Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education: Moving Towards Developmentally Appropriate Practices 3031047672, 9783031047671

Citation preview

Springer International Handbooks of Education

Ana Otto · Beatriz Cortina-Pérez Editors

Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education

Springer International Handbooks of Education

The Springer International Handbooks of Education series aims to provide easily accessible, practical, yet scholarly, sources of information about a broad range of topics and issues in education. Each Handbook follows the same pattern of examining in depth a field of educational theory, practice and applied scholarship, its scale and scope for its substantive contribution to our understanding of education and, in so doing, indicating the direction of future developments. The volumes in this series form a coherent whole due to an insistence on the synthesis of theory and good practice. The accessible style and the consistent illumination of theory by practice make the series very valuable to a broad spectrum of users. The volume editors represent the world's leading educationalists. Their task has been to identify the key areas in their field that are internationally generalizable and, in times of rapid change, of permanent interest to the scholar and practitioner.

Ana Otto • Beatriz Cortina-Pe´rez Editors

Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education With 76 Figures and 37 Tables

Editors Ana Otto Complutense University Madrid, Spain

Beatriz Cortina-Pérez Languages and Literature Education Department University of Granada Ceuta, Spain

ISSN 2197-1951 ISSN 2197-196X (electronic) Springer International Handbooks of Education ISBN 978-3-031-04767-1 ISBN 978-3-031-04768-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To our beloved children, Jesús, Sofía and Alejandro

Foreword

The early years are a period of intense development in which children have the capacity for profound learning. In recognition of this exceptional phase of the human life cycle, there has been an increasing shift of emphasis towards what is commonly called early childhood education (ECE). ECE covers the period from birth to about 5–6 years of age when a child first enters primary school, or possibly younger if they enter pre-primary which is the focus in this publication. It is a recognized feature of high-performing educational systems such as Estonia, Finland and Singapore. The shift of emphasis involves a move away from providing children of this age with ‘childcare’, to provision of a developmental approach which integrates care, growth, wellbeing and learning. The current dynamic development of ECE involves particular attention given to wellbeing and learning. Recognition of the significance of ECE has been driven by the long-standing intuitive wisdom of parents, guardians and educators of very young children alongside more recent research, often quantitative, which links ECE with the achievement of intended learning outcomes in later life, both at school and beyond into adulthood. One example is the OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which shows the connection between advanced ECE and top-performing PISA countries. The educational sciences increasingly substantiate the role of ECE as a key driver for laying a solid foundation for a child’s present and future life. In pre-primary ECE, teaching and learning is closely geared to basic education curricula. Here goaloriented activities systematically prepare children for their future studies, not only in the forthcoming primary years, but for life. Having established the intended learning outcomes through curricula, it is teaching and learning processes which are currently of major interest in the field. To achieve meaningful and sustained success for children as they develop into adults, the spotlight for even very young learners is now on pedagogy. In some countries, this has led to focus on play-based learning which is realized as a form of ‘learning-by-doing’ common also to forms of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Another key development in ECE involves languages. Attitudes that very young children should master their first language to a high level of fluency before learning an additional language have existed for many years. As science reveals more about

vii

viii

Foreword

languages and the brain, some of these attitudes have been uncovered as myths. These myths are now being superseded by the view that early additional language learning is advantageous and should be an integral part of ECE and especially pre-primary education. Put simply, very young children have an intuitive and profound capacity for learning one or more languages. This capacity appears to atrophy with age. The reasons why are many, and some are subject to controversy such as the Critical Period Hypothesis. Play-based learning and other similar ECE pedagogies which are now influencing good practice focus on the learning of meaningful content as also found in CLIL. This is different to ‘learning for the sake of learning’ such as memorizing words, rules or forms of seemingly irrelevant information. The innate ability for a child to learn its first language (or first languages) can be used to learn another language if the pedagogy and curriculum is appropriate. The learning of both is not easily achieved by being taught about a language but is facilitated by learning through a language as found in CLIL. The type of CLIL deployed at pre-primary needs to be both age-appropriate (especially in relation to cognition) and situation-specific (depending on the role of the additional language in the lives of children and their families, alongside other social and linguistic factors). This publication is unique in opening windows on the theoretical and methodological issues at stake when we consider the position, past, present and future of what the authors, with experience of different countries, have described as CLIL-ECE. These authors blend insights, facts and ideas which address the concerns and questions which educators and ECE administrators need to explore and consider in this rapidly developing educational level. The fact that childcare has been the norm in so many countries for so many years means that attitude change towards tangible and sensible ECE needs to be driven by expertise from both research and practice. This is what is found in this publication which is rightly called a handbook – that is a source of information, instruction or advice about a subject, place or activity. All three of these are relevant in the discussion and guidance on the development of CLIL-ECE as an increasingly important educational phenomenon. The handbook is easily navigable and will serve the needs and interests of a broad range of people who care about and are responsible for realizing the holistic potential of very young children, and who strive to provide them with a firm foundation for their future lives. David Marsh

Contents

1

CLIL-ing Pre-primary Education. Towards a Holistic Approach to Implement CLIL in Early Childhood Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ana Otto and Beatriz Cortina-Pérez

Part I 2

3

Theoretical Underpinnings

...........................

Content and Language Integrated Learning in Pre-primary Education: Moving Towards Developmentally Appropriate Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lucilla Lopriore CLIL Soft Models: The Challenge of Teaching Very Young Language Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Virginia Vinuesa Benítez

1

15

17

31

4

Defining CLIL Contents for Preschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ana Andúgar and Ana Isabel García-Abellán

45

5

Cognition in CLIL at Pre-primary Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . María Fernández-Agüero and Isabel Alonso-Belmonte

63

6

A Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) in Pre-primary CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Louisa Mortimore

7

Play as a Key Construct in Early Childhood Education CLIL . . . María Elena Gómez Parra

Part II 8

Mapping Pre-primary CLIL Internationally

.............

Paving the Way for CLIL in Pre-primary Education: The Case of Madrid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xabier San Isidro and Ángel Huerga

79 101

115

117

ix

x

Contents

9

10

Infan CLIL: A Model for Implementing Plurilingual Projects in Pre-primary Education in Spain and Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pilar Couto-Cantero and Maria Ellison Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and Project-Based Learning (PBL) in Pre-primary Education: A European Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ana M. Piquer-Piriz and Ana Pérez-Valenzuela

133

153

11

The Multiplicity of Pre-primary CLIL in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karita Mård-Miettinen, Anu Palojärvi, Katri Hansell, Kristiina Skinnari, and Josephine Moate

169

12

CLIL at Pre-primary in Italy: Insights and Experiences . . . . . . . . Olivia Mair and Francesca Costa

185

13

PEBI: Bilingual Education in Portuguese Kindergartens . . . . . . . Ana Xavier, Conceição Baptista, Helena Gil, Jessica Ridge, and Julie Tice

199

14

Mapping Pre-primary CLIL in Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Victoria Pogosian, Anna Barkova, Ana A. Uvarova, and Olga Selivanovskaya

219

15

CLIL for Pre-primary Education in South America: Curriculum and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Darío Luis Banegas, Marisa Cleff, and Luciana Fernández

16

CLIL in Cyprus Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sophie Ioannou Georgiou

17

Constructing Pre-primary CLIL in Mexico. Policy Analysis and Teachers’ Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natalia Martínez-León

Part III Methodological Issues: CLIL Pedagogy Applied to Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

19

20

233 249

263

275

Teaching Guidelines to Introduce CLIL in the Pre-primary Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ángela Álvarez-Cofiño

277

Language and Content Learning Through Oracy at Pre-primary Education and in CLIL-Based Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. Teresa Fleta

297

Early Literacy Development and Pre-primary CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . Ángela Álvarez-Cofiño

315

Contents

xi

21

The Role of L1 in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . M. Ángeles Jiménez-Jiménez and Ana M. Rico-Martín

22

Language-Conducive Strategies to Enhance Communication in the CLIL Pre-primary Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mila Schwartz

23

From Tasks in Project-Based Learning Towards a Phenomenon-Based Learning in Pre-primary CLIL Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silvia Corral-Robles and Ana María Pino-Rodríguez ....

24

Pre-primary CLIL and STEAM: Science in the Early Years David Shepherd and Ana María Pino-Rodríguez

25

Proposing CLIL Music Teaching Approaches in Pre-primary Education: Rationale, Experiences, and Implications for Educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Berta Torras-Vila

Part IV 26

27

28

Resources and Materials

...........................

355 369

385

401

403

Criteria for Selecting Materials and Resources for the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michele C. Guerrini

421

Promoting Intercultural Competence Through Children’s Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Raquel Fernández-Fernández and Ana Virginia López-Fuentes

441

Digital Storytelling in Pre-primary CLIL Education . . . . . . . . . . . M. Dolores Ramírez-Verdugo

30

CLIL-ing Preschoolers Through Cartoons and Other Audiovisual Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thomaï Alexiou Technology for the CLIL Preschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jesús García Laborda, Slavka Madarova, and Cristina Calle Martínez

Part V 32

343

Planning for Effective Co-teaching with a Foreign Language Assistant in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lyndsay R. Buckingham

29

31

329

Insights from the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysing Physical Appearance in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Magdalena Custodio-Espinar

457

475 495

513

515

xii

Contents

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom . . . . Natalia García Mártínez

34

Getting to Know Animal Habitats in CLIL Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hazuki Nakata and Kazuko Kashiwagi

557

Using the Grouchy Ladybug for CLIL in Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sara Arranz

565

“You Are What You Eat”: An Integrated Language Approach to the Pre-primary Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lee Ann Bussolari

575

From Seed to Plant: Early Forms of Scientific Literacy Through an Additional Language in Pre-primary Education . . . . Beatriz López Medina

589

A CLIL Lesson Plan for 3–4 Year-Olds: Living on the Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ana A. Uvarova

597

Dinosaurs: An Integrated CLIL Project for Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ángela Álvarez-Cofiño

609

35

36

37

38

39

Part VI 40

Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CLIL in Pre-primary Education: Trends, Challenges and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe

529

629

631

About the Editors

Dr. Ana Otto is assistant professor at the Didactics of Languages, Arts and Physical Education Department at Complutense University where she teaches English, and has wide experience lecturing Didactics of Foreign Languages and Bilingual Education. Her main research interests are bilingual education, Content and LanguageIntegrated Learning and assessment, on which she has published and lectured extensively.

Dr. Beatriz Cortina-Pérez is professor (associate) at the Languages and Literature Education Department at the University of Granada where she lectures in the Early Childhood Degree and the EFL specialization in the Primary Education Teacher Training program, and Cultural Diversity MA. Her research interests revolve around pre-primary foreign language education and plurilingualism at early years, on which she has published and lectured extensively. She is editor of the international journal Porta Linguarum.

xiii

Contributors

Thomaï Alexiou Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece Isabel Alonso-Belmonte Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Ángela Álvarez-Cofiño University Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, Spain Ana Andúgar University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain Sara Arranz District of Columbia Public Schools, Washington, DC, USA Darío Luis Banegas School of Education, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland Conceição Baptista Directorate-General for Education/Portuguese Ministry of Education, Lisbon, Portugal Anna Barkova Department of Teaching Modern Languages to Young Learners, Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, Saint Petersburg, Russia Lyndsay R. Buckingham Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, Spain Lee Ann Bussolari SEK International School Alborán, University of Almería, Almería, Spain Cristina Calle Martínez Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain Marisa Cleff Gente Miúda School, Rio Grande, Brazil Silvia Corral-Robles Universidad de Granda, Granada, Spain Beatriz Cortina-Pérez Languages and Literature Education Department, University of Granada, Ceuta, Spain Francesca Costa Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy Pilar Couto-Cantero Universidad de A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain Magdalena Custodio-Espinar Comillas Pontifical University, Madrid, Spain Maria Ellison University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

xv

xvi

Contributors

Luciana Fernández Colegio Galileo – ESSARP, La Plata, Argentina María Fernández-Agüero Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Raquel Fernández-Fernández Universidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, Spain M. Teresa Fleta Complutense University, Madrid, Spain Jesús García Laborda Universidad de Alcalá-Instituto Franklin, Madrid, Spain Natalia García Mártínez Madrid Region Bilingual Programme, Madrid, Spain Ana Isabel García-Abellán Catholic University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain Helena Gil Directorate-General for Education/Portuguese Ministry of Education, Lisbon, Portugal María Elena Gómez Parra University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain Michele C. Guerrini Universidad de Alcalá, Alcala de Henares, Spain Katri Hansell Åbo Akademi University, Vaasa, Finland Ángel Huerga Universidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, Spain Sophie Ioannou Georgiou Ministry of Education, Sport and Youth, Nicosia, Cyprus M. Ángeles Jiménez-Jiménez Universidad de Granada, Melilla, Spain Kazuko Kashiwagi Shitennōji University, Habikino, Japan Beatriz López Medina Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Ana Virginia López-Fuentes Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain Lucilla Lopriore Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy Slavka Madarova Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, Spain Olivia Mair Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy Karita Mård-Miettinen University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylän yliopisto, Finland Natalia Martínez-León University of Granada, Granada, Spain Josephine Moate University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylän yliopisto, Finland Louisa Mortimore Universidad Internacional de la Rioja y Universidad de Alcalá, Logroño, Spain Hazuki Nakata Konan Women’s University, Kobe, Japan Ana Otto Complutense University, Madrid, Spain Anu Palojärvi University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylän yliopisto, Finland Ana Pérez-Valenzuela Universidad de Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain

Contributors

xvii

Ana María Pino-Rodríguez University of Granada, Granada, Spain Ana M. Piquer-Piriz Universidad de Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain Victoria Pogosian Department of Teaching Modern Languages to Young Learners, Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, Saint Petersburg, Russia M. Dolores Ramírez-Verdugo Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Ana M. Rico-Martín Universidad de Granada, Melilla, Spain Jessica Ridge British Council Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, VitoriaGasteiz, Spain Xabier San Isidro Universidad de Jaén, Jaén, Spain Mila Schwartz Oranim Academic College of Education, Haifa, Israel Olga Selivanovskaya Department of Teaching Modern Languages to Young Learners, Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, Saint Petersburg, Russia David Shepherd The British School of Milan, Milan, Italy Kristiina Skinnari University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylän yliopisto, Finland Julie Tice British Council Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal Berta Torras-Vila Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain Ana A. Uvarova Pavlovo School, Moscow, Russia Virginia Vinuesa Benítez University Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain Ana Xavier Directorate-General for Education/Portuguese Ministry of Education, Lisbon, Portugal

1

CLIL-ing Pre-primary Education. Towards a Holistic Approach to Implement CLIL in Early Childhood Education Ana Otto and Beatriz Cortina-Pe´rez

Contents The Expansion of Foreign Language Learning at Early Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Tailoring CLIL with Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Why CLIL? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 On the Defining Features of Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Towards a New Conceptualization of CLIL for Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Purpose of the Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Abstract

Content and Language Integrated Learning, also known as CLIL, has experienced an exponential growth in the last decades as an approach that combines language and content areas, and offers more flexible and real opportunities for language learning. Being an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of situations and contexts, and also due to the most recent policies to increase language learning in the early ages, CLIL has already stepped into the pre-primary levels, and it is expected to expand even more in the near future. But to make the most of this approach, it has to be suited to the main principles of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), and thus, respect very young learners’ idiosyncratic features in terms of their development and acquisition. The main aim of this introductory chapter is to discuss the potential applicability of CLIL for pre-primary education, and to propose a holistic approach to be considered by practitioners when CLIL is used in the pre-primary levels. The chapter

A. Otto (*) Complutense University, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] B. Cortina-Pérez Languages and Literature Education Department, University of Granada, Ceuta, Spain © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_1

1

A. Otto and B. Cortina-Pe´rez

2

starts with an overview of the expansion of foreign language learning in the early years. It then moves on to CLIL distinguishing features, and the need to tailor CLIL with pre-primary education. Lastly, we propose an attempt to conceptualize CLIL at this educational level. Keywords

CLIL · Pre-primary education · Early childhood education · Conceptualization · Defining features

The Expansion of Foreign Language Learning at Early Years Early childhood education and care (ECEC) is a research area of burgeoning interest in the last decade. A simple search at the Web of Science reports a growing number of publications, going from 403 in 2011 to more than 1100 in 2022. This goes hand in hand with the voices that are calling for the importance of the pre-primary education stage for the integral development of the individuals, and their later academic achievement (Balladares & Kankaraš, 2020; Council of Europe, 2019; European Commission, 2011; Peeters et al., 2016; UNESCO, 2016, 2018; Van Laere et al., 2021). The European Union has intensified its efforts to extend schooling on a mass scale at these early ages, setting the 2020 objective for Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) at least on 95% of children between 4 and the last year previous to compulsory elementary education. This has been achieved although with important inequalities among countries (Council of Europe, 2019). Paralelly, the increased cultural and etnic diversity in education (Eurydice, 2019), as well as different macro-level policies to promote multilingualism (European Commission, 2002, 2003, 2012a, 2012b), for example with the advancing of the onset age of additional languages learning, has placed multilingualism as another major milestone in education. Therefore, on the one hand, European projects such as the ELLiE (Enever, 2011, 2014), Bilfam -Bilingual Family- Project (Pirchio et al., 2015), PASS -Parents as Successful Teachers- (Sokol and Lasevich, 2015), PROCLIL project (Ioannau-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011) or Pepelino (Goullier et al., 2015; Ioannau-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011) have proliferated. On the other hand, a new area of study known as “very early language learning”(VELL), which is defined as “the systematic awareness-raising or exposure to more than one language taking place in an early childhood education and care setting in a pre-primary school context” (European Commission, 2011, p. 6) has emerged as a natural result from that burgeoning trend. The merging of these two educational priorities has led to a growing interest in the early introduction of languages in Education, not only in natural multilingual contexts as a result of social-cultural diversity, but also in foreign language scenarios, as a way to promote social multilingualism (Murphy, 2014). However, an important number of studies on this subarea has focused on the pertinence for introducing a foreign language at such early years, in contrast to a late start,

1

CLIL-ing Pre-primary Education. Towards a Holistic Approach to Implement. . .

3

fuelling the never-ending debate of the critical period hypothesis (DeKeyser, 2013; Muñoz, 2006; Nikolov & Mihaljević-Djigunović, 2006; Singleton & Muñoz, 2011). To our knowledge, this is a infertile debate and we stick to Dolean’s idea that “since a second language can be distinguished as early as the prenatal period of development, it can be safely assumed that it is never too early to consider children’s exposure and introduction to a foreign language” (2015, p. 9). We advocate that the discussion should not be about the “when” but about the “how”, as other colleagues suggest (Mourao & Ellis, 2020). For this learning to be successful, other factors such as motivation, teaching strategies, teacher education, context or opportunities to use the target language in meaningful contexts will need to be taken into account to achieve these advantages (Haznedar, 2014). According to the European Commision, “Language learning should be integrated into contexts in which the language is meaningful and useful, such as in everyday or playful situations” (European Commission, 2011, p. 14). To this respect, CLIL offers an interesting approach that can be useful to achieve this goal, not only because it respects the holistic and integrated approach of ECEC, but also because it “increases learners’ exposure to the language they learn without taking additional time from the curriculum” (Eurydice, 2017, p. 13).

Tailoring CLIL with Pre-primary Education Why CLIL? CLIL or ‘Content and Language Integrated Learning’ can be defined as “an educational approach where curricular content is taught through the medium of a foreign language” (Dalton-Puffer, 2011, p. 183) or a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language. That is, in the teaching and learning process, there is a focus not only on content, and not only on language. Each is interwoven, “even if the emphasis is greater on one or the other at a given time” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 1). As the EU suggests, it is used as a general or “umbrella term” (Mehisto et al., 2008) which designates different types of bilingual or immersion education. CLIL refers to the kind of education where a co-official, regional, minority or foreign language is used to teach non-linguistic subjects or areas, i.e. subjects other than languages and their literatures or cultures. Using this innovative educational approach, students learn non-linguistic contents integrated with the target language. This combination of content areas and language learning in the curriculum offers students better preparation for life and European mobility (European Commission, 2012c), and a higher level of relevance and authenticity in their language learning (Marsh & Frigols Martín, 2012), which was absent in traditional methodologies and approaches. Besides, opportunities to interact with different language communities and cultures, and additional exposure to the foreign, regional or minority language are also significant in this methodological approach.

4

A. Otto and B. Cortina-Pe´rez

Considered as an evolving methodological approach (Bentley, 2010), and resulting from the lack of success in previous language teaching methodologies, CLIL is not a new phenomenon. In fact, other names were coined in the 1980s and 1990s to refer to the same reality or similar approaches to language teaching (Brinton et al., 1990; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Among them, we can mention Content-based Instruction (CBI), Content-based Language Teaching (CBLT), English Across the Curriculum (EAC) and Languages Across the Curriculum (LAC), to name just a few. Other terms which are frequently used to refer to CLIL, especially in the European context are: Bilingual Studies, Bilingual Education, Subject Teaching in the Target Language and Immersion Education or teaching. Comparisons between CLIL and Immersion programs are also very common, mainly because they share the objective of ensuring students acquire curricular subject matter knowledge while they become competent in an additional language. For that purpose, the L2 – considered as the language through, for and of learning (Coyle et al., 2010)- is used as a vehicle or medium of instruction. This language is taught through content areas using the communicative approach to create effective communication in a learning environment, which is motivating for students (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010). In CLIL, the L1 is not dismissed but on the contrary, it is reinforced as a language itself, and an essential part of the curriculum, either as a subject or as a medium of instruction in other subjects, supported on current theories of pedagogical translanguaging (García, 2011; García & Wei, 2014). In fact, as in immersion programs, CLIL is drawn from dynamic bilingualism theories favouring emergent bilingual students. In this dynamic approach to bilingualism, heteroglossic language ideologies move away from traditional monolingual approaches, and thus, bilingualism is considered as the norm in such a way that the students’ native language is enriched with the inclusion of a second or foreign language, while they engage in dynamic meaning-making discursive processes of bilingual populations as translanguaging (Flores & Schissel, 2014). Thus, L2 proficiency is not obtained at the expense of the L1 (Cummins, 2001), a common fear and complaint on the part of parents, educators and those who are critical with the implementation of bilingual education for very young learners. Although the terms CLIL and Immersion Education are sometimes used interchangeably, as Lasagabaster and Sierra point out (2010), CLIL has its unique specific features regarding the language(s) of instruction, the teachers involved in the process, students’ starting age, learning materials, main language goals and the profile of students’ entering each kind of bilingual programme. As an umbrella term (Mehisto et al., 2008), CLIL encompasses a plethora of situations and contexts which have paved the way to classifications of different CLIL and bilingual programs. Regardless of the different CLIL varieties and models, and depending on the languages used as a vehicle to encourage content area development. of instruction to teach content subjects or curricular areas, Coyle et al. (2010) distinguish two types of CLIL: • Type A CLIL, in which non-linguistic areas/subjects, other than languages and their literatures are taught through the medium of a second/foreign or additional language. The number of the non-language subjects offered through this language

1

CLIL-ing Pre-primary Education. Towards a Holistic Approach to Implement. . .

