International Conference on Japanese Language Education 2014- Sydney CLIL in Australian Primary Schools: A Case Study of Japanese Education in Victoria Shinji Okumura Japanese Studies

Main types of content-based approaches to language education Immersion (originally from Canada) Content-based Instruction (CBI) (mainly used in the US) Content language integrated learning (CLIL) (European model) Before, talking about CLIL, I would　like　to　talk　about　the main　types　of　content-based　approaches　to　language　education. The first type is immersion which was originally developed in bilingual contexts in Canada. Many academics refer to immersion programs as bilingual programs that provide at least 50 percent of instruction through the second language during a given academic year. We can say that immersion is a strong form of content-based approach. On the other hand, Content-based Instruction (CBI) and Content language integrated learning (CLIL) are similar and they are weak forms of content-based approaches. The term CBI is often used in the United States, while the term CLIL is mainly used European countries.

The definition of CLIL CLIL is a dual-focused educational approach where an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of content in another curriculum area (Coyle et al., 2010). An “umbrella” term used to talk about bilingual education situations (Gajo, 2007). From here on I will focus on CLIL. The definition provided by Coyle and her colleagues is often used in the literature. They define CLIL as a dual-focused educational approach where an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of content in another curriculum. However, because many scholars use the term CLIL for bilingual education in different contexts, Gajo has pointed out that it should be recognized as an umbrella term.

The development of CLIL CLIL was developed for teaching English as a foreign language in Europe in 1994. (Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala, 2001). CLIL has grown in school-based language programs all across Europe. CLIL is a part of language policy initiatives in Europe.

Types of CLIL (Ikeda, 2013) As this chart shows, there are eight different types of CLIL. This categorisation is based on objectives, Frequency, Proportion and language use. I think this categorisation is useful for the analysis of CLIL implementation.

Conceptual Framework of CLIL The 4 Cs Framework (Coyle, 2008) -Content (subject matter) -Communication (language learning and using) -Cognition (learning and thinking processes) -Culture (developing intercultural understanding and global citizen-ship) CLIL has a distinctive framework. This is the 4Cs Framework. The 4 Cs refers to Content, Communication, Congestion and Culture. I would like to emphasise Culture includes not only the target culture but intercultural understanding as well.

The 4Cs Framework (Coyle, 2008, p.551) This is a figure which indicate the interrelation between the 4Cs.

Benefits in the Use of CLIL in the European Context Increases in learners’ motivation Nurtures positive attitudes towards the contents and the language subject Enhances teachers’ teamwork Many academics have conducted research on CLIL implementation and they have revealed several benefits. The first is that CLIL can increase students’ motivation. The second is that CLIL can develop positive attitudes towards the content and language subject. The third is that CLIL can enhance teacher’s networks because CLIL needs close relationship between language teachers and subject teachers.

Issues in the Use of CLIL in the European Context Supply of qualified CLIL teachers Shortage of materials for CLIL Selection of CLIL subjects Low performance in production skills (Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) vs. Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency(CALP)) On the other hand, CLIL also has some issues. As indicated here, it is difficult to find qualified CLIL teachers. It is also difficult to find appropriate materials for CLIL. Therefore, teachers need to develop their own materials, and it sometimes leads to work overload. Selection of CLIL subjects is sometimes an issue because the choice of subject is closely related to teachers’ availability. Furthermore, low performance of speaking and writing production skills is often identified because CLIL needs a lot of input for understanding the content. Especially, Cognitive Academic skills (CALP) needs a lot of time to be developed.

