Developing Rhetorical Attunement. In Canagarajah, A. S. (Ed.). Literacy as translingual practice.
(pp ). New York: Routledge
Lucietto, S. (2008). A Model for Quality CLIL Provision. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), Retrieved from:
Martin, P. W. (2005). Bilingual encounters in the classroom. In J.-M. Dewale, A. Housen & L. Wei (Eds.), Bilingualism: Beyond the basic
principles. (pp ). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mehisto, P. (2008). CLIL Counterweights: Recognising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1),
Met, M. (2009). Content-Based Instruction: Defining Terms, Making Decisions. NFLC Reports. Retrieved from:
Pinner, R. (2012). Authenticity and CLIL: Examining Authenticity from an International CLIL Perspective. International CLIL Research Journal,
2(1), Retrieved
Seargeant, P. (2009). The Idea of English in Japan. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Setati, M., Adler, J., Reed, Y., & Bapoo, A. (2002). Incomplete journeys: Code-switching and other language practices in mathematics, science and
English language classrooms in South Africa. Language and Education, 16, 
Velasco, P. & Garcia, O. (2014). Translanguaging and the Writing of Bilingual learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 37(1), 6-23.
Wolff, D. (2007). What is CLIL? CLIL. Integriertes Fremdsprachen -und Sachfach-Learnen. Retrieved from:
Wolfsberger, M. (2012). L1 to L2 writing processes and strategy transfer: a low at lower proficiency.
Wenhsien Yang (2015) Content and language integrated learning next in Asia: evidence of learners’ achievement in CLIL education from a
Taiwan tertiary degree programme, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(4), , DOI: /