5

might vary depending on the school, region and/or country, and of course, on the educational stage where it is implemented. There are schools, for instance, in which all non-language subjects are offered through the foreign language. In others, two languages are used to teach non-linguistic subjects in the curriculum: some non-linguistic subjects are offered through the medium of the foreign language while some others are taught through the language of the governing or administrative body of the school. • Type B CLIL: Non-linguistic areas/subjects are developed using a regional or minority language, a non-territorial language, a state language where in a country we can find more than one, and a second language, which may be any language other than the home language. However, it is interesting to stress that in some schools, in addition to the two languages which are commonly present in school life, a third language can also be used as is the case of multilingual communities in Catalonia, Galicia or The Basque Country in Spain. Variations in the number of hours offered through this vehicular language have led to coining the terms of hard CLIL, modular CLIL and soft CLIL (Ball, 2009; Bentley, 2010). Hard CLIL is also referred to as partial immersion and is subjectled since approximately half of the curriculum is taught through the medium of the target language. Modular CLIL can also be considered as subject-led, but a smaller proportion of a curricular area is delivered through the target language. In this model, it is commonly the school and educators’ responsibility to decide on the curriculum areas which are taught using the CLIL approach. Soft CLIL is, on the contrary, language-led and, as such, some curricular topics are selected to be included in the language classroom. These language-led or soft CLIL models are considered to be the most appropriate ones for pre-primary contexts, as educators can replicate L1 acquisition in a natural and subconscious manner, using oral input in a medium in which the language is encountered, understood, practised and learned (Cameron, 2001, p. 18) by “learning by doing”. Dale and Tanner (2012, p. 4–5) add another category to CLIL models regarding the teachers’ profiles involved in the program – language teachers and subject teachers- and the extent to which they have been trained in CLIL pedagogies. Thus, these authors differentiate between subject/area lessons taught by CLIL subject/area teachers and language lessons taught by CLIL language teachers. Finally, we can distinguish between early or late immersion in CLIL depending on the students’ age when they enter the program (Eurydice, 2012). Despite the different models and their suitability for different contexts and age-groups, it is undeniable that CLIL is a wide term that needs to be tailored to the educational setting and learners, and in doing so, what should prevail is that there is not only an equilibrium, but a meaningful integration between the contents and the language goals where a symbiotic relation between them is established because one is necessary for the other to increase, and vice versa (Cenoz, 2015). So as to adapt CLIL to early years we need to set pedagogical grounds for an early start (Fleta, 2019, p. 64) and establish quality criteria for successful and sustainable CLIL practices in pre-primary education (García Esteban, 2015).

6

A. Otto and B. Cortina-Pe´rez

On the Defining Features of Pre-primary Education Pre-primary Education is frequently understood as the educational stage that comprises from 3 or 4 years of age, until the beginning of the compulsory elementary level, thus included as one of the cycles in which ECEC is organised. The different models of ECEC provision worldwide are out of the scope of this book (see European Commission, 2019), but what they all seem to share is that they all revolve around the caring, growth, wellbeing and learning of these children. But ECEC has not always been conceptualised as such. It was not until the twentieth century, with the popularisation of education, that ECEC gained its own entity, so that the idea we have of childhood today is quite recent (Palacios, 2013). Pre-primary education has also undergone a conceptual revival, turning the preschool into a space for the development of the individual with its own methodologies and pedagogies (Rabadán et al., 2010), sticking to the idea that “these first years are decisive because the child is simply that, a child in the process of maturing, developing, and not a little adult” (Castillejo, 1989, p. 16). With this conception in mind, pre-primary education should be oriented towards the provision of educational experiences that foster the child’s comprehensive development and learning, adapting them to the uniqueness of this age-group. To this respect, the renowned approach Developmentally Appropriate Practices (DAP) is recommended. It is defined as an educational approach within ECEC in which the teacher-educator nurtures a child’s social-emotional, physical and cognitive development, matching the child’s developmental stages and basing their decisions on strengths and weaknesses of each child, and on the child’s family and cultural background (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).

Towards a New Conceptualization of CLIL for Pre-primary Education From its conception back in 1994, CLIL has rapidly spread internationally from an attempt to increase foreign language exposure, thus promoting language awareness (Ruiz de Zarobe, 2017) into a pragmatic approach renovating classroom practice (Ting, 2011). However, the reconceptualization of CLIL principles to suit holistic learning experiences in early childhood education needs to run parallel with a methodology which respects the main early childhood education principles, and thus, consider learning as meaningful, experiential, play-based and active. In this sense, it is essential to organize activities around classroom routines (linked with development areas and global and experiential learning), offer rich input through scaffolding techniques, use means and resource materials adapted to children’s ages and development, and conduct respectful formative assessment practices through observation. The 4Cs model outlined by Coyle has helped in understanding CLIL and differentiating it from other bilingual education approaches. However, as this model was designed for older learners who differ in terms of their development and learning from those of pre-school, a reconceptualization of this model (Cortina-Pérez & Otto, under-review) deems necessary, taking into account the following main tenets:

1

CLIL-ing Pre-primary Education. Towards a Holistic Approach to Implement. . .

7

1. Contents in pre-primary education cannot be merely understood as isolated blocks of knowledge, nor subjects, but as areas of experience from which emanate blocks of interrelated contents or Content areas. These are subdivided into; (a) Communication area, which includes knowledge of different communication systems, mainly oral, and which at this stage will cover early literacy, early numeracy, visual arts communication and music and dramatic language. (b) Area of the self, of the individual, aimed at knowledge of oneself, both physically and emotionally, as well as healthy and hygienic habits. (c) the area of the world, or knowledge of the outside world, which includes the surroundings, the environment, society and citizenship, civic values and digitalisation. 2. Although communication is one of the key axes of the CLIL model, we should consider that in the pre-primary stage this communication is mainly oral and therefore, it is necessary to highlight the oral component of communication in the CLIL pre-primary classroom. Within this oral communication we include both the oral communicative competence that the child will initially develop, mainly at the receptive level and gradually moving into production, as well as the mediation among the children and between the children and the teacher, which will allow for effective communication in the CLIL classroom, including translanguaging practices and nonverbal communication. It is also interesting to point out that languages at this stage are treated as a broad term including both the mother tongue/ L1/home language and the additional language(s) children are exposed to at this preliterate stage. 3. Also, we need to bear in mind that a conceptualization of language in CLIL goes beyond analyzing the language types and how they can be used to reinforce content areas and skills. Given the teachers’ profile in pre-primary education, which is usually a specialist in pre-primary education and might lack specific pedagogical knowledge about language-related pedagogies (Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2021) and CLIL-related pedagogies (Otto & Serrano-Moya, 2022), specific attention should be given to the ways languages are treated and whether teachers-educators are “language aware” (Morton, 2016; Andrews, 2007) at this educational stage. 4. Concerning cognition, we have to bear in mind that the pre-school child is in the process of development, so not only working on cognition, but also the whole child as an individual, which will mainly include psycho-motor, cognitive, socioemotional and creative development. 5. Finally, culture, as understood in the original CLIL framework, should be reconceptualised to represent the complexity of CLIL in the early childhood classroom. As proposed by the European Union, one of the greatest assets of the early introduction of a foreign language is its direct correlation with early intercultural awareness rising. That is why we consider that more than knowledge about the target culture itself, at this age we should awaken intercultural awareness through the transmission of another culture and the shared reflection on intercultural experiences. In sum, tailoring CLIL into pre-primary education is supported by the idea that CLIL is a flexible approach that must be implemented in different educational

8

A. Otto and B. Cortina-Pe´rez

scenarios. In the case of early childhood education, this adaptation involves taking into account the developmental characteristics of children and pre-primary pedagogies based on holistic, meaningful and playful learning to provide educational experiences that integrate pre-primary content areas with the learning of a additional language, favouring communication strategies such as translanguaging and mediation and facilitating intercultural awareness. In doing so, we are not only achieving key objectives of ECEC in terms of the social, cognitive, psycho-motor, or emotional growth of the child, but we are also naturalising the learning of the target language within the educational centre and increasing the hours of exposure.

Purpose of the Volume The main goal of this volume is two-fold. First, to offer a comprehensive overview of the main theoretical and methodological foundations for implementing CLIL in pre-primary education (3–6 years old), and second, to fill the theoretical gap that may lead to ground CLIL research at this early age. Doing so, we expect to offer practitioners, academics and researchers a wide array of possibilities and educational practices which can be suited to enrich language education, and to introduce the additional language that students will learn in later years as part of the school curriculum, while respecting very young learners’ main developmental features. With this holistic approach in mind, the book has been divided into several parts which are described below. Part I: Theoretical Underpinnings After a general introduction examining common grounds on early language acquisition and CLIL-ECE (▶ Chap. 1), Lucilla Lopriore discusses language acquisition in CLIL models (▶ Chap. 2), and Virginia Vinuesa (▶ Chap. 3) explores how language showers and soft-CLIL language-led models can be effectively implemented. This section also describes how contents in the Pre-primary curriculum can be approached from a revisited model of Coyle’s 4 CS, by Ana Andúgar and Ana Isabel García Abellán (▶ Chap. 4), it presents in ▶ Chap. 5 a thorough discussion on the role of cognition in CLIL by María Fernández-Agüero and Isabel Alonso, the role of social and emotional learning in pre-primary CLIL by Louisa Mortimore (▶ Chap. 6), to end in ▶ Chap. 7 with the theoretical basis of play within bilingual education as a fundamental construct for learning both language and content by Elena Gómez-Parra. Part II: Mapping Pre-primary CLIL Internationally This section offers a comprehensive view of different Pre-primary CLIL contexts. We will first delve into the European context for having been considered a CLIL benchmark. Thus, ▶ Chap. 8 will describe the bilingual CLIL programme in the Madrid region (Xabier San Isidro and Ángel Huerga), the Spanish-Portuguese InfanCLIL model described in ▶ Chap. 9 (Pilar Couto and María Ellison), a CLIL European project by Ana Piquer and Ana Pérez (▶ Chap. 10), an overview of the Finnish models in ▶ Chap. 11

1

CLIL-ing Pre-primary Education. Towards a Holistic Approach to Implement. . .

9

(Karita Mård-Miettinen, Anu Palojärvi, Katri Hansell, Kristiina Skinnari and Josephine Moate), Italy pre-primary CLIL will be revisited in ▶ Chap. 12 (Francesca Costa and Olivia Mair), and the PEBI: Bilingual Education in Portuguese Kindergartens in ▶ Chap. 13 (Ana Cristina Xavier, Conceição Baptista, Helena Gil, Jessica Ridge and Julie Tice). Then, we will address other international contexts such as Russia in ▶ Chap. 14 (Victoria Pogosian, Anna Barkova, Anna Uvarova and Olga Selivanovskaya), South America in ▶ Chap. 15 (Darío Luis Banegas, Marisa Cleff and Luciana Fernández) and Mexico in ▶ Chap. 17 (Natalia Martínez-León). With this compilation of chapters, we expect to offer the reader a wide and varied array of examples which are currently being implemented worldwide at macro- or micro- levels. Part III: Methodological Issues: CLIL Pedagogy Applied to Pre-primary Education After dealing with the international overview, the volume focuses on methodological aspects for integrating CLIL in pre-primary education, in what can be called the Pre-primary CLIL methodology. ▶ Chapter 18 (Ángela ÁlvarezCofiño) brilliantly describes and illustrates with hands-on examples the different teaching guidelines that are to be considered in order to implement CLIL successfully in the preschool classroom. ▶ Chapters 19 and ▶ 20 deal with oracy (M. Teresa Fleta) and early literacy (Ángela Álvarez-Cofiño), respectively. The role of L1 within the pre-primary CLIL classroom is theoretically analysed in ▶ Chap. 21 (María Ángeles Jiménez-Jiménez & Ana María Rico-Martín) to continue with an insightful reflection by Mila Schwartz on how language conducive strategies can encourage communication within this bilingual education context (▶ Chap. 22). This section finishes by rethinking two CLIL-associated methodologies, i.e. Phenomenon based-learning in ▶ Chap. 23 (Ana María Pino-Rodríguez & Silvia Corral Robles) and STEAM in ▶ Chap. 24 (David Shepherd and Ana María PinoRodríguez), as well as their possibilities to be implemented in ECEC, ant the role of music in pre-primary CLIL (Berta Torras, ▶ Chap. 25). Part IV: Resources and Materials In this section the book deals with the different materials and resources that can be useful for integrating contents and language in the pre-primary scenario. To start with, Lyndsay R. Buckingham (▶ Chap. 26) examines effective co-teaching with a foreign language assistant. Then, Michele Guerrini takes a critical look at material and resource selection for the Pre-primary CLIL classroom (▶ Chap. 27), and Raquel Fernández Fernández and Ana Virginia López Fuentes unveil the potential of literature to develop intercultural competence in pre-primary CLIL classrooms from both a theoretical and a practical perspective (▶ Chap. 28). The last three chapters in this section cover new advances in educational resources. ▶ Chapter 29 by María Dolores Ramírez-Verdugo highlights digital storytelling to address contents and language in the pre-primary classroom. Similarly, ▶ Chap. 30, written by Thomai Alexiou, focuses on audiovisual materials such as cartoons, and ▶ Chap. 31 (Jesús García-Laborda, Slavka Madarova, & Cristina Calle Martínez) tackles technological resources, apps and websites. Overall this section portrays the possibilities of different resources and materials offered to introduce CLIL at pre-primary education, at the same time it opens up a niche for future research.

10

A. Otto and B. Cortina-Pe´rez

Part V: Insights from the Classroom This part of the volume comprises a collection of tried and tested practical lesson plans by experienced teachers and practitioners from different international contexts, covering topics related to physical appearance (▶ Chap. 32 by Magdalena Custodio), senses (▶ Chap. 33 by Natalia García), animals (▶ Chap. 34), storytelling (▶ Chap. 35 by Sara Arranz), food and nutrition (▶ Chap. 36 by Lee Ann Bussolari), plants (▶ Chap. 37 by Beatriz López-Medina), the farm (▶ Chap. 38 by Anna A. Uvarova) and dinasours (▶ Chap. 39 by Ángela Álvarez-Cofiño). They follow the main early childhood education principles stated in ▶ Chap. 1, and the contents have been displayed and organized taking into account the areas of experience, communication in the additional language, development and cultural aspects. We believe that this hands-on approach to the theoretical principles could be beneficial for those who are interested either in researching, implementing, or designing materials for CLIL at pre-primary level. Lastly, some final remarks in relation to the main challenges and trends observed throughout the volume will be also gathered in the follow-up chapter by Yolanda Ruíz de Zarobe (▶ Chap. 40). A final word of thanks is owed to all the authors of this book who, enthusiastically and with commitment and respect, accepted the difficult task of tackling an underresearched area, venturing beyond their comfort zone to create something innovative as well as scientifically robust. It is hoped, as was stated by David Marsh at the preface of this book, that the contents in this volume will, on the one hand, foster the necessary research to enlighten an age-appropriate and situation-specific implementation of CLIL at very early years, and on the other hand, it will equip Pre-primary CLIL practitioners with the necessary theoretical and practical knowledge about this emerging field, and help them to boost their confidence when approaching bilingual education at this critical stage.

References Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge University Press. Ball, P. (2009). Does CLIL work? In D. Hill & P. Alan (Eds.), The best of both worlds? International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 32–43). Norwich Institute for Language Education. Balladares, J., & Kankaraš, M. (2020). Attendance in early childhood education and care programmes and academic proficiencies at age 15. OECD Education Working Paper, 214, 1–33. Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course: CLIL module. Cambridge University Press. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (Revised ed.). National Association for the Education of Young Children. Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1990). Content-based language instruction. Newbury House. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Ernst Klett Sprachen. Castillejo, J. L. (1989). La Educación Infantil. En M. Carretero (Ed.), Pedagogía de la escuela infantil (pp.15–31). Madrid: Santillana. Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07908318.2014.1000922

1

CLIL-ing Pre-primary Education. Towards a Holistic Approach to Implement. . .

11

Cortina-Pérez & Otto. (under review). CLIL-ing pre-primary education. On the necessary reconceptualization of CLIL for very young learners. Cortina-Pérez, B., & Andúgar, A. (2021). Exploring the ideal foreign language teacher profile in Spanish preschools: Teacher education challenges. Teachers and Teaching. Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.2004112 Council of Europe. (2019). Council Recommendation of 22 May 2019 on High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Systems. Retrieved from Council Recommendation of 22 May 2019 on High-Quality Early Childhood Education and Care Systems (europa.eu). Council of Europe. (2003). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 24 July 2003. Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: An action plan 2004–2006. Retrieved from Microsoft Word – DGeac-PE-COM_2003_449-EAC_B4_15849_EN_ACTE. doc (europa.eu). Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). Association for Bilingual Education. Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities: A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. DeKeyser, R. M. (2013). Age effects in second language learning: Stepping stones toward better understanding. Language Learning, 63, 52–67. Dolean, D. D. (2015). How early can we efficiently start teaching a foreign language? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(5), 706–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1350293X.2015.1104047 Enever, J. (2011). ELLiE. Early language learning in Europe. British Council. Enever, J. (2014). Primary English teacher education in Europe. ELT Journal, 68(3), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct079 European Commission. (2002). Presidency conclusions. Barcelona European Council 15 and 16 March 2002. Retrieved from ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/barcelona_ european_council.pdf European Commission. (2011). Language learning at pre-primary school level: Making it efficient and sustainable. European Strategic Framework for Education and Training (ET 2020). European Commission. (2012a). Europeans and their languages (Special Eurobarometer 386). European Commission. (2012b). Communication from the Commision to the European Parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes. European Commission. (2012c). Developing key competences at School in Europe: Challenges and opportunities for policy. Eurydice Report. Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2012). Developing key competences at School in Europe: Challenges and opportunities for policy. Eurydice Report. Publications Office of the European Union. Eurydice. (2017). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. Eurydice. (2019). Integrating students from migrant backgrounds into schools in Europe: National Policies and Measures. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2797/819077. Fleta, M. T. (2019). Practices to scaffold CLIL at transition to primary. In Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts (pp. 59–90). Palgrave Macmillan. Flores, N., & Schissel, J. L. (2014). A Heteroglossic approach to standards-based reform in a globalized world. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 454–479. García, O. (2011). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging and education. In Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education (pp. 63–77). Palgrave Pivot.

12

A. Otto and B. Cortina-Pe´rez

García Esteban, S. (2015). Integrating curricular contents and language through storytelling: Criteria for effective CLIL lesson planning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 212, 47–51. Goullier, F., Carré-Karlinger, C., Orlova, N., & Roussi, M. (2015). European portfolio for pre-primary educators. https://www.ecml.at/Portals/1/mtp4/pepelino/pepelino-EN-web.pdf Haznedar, B. (2014). Cognitive and linguistic aspects of learning a second language in the early years. In Early years second language education (pp. 35–48). Routledge. Ioannau-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in pre-primary and primary education. PROCLIL. Retrieved from http://www.schools.ac.cy/klimakio/Themata/ Anglika/teaching_material/clil/guidelinesforclilimplementation1.pdf Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64/4, 367–375. Oxford University Press. Marsh, D. & Frigols Martín, M. J. (2012). Content and language integrated learning. InThe encyclopedia of applied linguistics.: WileyBlackwell. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Education. Morton, T. (2016). Integrating content and language by design: Principles for designing teaching units for Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Talk at Nebrija University. Conferencias inaugurales del Departamento de Lenguas Aplicadas. Mourao, S., & Ellis, G. (2020). Teaching English to pre-primary children: Educating very young children. Delta Publishing. Muñoz, C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF Project. En C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1–40). Clevedon: Multilingual matters. Murphy, V. A. (2014). Second language learning in the early school years: Trends and contexts. Oxford University Press. Nikolov, M., & Mihaljević-Djigunović, J. (2006). Recent research on age, second language acquisition, and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 234–260. Otto, A., & Serrano-Moya, M. E. (2022). Hacia una conceptualización de la formación inicial CLIL: Las perspectivas de los futuros docentes en un contexto universitario. In Investigación e innovación en lengua extranjera: Una perspectiva global (pp. 453–476). Tirant Humanidades. Palacios, F. (2013). Nuestra educación infantil y la formación de los niños de hoy. Palibrio LLC. Peeters, J., Sharmahd, N., & Budginaité, I. (2016). Professionalization of childcare assistants in early childhood education and care (ECEC): Pathways towards qualification, NESET II report. EU Publications Office. Pirchio, S., Taeschner, T., Colibaba, A. C., Gheorghiu, E., & Zacharová, Z. J. (2015). Family involvement in second language learning: The Bilfam project. In S. Mourão & M. Lourenço (Eds.), Early years second language education: International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 204–217). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Rabadán, J. A., Sánchez, A., & Martínez, R. (2010). La Educación Infantil en su contexto histórico e internacional. Diego Marín. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2017). In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism. Springer. Singleton, D., & Muñoz, C. (2011). Around and beyond the critical period hypothesis. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 425–443). Sokol, A., & Lasevich, E.L. (2015). Supporting parents in building learning activities in another language. En S. Mourao & M. Lourenço (Eds.), Early Years Second Language Education: International perspectives on theory and practice. Nueva York: Routledge.