Content-based approaches in Australia Victoria -Partial immersion was adopted since the 1980. Bayswater South Primary School (German immersion) since 1981. Huntingdale Primary School (Japanese immersion) since 1997. -Government policy has recently adopted CLIL. Other States Queensland- 10 state schools offers immersion programs (e.g, Robina High School (Japanese immersion) since 2008). NSW – 5 public schools offer bilingual programs (e.g., Murray Farm Public School (Japanese) since 2010) Now, let’s move on to content-based approaches in Australia. As I indicate here, in Victoria, partial immersion programs have been adopted since the 1970s. Huntingdale primary school has provided a Japanese immersion program. In Queensland, 10 state schools offer immersion programs. For example, Robina high School has offered Japanese immersion since 2008. In New South Wales, 5 public schools offer bilingual programs. For instance, Murray Farm Public School has provided Japanese-English bilingual program since 2010.

CLIL in Australia CLIL has been adopted as a framework to facilitate content-based approaches throughout Australia. -Victoria, Queensland, NSW Victoria has the highest number of CLIL programs -12.1% of primary students and 3 % of secondary students enrolled in CLIL programs in 2012 (DEECD, 2013). Now, CLIL is adopted as a framework to facilitate content-based approaches throughout Australia such as Victoria, Queensland and NSW. Victoria has the highest number of CLIL programs. Unfortunately, Victorian DEECD does not indicate the exact number of CLIL schools but 12.1% of primary students and 3 % of secondary students were enrolled in CLIL programs in 2012.

Main purposes of CLIL in Australia To solve the issue of the crowded curriculum To increase the contact time for languages To enhance students’ cognitive development To nurture students’ motivation for languages learning There are four main purposes of CLIL in Australia. Firstly, to solve the crowded curriculum issue which is often identified in primary schools. Secondly, to increase the contact time for languages, which is also a critical issue in Victoria. The third is to nurture students’ cognitive development. And the forth is to develop students’ motivation to language learning.

CLIL in Victoria The 2012 CLIL Research Project in Victoria This chart indicates CLIL research project conducted by Victorian DEECD in 2012. Six schools participated in this project. Source: Cross and Gearon (2013, pp.20-22)

The 2012 CLIL Research Project in Victoria Outcomes Many teachers favoured using CLIL to teach languages rather than teaching only languages. Principals’ active support and positive recognition of CLIL and language education. Students had positive perceptions of language skills through CLIL. Students’ listening skills indicated the largest decline in perceived competence. Parents’ understanding of CLIL and languages were insufficient. And these outcomes were confirmed.

CLIL in the ILPIC trial The Innovative Language Provision in Clusters (ILPIC) was a funded program for 18 months from 2011 to 2012. CLIL was one of the main approaches in the ILPIC. Humanities, Science and Mathematics were mainly adopted in CLIL in ILPIC Japanese is one of the key languages for CLIL in ILPIC. The report (Zbar and Jane, 2012) for CLIL in the ILPIC trial indicated overall positive outcomes (e.g., positive student engagement) CLIL was also implemented in the ILPIC trial. ILPIC refers to the Innovative language Provision in Cluster which aimed at facilitating school collaboration in a cluster. CLIL was one of the main approaches in ILPIC, and Japanese was one of the key languages for CLIL in ILPIC. The review report by Zbar and Jane indicated positive outcomes such as positive students’ engagement in CLIL in ILPIC.

Case study Schools: two government primary schools in Victoria Participants: Principals, Homeroom teachers (HRT), Japanese language teachers(JLT) Data collection : semi-structured interviews (in 2012 for all & in 2014 for JLT) and collection of material/plan documents) Now, I will introduce my case study. As indicated here, my case study schools are two government schools in the north eastern region of Victoria. Participants are principals, homeroom teachers, and Japanese teachers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2012 and 2014.

Japanese program in School A & B The chart shows Japanese programs of School A and B. Both schools offer regular Japanese programs from prep to year 6, and school A offers CLIL for Year 5 and School B offered CLIL for Year 5 and 6.

CLIL in School A - benefits Enhanced the students’ motivation for learning Japanese. Enabled the students to be patient with what they did not understand. Developed teacher collaboration, especially in terms of planning lessons. Several benefits were found in CLIL in School A. CLIL enhanced students’ motivation to learning Japanese. Secondly, CLIL enabled the students to be patient with what they don’t understand. Thirdly, CLIL developed teachers’ collaboration, especially for planning.

