CLIL

In such a globalized world as the one we are living in, where English is the most used language for businesses and to find a good job, we need to increase the job opportunities of our youngsters. In order to reach this, it is important to achieve a good level of English. Thus English has turned from an object of study to a core study (Graddol, 2006).
If we want to reach a major linguistic achievement, it is obvious that we need to increase the time exposure of the students to the language, but only using the subject of English as a foreign language. Besides, from my point of view, language teaching and the content of that language teaching, since early ages to tertiary education, does not change in our education system. This would be a reason why our students suffer from lack of motivation and why the level of English in Spain is so low. As David Graddol pointed out ‘if you start learning English at the age of 6, by the age of 16 you really need to have something different being taught in English. That is the main reason for shifting into language content development.’

This idea of the content linked to the one of the increasing time exposure to English has made to introduce content subjects being taught in English, thus creating CLIL.
The problem in traditional language teaching, as we have seen, lies in the content. These language methods have “content disposable” that is, the content is used to explain language issues. What CLIL claims is that the content has to be looked in the syllabus. So far so good.
However, who is going to teach that content in the target language?
Language teachers do not have the competence to teach content subject accurately, same as content teachers do not have the linguistic competence to explain the language, as well as, the content.
When taking into consideration this politics of language teaching by LAC which states that ‘All teachers are language teachers’, we may have the following problem that Swain noticed in her study of SLA. She says that ‘although grammar was taught, it was taught discretely… and when immersion students did produce, few of their linguistic errors were responded to, and when their errors were responded to, they were not responded to in any systematic way by the teachers.’ This leads us to a lack of accuracy in the second language, promoted by the fact that the subject teacher is either not an expert in the language or he or she is only using the language only as a vehicle to achieve the content.
It is true that CLIL moves along the lines of EFL for whom ‘the principle of intelligibility is of primary importance, rather than native-like accuracy’. Nevertheless, I cannot see why you can’t achieve both soft skills and language accuracy. Otherwise if we do not stick to the rules of the language and everybody speaks what they think it is the correct way, there will be a moment when we won’t be able to communicate because we will be talking different languages.
This problem would be solved if an inter-departmental work is carried on. The language expert can introduce the linguistic structures needed to succeed in the content subject with accuracy. Besides language teachers can introduce ‘Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency’, which students can carry on practicing in content subjects, as well as, carry on developing ‘Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills’. Doing this we make sure that our students carry on improving their social and pragmatic aspects of their interlanguage.
Moreover, there isn’t enough time in the class for a teacher to teach the material and pay attention to the accurate use of the language, that is why the inter-departmental work is so important. If we don’t do that, we may run the risk of our students not acquiring the levels that are supposed to achieve in their age established by the curriculum.
I strongly feel that if we want CLIL to work, it is necessary to adapt it to the necessities of the students; given that, the kind of CLIL that worked in a country or even small community doesn’t mean that it is going to work in another. We have to take into consideration the idea that CLIL comes from countries whose inhabitants were almost bilingual, or from countries where the learning of another language was considered very important. Whereas in Spain, we do not have that culture