1

CLIL-ing Pre-primary Education. Towards a Holistic Approach to Implement. . .

13

Ting, T. (2011, October 1). Review of CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. ELT Journal, 65(4), 495–498. UNESCO. (2016). Education 2030. Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. UNESCO. UNESCO. (2018). Pursuing quality in early learning, vol. 1: Early childhood care and education (ECCE) teacher competency framework for Southeast Asia (SEA). Van Laere, K., et al. (2021). Governing quality early childhood education and care in a global crisis: First lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. NESET report. EU Publications Office.

Part I Theoretical Underpinnings

2

Content and Language Integrated Learning in Pre-primary Education: Moving Towards Developmentally Appropriate Practices Lucilla Lopriore

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLA First Fields of Enquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early Second Language Learning Diffusion at Pre-primary Level in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL and SLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL at Pre-primary Level: Challenges and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 18 23 25 26 26 27

Abstract

This chapter introduces and discusses some of the main issues related to second language acquisition (SLA) research with an insight into young learners’ SLA, and the effectiveness and value of introducing CLIL to very early language learners. A general introduction to SLA main theories, and to most recent studies on early SLA, particularly in terms of children’s diversity in age, of developmental changes, of the use of tasks, of oral interaction, of multilingualism and of the parallel development of children’s first language, will highlight some of the factors to be taken into consideration in teaching a second language to very young learners, while at the same time monitoring their students’ learning. An account of some very early second language learning classroom experiences will be presented and discussed. CLIL as used and implemented in a diversity of contexts as well as its main features at primary level within an SLA perspective, constitutes the second section of this contribution. Reference will be made to recent research studies and their findings, that have discussed CLIL feasibility in very young learners’ classrooms.

L. Lopriore (*) Roma Tre University, Rome, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_2

17

18

L. Lopriore

Keywords

SLA (Second language acquisition) · Early language learning · CLIL (Content and language integrated learning) · Multilingualism · Age factor · Research

Introduction In order to explore the implications of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories and research findings with the aim of evaluating the feasibility of some teaching methodologies or approaches for early second language learners, as it might be the case of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), we need to define and briefly trace SLA development in the last 50 years in order to highlight those features most meaningful to young learners’ learning, a field long disregarded in the first decade of SLA studies. One of the starting considerations would be to consider SLA important role for language education, in this respect, “[. . .] the relevance of SLA lies in the contribution it can make to well-established disciplines and to practical problems. In this respect, it is not an autonomous discipline but a sub-field of applied linguistics.” (Ellis, 2021:202). As teachers and teacher educators, we need to be informed about and to consider SLA findings to make our teaching more effective. Second Language Acquisition definition has always been controversial, as SLA was at times considered to refer to the field of enquiry, while L2 acquisition to the object of enquiry. It is thus relevant to monitor SLA development in time, while discussing the relevance of its areas of inquiry for early language teaching within a CLIL oriented approach.

SLA First Fields of Enquiry SLA development and nature in time have been differently classified by scholars (Hatch, 1978; Krishnan, 2009; Ellis, 2008, 2015; McKey & Gass, 2016), in terms of SLA characteristics, of its theories, of its areas of enquiry (learners’ language production at diverse ages and contexts of instruction), and of its investigation methods, e.g. through emic or etic perspectives, or of research design and tools employed. The following paragraphs are meant to provide a brief outline of SLA development of theories and studies where specific issues – most relevant and meaningful for early language learning – have been highlighted. 1960s–1970s Child and adult L2 learners’ acquisition through marked sequences are similar to L1 acquisition During the 1960s and the 1970s the main areas investigated by SLA research studies (Cancino et al., 1978), and influenced by L1 acquisition research (Brown, 1973), were the clear order and the predictable sequences of L2 acquisition of the so called ‘naturalistic learners’ whose fixed states of development seemed to be the

2

Content and Language Integrated Learning in Pre-primary Education:. . .

19

same as in their first language, since they followed a uniform and constant path in acquiring, for example, both grammatical morphemes such as plural-s and third person-s, and syntactical constructions as negatives and interrogatives. This procedure seemed to involve a natural process of innovative learning construction, almost always accompanied by a minimum transfer from learners’ first language. Because of those findings, scholars as Dulay and Burt (1974), and Krashen (1977), further deepened their enquiry and challenged main language teaching trends at that time, as, for example, grammar teaching and the adoption of the audiolingual method. The following decade marked important changes and several relevant theories and research findings characterized SLA development also in terms of pedagogical implications in L2 learning. 1980s–1990s a) Language negative and positive transfer & cognitive nature of transfer SLA studies on language transfer (Ringbom, 1987), particularly influenced by the work of Stephen Krashen (1983), highlighted the negative and the positive conditions that influence the type of language transfer, and underlined the cognitive nature of transfer, abandoning the behaviouristic one. 1980s–1990s b) Linguistic Universals and Universal Grammar In those years SLA studies were closely connected to the areas of study of linguistic universals (Gass, 1984; White, 1989) that studied learners’ access to the Universal Grammar (UG), and observed its related markedness, that was closely connected to the order of acquisition and of language transfer. 1980s–1990s c) Speech Acts & Politeness theories: relevance of pragmatics; native vs nonnative differences It was right in this period that SLA studies started a new and more focused enquiry on second language in use, thus determining a turning point in SLA that linked research to teaching. One example of this turn was represented by the field of Second language pragmatics (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989), largely influenced by Searle’s Speech act theory (Searle, 1969), and by the development of the Politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) that specifically investigated speech acts, as requests and apologies, and started identifying pragma-linguistic differences between native and non- native speakers. 1980s–1990s d) Influence on L2 acquisition; investigations on learner language; the three Hypotheses; First pedagogical implications: Task-based Learning (TBL) The pivotal works of Krashen (1985), Long (1983) and Swain (1985) focused mostly on the influence of the environment on L2 acquisition, as well as the function and role of input and of interaction; disciplines such as sociolinguistics,

20

L. Lopriore

discourse analysis (Coulthard, 1977) and linguistics intervened to sustain the investigation of learners’ language learning. This was the time when three major hypotheses emerged as largely influential in SLA: the Input, the Interaction and the Output hypotheses that made SLA gain an official role as a discipline, particularly when it started investigating issues such as the role of input and the implications of interaction. This emerging interest in the pedagogical implications of the SLA findings led to diverse changes in teaching approaches, the development of taskbased language teaching (Long, 1985) was one of the prevailing ones. Major SLA changes took place during the following decade and brought about noticeable pedagogical implications. 1990s–2000s a) Implicit & explicit procedural knowledge; Influence of cognitive psychology; focus on skill learning; emergence of pedagogical implications Cognitive psychology had a high impact on L2 acquisition studies, and theories on information processing were based upon an input-output view of learning (Lantolf, 1996), and the emerging interest in implicit and explicit learning led to a diverse interpretation of Krashen’s (1981) distinction between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’. A major focus on posing conscious attention to features of input and output (‘noticing’), mostly needed for sustaining acquisition (Schmidt, 1990; De Keyser, 1998), represented one of the most important turning points in SLA. 1990s–2000s b) Focus on sociocultural theory and on learners’ agency; the function and role of languaging. The sociocultural theory (Firth & Wagner, 1997) highlighted the role of mediation in new knowledge development and internalization, and the importance of interaction in L2 acquisition. Lantolf’s (2000) studies further underlined the importance of interaction development, because it is in interactions that learners participate in exchanges with others and, as a consequence, learn; Swain (2006:98) further highlighted the pedagogical value of the role of ‘languaging’ for learning, that is “the process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language”, in collaborative dialogue experiences (Swain, 2000). 2000s–2010s Complexity theory; Multilingualism; Translanguaging Subsequent SLA studies were influenced by the Complexity theory (LarsenFreeman & Cameron, 2008) that underlined the non-linear, complex, and heterogeneous nature of language systems; these aspects require researchers to focus on the connection among social, psychological and cognitive factors. The assumption that L2 learners should acquire the competence of monolingual native speakers was challenged first by the studies of Firth and Wagner (1997) and by Lourdes Ortega’s (2009 and 2019) studies that redirected SLA studies towards the analysis of multilingual competences and of learners’ use of translanguaging (May, 2013).

2

Content and Language Integrated Learning in Pre-primary Education:. . .

21

SLA development since 1960 has generated numerous and important theories on L2 acquisition, but not all of them ‘survived’ the challenges posed by social and cultural changes as well as by new SLA research studies. The theories that have survived and are still referred to by scholars, are the interactionist hypotheses, the cognitively oriented theories and the socially oriented views; they have further reinforced SLA socio-cognitive orientation. SLA has in the years acquired a more transdisciplinary nature, even if pedagogical implications have not clearly and steadily emerged yet both for adult and young learners. The implications of SLA in young L2 learners’ research and in innovative pedagogical trends are multifold and can be based also upon what has been found out in first language development. Issues such as learners’ age (Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017), the role of developmental sequences, the cognitive issues (Long, 1998), the interactionist perspectives (Lantolf, 2000) together with discourse analysis (Coulthard, 1977), and their focus on the pedagogical value in second language child-directed speech (Oliver & Azkarai, 2017) and in the use of task-based approaches (Long, 1985), as well as the acknowledged relevance of translanguaging (García & Lin, 2017) particularly now that most classrooms are composed by multilingual learners, are all relevant aspects that have also been part of CLIL methodology. Early language learning and teaching has become one of the key areas in applied linguistics and language pedagogy characterized by multiple research methods (Nikolov, 2009).

Young Learners’ SLA Research Most research studies into young learners’ second language acquisition (FosterCohen, 1999; Paradis, 2007) have become relevant and widely known only in the past two decades, even if Dulay and Burt’s 1974 seminal study on the existence of natural sequences in child second language acquisition, had officially introduced a unique field of research studies on early SLA. Their study, as many of the other studies on children’s SLA, had been inspired and based upon first language acquisition studies, specifically upon Brown’s (1973) findings on first language acquisition in children aged less than three. Among the first studies that directly addressed how children acquired a second language the most relevant and informative ones were McLaughlin’s publications on SLA (1984, 1985) and a few studies on bilingualism, as Grosjean’s research (1998). Several relevant approaches in SLA were developed by research originally carried out with children (Johnstone, 2009). It is thus surprising how few studies had concentrated on young learners while focusing on adult SLA; as Paradis observed, child SLA was “studied as a subfield with its own issues and questions separate from adult L2 acquisition on the one hand, or bilingualism and educational outcomes on the other” (Paradis, 2007: 387). Some of the research investigations on young learners’ second language acquisition not only influenced subsequent studies on adult second language learning, but also led to studies on developmental sequences (Pienemann, 1984: Pienemann & Mackey, 1993), while establishing a unique research orientation (Goldschneider & DeKeyser, 2001). But, as Pienemann (1984) had remarked, instruction alone would have not

22

L. Lopriore

enabled language learners to skip SLA developmental stages. Some of the first SLA studies had focused on young learners, as Wagner-Gough and Hatch’s (1975) who had noticed and emphasized the relevance of conversation for L2 learning while highlighting the role of forms and functions rather than just practice, in order to develop linguistic competence, as in most recent SLA studies that highlighted the role of spoken interaction for learning. One of the findings in young learners’ SLA studies is that child SLA differs from first language acquisition as well as from adult language acquisition while sharing characteristics of both. There has been some debate on the definition of child’s stages of development, in terms of their correspondence with children’s diverse ways of thinking, or in terms of the diverse perceptions of the continuity of child’s development, or of the adopted subdivision of schooling, this last one being the mostly agreed upon. The following is a brief outline of children’s stages of development, and matching school grades; the children’s main characteristics in terms of language, cognitive and social development are described (Adapted from Philp et al. (2008:5)). Early childhood stage (2–7 years), pre-school and first & second grades. Piaget originally characterized this period as involving pre-operational thought; children learn to think symbolically and use language to represent objects, even if they do not understand others’ points of view. Since the contributions to this volume address the introduction of CLIL at pre-primary level, it is important to establish its possible connection to children’s developmental stage and their use of language at this level as well as the following stages. Middle childhood stage (7–11 years), primary school, plus the beginning of middle school. Children, at this stage, are able to categorize objects, they are logical in their thinking, even if they are not capable of abstract thinking yet; they have already developed their first language/s, and their language is characterized by increased vocabulary and grammar; their use of language reflects a degree of language awareness and appreciation for language games. They can understand other people’s perspective, and they can take turns in conversation as well as maintain the topic. This is mostly due to their socializing experiences as they spend more time with peers, and they start learning from context and in groups. Early adolescence (12–14 years), junior high school. A more evident change occurs when young learners reach their early adolescence stage, as they can use abstract thought, draw inferences and they can carry out language analysis, a relevant capacity being highlighted when they learn a second language. Later adolescence (15 years & over) high school. At this stage, learners have developed a greater metalinguistic awareness; they generally rely upon peers and acquire socio-cognitive skills. More rapidly; their language changes because of their exposure to social media and to contexts different from home and school. The outline highlights those features of children’s developmental progress that may become central for second language learning, and the differences between early childhood capacities and those of the adolescence stage clearly emerge. They can be used by both teachers and researchers to focus on the main differences between L2 younger and older learners, but mostly on the major factors that determine the success of SLA.

2

Content and Language Integrated Learning in Pre-primary Education:. . .

23

Factors in Young Learners’ Second Language Achievement SLA research findings have highlighted that young learners’ most prominent features are that they develop very fast cognitively, emotionally, physically, socially, and linguistically and at their own rate, each child displaying developmental landmarks at different times. Among the several factors that SLA research studies have identified as contributing to successful second language achievement the age factor is one of the most meaningful, specifically in terms of differences between L1 and L2 acquisition to monitor children’s developmental change. The investigation carried out so far of the diverse features of the acquisition process has been problematic since it has been difficult to identify the reasons why first language acquisition is more linear and predictable than second language acquisition that seems to follow a more unpredictable process, or the relevance of the difficulties caused by the type of input, by the context or by the nature of the language learnt, often experienced by second adult language learners (Long, 2007; De Keyser, 2000). While tracing children’s first language learning was easier to monitor, in second language acquisition it was somehow more difficult to understand the reasons why there are, for example, phonology and syntax difficulties in early adolescents (Bialystok & Miller, 1999; Paradis, 2007). Still, aspects such as the potential of task based oral interaction in enhancing cognitive and affective responses to second language learning and the most recent findings on the use of translanguagism in multilingual classroom groups (May, 2013; García & Lin, 2017) seem to confirm the opportunity of opening up to a diversity of approaches in early exposure to second or third language learning. Is Earlier Better? In spite of most SLA findings that would encourage an early start, not all research studies provide positive results on early language learning, for example, Munoz’s (2006, 2009) outstanding studies reveal that there is no clear evidence of the advantages of an early start, rather that late starters have achieved better results more quickly, and schools do not seem to provide conditions that would allow a positive development of early language learning (Myles, 2017). Similar objections are raised by Singleton and Pfenninger (2019:35) who regard current 2 or 3 h a week of L2 instruction at primary or at kindergarten as counterproductive since it would not provide children with long term advantage, rather they suggest to choose the alternation of an intense period organization combined with individual sessions, while they suggest to consider CLIL that would allow for a combination of instructional practices and would provide a motivational basis for purposeful communication.

Early Second Language Learning Diffusion at Pre-primary Level in Europe The Eurydice and Eurostat report Key Data on Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe (2014) had highlighted differences among all the European countries as for structure, organization and funding of early childhood education and care. The educational guidelines of all countries, whether only for older children or for the entire Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) phase, list learning objectives

24

L. Lopriore

referring to personal, emotional and social development, language and communication skills as well as expressive arts and development of creativity. Physical development and health education as well as understanding of the world are also included almost everywhere for both groups. Reading literacy and numerical and logical reasoning, as well as adaptation to school life are more often directed at older children. Early second language learning is recommended in educational guidelines for older children in more than half European countries. European systems are increasingly moving towards an ‘early childhood education and care’ approach. Furthermore, since many countries guarantee places to lower age groups, ECEC is increasingly becoming an integral part of the education system across Europe. There is still a tendency to allocate ‘educational’ work for older children to qualified staff, and ‘care’ for the younger ones to less qualified staff. In most countries, several types of staff have direct regular contact with children. Parallel to the SLA studies and the diffusion of the findings on early language learners, there has been a worldwide diffusion of early second language learning official and unofficial experiences since pre-primary level. This wide diffusion was partly enhanced in Europe by the European countries language policies, and partly by local school initiatives sustained by children’s families and by teachers with a variety of previous experiences in second language teaching. Most of these initiatives have not been fully monitored by educational authorities but have witnessed the existence of several examples of early language experiences.

Current Experiences at Pre-primary Level: An Italian Study The following is a brief synthesis of a survey carried out in 2014 by the Italian Ministry of Education that set up a research study on what type of second language learning activities were taking place at pre-primary level (MIUR (2014). Italian Ministry of Education). At that time the teaching of a foreign language at pre-primary level was not statutory, yet it was acknowledged that “children often live in a plurilingual environment and they can easily familiarize with a second language, in natural, communicative contexts”. The initial findings unveiled a wealth of diverse initiatives and of local school-based projects. In the past years more and more teachers have been implementing approaches either to “foreign language teaching” or to “awareness to different languages and cultures (éveil aux langues)”. A questionnaire was administered on-line. Valid responses were 1740 (a total of 257,713 children, 29,150 of them non-native Italians, mostly children from migrant families). In a large number of schools (48.7%) both FL “teaching” experiences and FL “awareness” experiences were offered. Most schools introduce FL teaching when children are aged five, while fewer experiences occur for children aged either 3 or 4. The average length of the FL exposure is 30 min once a week. Most teachers define the type of activities implemented in their FL classes as game-based. The most cited ones are: role-play, bingo, language games, nursery rhymes, musical games, dances, drama, hands-on- activities, narratives, fairy tales, use of flashcards, use of puppets, use of finger friends, use of toys, iconic mediators, posters, etc. A large number of teachers use multimedia resources and the interactive white board. Among the teaching approaches used in this age range, teachers mention: Total

2

Content and Language Integrated Learning in Pre-primary Education:. . .

25

Physical Response and the narrative format. The 1740 schools indicated the following foreign languages offered: English, French, Spanish, German, Arabic and Chinese offered, English representing the largest amount, while Arabic and Chinese were offered by children’s families. Both children’s families and primary teachers considered all FL experiences very positively. The large amount of data describes a very lively situation where both FL teaching and awareness experiences share appropriate and stimulating approaches for this age range. All schools who responded to the survey consider the exposure to the foreign language as a highly valuable experience for children, useful to promote openness and curiosity.

CLIL and SLA Some of the main findings emerging from SLA, have been taken into consideration in early second language learning particularly at primary level in almost all of the adopted teaching approaches. One of the most successful of these approaches has been CLIL, introduced and implemented in the curriculum of numerous European primary schools in the last 10 years. What have the main reasons for its adoption and how is it linked to SLA main findings? CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is a recent teaching approach widely adopted in numerous international contexts, especially in Europe where it was promoted to encourage language learning within the educational system (Coyle & Baetens Beardsmore, 2007; Coyle et al., 2010; Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Dalton-Puffer et al., 2010; Pica, 2002). As David Marsh defined it in an interview (http://ihjournal.com/content-andlanguage-integrated-learning, December 30, 2009 Issue 26: Spring 2009 (last retrieved on 14 November 2021)): Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is an educational approach where some content learning (like a topic on global climate, or a subject) is taught in an additional language [. . .]. It is a single educational approach which involves very different models. In other words, the foundation is the same, but the way in which it is carried out differs – and this depends on what educators want to achieve in a given place and time. It is an innovation but based on putting together long-standing chunks of good educational practice into special packages.

Marsh’s interview poses several interesting issues to be considered once CLIL is being taken into consideration for early language learning, and SLA research findings play a role in its implementation. An example of these issues is when Marsh is asked whether CLIL could be used by pre-schoolers, and he answers: “Yes, but remember that good early language learning often follows the same principles as CLIL even if it is called ‘language learning’. In primary and secondary, these principles may be put aside, and this is where the potential of CLIL kicks in”. When asked about the role of students’ first language in the CLIL classroom, Marsh replies that it is paramount, because exposure to CLIL enhances the first language,

26

L. Lopriore This is probably due to the development of metalinguistic awareness. But, remember that CLIL is not just ‘teaching in a foreign language’ – which is a trend surfacing all over the world with English. CLIL involves doing this using specific methodologies and expertise, and these accommodate the first language.