CLIL in School A - issues Few opportunities to communicate with others in Japanese Difficulty of developing students’ academic knowledge in Japanese (Subject contents are not new.) Difficulty of enhancing intercultural competence Provision of CLIL insufficient (conducted irregularly, even not light CLIL) However, several issues were also found. Firstly, there were few chances to communicate with other classmates in Japanese. Secondly, it was difficult for students to develop their academic knowledge in Japanese. English was used for their understanding. Thirdly, it was difficult for the teacher to deal with intercultural understanding in CLIL because the topic was the human body. Finally, provision of CLIL was an issue because CLIL is conducted irregularly. In this case, CLIL in School A is not even Light CLIL.

CLIL in School B - benefits Developed teacher collaboration in terms of planning and teaching Provided new knowledge to the students Increased contact time Enhanced students’ enjoyment of Japanese learning Increased opportunities to use Japanese outside the language classes Regarding CLIL in School B, the following benefits were identified.

CLIL in School B - issues Difficulty of developing the students’ productive skills (esp. speaking) Spent a lot of time to prepare classes Difficulty to find time to communicate with HRT for CLIL preparation Lack of parents’ understanding Sustainability (ceased after the ILPIC trial) The following issues were recognized based on the interviews. CLIL in School B was better planned than CLIL in school A, but it was stopped after the ILPIC trial. The main reason was that the principal changed and the new principal wanted to develop sister school programs with a school in Japan instead of employing CLIL.

Conditions for effective CLIL in Australia Necessity of principals’ initiative and active support Adoption of a whole school approach Need parents’ understanding Resource development and sharing (e.g., MLTAV, CLIL network) Provision of PD/PL Provision of funding Sustainability For effective CLIL in the Australian context, the following conditions should be considered.

Establishing the Australian CLIL model It is important to consider types of CLIL for the effective adoption in Australian schooling. -Soft or Hard? -Light or Heavy? -Partial or Total? -Bilingual or Monolingual? When we think of the effective adoption of CLIL considering the context, it is important to consider the types of CLIL that I’ve mentioned. That is, soft CLIL or hard CLIL, Light or heavy, partial or total and bilingual or monolingual. I can’t say which type is best for effective CLIL but schools need to recognize which types are available for them. A combination of each type should be considered when introducing CLIL.

Considerations for CLIL in primary and secondary schools in Japan HRTs’ English competence for CLIL HRTs’ ability to develop CLIL materials Governmental support and funding What types of EFL CLIL in primary/secondary schools can be adopted in Japan? Finally, I would like to mention English CLIL in Japan. We need to consider three. And then, we need to ask what types of English CLIL can be adopted for primary or secondary education?

References Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL-A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. Van Dusen-Scholl and N.H. Hornberger (eds): Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, pp. 97–111. Coyle, D., Holmes, B. & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum – CLIL National Statement and Ikeda, M. (2013). The ABCs of CLIL. Retrieved on June 28, 2014 from http://www.slideshare.net/engnet/abcs-of-clil Gajo, L. 2007, “Linguistic knowledge and Subject knowledge: how does bilingualism contribute to subject development?” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10:5,563-581. Guidelines Retrieved April 10, 2014, from http://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/20-01- 2014/coyle_et_al_towards_an_integrated_curriculum_clil_national_statement_and_guidelines.pdf Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010) CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) (2011). The Victorian Government’s Vision for Language Education. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) (2013). Languages-expanding your world. Plan to implement The Victorian Government’s Vision for Languages Education 2013–2025. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) (2013). Languages Provision in Victorian Government Schools, 2012. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) (2014b). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Retrieved March 4, 2014, from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/curriculum/Pages/languageclil.aspx Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) (2014c). Cluster Approaches. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/curriculum/Pages/languagecluster.aspx Zbar, V. and Jane, G. (2012). Innovative Language Provision in Clusters (ILPIC) Initiative Evaluation. DEECD.