CLIL at Pre-primary Level: Challenges and Opportunities Introducing CLIL at primary, and mostly at pre-primary level, raises several of the issues that were previously outlined in the discussion of SLA findings and the developmental stages of very early language learning, specifically the cognitive development of a child at a pre-operational stage. Cognition was introduced by Do Coyle et al. (2010) as one of the four main components in CLIL, with a clear reference to those mental processes underlying our understanding, processes that are particularly challenging for a very young learner. At that age, learners deal with early developmental memory, they are learning cognitive skills such as matching, comparing, questioning, classifying, organizing, discriminating, identifying differences, while developing attention in time. And all in the language of schooling they start using their communicative skills in authentic interactions, in CLIL they start doing so using another language, and they thus become ‘sequential bilinguals’ (Paradis, 2007: 14), even if their second language learning sequence might have a diverse sequential order. To conclude, several are the affordances of introducing CLIL at such an early stage, even if we know that children at this stage develop very rapidly and at diverse levels: physically, emotionally, socially, cognitively, and linguistically, each at a slightly different rate, and teachers are faced by issues mainly related to their learners’ thinking skills.

Conclusion This contribution started with SLA studies on first and second language learning, it ends with a recent study of one of the most renowned SLA scholars, Ellen Bialystok. In her 2017 research study on SLA at an early age and bilingualism, and the impact on cognitive development, she reports her findings, starting from three questions that are, for diverse reasons, closely connected to some of the issues addressed so far, particularly to SLA studies and to early second language learning, as well as to the implications of introducing CLIL at such an early stage as pre-primary. Ellen Bialystok’s questions are the following: First, is it necessary to establish whether language acquisition proceeds at the same rate and in the same manner for children who are learning two languages simultaneously or are learning a second language after having begun to master one, are children able to acquire literacy skills at school if they are either bilingual or learning a second language, especially if their home language is not the language of instruction? Finally, are there consequences for normal cognitive development in terms of the child’s ability to acquire new concepts or

2

Content and Language Integrated Learning in Pre-primary Education:. . .

27

perform various calculations (e.g., arithmetic), especially if school instruction is in the child’s weaker language? (Bialystock, 2017:2–3)

Describing her research results, she mentions specifically that the metalinguistic awareness of bilingual children, is “as good and often better than that of comparable monolinguals”. Her conclusions are not only reassuring, but they highlight relevant implications for bilingualism and for early language learning, as well as for children’s cognitive development. The results of these studies demonstrate that childhood bilingualism is a significant experience that has the power to influence the course and efficiency of children’s development. The most surprising outcome is that these influences are not confined to the linguistic domain, where such influence would be expected, but extend as well to non-verbal cognitive abilities. In most cases, the child’s degree of involvement with a second language, defined as the difference between bilingualism and second-language acquisition, is an important variable that determines both the degree and type of influence that is found. (Bialystock, 2017: 3)

References Bialystock, E. (2017). Second language acquisition and bilingualism at an early age and the impact on early cognitive development. In R. Tremblay, M. Boivin, & R. Peters (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early childhood development. Bialystok, E., & Miller, B. (1999). The problem of age in second-language acquisition: Influences from language, structure, and task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2(2), 127–145. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex. Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Harvard University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. (1978). The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 207–230). Newbury House. Coulthard, M. (1977). An introduction to discourse analysis. Harlow, UK: Longman. Coyle, D., & Baetens Beardsmore, H. (Eds.). (2007). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism [Special Issue on CLIL], 10. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL. John Benjamins. De Keyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge University Press. De Keyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 499–533. Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.

28

L. Lopriore

Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2021). A short history of SLA: Where have we come from and where are we going? Language Teaching, 54, 190–205. Eurydice and Eurostat Report. (2014). Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe. European Publications. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. Foster-Cohen, S. (1999). SLA and first language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 3–21. García, O., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2017). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O. García, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.). Springer. Gass, S. (1984). A review of interlanguage syntax: Language transfer and language universals. Language Learning, 34(2), 115–132. Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R. (2001). Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–50. Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 131–149. Hatch, E. (Ed.). (1978). Second language acquisition: A book of readings. Newbury House. Johnstone, R. (2009). An early start: What are the key conditions for generalized success? In J. Enever, J. Moon, & U. Raman (Eds.), Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives (pp. 31–42). Garnet Education Publishing. Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ‘77 (pp. 152–161). TESOL. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1983). Newmark’s ignorance hypothesis and current second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 135–153). Newbury House. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman. Krishnan, A. (2009). What are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity versus interdisciplinarity (NCRM working paper series). ESRC National Centre for Research Methods. Lantolf, J. (1996). Letting all the flowers bloom. Language Learning, 46, 713–749. Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford University Press. Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77–99). Multilingual Matters. Long, M. (1998). SLA breaking the siege. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 17(1), 79–129. Long, M. (2007). Problems in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. May, S. (2013). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingualism. Routledge. Mckey, A., & Gass, S. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge. McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second-language acquisition in childhood, Vol. 1. Preschool children (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McLaughlin, B. (1985). Second-language acquisition in childhood. Vol. 2. School-age children. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. MIUR. (2014). Italian Ministry of Education. Foreign language experiences monitoring at pre-primary level. MIUR.

2

Content and Language Integrated Learning in Pre-primary Education:. . .

29

Muñoz, C. (Ed.). (2006). Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Multilingual Matters. Muñoz, C. (2009). Input and long-term effects of early learning in a formal setting. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), The age factor and early language learning (pp. 141–159). Mouton de Gruyter. Myles, F. (2017). Learning foreign languages in primary schools: Is younger better? Languages, Society & Policy. Nikolov, M. (Ed.). (2009). The age factor and early language learning. Mouton de Gruyter. Oliver, R., & Azkarai, A. (2017). Review of child second language acquisition (SLA): Examining theories and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 62–76. Cambridge University Press. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Hodder Education. Ortega, L. (2019). SLA and the study of equitable multilingualism. Modern Language Journal, 103(Supplement), 23–38. Paradis, J. (2007). Second language acquisition in childhood. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development (pp. 387–406). Blackwell. Pfenninger, S. F., & Singleton, D. (2017). Beyond age effects in instructional L2 learning: Revisiting the age factor. Multilingual Matters. Philp, J., Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (Eds.). (2008). Second language acquisition and the younger learner. Child’s play? John Benjamins Publishing Company. Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic needs of classroom language learners? The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 1–19. Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186–214. Pienemann, M., & Mackey, A. (1993). An empirical study of children’s ESL development. In P. McKay (Ed.), ESL development, Vol.2: Language and literacy in schools (pp. 115–259). Commonwealth of Australia and NLLIA. Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Multilingual Matters. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge University Press. Singleton, D., & Pfenninger, S. (2019). The age debate: A critical overview. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 30–42). Routledge. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Newbury House. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). Continuum. Wagner-Gough, K., & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297–308. White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. John Benjamins.

3

CLIL Soft Models: The Challenge of Teaching Very Young Language Learners Virginia Vinuesa Benítez

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soft/Weak CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Example of Soft CLIL: Language Showers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32 33 33 35 38 40

Abstract

The typical context in which Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has been implemented all over Europe corresponds to primary or secondary education classrooms where academic subjects, such as Geography or Science are taught through an additional language different to the one used in mainstream education with dual-focussed aims, the learning of content and the simultaneous learning of the target language (Marsh, 2005, p. 2 as cited in Vinuesa, 2017, p.16). Although CLIL may often be understood as an approach more suitable for older children, its implementation in pre-primary education would be possible thanks to the wide range of possibilities and models it offers, from “language showers” (Mehisto, Marsh, & Frigols, Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Books for Teachers, 2008) to total immersion, from language-led (soft CLIL) to subject-led (hard CLIL) (Ball, Does CLIL work? In Hill & Pulverness (Eds.), The best of both worlds? International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 32–43). Norwich Institute for Language Education, 2009; Bentley, The TKT (Teaching Knowledge Test) course CLIL module. Cambridge University Press, 2010).

V. Vinuesa Benítez (*) University Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_3

31

32

V. Vinuesa Benítez

In this chapter, given the globalized characteristics of the pre-primary Education curriculum, and considering that for early language learning the “main focus is on the doing – be it playing, singing, drawing, building models, or other activities” (Edelenbos, Johnstone, & Kubanek, The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of foreign languages to very young learners: Published research, good practice and main principles, European Commission Final Report 89/04, 2006, p.17) we will explore the CLIL types known as “language showers and soft CLIL”. In these two language-led models, children are exposed to the target language for short periods of time during the week through games, songs, stories, realia, visuals, and movement, with the aim of making learning enjoyable, full of practice, meaningful, purposeful, social, and supported. The aim would not be learning a second language but learning curricular topics “in” and “through” the target language. Keywords

Pre-primary · CLIL · Language showers · Soft/hard CLIL

Introduction CLIL has become an increasingly established teaching approach in bilingual programmes and could be considered as one of the best-fit approaches for language teaching and learning in the multilingual European context (Marsh, 2013). Although it has proven to be efficient in the language learning scenario (Banegas, 2012b; Coyle, 2007; Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2007; Falcón & Lorenzo, 2015; Gallardo del Puerto & Martínez Adrián, 2013; Hermanto et al., 2012; Jexenflicker & DaltonPuffer, 2010; Lasagabaster, 2008; Lorenzo & Rodríguez, 2014; Roquet & PérezVidal, 2015, as cited in Pavón, 2018; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010), the majority of studies on CLIL have focused on primary and secondary-level learners and, not much attention has so far been directed towards the use of CLIL in pre-primary Education (Anderson et al., 2015; García Esteban, 2015; Marsh, 2012, as cited in Anderson et al., 2015). In most of the European state members Content and Language Integrated Learning is offered at primary, lower secondary and upper secondary levels and, although this type of provision in not generally present at the pre-primary stage, there are few countries where the study of a foreign language is provided throughout all pre-primary education, being Spain in the lead of offering this subject, as compulsory, during this educational level in most of its Autonomous Communities (Andúgar et al., 2019; Eurydice, 2017). CLIL has been defined as an “umbrella term” comprising not only immersion but other types of curricular models depending on whether more emphasis is placed on the language, on the content, or the minimum amount of time allocated to CLIL based activities per week (Ball, 2009; Bentley, 2010; Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto et al., 2008). This flexibility may offer greater and more opportunities to promote language learning for very young learners.

3

CLIL Soft Models: The Challenge of Teaching Very Young Language Learners

33

According to Coyle (2005), there is no sole model for CLIL and, although each one will have its own goals depending on the context where it will be implemented, they will all share the common founding principle of integrating content and language learning through the 4 C’s pedagogical framework. This chapter delves into the challenges of implementing, at the pre-primary education level, the CLIL curricular models known as “language showers” (Mehisto et al., 2008), where children would be exposed to the target language in periods of between half an hour and an hour and a half a week, and other versions termed as “weak/soft CLIL” (Ball, 2009; Bentley, 2010) consisting of language-led lessons during which some curricular topics or thematic units are taught.

CLIL Models Soft/Weak CLIL The implementation of CLIL instructional practices may vary depending on factors, such as the educational context, institutional implication, programme types (Eurydice, 2006), outcomes expectations, curriculum options, teachers’ methodological and linguistic training (Aiello et al., 2017; Alcaraz-Mármol, 2018; Ball et al., 2016; Pérez Cañado, 2016, 2018) level, learners’ age (Coyle et al., 2010; Edelenbos et al., 2006; García Esteban, 2015), emphasis placed on content or language, and so forth. Although these variations have given rise to different CLIL models or different instructional practices, they are always closely associated with the key principles of this approach (Gabillon & Ailincai, 2015; Gabillon, 2020). As stated before, the typical context where CLIL provision is offered throughout Europe would be classrooms where the teaching and the learning is focused primarily on the subject content. This content-driven type of CLIL has been referred to as hard (Bentley, 2010) or strong CLIL (Ball, 2009) and it is the norm in partial and total immersion programmes. Ball (2009, as cited in Ikeda, 2013) identifies five types of CLIL bilingual programmes, and places them in a continuum that goes from “strong” to “weak” depending on whether greater emphasis is placed on content learning: total immersion, partial immersion, subject courses, language classes based on thematic units and language classes with greater use of content. The first three first types would be the strong version of CLIL, while the last two would be the CLIL “weak” versions, consisting of language-driven approaches using content or subject concepts with the objective of developing language skills. Ball’s continuum bears substantial analogies with the one proposed by Met (1999, as cited in Banegas, 2012) as it covers different curricular models used for the integration of language and content (Fig. 3.1). On the other hand, Bentley (2010) takes a more restricted view depending, not only on the emphasis placed on the content or the language, but also the time of instruction provided in the target language and devoted to CLIL practices. She distinguishes three possible CLIL types: language-led, subject-led (modular) and partial immersion labelling them as “soft” and “hard” CLIL (Fig. 3.2).

34

V. Vinuesa Benítez

Fig. 3.1 Ball continuum. (Adapted from Ball, 2009, p. 37)

Fig. 3.2 CLIL types proposed by Bentley. (Adapted from Bentley, 2010, p. 6)

Unlike Ball’s continuum, Bentley models or types take into consideration the time devoted to teaching in the target language. However, nothing is mentioned about the students’ age or the kind of activities to be completed. In view of the above, we can assume that CLIL can be shaped according to contextual needs or aims (Marsh, 2008) leading to different implementation models or practices that can be applicable to various programmes, age groups or educational levels. However, these variations should neither compromise the basic principles underlying this approach, nor the intrinsic features of very early language learning. Therefore, the question in this context is whether the models described are more suitable for children between 3 and 5 years old, hard/strong, or soft/weak CLIL. One of the main objectives in relation to CLIL implementation in pre-primary education is that the learning is done in a holistic and multisensory way to develop oral skills from early stages, enhance fluency and foster children’s physical, social, emotional and intellectual growth (Andúgar et al., 2019; European Commission, 2006; Fleta Guillen, 2016; Mourão & Ellis, 2020). Thus, at this stage, hard/strong CLIL would not be advisable for several reasons. First and foremost, they are subject-based content driven courses, which is not in line with the globalized nature of the pre-primary curriculum, as there are not subjects, but different curricular content areas. In both models, Ball and Bentley’s, a high percentage of the curriculum is taught through the L2. So, considering that soft/weak CLIL are languagebased lessons that focus on thematic units or curricular topics for short periods of time, we could suggest that these models are much more suitable to be implemented with very young language learners than the hard/strong ones.

3

CLIL Soft Models: The Challenge of Teaching Very Young Language Learners

35

An Example of Soft CLIL: Language Showers Another model we must give attention to are “language showers”. Following Mehisto et al. (2008) we can distinguish different CLIL types depending on the time devoted to teaching or learning through the target language, the intensity of exposure and the duration of the program. As we see in Fig. 3.3, CLIL has been defined as multifaceted covering many different educational approaches (Marsh, 2000; Mehisto et al., 2008). As an eclectic model, it has used those aspects of each approach that have proven to be the most beneficial for achieving the objectives pursued, hence its flexibility and ability to be adapted to very different contexts (Coyle, 2005). This approach offers a wide range of possibilities, each of which strives for different goals. CLIL may be implemented in several ways and situations as it encompasses different forms of teaching and its success will depend on how lessons are planned, sequenced, and carried out. According to the definition provided by Mehisto et al. (2008) language showers are intended for children from 4 to 11 years old who would be exposed to the target language for short daily periods of time (between 30 min to 1 h) with the aim to develop language awareness, positive attitudes to language learning and become familiar with the sounds and structures. DOUBLE IMMERSION

su

re

TWO WAY IMMERSION

ex

po

TOTAL IMMERSION

g-

te

rm

PARTIAL IMMERSION

ns ity

,L

on

ONE OR MORE SUBJECTS

gh Hi

MODULES FAMILY STAYS

-in

te

WORK-STUDY ABROAD

Sh tor

INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS

rm

te LOCAL PROJECTS

wlo si

n te in

STUDENTS EXCHANGES

ty

CLIL CAMPS

re su po

ex

LANGUAGE SHOWERS

FLEXIBILITY

Fig. 3.3 Multifaceted CLIL. (Vinuesa, 2017, p. 24, adapted from Mehisto et al., 2008, p. 13)

36

V. Vinuesa Benítez

This type of CLIL provision would be very much in line, with educational approaches involving additional language learning for very young children (Anderson et al., 2015; Mourão & Ellis, 2020; Murphy, 2014) to the point that sometimes it is difficult to distinguish CLIL from standard forms of good practice in early language learning (Coyle et al., 2010). Even though EFL and language showers may share similarities, such as the use of games, songs, realia, movement, etc., account should also be taken of some significant distinctions. In the pre-primary EFL classroom, although some of the topics may be related with curricular content areas (animals, seasons, shapes, etc.), quite often, they do not go beyond the acquisition of vocabulary and simple structures. By contrast, the teaching of an additional language through language showers is approached through thematic contents or topics of the different curricular areas (Cameron, 2001; Riera Toló, 2009; Haas, 2000) thus contributing to the physical, sensory, intellectual, affective, and social development of children, along with age-appropriate tasks. It is therefore important to highlight that, when using this CLIL model, unlike EFL, the content of the curricular areas dictate the language to be used (Mair & Murphy, 2018). When using this type of provision children are exposed to rich and varied lexical and structural input associated with the content chosen; the language is contextualized, used in meaningful and real contexts; speech patterns are adapted to the topic and learners’ age (Kersten et al., 2010), the learning experience needs to be developed in a multi-sensory, and natural environment (Cameron, 2001; Edelenbos et al., 2006). Activities are integrated in the classroom life and routines, and they must consist of challenging and significant content-based tasks, where the language will not be the main focus, but a means of communication (Ellis, 2003, Nunan 2004, as cited in Kersten et al., 2010). In like manner, both verbal scaffolding (repetitions, paraphrasing, recasting) and content scaffolding (previous background knowledge, modelling, thinking aloud, key content concepts etc.) techniques are used to ensure the assimilation of both the language and the content (Massler & Ioannou-Georgiou, 2010, as cited in Kersten et al., 2010). As interaction is paramount, output also needs to be considered, so teachers must provide students with enough time to respond, allow them to use their mother tongue, if necessary, and be prepared to offer appropriate corrective support. It goes without saying that pre-primary children have characteristics that make them unique in their ways of accomplishing tasks while learning, and they are very different when compared with those pertaining to other educational levels. Language concerning children between 3 and 5 years old should be approached in a meaningful and communicative way (Krashen, 1981, Snow, Met & Genesee 1989), it must be full of practice (Piaget, 1970, Swain 1985, 1993), supported (Bruner, 1978; Wood et al., 1976), social (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978) enjoyable and purposeful so that children use it as a tool to discover, experience, feel and socialize. The point that needs to be addressed is to which extent the CLIL model described can be applied to children between 3 and 6 years old integrating the 4 C’s framework pioneered by Coyle (2005). The building blocks of this approach, Content,

3

CLIL Soft Models: The Challenge of Teaching Very Young Language Learners

37

Cognition, Communication and Culture have been revisited and updated (see ▶ Chap. 1) to meet the needs of this stage. These four elements are closely interrelated and cannot be considered as independent ones, but as an integrated whole fundamental to plan CLIL lessons, organise and structure the activities. Any CLIL type or educational stage needs to consider the importance and value of these components. Thus, CLIL lessons will have to be planned around a theme or topic, and then a set of communicative learning activities will be organised to ensure not only the acquisition of the content and the language, but also to provide opportunities to develop cognitive and cultural aspects (Brown, 2001; Cameron, 2001; Curtain & Dahlberg 2004; García Esteban, 2015; Genesee, 1994). For a CLIL lesson plan to be effective and balanced at this educational level and, according to the models described, there are two important issues that have to be addressed. In the first place, we must consider the six areas of learning and development described by Mourão & Ellis (2020, p. 22) when teaching an additional language to very young learners, as they will be paramount to lay the foundations for the next educational level. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Personal, social, and emotional development. Communication, language, and literacy Problem solving, reasoning, and numeracy. Knowledge and understanding of the world. Physical development. Creative development.

Equally important is to analyse how very young children are as language learners (Shin, 2006). They – – – – – – – – – –

are developing quickly as individuals, learn in a variety of ways (by watching, listening, imitating, doing things, are not able to understand grammatical rules and explanations about language, try to make sense of situations by making use of non-verbal clues, talk in their mother tongue about what they understand, and this helps them learn, can imitate the sounds they hear quite accurately and copy the way adults speak, are naturally curious, love to play and use their imagination. are comfortable with routines and enjoy repetition. have a short attention span and need variety.

All these characteristics will help teachers create a road map of the types of activities and strategies needed to carry out the lessons effectively. As already pointed out, language showers are language-based lessons taught for short periods of time that focus on thematic units or curricular topics. Some common themes at this stage are the body, the senses, healthy habits, concepts like day and night, animals, friends, and family. Moreover, units based on topics such as the environment, citizenship or respecting self and others can also be included.

38

V. Vinuesa Benítez

Any CLIL lesson planned under the soft/weak models must follow the 4 C’s pedagogical framework. It must involve activities that, through the content, will foster communication, cognition, and culture. Areas, such as, literacy, knowledge and understanding of the world, as well as physical development could also be covered. Communication will build up through interaction with the teacher by using the language structures the topic content dictates. Not only will the children receive rich lexical and structural input, but they will also be encouraged to produce, providing they are ready to do so, allowing them to use their mother tongue to express their opinions and feelings. At this stage children must feel “pressure free” and they will talk when they feel comfortable to do so. To foster thinking skills, different types of questions and activities, such as classifying or identifying can be included to help kids see the differences and similarities across various groups, thus enhancing their understanding of the content. To develop the personal, social, and emotional area, some sessions can deal with cultural aspects, such as, healthy habits, recycling, caring about the environment, the community, etc. This will generate attitudes of respect and appreciation towards different groups of people present in society, instil values, show sensibility, respect and care for the well-being of self and others, allowing learners to become socially and emotionally competent and shaping their view of the world (Nugent & Catalano, 2015; Zdanevych et al., 2020). According to Coyle et al. (2010, p.54) “CLIL is about allowing individuals to construct their own understanding and be challenged – whatever their age or ability”. It promotes reflection, critical thinking, and problem solving and children learn a language effectively when they are engaged in activities that are challenging, but not overly so, age appropriate, supported, and meaningful. Bearing in mind the benefits CLIL has proven to offer at other education levels, such as natural situation for language development (Marsh, 2000), students’ motivation, positive attitude towards language learning (Doiz et al., 2014; Coyle et al., 2010); opportunities to develop intercultural knowledge and communication skills (Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011), the models discussed in this chapter can be realistically feasible at the pre-primary stage.

Conclusions This chapter has explored the possibilities of implementing the CLIL approach at the Pre-primary education level through the models known as “language showers” (Mehisto et al., 2008) and “weak/soft” CLIL (Ball, 2009; Bentley, 2010). Although different in some respects, they have some common points such as the emphasis given to language, learning development through thematic units and the time of exposure devoted to the target language. It cannot be denied that most of the research conducted focuses on primary and secondary levels, which is where this methodological approach has grown in Europe in the last two decades. Little or no attention has been paid to the stage of

3

CLIL Soft Models: The Challenge of Teaching Very Young Language Learners

39

pre-primary education as it is a non-compulsory stage in most European countries, although recent studies recommend the use of CLIL principles in pre-primary environments (Portiková, 2015; Murphy & Evangelou, 2015). Implementing this approach is worthwhile, if teachers have the required linguistic competence, the necessary methodological training, and are aware of the basic strategies needed, as for example content and language scaffolding, modelling correct language use, codeswitching, selecting, and adapting content materials to students’ developmental and cognitive level, etc. for learning to be effective (Massler et al., 2011; Echevarria et al., 2010). We have seen that there is no single CLIL model (Coyle, 2005) and that thanks to its flexibility it can be applied regarding different contexts, situations, and levels. It is noteworthy that not only this approach’s building blocks are to be considered but also the globalized characteristic of the pre-primary curriculum, the general characteristics of children as language learners and the strategies needed to carry out the lessons for CLIL to be effective at this educational stage. Considering that the pre-primary curriculum is organised around different areas whose main objective is learning from a holistic and multisensory perspective, the language-based models termed as “language showers” and “soft/weak CLIL, where the integration of language and content focuses on thematic units or curricular topics, could perfectly fit in this educational level always within the 4 C’s pedagogical framework (Coyle, 2005). Although CLIL shares characteristics with educational approaches that involve teaching very young children in an additional language (Anderson et al., 2015), to the extent that sometimes it is difficult to distinguish CLIL from standard forms of good educational practice in early language learning (Coyle et al., 2010), some of the most significant differences have been stated along this chapter. There is no doubt that, despite the little research available about CLIL in Pre-Primary education, the above-mentioned language-based models all agree in the way language learning must be approached at this point so the founding principles of integrating content and language along with the 4 C’s framework introduced by Coyle (2005) can be achieved. Children must be exposed to the target language in meaningful contexts connected to basic areas of this stage; all the senses and skills must be involved; the different learning styles must be considered; there must be constant repetition and the language must be continuously recycled in different ways to help understanding and it must be used in different contexts. Very young learners need a lot of support, which means providing them with scaffolding strategies such as modelling, body language, visuals, realia, thinking aloud, asking questions, recasting children’s language, creating rules and routines (Cameron, 2001), using appropriate classroom language, so they assimilate the sounds of the language, the new concepts and understand the messages given. There must always be a purpose concerning what they do. Activities must be varied, relevant, interesting, pique their curiosity, challenge the learners’ cognitive skills gradually, used to share experiences and teach children to co-operate and respect self and others (Cameron, 2001; Coyle, 2005; Edelenbos et al., 2006; Shin, 2006; Shin & Crandall, 2014).

40

V. Vinuesa Benítez

As Anderson et al. (2015, p.146) point out: “Much remains to be done with regards to refining the kinds of implementation models and teacher-training programmes that are needed to help CLIL realize its potential as “an innovative form of education in response to the demands and expectations of the modern age” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 5).

References Aiello, J., Di Martino, E., & Di Sabato, B. (2017). Preparing teachers in Italy for CLIL: Reflections on assessment, language proficiency and willingness to communicate. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015. 1041873 Alcaraz-Mármol, G. (2018). Trained and non-trained language teachers on CLIL methodology: Teachers’ facts and opinions about the CLIL approach in the primary education context in Spain. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 11(1), 39–64. Anderson, C. E., McDougald, J. S., & Cuesta Medina, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C. N. Giannikas, L. McLaughlin, G. Fanning, & N. Deutsch Muller (Eds.), Children learning English: From research to practice (pp. 137–151). Garnet. Andúgar, A., Cortina-Pérez, B., & Tornel, M. (2019). Tratamiento de la lengua extranjera en Educación Infantil en las distintas comunidades autónomas españolas. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación Del Profesorado, 23(1), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.30827/ profesorado.v23i1.9163 Ball, P. (2009). Does CLIL work? In D. A. Hill & A. Pulverness (Eds.), The best of both worlds? International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 32–43). Norwich Institute for Language Education. Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2016). Putting CLIL into practice: Oxford handbooks for language teachers. Oxford University Press. Banegas, D. L. (2012b). Integrating content and language in English language teaching in secondary education: Models, benefits, and challenges. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 111–136. Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT (Teaching Knowledge Test) course CLIL module. Cambridge University Press. Pearson. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. NewYork: Longman. Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. Jarvella, & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The child’s conception of language. Springer. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge University Press. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment (COM(2008) 566 final of 18.9.2008). https://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri¼LEGISSUM:ef0003&from¼EN Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a theory of practice (APAC monograph 6). APAC. Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C. A. (2004). Languages and children: Making the match: New languages for young learners, Grades K-8. Third Edition. New York: Longman. Dalton-Puffer, & Smit, U. (Eds.). (2007). Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (p. 333). Peter Lang.

3

CLIL Soft Models: The Challenge of Teaching Very Young Language Learners

41

Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual and contextual variables. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 209–224. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09571736.2014.889508 Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2010). Making content comprehensible for elementary English learners. The SIOP model. Pearson. Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R. & Kubanek, A. (2006). The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of foreign languages to very young learners: Published research, good practice and main principles, European Commission Final Report 89/04. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. European Commission. Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/756ebdaa-f694-44e48409-21eef02c9b9b Eurydice. (2017). Key Data on Teaching Languages at school in Europe. https://eacea.ec.europa. eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/key-data-teaching-languages-school-europe-%E2%80% 93-2017-edition_en Falcón, E., & Lorenzo, F. (2015). El desarrollo de la sintaxis compleja en L1y L2 en entornos educativos bilingües (CLIL). Un estudio de caso. E-Aesla, 1, 1–9. Fleta Guillen, M. T. (2016). Foreign language learning in the early years in the Madrid region: Teachers’ profile, perceptions and methodologies. Didactica-Lengua Y Literatura, 28, 87–111. Gabillon, Z. (2020). Revisiting CLIL: Background, pedagogy, and theoretical underpinnings. Contextes et Didactiques. https://doi.org/10.4000/ced.1836 Gabillon, Z., & Ailincai, R. (2015). Content and language integrated learning: In search of a coherent conceptual framework. The European Conference on Language Learning (ECLL), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4027.6963 Gallardo del Puerto, F., & Martínez Adrián, M. (2013). ¿Es más efectivo el aprendizaje de la lengua extranjera en un contexto AICLE? Padres y maestros. García Esteban, S. (2015). Soft CLIL in infant education bilingual contexts in Spain. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 1(Special Issue: Bilingual Education), 30–36. Published online October 10, 2015 (http://www.ijlal.ir).ISSN: 2383-0514 (Online). https:// www.khatesefid.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/30-36.pdf Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion (Educational Practice Report 11). National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Haas, M. (2000). Thematic, communicative language teaching in the K-8 classroom. ERIC Digest. EDO-FL-00-04. Hermanto, N., Moreni, S., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Linguistic and metalinguistic outcomes of intense immersion education: How bilingual? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(2), 131–145. Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary school students? Potential for the ‘weak’ version of CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1) http://www.icrj.eu/21/article3.html Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (Eds.). (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education. Cyprus: Cyprus Pedagogical Institute. Jexenflicker, S., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169–190). John Benjamins. Kersten, K., Steinlen, A. K., Tiefenthal, C., Wippermann, I., & Flyman Mattsson, A. (2010). Guidelines for language use in bilingual preschools. Bilingual Preschools, 2(1), 103–116. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning University of Southern California. Pergamon Press. Lasagabaster, D. (2008). Foreign language competence in content and language integrated courses. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 31–42.

42

V. Vinuesa Benítez

Lorenzo, F., & Rodríguez, L. (2014). Onset and expansion of L2 cognitive academic language proficiency in bilingual settings: CALP in CLIL. System, 47, 64–72. Mair, O., & Murphy, A. (2018). English for young learners from pre-school to lower secondary: A CLIL Teacher Training Project in Italian Schools. Universitas Studiorum. Marsh, D. (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages: An introduction to content and language integrated learning for parents and young people. In D. Marsh & G. Langé (Eds.), Jyväskylä. TIE-CLIL, University of Jyväskylä/Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. Marsh, D. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). A development trajectory. University of Córdoba. Marsh, D. (2013). Content an Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). A development trajectory. Doctoral dissertation: https://helvia.uco.es/xmlui/handle/10396/8689 Marsh, D., & Hood, P. (2008). Content and language integrated learning in primary East Asia contexts (CLIL PEAC). In British Council (Ed.), The proceeding of primary innovations regional seminar (pp. 43–50). Bangkok. Massler, U., Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Steiert, C. (2011). Effective CLIL teaching techniques. In S. Ioannou-Georgiou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary (pp. 66–97). PROCLIL Socrates Comenius-Project. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Books for Teachers. Mourão, S., & Ellis, G. (2020). Teaching English to pre-primary children: Educating very young children (Delta teacher development series). DELTA Publications. Murphy, V. A. (2014). Second language learning in the early school years: Trends and contexts. Oxford University Press. Murphy, V. A., & Evangelou, M. (Eds.). (2015). Early childhood education in English for speakers of other languages. British Council. Nugent, K., & Catalano, T. (2015). Critical cultural awareness in the foreign language classroom. NECTFL Review, 75, 15–30. Pavón, V. (2018). Learning outcomes in CLIL programmes: A comparison of results between urban and rural environments. Porta Linguarum, 29, 9–28. Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). Teacher training needs for bilingual education: In-service teacher perceptions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(3), 266–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.980778 Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL teacher training. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1492238 Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press. Portiková, Z. (2015). Pre-primary second language education in Slovakia and the role of teacher training programmes. In S. Mourão & M. Lourenço (Eds.), Early years second language education: International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 177–188). Routledge. Riera Toló, M. R. (2009). CLIL activities in preschool: An interdisciplinary approach. Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d’Educació. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Written production and CLIL: An empirical study. In C. DaltonPuffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 191–212). John Benjamins. Shin, J. K. (2006). Ten helpful ideas for teaching English to young learners. English teaching Forum, 44(2), 2–7, 13. Shin, J., & Crandall, J. (2014). Teaching young learners English: From theory to practice. Heinle Cengage Learning. Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 201–217. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

3

CLIL Soft Models: The Challenge of Teaching Very Young Language Learners

43

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164. Vinuesa, V. (2017). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): An effective methodological approach to teach foreign languages in mainstream education. Dykinson. ISBN 978-84-9148360-1. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. Zdanevych, L. V., Syrova, Y. V., Kolosova, S. V., Pyvovarenk, & Kurhannikova, O. O. (2020). Instilling the system of values in preschool children in the cultural and educational space. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(11B), 5991–5999. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer. 2020.082235

4

Defining CLIL Contents for Preschool Ana Andu´gar

and Ana Isabel García-Abella´n

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ECE: Principles, Contents and Connection to CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The 4C’s in Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contents in CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Six-Steps Model for Planning Contents in CLIL-ECE Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1 The Six-Steps Model for Planning Contents in CLIL-ECE Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Topic: The Human Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46 47 50 51 53 56 57 59

Abstract

Pre-primary is a period of important changes, both at a physical and cognitive level (Bassedas et al., Aprender y enseñar en educación infantil. Graó, 2006), which means that the teaching and learning processes has some specific characteristics that differentiate it from other educational stages (Murray, Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12), 1715–1732, 2015, International Journal of Early Years Education, 25(4), 339–342, 2017, Early childhood pedagogies: Creating spaces for young children to flourish. Routledge, 2018; Rabadán et al., La Educación Infantil en su contexto histórico e internacional. Diego Marín, 2010). For this reason, the Pre-primary curriculum is structured around three areas which are the basis of the teaching practice (Zabalza, Didáctica de la educación infantil. Narcea, 2008). The implementation of the CLIL approach (Coyle, Scottish Languages Review, 13, 1–18, 2006; Coyle et al. Content language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press, 2010; Marsh, CLIL/EMILE. A. Andúgar (*) University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain e-mail: [email protected] A. I. García-Abellán Catholic University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_4

45

A. Andu´gar and A. I. García-Abella´n

46

The European dimension. Actions, trends and foresight potential. University of Jyväskylä, 2002) with very young language learners (in Education) has traditionally been subject to controversy, although there are examples of good practice of its application at European level (European Commission, Language learning at Pre-primary school level: Making it efficient and sustainable. European Strategic Framework for Education and Training (ET 2020), 2011; Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education. European Commission, 2011). One of the reasons for the reluctance to its practice is the apparent lack of considerable teaching contents which form the basis of a content and language-based approach. However, if contents are understood not only as subject-themes to be learnt, but also as knowledge, skills and values to be achieved by students, we find that in Pre-primary the curriculum is as “clilable”* as in any other educational stage and that these contents can be approached from a revisited model based on the 4cs CLIL framework (Coyle et al., Content language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press, 2010) and respecting the principles of the stage mentioned above. In this chapter a model for planning contents in CLIL-ECE settings will be shown in order to offer CLIL practitioners a starting point to implement CLIL in Pre-primary Education. clilable*: feasible from a CLIL perspective. Keywords

Pre-primary · CLIL · Contents · Curriculum · 4Cs framework

Introduction Pre-primary Education is a key stage for the child’s development since it provides the foundations that facilitate the learning processes during children’s academic life. CLIL is a content-based approach in which non-linguistic contents are taught in an Additional Language (AL) that has traditionally been implemented in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Education. This chapter explores the possibility of implementing CLIL in Pre-primary education from the perspective of contents. It attempts to answer the question of whether CLIL can take place in Pre-primary education considering the importance of contents in CLIL, as a content-driven approach, and the nature of contents in Pre-primary. The notion of contents in Pre-primary education which sometimes seem blurry and undefined, and the fact that this stage is characterised by the absence of disciplines in a traditional way, has led some people to think that CLIL is not a valid approach for Pre-primary education. However, as Coyle et al. (2010) state “The concept of what constitutes content in a CLIL context is much more flexible than selecting a discipline from a traditional school curriculum such as geography, music, biology or physics” (p. 27). In the first part of the chapter, an introduction to the principles of ECE, the notion of curriculum and contents in Pre-primary will be explored. In the second part,

4

Defining CLIL Contents for Preschool

47

contents will be analysed from the perspective of CLIL in order to determine if there are meeting points that allow us to consider CLIL as a valid approach for Pre-primary in an attempt to integrate basic aspects of both approaches in a common framework. Finally, examples will be provided to help practitioners deal with the contents when planning teaching sequences in this educational stage (A “teaching sequence” is understood in this chapter as a way of structuring the learning experiences in the Pre-Primary classroom. A teaching sequence is a broader term which can be subdivided into sessions. Both teaching sequences and sessions are flexible concepts in terms of timing and constitute an initial form of planification for the practitioner. However, they can be subject to changes depending on the learning context.).

ECE: Principles, Contents and Connection to CLIL Pre-primary Education has an idiosyncratic nature that makes of it a unique life period and any teaching approach that aims to be respectful of the principles governing this stage must take into account how children face the learning process and respect, on the one hand, their cognitive, socio-affective, psychomotor, personality and linguistic development; and on the other one, the education principles linked to Early Childhood Education or ECE: holistic and meaningful learning, learning by discovery and creativity (Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2018). In addition, ECE is characterised by non-compartmentalised curricular contents, that is, learning areas (Eurydice, 2019) totally opposed to what happens in Primary Education onwards, which could lead to think that CLIL is not a valid approach for Pre-primary Education. On the contrary, CLIL not only respects but also supports the integrative nature of a Pre-primary FL quality teaching, which is backed up by research such as the one carried out by Brumen et al. (2017), which aimed to determine good teaching methods/guidelines for Pre-primary FL teaching in Slovenia. They considered that to achieve proficiency in the FL an integrated instruction is needed, where language is used as a medium and content is addressed through activities specific to the ECE stage. As part of their action research project, in its third phase, the pre-school practitioners redirected the teaching methodology towards a content-based approach, focusing on language as well as on content, culture and cognitive processes such as classifying or categorising, and recommending the use of CLIL in other schools at this early stage. When exploring the feasibility of implementing CLIL in the ECE stage, specifically in terms of contents, it is necessary to review what is understood by curriculum, a normative framework that articulates the period and, in turn, what is understood by content, an essential part of the Pre-primary curriculum. The notion of curriculum, and hence that of content, at Pre-primary stage as the foundation of teaching-learning process is a question that generates debate, with opposing positions, as reflected by Wood and Hedges (2016). They opt for an

48

A. Andu´gar and A. I. García-Abella´n

approach based on working theories that “incorporate all of children’s embodied, linguistic, cognitive, communicative, participatory, and social efforts to learn” (Wood, 2021, p. 32), leaving aside positions that are exclusively centred on child development, as the developmental theories have not taken into consideration the impact and intricacy of culturally embedded issues that can influence the learning process (Wood, 2020). They also reject those who understand that curriculum should include more academic outcomes to prepare children to be socio-economically well-prepared citizens. Wood and Hedges (2016) understand that these perspectives do not support the idea of encompassing formal/academic and socio-pedagogical objectives. Consequently, they advocate for a working theory as the most valid way of understanding curriculum since the child is viewed as a “learner/thinker” avoiding more formal instructional approaches. Therefore, they consider that the curriculum framework has developed into the interface through which “content, coherence and control” are harnessed as a conduit for coordinating Pre-primary and mandatory educational provision, guaranteeing that children attain educational and school preparation outcomes, thereby contributing to long-term aims at a socio-economic level. Accordingly, they understand that “at a surface level, curriculum content is commonly viewed as the subject matter knowledge, skills, dispositions, understanding, and values that constitute a programme of study” (Wood & Hedges, 2016, p. 389). So, content refers not only to the ‘concepts’ that can be worked on at this stage, but also includes the skills and competences that the learner must acquire, which could be referred to as learning areas (Eurydice, 2019). Besides, as Goldstein (2008) affirms There is no single correct response to the question of what curriculum content and which instructional practices are developmentally appropriate for an individual child, a certain classroom full of students, a particular school setting, or a specific sociocultural context: every question has many possible answers. (p. 257)

It is not only necessary to review the concept of curriculum and content, but also to specify what kind of content should be included in the previously mentioned learning areas. One of the theories that have helped to determine curricular contents which has received a great deal of support over the decades is DAP (Developmentally Appropriate Practices) which links child development and early childhood curriculum. This educational philosophy has its origins in 1987 with the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) as a response to the educational situation at the time where the use of formal academic instruction at an early age was taking place using techniques of higher education (Brown & Lan, 2013). DAP can be defined as methods that support and adequate child development/ learning through playful practices as practitioners carry out developmentally appropriate instruction considering children characteristics as unique people that also form part of a family/community. In the latest update of its position, NAYEC (2020)

4

Defining CLIL Contents for Preschool

49

establishes 9 main principles that should be followed when applying appropriate developmental practices. One of the principles that highlights one of the main characteristics of children way of learning is: 7.- Children learn in an integrated fashion that cuts across academic disciplines or subject areas. Because the foundations of subject area knowledge are established in early childhood, educators need subject-area knowledge, an understanding of the learning progressions within each subject area, and pedagogical knowledge about teaching each subject area’s content effectively. (p. 12)

This DAP perspective of how the ECE teaching-learning process should be props up the previously mentioned integrative character of CLIL that can be reflected in the form of organising contents at Pre-primary. Besides, it is necessary to pinpoint what Eurydice (2019) understands by learning areas: “[. . .] a set of areas for children’s learning and development that should be the focus of daily activities” (p.13). We have renamed them as areas of experience and areas of development. Pre-primary contents/areas of experience, cannot be viewed strictly as concepts or knowledge as they entail a multifaceted term. These NAYEC principles and recommendations are reflected in how European countries design and implement the ECE curriculum, although it should be noted that the educational guidelines vary considerably from country to country. They may take the form of framework programmes, guidelines for practitioners, curricula, learning and development programmes of learning objectives. So, contents derive from the areas of experience as the basis of the ECE practice, as supported by the European Union (Eurydice, 2019). These areas that support children’s learning and development in the different European education systems (Eurydice, 2019) are “emotional, personal and social development; physical development, artistic skills, language and communication skills, understanding of the world, cooperation skills and health education” (p. 98). Within these areas, it is worth highlighting the 4 areas that are worked on especially from the age of 3 years onwards, such as: – learning to learn and civic and democratic competences – two transversal competences of the EU framework of Key competences – numerical reasoning and reading literacy- two areas more strongly associated with formal learning. (p. 99)

The areas of experience and the areas of development are not to be worked on independently but they are connected to each other fostering globalisation as one of the principles of ECE learning in what could be called a “learning-across-the-areasof-experience- and-development approach”. This idea of interconnectivity among the different areas is present and developed in the proposal of the 4C’s in Pre-Primary Education explained in the next section. In conclusion, what we understand by content at the pre-primary stage is a question that needs to be revised, since the traditional view of content solely as concepts must be set aside. Curriculum content is a much more flexible term that

A. Andu´gar and A. I. García-Abella´n

50

involves knowledge, skills, and values; what perfectly matches the integrative character of ECE areas of experience and of the CLIL approach.

The 4C’s in Pre-primary Education When theorising about CLIL in Pre-primary education and when looking for meeting points among both approaches, it is tempting to transfer one of the most influential frameworks that conforms CLIL’s theoretical basis such as Coyle’s 4Cs framework (Coyle, 2008) into the Pre-primary context. However, the idiosyncrasy of the Pre-primary period makes it necessary to reformulate and adapt the framework to this context. For this reason, we would like to offer a revisited framework inspired in Coyle’s but adapted to the principles of ECE. In Coyle’s framework the 4Cs stand for content, communication, cognition and culture whereas in this framework we have related the C of content to the areas of experience, the C of cognition to the areas of development, and have identified the different aspects that conform both the C of communication and culture (Fig. 4.1). In this proposal, the essence of the 4Cs is combined with the principles that govern the ECE stage and that are reflected in the aforementioned Eurydice report (2019). Therefore, through this 4Cs-ECE proposal, all the areas of experience advocated by the European Union are addressed. First, in terms of the C of Content, the three basic areas of experience included in the ECE curriculum (the world, self and communication) are encompassed. Secondly, the C of Cognition focuses on children’s cognitive development, since the child is in the process of cognitive, socio2. Cognition: Areas of development

1. Content: Areas of experience •Area of the world: the surrounding, the environment •Area of the self: health education, the human body •Area of communication: early literacy, early numeracy, arts, music, digital awareness

1. CONTENT

2. COGNITION

PREPRIMARY CLIL

4. Culture: “Interculture” •Understanding of the world- interculture awareness •Civic & democratic competence •Knowledge about target culture

•Socio-emotional: making relationships, self-confidence, selfawareness, management of feelings and cooperation •Cognitive: egocentrism, memory, attention, imagination •Psycho-motor: movement, handling and space •Creativity: exploring and using media and materials, being imaginative

3. COMMUNICATION

3. Communication in the FL 4. CULTURE

Fig. 4.1 The 4C’s adapted to the Pre-primary context

•Oral communication: oral understanding/production/mediation •Discourse competence •Socio-linguistic competence •Linguistic competence •Strategic competence

4

Defining CLIL Contents for Preschool

51

emotional and psychomotor development. Thirdly, we have renamed the C of Culture as “Intercultural awareness”, as it refers to an understanding of the world and values such as cooperation or citizenship and not only to the knowledge of the FL culture. And finally, the C of Communication addresses the different kinds of languages the child needs to be able to communicate in the FL, being necessary a linguistic, strategic, socio-linguistic, discursive, and oral competence, as the child is in a pre-literacy period. Nonetheless, it is necessary to emphasize that given the integrative nature of both the CLIL approach and ECE, these 4 Cs will be dealt with in a holistic and globalized way, as it is one of the basic and more relevant pedagogical principles of the pre-primary stage.

Contents in CLIL In this part of the chapter, it will be explored how the “C” of content is viewed from the CLIL perspective in order to ascertain what similarities and differences can be identified between the ECE and CLIL approach. Furthermore, the revision of the notion of contents in CLIL is necessary so as to demystify the belief that Pre-primary Education is not as *clilable as other educational stages as well as to unveil the multifaceted side of the term content when it comes to teaching CLIL in Pre-primary Education. When defining CLIL’s theoretical framework, the influence of Applied Linguistics, cultural awareness and intercultural knowledge as well as teaching and learning theories, constitute part of its identity. Regarding Applied Linguistics, “the most important fields of Applied Linguistics related to CLIL are Second Language Acquisition Research (SLA), Research on Bilingualism, Foreign Language Learning (FLL) and Applied Psycholinguistics” (Wolff, 2009, p. 563). Interculturality plays an important role as expressed by Coyle et al. (2010): “The extent to which CLIL is successful will depend on the intercultural ethos of the classroom”(p. 40). Finally, Constructivism and Cognitivism are some of the most evident philosophical and research traditions in which CLIL theoretical foundations draws on (Marsh & Frigols Martín, 2012) being Bruner and Vygostsky’s ideas considerably influential in CLIL’s curricular conceptualisation (Kiely, 2011). CLIL borrows from Constructivism ideas such as the importance of the learner’s autonomy or the fact that learning is generated from experience. In this way, a meaningful learning experience will take place when learners are taught the strategies to play an active role in their learning process by interacting with problems and trying to find solutions by themselves (Coyle, 2008). This vision of education also influences the notion of contents which entails not only a simple contextualisation of the subject themes presented in every teaching sequence but also a reflection on how knowledge and skills are acquired. Coyle et al. (2010) relate the notion of content knowledge with the vigoskian’s vision of the learner as the “builder” of his/her own knowledge and learning skills.

A. Andu´gar and A. I. García-Abella´n

52

As Coyle et al. (2010) state: At the heart of the learning process lies successful content or thematic learning and the related acquisition of new knowledge, skills and understanding. Content is the subject of the CLIL theme. It does not have to be part of a discrete curriculum discipline such as maths or history, it can be drawn from alternative approaches to a curriculum involving crosscurricular and integrated studies. It is useful to think of content in terms of the knowledge, skills and understanding we wish our learners to access, rather than simply knowledge acquisition. (p. 53)

The notion of contents in CLIL entails more aspects that should be considered as well, regardless of whether the contents are considered as part of a discipline or as part of the different areas of experience. Ball et al. (2015) remark the complexity of the term ‘content’ in CLIL since it is separated from language “as if language were something other than content” (p. 49). Content and language have an intrinsic relationship and one of the features of CLIL is trying to make this relationship more salient, especially when it comes to language. As mentioned before, the dual-focus nature of the CLIL approach (content and language) has traditionally been remarked upon when defining it. However, Ball et al. (2015) consider it insufficient to reflect all the aspects the term ‘content’ involves in CLIL. Consequently, they approach contents from a three-learningdimensions perspective when designing CLIL teaching sequences. Firstly, conceptual contents, closely related to the objectives of the lesson, that is, the knowledge, concepts, skills and understanding practitioners want their students to acquire. Secondly, procedural contents which refer to the necessary cognitive skills to acquire those concepts. And thirdly, the linguistic contents, which are intrinsically linked to the conceptual and procedural contents the practitioner selects. In the case of Pre-primary education, there are more aspects we need to take into account when defining contents for our classes. The fact that CLIL and good ECE practices share many characteristics might lead one to think that they are similar approaches. As Coyle et al. (2010) state It is often hard to distinguish CLIL from standard forms of good practice in early language learning. This is because the learning topic is often highly authentic for the children. Whilst they are aware that they are learning to listen to and use sounds and words from another language, their main focus is on the doing-be it playing, singing, drawing, building models or other activities (p. 16).

What is then the difference between CLIL and good forms of ECE practice? In terms of contents, the difference is a change in the focus. In EFL the topic-knowledge (in Pre-primary contexts) is used to contextualise the learning of linguistic aspects, that is, the focus is on the language rather than on the topic-knowledge which can be seen as a vehicle to facilitate that students learn the language in a context. In CLIL, however, the focus is on the contents and the language is the vehicle to access them. In other words, the knowledge, skills and values that derive from the different areas of experience are the focus, the starting point when planning teaching sequences. For

4

Defining CLIL Contents for Preschool

53

example, when a Pre-primary practitioner of EFL plans a session, in the first phase, they start thinking about the linguistic goals of the session, language is the priority and then it comes the procedures or how to do it together with the context. The language specialist usually reflects on these questions: 1. What vocabulary/sounds/expressions/do I want my students to learn in this session? What are the linguistic objectives of the session? 2. What activities am I going to plan to help my students learn this language? 3. What is the context or the topic of the session and the activities planned for the sequence? However, in CLIL-ECE settings practitioners should change the focus and start the process by considering the following aspects: 1. What topic is it going to contextualise the sequence? 2. What areas of experience are we going to develop in this session? What are the specific contents extracted from these areas of experience? What are the content objectives of the session? Which learning outcomes have I planned for my students? 3. What activities am I going to plan? To what extent do my activities foster “development”? Do my activities help integrate contents from different areas? Is there a progression in the complexity of the activities? Are contents scaffolded? How is scaffolding reflected in the design of activities? 4. What are the linguistic objectives (language for, of and through) that we need? Have we considered translanguaging as a possible communicative strategy? 5. How’s culture reflected in the design of the session? Does my session promote cooperative learning, creativity, digital and intercultural awareness? In other words, does my session promote respect and awareness of other cultures whilst acknowledging one’s own?

The Six-Steps Model for Planning Contents in CLIL-ECE Settings Once that we know that a change in the focus is necessary in order to distinguish good forms of ECE practice in FL contexts from CLIL in ECE settings, we would like to propose a model based on six steps which might be helpful for language practitioners and educators who have to plan CLIL sessions in Pre-primary settings from a content-based perspective. It adapts the different proposals presented above and adds new elements so as to accommodate it to the peculiarities of ECE. Step 1. Choose a topic. The topic will serve to contextualize the different contents that will be taught. Planning thematic projects around a particular topic as the background will serve

54

A. Andu´gar and A. I. García-Abella´n

us to unify and give cohesion to the teaching sequence. Common topics in ECE include the human body, the planets, the circus, the neighbourhood, the family among many others. Step 2. Identify the areas of experience and the areas of development to be worked on. Although we normally incorporate different areas of experience and areas of development in every project, we might not be able to deal with all of them to the same extent. For this reason, sometimes certain areas can be worked transversally in the teaching sequence or in the project. For example, art and music are areas which are easily incorporated in every project transversally because they are normally present in the format of many of the activities. Other areas such as early literacy or numeracy might require a more explicit treatment. Step 3. Define the contents. Once we have selected the topic and the areas, it is time to define what to teach with a higher level of specificity. For example, if the teaching sequence deals with the human body as the topic-knowledge, it is easy to identify subtopics such as body parts, feelings and sensations. It is at this point where we should also consider those learning outcomes we expect our students to reach at the end of the teaching sequence. For instance, at the end of the teaching sequence our students should be able to identify the main parts of the body. Step 4. Plan how to reach the learning outcomes. In order to reach this objective, the next step would be to reflect on effective forms of teaching bearing in mind the cognitive characteristics and the stage of development our students are going through. So, once we have decided what to teach, we need to think about how to do it, what in Pre-primary education is as important or maybe more important than the thematic or conceptual content itself. This is the phase in which we think about the activities that will help us reach the content objectives. So, to the initial content-objective of identifying the parts of the body we will add the type of activities planned to reach this goal for example, by listening to a story where the parts of the body are introduced. This step is core because the nature of the activity itself can even boost the knowledge of other areas as explained before. For instance, students can develop their numeracy skills by singing and dancing a song about the numbers. At the same time, they are experimenting with the rhythmical patterns of the song and dancing which fosters the development of the musical and motor skills. This simple activity involves three areas (numerical and logical reasoning, expressive arts and development of creativity and physical development and movement). This double-pronged perspective of the how-to-teach/how-to-learn phase (planning for activities to reach

4

Defining CLIL Contents for Preschool

55

the objectives which simultaneously foster the integration of different areas of experience) is essential because it constitutes a meeting point between the pedagogical principles of CLIL (in which the feature of ‘integration’ is even present in the acronym) and those of Pre-primary education. This step is also related to cognition as long as there must be a progression in the cognitive requirements of the activities moving from less to more cognitive demanding activities, as the Cummins matrix suggests (Cummins 1984). Besides, this step can help us identify the types of skills students need to go through to reach the learning outcomes, enhancing thus the area of development of learning to learn. In this case by identifying, modelling, playing, asking and answering, describing, analysing, predicting and creating students will acquire the knowledge, skills and values related to the human body planned in the teaching sequence. It is also in the way we design the activities where other methodological principles of CLIL are noticeable such as scaffolding the contents, promoting cooperative learning and creativity or fostering digital and intercultural awareness. Step 5. Define the linguistic content and the linguistic needs of your students. In this step the linguistic component is made visible by adding the way language is incorporated in the contents and the type of linguistic contents we expect our students to acquire at the end of the learning process. For example: identify the main parts of the body after listening to a story by pointing to the different body parts in a picture of a child while repeating rhythmically their name. We should note that the linguistic content and needs as well as the learning outcomes will considerably vary depending on the child’s developmental stage. Step 6. Identify ways to foster intercultural awareness, civic and democratic competences as well as knowledge about the target culture in your teaching sequence. In Annex I, we have included a table that follows the Six-Steps Model for Planning Contents in CLIL-ECE Settings to exemplify the process of elaborating a teaching sequence about the human body. In the table, it can be noticed that many areas are present in the sequence either in the type of concepts explored (what to learn) or in the way or the procedure used to work on them (how to learn) as well as in the cultural and developmental elements that arise from it. Besides, the cultural element is present in all the sequence as a common thread in two different but complementary ways: on the one hand it contextualises the sequence by using the same topic in the different resources and activities and, on the other one, by fostering attitudes of cooperation, respect and tolerance, raising, thus, intercultural and citizenship competences. Personal, socio-affective and emotional development are approached as well as physical and creative development. All these elements combine in a balanced and globalised way the principles of Pre-primary education and those of CLIL. In conclusion, defining CLIL contents in Pre-Primary Education entails a reflection on the principles of ECE and the notion of contents in CLIL which has led to a

56

A. Andu´gar and A. I. García-Abella´n

revision and adaptation of the 4Cs Framework and to the creation of the Six-Steps Model for Planning Contents in CLIL-ECE settings and which allows us to state that CLIL could be a valid approach for Pre-primary education if properly implemented being this stage as “clilable” as other educational stages.

Appendix 1 The Six-Steps Model for Planning Contents in CLIL-ECE Settings This table is an attempt to give a practical example of a teaching sequence which integrates both our proposal of the 4C’s Adapted to the Pre-primary Context and the Six-Steps Model for Planning Contents in CLIL-ECE settings. It can help practitioner identify the contents that derive from the areas of experience and development, the linguistic contents as well as the learning outcomes and how to reach them through the different activities including a reflection of some cultural aspects related to the main topic. It is structured into six sessions. However, this way of structuring the teaching sequence is flexible and depends on the time practitioners have to implement it and on children’s different learning paces. In that way, it is the practitioner’s decision to structure it into as many sessions as needed. The following example is designed for a 5 year old child, in the second stage of the pre-operational period (3–6 years) where they show a strengthening of the main motor, cognitive and personality skills and the beginning of socialisation. At 5 years of age, psychomotor development is very well established, and shows great gross and fine motor skills, which results in skills such as cutting out, moulding with plasticine, gluing, etc. In addition, they begin to be able to participate in more real cooperative games (construction, exploration, sociodramatic, etc.), not only participating in purely symbolic games, but also in richer linguistic exchanges in the cooperation that takes place between children. In addition, at this age, body awareness develops, which makes it possible to become more aware not only of the parts of the body but also to delve deeper into the function of each one of them. In this sense, the self-concept that has already been developed allows children’s linguistic competence to include words linked to emotions, both their own and those of other people. Language and emotion are closely related, as the former helps the development of the latter and promotes social relations. Self-critical awareness and reflection on one’s own abilities also appear at this age, which favours the development of attitudes of respect and understanding towards others. All these developments are reflected in language, since at this age they have already developed a large part of language, they have acquired the basic grammar and lexicon to be able to hold a conversation, metalinguistic awareness emerges and they can adapt their way of speaking if they are addressing a child. As for phonological awareness, it is at this age that awareness of the syllable-phoneme structures of words emerges, a basic skill for reading and writing, which can be reinforced by implementing word recognition activities on word cards (always supported by images).

4

Defining CLIL Contents for Preschool

57

Topic: The Human Body STEP 1. TOPIC: THE HUMAN BODY SESSION 1 STEP 2

AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE

EARLY FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING The session, or most of it, is implemented in L2

LEARNING TO LEARN Repeating and pointing or remember according to Anderson and Krathwohl’s taxonomy

LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS Linguistic content and communicative competences

STEP 3

STEP 4

STEP 5

STEP 6

CLIL CONTENTS

PLANNING HOW TO REACH THE LEARNING OUTCOMES

COMMUNICATION

CULTURE

LINGUISTIC CONTENT Vocabulary: head, face, legs, hands Classroom language Phonological awareness Listening and rhythmically repeating the body parts

CIVIC AND DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE Show respect for their classmates, and the materials Attitudes of respect towards their own and other’s bodies by respecting physical diversity

LEARNING OUTCOMES At the end of this teaching sequence students will be able to know that the human body has different parts Know the main parts of the body (head, face, legs, hands) Identify some of them

ACTIVITIES Listen to a story about the human body Listen and point to the different body parts in a picture of a child

READING LITERACY Pre-reading literacy skills are present by developing word awareness. These skills can be fostered if the teacher highlights the sounds of every word following a phonics approach DIGITAL AWARENESS Use of digital flashcards

STEP 1. TOPIC: THE HUMAN BODY SESSION 2 STEP 2

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE

AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT

EARLY FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING The session, or most of it, is implemented in L2

LEARNING TO LEARN Identifying or understand according to Anderson and Krathwohl’s taxonomy

LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS Linguistic content and communicative competences

COOPERATION SKILLS Group work

READING LITERACY Use of wordcards to identify words HEALTH EDUCATION Raise consciousness about their body and its parts DIGITAL AWARENESS Use of a digital matching activity

EXPRESSIVE ARTS AND DEVELOPMENT OF CREATIVITY Modelling with plasticine PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT AND MOVEMENT Miming game

STEP 3

STEP 4

STEP 5

STEP 6

CLIL CONTENTS

PLANNING HOW TO REACH THE LEARNING OUTCOMES

COMMUNICATION

CULTURE

LEARNING OUTCOMES At the end of this teaching sequence students will be able to remember the parts of the body and understand that each one has a function Identify the function that corresponds to each part

ACTIVITIES In groups, identify the main parts of the body by modelling a human body with plasticine, labelling its parts and playing with it in pairs Identify the function each part of the body performs by miming the actions related to the functions of the body (walk, speak, touch, see) and matching the pictures of the body parts with their functions

LINGUISTIC CONTENT Vocabulary: head, face, legs, hands, eyes, mouth, walk, touch, see, speak Pre-literacy skills: use of wordcards to label Classroom language Phonological awareness

CIVIC AND DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE Show respect for their classmates, and the materials Attitudes of respect towards their own and other’s bodies by respecting physical diversity

A. Andu´gar and A. I. García-Abella´n

58

STEP 1. TOPIC: THE HUMAN BODY SESSION 3 STEP 2

AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE

EARLY FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING The session, or most of it, is implemented in L2 LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS Linguistic content and communicative competences

LEARNING TO LEARN Understanding, interpreting and analysing or apply and analyse according to Anderson and Krathwohl’s taxonomy PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT AND MOVEMENT Sing and dance EMOTIONAL, PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Identification of feelings

HEALTH EDUCATION Feelings related to physical sensations Unhealthy habits

STEP 3

STEP 4

STEP 5

STEP 6

CLIL CONTENTS

PLANNING HOW TO REACH THE LEARNING OUTCOMES

COMMUNICATION

CULTURE

LEARNING OUTCOMES At the end of this teaching sequence students will be able to understand that the body produces different feelings and sensations such as heat, cold, hunger or pain when we are sick Learn to identify these sensations and prevent them by acquiring healthy habits

ACTIVITIES Listen to a story and analyse the type of sensation the character is feeling according to its description Sing a song about the story and dance

LINGUISTIC CONTENT Vocabulary: head, face, legs, hands, arms, torso Feelings: happy, sad Classroom language Phonological awareness

CIVIC AND DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE Show respect for their classmates, and the materials. Attitudes of respect towards their own and other’s bodies by respecting physical diversity

STEP 1. TOPIC: THE HUMAN BODY SESSION 4 STEP 2

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE

EARLY FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING The session, or most of it, is implemented in L2 LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS Linguistic content and communicative competences HEALTH EDUCATION Healthy and unhealthy habits and their consequences DIGITAL AWARENESS Video and digital activities

AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT

LEARNING TO LEARN Predicting

STEP 3

STEP 4

STEP 5

STEP 6

CLIL CONTENTS

PLANNING HOW TO REACH THE LEARNING OUTCOMES

COMMUNICATION

CULTURE

LEARNING OUTCOMES At the end of this teaching sequence students will be able to develop a positive attitude towards their own body Learn to take care of their body Respect their classmates’ bodies avoiding hurting them

ACTIVITIES Predict what happens if we do not follow healthy habits by watching a short video and answering questions about it

LINGUISTIC CONTENT Vocabulary: head, face, legs, hands, torso, arms Feelings: happy, sad Sensations: he'll feel good, he'll feel bad Classroom language Phonological awareness

CIVIC AND DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE Show respect for their classmates, and the materials Attitudes of respect towards their own and other’s bodies by respecting physical diversity

4

Defining CLIL Contents for Preschool

59

STEP 1. TOPIC: THE HUMAN BODY SESSION 5 STEP 2

AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE

EARLY FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING The session, or most of it, is implemented in L2 LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS Linguistic content and communicative competences

LEARNING TO LEARN Judging and designing or evaluate and create according to Anderson and Krathwohl’s taxonomy

COOPERATION SKILLS Work in groups EXPRESSIVE ARTS AND DEVELOPMENT OF CREATIVITY Use of the collage technique by selecting, cutting out and pasting pictures

STEP 3

STEP 4

STEP 5

STEP 6

CLIL CONTENTS

PLANNING HOW TO REACH THE LEARNING OUTCOMES

COMMUNICATION

CULTURE

LEARNING OUTCOMES At the end of this teaching sequence students will be able to understand that people are physically different Develop attitudes of respect towards their classmates avoiding any type of stereotype

ACTIVITIES In groups, design a poster using magazines and cutting out pictures of people from different cultures and with diverse physical traits Show their work to the classmates Judge and value other classmates' works by using the expressions: I like it/ I love it

LINGUISTIC CONTENT Vocabulary: head, face, legs, hands, torso, arms Expressing opinions: I like it, I love it Classroom language Phonological awareness

CIVIC AND DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE Show respect for their classmates, and the materials Attitudes of respect towards their own and other’s bodies by respecting physical diversity UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD Learn that in the world people are physically different

EMOTIONAL, PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Students show attitudes of respect towards their classmates’ work and the different physical traits of the people in the pictures

STEP 1. TOPIC: THE HUMAN BODY SESSION 6 STEP 2

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE

EARLY FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING The session, or most of it, is implemented in L2 LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS Linguistic content and communicative competences NUMERICAL AND LOGICAL REASONING Counting and adding the parts of the body

AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT

LEARNING TO LEARN Describing the monster, operating and designing or understand, apply and create according to Anderson and Krathwohl’s taxonomy EXPRESSIVE ARTS AND DEVELOPMENT OF CREATIVITY Designing and drawing with different plastic techniques

STEP 3

STEP 4

STEP 5

STEP 6

CLIL CONTENTS

PLANNING HOW TO REACH THE LEARNING OUTCOMES

COMMUNICATION

CULTURE

LEARNING OUTCOMES At the end of this teaching sequence students will be able to Develop basic skills related to literacy, numerical and logical reasoning and digital awareness

ACTIVITIES Listen to a story of a monster Draw a monster Count the monster’s body parts Say the numbers and the body parts using this structure: My monster has +number+ parts of the body (My monster has three eyes)

LINGUISTIC CONTENT Vocabulary: head, face, legs, hands, torso, arms Numbers: 1-10 Oral description: the monster has three eyes. Possessive adjectives: my Classroom language Phonological awareness

CIVIC AND DEMOCRATIC COMPETENCE Show respect for their classmates, and the materials Attitudes of respect towards their own and other’s bodies by respecting physical diversity

References Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press. Bassedas, E., Huguet, T., & Solé, T. (2006). Aprender y enseñar en educación infantil. Graó. Brown, C. P., & Lan, Y. C. (2013). The influence of developmentally appropriate practice on Children’s cognitive development: A qualitative metasynthesis. Teachers College Research Record, 115(12), 1–37.

60

A. Andu´gar and A. I. García-Abella´n

Brumen, M., Fras Berro, F., & Cagran, B. (2017). Pre-school foreign language teaching and learning, a network innovation project in Slovenia. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(6), 904–917. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2017.1380886 Cortina-Pérez, B., & Andúgar, A. (2018). Didáctica de la lengua extranjera en Educación Infantil: Inglés. Pirámide. Coyle, D. (2006). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating learners and teachers. Scottish Languages Review, 13, 1–18. Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL. A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1200–1214). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_92 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. European Commission. (2011). Language learning at Pre-primary school level: Making it efficient and sustainable. European Strategic Framework for Education and Training (ET 2020). http:// ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/languages/policy/language-policy/documents/ early-language-learning-handbook_en.pdf Eurydice. (2019). Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. Goldstein, L. S. (2008). Teaching the standards is developmentally appropriate practice: Strategies for incorporating the sociopolitical dimension of DAP in early childhood teaching. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(3), 253–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-008-0268-x Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education. European Commission. Kiely, R. (2011). Understanding CLIL as an innovation. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 153–171. Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE. The European dimension. Actions, trends and foresight potential. University of Jyväskylä. Marsh, D., & Frigols Martín, M. J. (2012). Content and language integrated learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0190 Murray, J. (2015). Early childhood pedagogies: Spaces for young children to flourish. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12), 1715–1732. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015. 1029245 Murray, J. (2017). Young children are human beings. International Journal of Early Years Education, 25(4), 339–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2017.1388554 Murray, J. (2018). Early childhood pedagogies: Creating spaces for young children to flourish. Routledge. NAYEC. (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice. Position statement. https://www.naeyc. org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/dap-state ment_0.pdf Rabadán, J. A., Sánchez, A., & Martínez, R. (2010). La Educación Infantil en su contexto histórico e internacional. Diego Marín. Wolff, D. (2009). Content and language integrated learning. In K. Knapp, B. Seidlhofer, & H. Widdowson (Eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (pp. 545–572). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214246.4.545

4

Defining CLIL Contents for Preschool

61

Wood, E. (2020). Learning, development and the early childhood curriculum: A critical discourse analysis of the early years foundation stage in England. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 18(3), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X20927726 Wood, E. (2021). Working theories. Current understandings and future directions. Early Childhood Folio, 25(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.18296/ecf.0093 Wood, E., & Hedges, H. (2016). Curriculum in early childhood education: Critical questions about content, coherence, and control. The Curriculum Journal, 27(3), 387–405. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09585176.2015.1129981 Zabalza, M.A. (2008). Didáctica de la educación infantil. Narcea.

5

Cognition in CLIL at Pre-primary Level María Ferna´ndez-Agu¨ero and Isabel Alonso-Belmonte

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-primary Children’s Cognitive Development in Relation to FL Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rethinking the Cognitive Dimension of Pre-primary CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching Practices to Enhance Cognitive Skills in Pre-Primary CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taking Stock and Looking Further . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64 65 67 70 73 74

Abstract

In this chapter, we present a thorough discussion about the role of cognition in Content and language Integrated Learning (CLIL). First, we describe the cognitive profile of very young learners (VYLs; aged 3–6) in a school context of sequential bilingualism. Secondly, we examine the affordances of CLIL methodology to promote learners’ thinking skills in pre-primary education. As we will see, the use of a foreign language as a language of instruction influences language-specific mental activity and content processing. Then, after a revision of the scholarly literature, we contend that cognitive work in pre-primary can be challenging yet potentially within reach of the VYLs on condition that appropriate support and guidance is provided. Thus, we propose a compilation of pedagogical practices in the pre-primary CLIL classroom to prepare VYLs for the intellectual demand of the forthcoming stages. These practices offer scaffolding and allow for the development of creativity, understood in its widest sense, through play. Eventually, this chapter will contribute to the convergence between FL research, the exercise of the teaching profession in pre-primary and CLIL education by proposing possible research lines on cognitive development for VYLs in CLIL. M. Fernández-Agüero (*) · I. Alonso-Belmonte Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_5

63

M. Ferna´ndez-Agu¨ero and I. Alonso-Belmonte

64

Keywords

CLIL · Pre-primary education · Cognition · Thinking skills

Introduction As part of the child’s overall development, cognition is considered one of the four dimensions of the popular 4 Cs0 framework in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL; Coyle, 2005; revisited Coyle et al., 2009; see ▶ Chap. 1 for a critical revision) and refers to the mental processes of acquiring knowledge and understanding by employing thinking skills. In the 1950s, Benjamin Bloom (Bloom et al., 1956) developed a highly popularised hierarchy of six thinking skills placed on a continuum from lower to higher order skills (known as LOTS and HOTS respectively): knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. According to this system, lower order skills include recalling knowledge to identify, label, name or describe things; higher order skills call on the application, analysis, or synthesis of knowledge, needed when learners use new information or a concept in a new situation, break information into parts to understand it more fully, or put ideas together to form something new. Since then, a number of academics have attempted to revisit this classification (Anderson et al., 2001) and systematise thinking skills (i.e. Marzano, 2000; Dalton-Puffer, 2013, 2016), and their proposals have been often evaluated against the backdrop of CLIL in primary, secondary and tertiary education (i.e. Bauer-Marschallinger, 2018; Campillo-Ferrer et al., 2020; Dalton-Puffer et al., 2018; DeBoer, 2020; Morton, 2020; Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, 2016; Otwinowska & Foryś, 2017; Valverde-Caravaca, 2019; Virdia, 2020). In pre-primary education, working on the above-mentioned thinking skills can pose a big challenge for teachers due to the features of very young learners’ (VYLs) early developmental cognitive state. Besides, there is a conspicuous paucity of research on the significance and occurrence of thinking skills in CLIL for VYLs. Nonetheless, at this education level it is still necessary to work on cognition to prepare these learners for the intellectual demands of the forthcoming stages. Children attending preschool and kindergarten are actively learning cognitive skills such as: questioning; visual discrimination in spatial relationships; imitation and memory; matching, comparing, classifying and organising. They are starting to see the differences between fact and fiction, between cause and effect, using simple reasoning. They are working on developing an increased attention span and experimenting with symbolic play. All this is taking place in any of the languages they use to communicate, including the additional language being taught through CLIL, normally a foreign language (FL) in the community. (We acknowledge that the languages learned at a very early age could have the consideration of second languages or even additional first languages. Even so, in this chapter we will refer to the language being taught through CLIL as a FL, in line with the scholarly work on the field, which typically portrays CLIL being offered to older children in the context of FL teaching. As Dalton-Puffer et al. (2010, p. 1) state, ‘CLIL is about using a

5

Cognition in CLIL at Pre-primary Level

65

foreign language, not a second language. That is to say, the language of instruction is one that students will mainly encounter at school since it is not regularly used in the wider society they live in’.). Thus, it is incumbent on researchers to provide an accurate depiction of the affordances of pre-primary CLIL learning environments in relation to cognition. This chapter will describe the characteristics of VYLs’ cognitive profile and examine the interface between cognition and pre-primary CLIL by revising the extant scholarly literature on the matter. It also aims at mapping the variety of pedagogical practices put forward to promote thinking skills in the pre-primary CLIL classroom. As we will see, these practices should involve, among other measures, providing the appropriate scaffold to achieve tasks which are beyond the child’s unassisted efforts (Wood et al., 1976, p. 90), acknowledging the transformative potential of ‘mundane creativity’ (Lowenheim, 2017, p. 18) and affording ‘a space for creative pedagogical engagement’ (Cross, 2012, p. 431), particularly through play.

Pre-primary Children’s Cognitive Development in Relation to FL Learning Decades of research in developmental psychology and education theory have provided an understanding of how VYLs evolve and perform cognitively in classroom settings (Bruner, 1960, 1986; Dewey, 1938; Erikson, 1950; Piaget, 1926, 1968; Vygotsky, 1978, to name only a few). One of the most prominent features of this age group is that they develop very fast – in all dimensions: cognitively, emotionally, physically, socially, and linguistically – and at their own rate, each child displaying developmental landmarks at different times. Nevertheless, we can identify some common traits in VYL’s cognitive development. Notably, Piaget (1926, 1952, 1968, 1973) categorised children’s development into four stages of intellectual growth. According to his theory, learners from 3 to 6 are in the pre-operational stage, which ranges from 2 to 7 years old. In broad terms, at this stage, the cognitive profile of VYLs is characterised by animistic thinking – the belief that inanimate objects have human feelings and intentions –, a limited sense of time, and transductive reasoning – or the tendency to see a connection between unrelated instances, taking no account of the principles of deductive or inductive reasoning. These children will rather react to objects and events depending on appearances. For example, they ‘form ideas based on their perceptions – e.g., they believe that if they like something, everybody likes it – [and] over-generalise, based on limited experience of the world – e.g., they have only met friendly dogs, so all dogs are friendly’ (Mourão & Ellis, 2020, p. 12). Other notable features of the pre-primary child’s cognitive development that are relevant for the FL class can be seen in Table 5.1. The emergence of language is one of the major hallmarks of the pre-operational stage. At this point children begin to interact with their surroundings in a symbolic manner, and language is an example of these advances. Generally, children can express themselves clearly in their first or home language (L1) by the age of 3–4. At

M. Ferna´ndez-Agu¨ero and I. Alonso-Belmonte

66

Table 5.1 Cognitive features tof pre-primary children 3 year olds

4 year olds

5 year olds

● Attention appears at 2 and a half years old. ● Memory: at 2 children can use revision and then organisation. At 3–4 they can use strategies to remember information, for example repetition. ● Symbolic game (between 2 and 6). ● Egocentrism, centration, animistic and irreversible thinking. Children start playing imitation and role-changing games (up to 5 years old). ● Difficulty to establish temporal relations. ● Work in small groups, especially in pairs and threes. ● Children cannot make abstractions. ● They do not understand the concept of time yet. ● Still individualistic and egocentric, they find it difficult to understand others’ viewpoint. ● They have not developed logical thinking, so their thinking is intuitive and concrete. ● Social relations improve. ● Attention: at 5, children can do an activity for 70 and keep their visual attention for 140 . ● Memory: at 6 they can carry out voluntary strategies to collect information. ● They are able to orient themselves in relation to the different moments of the day. They know the colours. They can name and point at most parts of their body.

Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2018, pp. 35–37

around three they commence to understand ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions and they subsequently start grasping humour and following complex instructions. Furthermore, in a CLIL setting they are given the opportunity to develop their communicative skills in an additional language and become what is known as ‘sequential bilinguals’ (Paradis, 2007, p. 15). Their L1 plays a significant role in the learning of this additional language in cognitive, linguistic and socio-cultural terms. Concerning the FL, learning does not necessarily proceed in an orderly systematic fashion; children will learn when they feel the need to communicate in it by using prior linguistic and world knowledge. In any case, both languages play a part in the development of the child’s thinking skills (Bobadilla-Pérez & Pereira-Balado, 2020; Kroll, 2008). The FL learners we will find in a preschool setting are curious children, eager to learn and to take risks. They are increasingly competent and self-aware, and their memory skills are growing fast. This is the moment when symbolic thought is triggered, so that children can substitute the real object or event for a drawing or game. It is the time for pretend play, where toys stand for characters or objects different to what they were originally intended for. VYLs engage in child-initiated free play, which provides scaffold for their learning and fosters self-regulation (Mourão, 2014; Robinson et al., 2015). Moreover, they are willing to listen to others but would rather do than observe. Thus, they are keen on undertaking experiments. They are gradually developing an awareness of alike and different, and start recognising letters, numbers, colours, shapes and textures. On the other hand, they have difficulties coordinating the cognitive processes required to complete multifaceted tasks, struggle with multitasking and prefer to

5

Cognition in CLIL at Pre-primary Level

67

focus on one thing at a time. And most specially, VYLs’ cognitive abilities are limited by egocentrism – the inability to distinguish between their own point of view and the point of view of others.

Rethinking the Cognitive Dimension of Pre-primary CLIL In CLIL the use of a FL as a language of instruction influences language-specific mental activity and content processing. Arguably, bilingual schooling activates and enhances cognitive flexibility and engagement, problem-solving and higher-order thinking (Bialystok, 2001; Coyle et al., 2010; Halbach, 2009; Mehisto & Marsh, 2011; Muñoz, 2002). According to the literature, CLIL students show greater linguistic awareness (Marsh, 2007) and a more strategic use of the resources at hand to facilitate learning (Moore, 2006; Psaltou-Tzoysy et al., 2014). It is supposed to be an acquisition-rich environment, where content information processing strategies abound and learners ‘are intellectually challenged to think critically about content and language in both content and language classes, look for relational links among subjects, and reflect upon the learning process’ (Mehisto, 2008, p. 96). That is why CLIL tends to be presented as a cognitively desirable option (Cenoz, 2003; Lasagabaster, 2000; Muñoz, 2007) and is considered to embrace principles of good pedagogy such as fostering critical thinking (Mehisto, 2008). This applies to CLIL in primary and beyond. In early childhood education, however, there is very little research on the cognitive benefits of CLIL, as with CLIL in pre-primary in general (Marsh, 2012). This may be explicable by the fact that CLIL approaches are less obviously CLIL-like in early language learning (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 17), the development of cognitive skills conventionally associated with content teaching is limited and thus the cognitive benefits are more difficult to pinpoint. Nevertheless, in European early language learning, the combination of FL teaching with the teaching of other content areas – be it early numeracy skills, motor skills and physical activity, arts and crafts and other artistic expressions – can be traced way back (Blondin et al., 1998; Edelenbos et al., 2006). That is, it could be said that immersion in the FL has been common practice in pre-primary for some time now. Another possible reason for the scarcity of research into cognition on pre-primary CLIL may be related to the fact that VYLs are furnished with less advanced cognitive skills than older learners. Drawing on Vygotsky’s notion of Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86), it is considered that learning new content through a FL often requires learners to process language and extract meaning from linguistic input which is at a higher level than the learners’ current productive capability. Coping with this cognitive load or ‘natural complexity of information’ (Sweller, 2010, p. 124) can be challenging for pre-primary children, and this may harbour the inaccurate belief that CLIL is suitable for older learners with more sophisticated cognitive skills and perhaps some competence in the FL (Anderson et al., 2015). However, cognitive work is potentially within reach of VYLs on condition that appropriate support and guidance is provided (see section “Teaching Practices to Enhance Cognitive Skills in Pre-Primary CLIL”).

M. Ferna´ndez-Agu¨ero and I. Alonso-Belmonte

68

Thinking skills range from information processing or concrete skills – i.e. identifying and organising information (when answering questions such as ‘what’, ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘which’, ‘how’ and ‘how many’) to abstract thinking as reasoning and hypothesising (following ‘why’ and ‘what if’ questions). In an attempt to systematise them, a number of classifications have been proposed. For instance, Marzano (2000) identifies 13 higher order thinking skills – namely comparing, classifying, inducing, deducing, error analysis, constructing, supporting, analysing perspectives, abstracting, decision making, investigation, problem solving, experimental inquiry, and invention. Specific to CLIL contexts is DaltonPuffer’s (2013) classification of cognitive discourse functions, which define the verbalisations regularly used to express thinking processes about the subject matter: classify, define, describe, evaluate, explain, explore, and report. Lastly, one of the most popular categorisations of cognitive skills is the one put forward by Anderson et al. (2001), an updated version of Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956). This cognitive taxonomy provides a comprehensive continuum of the cognitive mental operations that can potentially be performed in the classroom, from the most to the least complex: creating, evaluating, analysing, applying, understanding and remembering. The first three categories relate to creative higher-order thinking skills or HOTS, the other three relate to recall lower-order thinking skills or LOTS, and they all include other subcategories, or cognitive processes (Table 5.2). Table 5.2 The cognitive process dimension Thinking skills, associated tasks and process verbs HigherCreating Making, designing, order constructing, planning, thinking producing, inventing skills Evaluating Checking, hypothesising, (HOTS) experimenting, judging, testing, monitoring Analysing Comparing, organising, outlining, finding, structuring, integrating Applying Implementing, carrying out, using Understanding

Remembering Lowerorder thinking skills (LOTS)

Interpreting, explaining, classifying, exemplifying, summarising Recognising, listing, describing, identifying, retrieving, naming, finding, defining

Adapted from Anderson et al., 2001

Create, imagine, predict, assemble Debate, decide, defend, evaluate, rate, support Compare, contrast, classify, question, sequence Dramatise, experiment, draw, manipulate, make, produce, show, use Ask, observe, explain, tell, describe, recognise, identify, locate Choose, know, label, list, listen, locate, match, memorise, name, recall, repeat, select, underline

5

Cognition in CLIL at Pre-primary Level

69

This hierarchical ordering of cognitive skills can help both teachers and students. In CLIL, it can serve to ‘design teaching units that map out a secure path that focuses on the integration of cognitive processes, language objectives and content objectives’ (Campillo-Ferrer et al., 2020, p. 2). As it has been pointed out, the fact that it is formulated with verbs allows curriculum designers and teachers to establish precise learning objectives (Morton, 2020), which can be assessed. For example, concerning teaching, Puchta and Williams (2011) propose 13 types of activities to enhance both learners’ thinking skills and their language in primary, which roughly follow a cline from LOTS to HOTS: making comparisons, categorising, sequencing, focusing attention, memorising, exploring space, time and numbers, making associations, analysing cause and effect, making decisions, solving problems and applying creative thinking. Some of them can be applied to working with VYLs too. For example, memorising can be enhanced through the use of mnemonic devices such as rhythm and rhymes. Categorising and making comparisons can be promoted by imaginative thinking, using images to support the labelling of new words and concepts. These activities boost learners’ cognitive learning strategies and involve deliberate manipulation of language to improve learning. To help teachers balance linguistic and cognitive demands in the CLIL class, some researchers have come up with planning matrices (Cummins, 2000; Gibbons, 2009). Cummins’ (2000, p. 68) widely cited learning matrix, for instance, describes the cognitive and language level of lesson input in four quadrants divided by two axes. The vertical axis moves from cognitively undemanding tasks to more cognitively demanding ones; the horizontal one moves from tasks framed in a clear context to abstract concepts which are hard to relate to real experience (Fig. 5.1). Cummins’ matrix helps CLIL educators make decisions such as avoiding either low or high cognitive demands on both content and language at the same time, thus

Fig. 5.1 Cummings’s four-quadrant framework. (Adapted from Dale et al., 2011, p. 47)

70

M. Ferna´ndez-Agu¨ero and I. Alonso-Belmonte

preventing demotivation being caused by tasks which are either too easy or too complicated. Although CLIL is traditionally claimed to be an educational proposal which sharpens ‘the focus on the interconnections between cognition and communication – between language development and thinking skills’ (Coyle et al., 2009, p. 13), and we would expect this to be realised habitually in a variety of tasks and activities, it must be acknowledged that applying thinking skills to CLIL teaching practice remains an ambitious objective for teachers, scholars and curriculum designers. In primary education, even when CLIL teachers promote the use of English through an array of cognitive processes, research shows that most of them are quite undemanding (Banegas, 2014, 2015) and that the most frequently activated thinking skills in the context of CLIL correspond to lower order thinking categories (AlonsoBelmonte & Fernández-Agüero, 2018; Gerena & Ramírez, 2010; Santo-Tomás, 2011). Thus, in pre-primary, working on thinking skills may pose an even bigger challenge for educators due to the features of VYLs’ early developmental stage. Nonetheless at early education levels it is all the more necessary to work on cognition to lay the foundations for these learners’ future intellectual demands.

Teaching Practices to Enhance Cognitive Skills in Pre-Primary CLIL In this section we will reflect on the interplay between VYLs’ cognitive development and CLIL and try to answer the following questions: how can CLIL contribute to develop VYLs’ cognitive potential? How can pre-primary children thrive intellectually and learn about their social and physical environment, develop their emotions, their identity and personal autonomy, and make sense of the means of communication and representation that surround them through CLIL? This could be done by applying developmentally appropriate practices (As proposed by the American National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC): https:// www.naeyc.org/.) that take into account the child’s cultural contexts, background, and individual differences, for example playing or first-hand experiences, as we will explain next. We posit that teaching thinking skills ‘should infuse the curriculum, becoming part of each child’s life through every subject they are taught’ (Puchta & Williams, 2011, p. 9), and that VYLs should be equipped with the necessary tools and strategies to cope with the more advanced thinking skills that will come in the next developmental stages. First of all, to enhance cognitive thinking skills, practitioners should acknowledge the central role of scaffolding in CLIL methodology. It is believed that CLIL effective practices should include a balanced integration of content and language, inductive reasoning, cognitively challenging activities and thinking skills (De Graaff et al., 2007; Halbach, 2008; Leung, 2015; Meyer, 2011; Navés, 2009). In pre-primary, to cope with children’s developmental demands, this balance can be facilitated by providing scaffolding, or controlling ‘those elements of the task that are initially beyond the learners’ capacity, thus permitting him to concentrate upon and complete only those elements that are within his range of competence’ (Wood

5

Cognition in CLIL at Pre-primary Level

71

et al., 1976, p. 90). Appropriate scaffolding in early language learning can include using verbal and non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, hand gestures, body language and images to facilitate comprehension (Fleta-Guillén, 2019). Concerning the latter, educators can take advantage of visual tools such as thinking maps, that is, visual organisers that represent the cognitive processes employed to make sense of the world – e.g., comparing, contrasting, understanding cause and effect, etc. (Heyerle, 2009). These are especially helpful for classifying, as preoperational children find it difficult to understand that an object can be classified in more than one category due to their transductive thinking (Piaget, 1926, 1968). In this context, the teacher will often take on the role of a model that can show, complete or explain the solution that the child can imitate; still, she should also favour space management arrangements such as learning areas or stations, where children can have personal ‘thinking time’ and develop their autonomy for a gradual release of responsibility. Another scaffolding technique is posing productive questions that develop the learners’ thinking skills and reproduce authentic interaction. Questions are the link between the cognitive skills developed in the classroom and the language we teach. That is why ‘in a CLIL lesson, ideally, there should be a range of question types which involve thinking processes of various depths’ (Leung, 2015, p. 126). There can be open-ended questions (‘How did you put that puzzle together?’) or more oriented ones (‘Can you name what you see?’ ‘Tell me about your day. What did you do? Who did you play with?’). Specially, pre-primary children are ready to answer ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions from an early age (see section “Pre-primary Children’s Cognitive Development in Relation to FL Learning”). Children can be invited to ask questions and provide simple drawings and stories too, to further express their ideas. To ensure that learners develop critical thinking, CLIL teachers should help them recognise and develop their own reasoning processes, encourage them to support their reasoning with evidence and lead to coherent and well-argued conclusions (Breeze, 2018). In the pre-operational stage, though, VYLs find it difficult to apply deductive or inductive means of thinking, which can hinder these processes. That is why early childhood educators should nurture inquiry, leverage children’s natural willingness to learn by helping them see familiar situations and information under a new light so that they can (1) identify alternative explanations for the phenomenon being observed, and (2) have abundant occasions to make links to the newly acquired knowledge in original and imaginative ways such as artistic performances or creations (op. cit.: 5–6). As a matter of fact, given the right conditions and support, pre-operational children are capable of deductive inferencing (Donaldson, 1986). Secondly, educators must highlight creativity and work on the higher order thinking skills associated to it. CLIL, full of educational challenge and novelty, is a perfect scenario for awakening children’s curiosity by discovery, ‘a space for creative pedagogical engagement’ (Cross, 2012, p. 431) where the learners can make creative choices about what language(s) to use, how to use them and how to learn about the content. In this sense, ‘using language is, therefore, a necessarily creative process, inseparable from emotion and affect’ (Cross, 2011, p. 2). In CLIL teachers and students are continuously involved in a process of creation and

72

M. Ferna´ndez-Agu¨ero and I. Alonso-Belmonte

transformation of the resources available to move from not knowing to knowing. This process of meaning-making involves creativity, understood in its widest sense, as the kind of creativity that unfolds when we use the language for problem-solving, taking risks and making connections in a variety of everyday contexts. This type of mundane ‘small-c’ creativity is ‘not as a capacity of special people, but as a special capacity of all people’ (Carter, 2004, p. 13). Creativity for meaning making leads to successful learning and cognitive development. In the words of Lobman (2010, p. 223), ‘when learning and teaching are viewed as forms of joint meaning making, curricular standards are enhanced’. Creativity is optimally developed through playing. There is ample evidence in support of the benefits of playing for FL learning (i.e. Bell, 2005; Beltz, 2002; Cook, 2000). Moreover, playing is fundamental for intellectual growth, especially free or child-initiated play (Moyles, 1989). According to the Vygotskian conceptualisation of learning, ‘the child moves forward through play. Only in this sense can play be considered a leading activity that determines the child’s development’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 103). Drawing from Vygotsky’s work, Egan (1997) stresses the pivotal role that the child’s language plays in understanding the world through the use of language-based intellectual tools or capacities. Thirdly, we propose the thorough application of one of the core principles of CLIL methodology, namely active learning by discovery (Mehisto et al., 2008), or the active construction of knowledge where language is not learned for the sake of it but to find out new information, to think in that language. CLIL lessons ‘normally contain situations/tasks with some kind of cognitive challenges in which the active involvement of students is necessary’ (Hanesová, 2014, p. 37), which provides real opportunities to use the language in meaningful and communicatively rich situations. This constructivist conception of CLIL easily accommodates the main tenets of pre-primary pedagogy, which is based on a hands-on learning approach that stimulates the senses through play and object manipulation, i.e. touching a quilt with different textures, colours and shapes made of old scraps of fabric. In other words, pre-primary CLIL resonates with the existing paradigm of early education in general (Coyle et al., 2010). All in all, we propose that the know-how of pre-primary CLIL places special emphasis on performing, engagement and repetition, so that children can construct their personal meanings by themselves and develop their own reasoning processes. Finally, in the preschool CLIL classroom there should be room for translanguaging (García & Wei, 2014). Translanguaging is the reflection in the classroom of the natural processes that bilinguals undertake in daily life. In fact, there is evidence that pre-primary children learning an additional FL engage in translanguaging: as in Fleta-Guillén (2018) from Spanish children learning English, ‘looking for una cosa’ (looking for one thing); ‘un estanque con peces for the fish’ (a fishpond for the fish), ‘casi todos los tengo finish’ (I have nearly finished them all). As Gómez Parra (2021) states, in pre-primary CLIL translanguaging makes sense because class-time is not divided into subjects. Indeed, daily work may imply using the FL and the mother tongue, sometimes by the same teacher, especially in low-exposure models or ‘soft CLIL’. Given

5

Cognition in CLIL at Pre-primary Level

73

the fact that languages play an important part in shaping the way we conceptualise the world around us, translanguaging should be encouraged because it allows for the integration of languages and contributes to cognitive development as these emergent sequential bilinguals construct and expand their linguistic repertoire.

Taking Stock and Looking Further Critical thinking empowers learners to be independent responsible citizens and contributes to overcoming socio-economic inequalities and cultural differences (Alonso-Belmonte & Fernández-Agüero, 2018). That is why it is particularly relevant to foster critical thinking skills adequately in widespread far-reaching initiatives of state education. In this chapter we have claimed that cognitive work in pre-primary should be enhanced to prepare children for the intellectual demands of the education levels to come and for lifelong learning. On the other hand, the academia substantiates the claim that CLIL methodology for VYLs should be based on learning by doing and imitating naturalistic processes of L1 acquisition, play and kinaesthetic learning, and learning by discovering (Andúgar & CortinaPérez, 2018). This being so, in these lines we have proposed a compilation of good practices for cognitive development in pre-primary CLIL including (1) the provision of scaffolding; (2) the development of creativity, understood in a broad sense (Cross, 2012); (3) acknowledging the central role of playing in CLIL sessions; (4) emphasising learning by discovery; and (5) allowing for translanguaging (Gómez Parra, 2021). We believe that this set of techniques and strategies will pave the path for the next education stage, from 6 onwards, when thought becomes more objective, realistic and rational, and children can be offered more activities to widen their minds and develop reasoning and logic, as well as creativity and imagination. As is apparent from the portrayal made in this chapter on the relationship between cognition and pre-primary CLIL, the cognitive affordances of CLIL with VYLs are yet to be defined unambiguously and the lines for further research in the field are plentiful. Surely the quality of CLIL provisions and their scope for boosting children’s intellectual capacities is heavily dependent on many aspects which can fall out of the teacher’s control ranging from the pupil-teacher ratio to the involvement of active parents. In any case, we contend that one of the main future concerns of teachers, academics, policy makers and other social agents involved in pre-primary education should be teacher training. As matters stand, many teachers have a limited repertoire of strategies to foster critical thinking in the integration of language and content (Campillo-Ferrer et al., 2020; Mehisto, 2008). Thus, teacher education should meet this demand and cater for CLIL teachers’ need for training in cognitive strategies across levels, pre-primary included. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Competitiveness (Research Project PID2020-119102RB-I00).

74

M. Ferna´ndez-Agu¨ero and I. Alonso-Belmonte

References Alonso-Belmonte, I., & Fernández-Agüero, M. (2018). The C of cognition in CLIL teacher education: Some insights from classroom based research. In Y. Kirkgöz & K. Dikilitaş (Eds.), Key issues in English for specific purposes in higher education (pp. 305–321). Springer. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Anderson, C. E., McDougald, J. S., & Cuesta Medina, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C. N. Giannikas, L. McLaughlin, G. Fanning, & N. Deutsch Muller (Eds.), Children learning English: From research to practice (pp. 137–151). Garnet. Andúgar, A., & Cortina-Pérez, B. (2018). EFL teachers’ reflections on their teaching practice in Spanish preschools: A focus on motivation. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education; Agency in Interactions between children, teachers, and parents (pp. 219–244). Springer. Banegas, D. L. (2014). An investigation into CLIL-related sections of EFL coursebooks: Issues of CLIL inclusion in the publishing market. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.793651 Banegas, D. L. (2015). Sharing views of CLIL lesson planning in language teacher education. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 104–130. Bauer-Marschallinger, S. (2018). Integration of content and language pedagogies: Cognitive discourse functions in the CLIL history classroom. CELT Matters, 2, 19–28. Bell, N. (2005). Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humour in NS–NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 192–218. Beltz, J. A. (2002). Second language play as a representation of the multicompetent self in foreign language study. Journal of Language Identity and Education, 1, 13–39. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Blondin, C., Candelier, M., Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., Kubanek-German, A., & Taeschner, T. (1998). Foreign languages in primary and pre-school education: Context and outcomes. A review of recent research within the European Union. CILT. Bloom, B., Engelhart, M., Furst, E. J., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longman. Bobadilla-Pérez, M., & Pereira-Balado, S. (2020). Does bilingualism expand the cognitive experience of the students? A case study in early childhood education. In C. A. Huertas-Abril & M. E. Gómez Parra (Eds.), International perspectives on modern developments in early childhood education (pp. 1–14). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2503-6.ch001 Breeze, R. (2018). Developing creativity in content & language integrated learning. Universidad de Navarra. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press. Campillo-Ferrer, J. M., Miralles-Martínez, P., & Sánchez-Ibáñez, R. (2020). CLIL teachers’ views on cognitive development in primary education. Palgrave Communications, 6, 97. https://doi. org/10.1057/s41599-020-0480-x Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity: The art of common talk. Routledge. Cenoz, J. (2003). The additive effect of bilingualism on third language acquisition: A review. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 71–87. Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford University Press. Cortina-Pérez, B., & Andúgar, A. (2018). Didáctica de la Lengua Extranjera en Educación Infantil: Inglés [Teaching a foreign language in pre-primary education: English]. Pirámide Ediciones. Coyle, D. (2005). Developing CLIL: Towards a theory of practice (APAC monograph 6). APAC. Coyle, D., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum: CLIL national statement and guidelines. Languages Company. Retrieved on 3/5/21 from https:// languagescompany.com/wp-content/uploads/clil_national_statement_and_guidelines.pdf

5

Cognition in CLIL at Pre-primary Level

75

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Cross, R. (2011). Magical yet mundane: Emotion and creativity within teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference. Cross, R. (2012). Creative in finding creativity in the curriculum: The CLIL second language classroom. Australian Educational Researcher, 39(4), 431–445. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. Dale, L., Van der Es, W., & Tanner, R. (2011). CLIL skills. University of Leiden. Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualising contentlanguage integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0011 Dalton-Puffer, C. (2016). Cognitive discourse functions: Specifying and integrative interdisciplinary construct. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 29–54). Multilingual Matters. Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (2010). Charting policies, premises and research on content and language integrated learning. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 1–19). John Benjamins. Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., & Lechner, L. (2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: Towards an empirical validation of the CDF construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0028 De Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624. DeBoer, M. (2020). Teacher-based assessment of learner-led interactions in CLIL: The power of cognitive discourse functions. In M. DeBoer & D. Leontjev (Eds.), Assessment and learning in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classrooms; approaches and conceptualisations (pp. 229–251). Springer. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. Donaldson, M. (1986). Children’s minds (2nd ed.). HarperCollins. Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., & Kubanek, A. (2006). The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners; languages for the children of Europe: Published research, good practice & main principles. Council of Europe. Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. Norton. Fleta-Guillén, M. T. (2018). Scaffolding discourse skills in pre-primary L2 classrooms. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education; Agency in interactions between children, teachers, and parents (pp. 283–309). Springer. Fleta-Guillén, M. T. (2019). Practices to scaffold CLIL at transition to primary. In K. Tsuchiya & M. D. Pérez Murillo (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts; policy, practice and pedagogy (pp. 59–90). Springer. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging. language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan Pivot. Gerena, L., & Ramírez, M. D. (2010). Analyzing bilingual teaching and learning in Madrid, Spain: A Fulbright scholar collaborative research project. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 8, 118–136. Gibbons, P. (2009). English learners, academic literacy and thinking. Heinemann. Gómez Parra, M. E. (2021). Educación Bilingüe en la Infancia; El Enfoque PETaL [Bilingual education in childhood; the PETal approach]. Peter Lang. Halbach, A. (2008). Una metodología para la enseñanza bilingüe en la etapa de Primaria. [A methodology for bilingual teaching in Primary Education]. Revista de Educación, 346, 455–466.

76

M. Ferna´ndez-Agu¨ero and I. Alonso-Belmonte

Halbach, A. (2009). The primary school teacher and the challenges of bilingual education. In E. Dafouz & M. C. Guerrini (Eds.), CLIL across educational levels: Experiences from primary, secondary and tertiary contexts (pp. 19–26). Richmond Publishing. Hanesová, D. (2014). Development of critical and creative thinking skills in CLIL. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2), 33–51. Heyerle, D. (2009). Visual tools for transforming information into knowledge. Corwin Press. Kroll, J. F. (2008). Juggling two languages in one mind. Psychological Science Agenda, 22(1). Retrieved on 3/5/21 from https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2008/01/kroll Lasagabaster, D. (2000). The effects of three bilingual education models on linguistic creativity. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 213–228. Leung, P. (2015). 10 Fundamental ELT techniques and strategies for CLIL practitioners. In S. Pokrivčáková (Ed.), CLIL in foreign language education: E-textbook for foreign language teachers (pp. 119–130). Constantine the Philosopher University. Lobman, C. (2010). Creating developmental moments: Teaching and learning as creative activities. In M. C. Connery, V. John-Steiner, & A. Marjanovic-Shane (Eds.), Vygotsky and creativity: A cultural-historical approach to play, meaning making, and the arts (pp. 199–214). Peter Lang. Lowenheim, G. (2017). Magic yet mundane: The social creativity of language. Idiom; New York State TESOL newsletter, 47(2), 18–20. Retrieved on 3/5/21 from http://idiom.nystesol.org/ Spring2017.html Marsh, D. (2007). Language awareness and CLIL. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Knowledge about language (Vol. 6, 2nd ed., pp. 233–246). Springer. Marsh, D. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): A development trajectory. University of Córdoba. Marzano, R. J. (2000). Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives. Corwin Press. Mehisto, P. (2008). CLIL counterweights: Recognising and decreasing disjuncture in CLIL. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 93–119. Retrieved on 3/5/21 from http://www. icrj.eu/11/article8.html Mehisto, P., & Marsh, D. (2011). Approaching the economic, cognitive and health benefits of bilingualism: Fuel for CLIL. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning (pp. 21–48). Peter Lang. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual education and multilingual education. Macmillan. Meyer, O. (2011). Introducing the CLIL-pyramid: Key strategies and principles for CLIL planning and teaching. In M. Eisenmann & T. Summer (Eds.), Basic issues in EFL teaching (pp. 295–313). Winter. Moore, D. (2006). Plurilingualism and strategic competence in context. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(2), 125–138. Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions: A bridge between content, literacy and language for teaching and assessment in CLIL. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33 Mourão, S. (2014). Taking play seriously in the pre-primary English classes. ELT Journal, 63(3), 254–264. Mourão, S., & Ellis, G. (2020). Teaching English to pre-primary children. Delta Publishing. Moyles, J. (1989). Just playing? The role and status of play in early childhood education. Open University Press. Muñoz, C. (2002). Relevance & potential of CLIL. In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLIL/EMILE – The European dimension. Actions, trends and foresight potential (pp. 33–36). European Commission. Muñoz, C. (2007). CLIL: Some thoughts on its psycholinguistic principles. Revista Española de Linguistica Aplicada, extra, 1, 17–26. Navés, M. T. (2009). Effective content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. Jimenez Catalan (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 22–40). Multilingual Matters.

5

Cognition in CLIL at Pre-primary Level

77

Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2016). The impact of CLIL on the acquisition of the learning to learn competence in secondary school education in the bilingual programmes of Castilla-La Mancha. Porta Linguarum, 25, 21–34. Otwinowska, A., & Foryś, M. (2017). They learn the CLIL way, but do they like it? Affectivity and cognition in upper-primary CLIL classes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(5), 457–480. Paradis, J. (2007). Early bilinguals and multilingual acquisition. In P. Auer & L. Wei (Eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 15–44). Mouton de Gruyter. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press. Piaget, J. (1968). Six psychological studies. Vintage Books. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. Grossman Publishers. Psaltou-Tzoysy, A., Mattheoudakis, M., & Alexiou, T. (2014). Language learning strategies in CLIL and non-CLIL classes: Which strategies do young learners claim they use? In A. PsaltouJoycey, E. Agathopoulou, & M. Mattheoudakis (Eds.), Cross-curricular approaches to language education (pp. 305–322). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Puchta, H., & Williams, M. (2011). Teaching young learners to think. Helbling Languages and Cambridge University Press. Robinson, P., Mourão, S., & Kang, N.-J. (2015). English learning areas in pre-primary classrooms: An investigation of their effectiveness. British Council. Santo-Tomás, M. (2011). From low to high order thinking skills in CLIL science primary textbooks: A challenge for teachers and publishers. Final Masters dissertation. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychological Review, 22, 123–138. Valverde-Caravaca, R. (2019). Effective questioning in CLIL classrooms: Empowering thinking. ELT Journal, 73(4), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz030 Virdia, S. (2020). The (heterogeneous) effect of CLIL on content subject and cognitive acquisition in primary education: Evidence from a counterfactual analysis in Italy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1835805 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The developmental of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

6

A Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) in Pre-primary CLIL Louisa Mortimore

Contents Development of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Brain and Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Development of Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship Between Social and Emotional Learning and Language in School Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Central Role of the Teacher in Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary CLIL . . . Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legislative Framework for Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary CLIL . . . . . . . . . . Educational Framework for Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary CLIL . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80 81 82 83 85 86 88 88 90 94 95

Abstract

Social and emotional learning (SEL) is the process of acquiring the competences to recognise and manage emotions and develop prosocial skills. Extensive research suggests that effective SEL interventions in pre-primary have a longterm impact on mental health, well-being, and social behaviours. At the same time, with the flourishing trend of introducing foreign languages from an earlier age in a contextualised and supportive setting, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in pre-primary has become increasingly common. However, little empirical research exists that explores the depth and nature of social and emotional learning in young children in CLIL learning contexts. Similarly, there is a gap in existing legislative and educational frameworks to support SEL in pre-primary and, specifically, in pre-primary CLIL. In this context, the present chapter discusses the role of social and emotional learning in pre-primary CLIL and explores how the methodologies encouraged in successful CLIL classrooms L. Mortimore (*) Universidad Internacional de la Rioja y Universidad de Alcalá, Logroño, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_6

79

80

L. Mortimore

can support the development of SEL in very young learners. The author proposes how existing SEL frameworks such as SAFE (CASEL, 2013 guide: Effective social and emotional learning programs: Preschool and elementary school edition. Chicago, 2015; Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 294–309, 2010, Child Development, 82(1), 405–432, 2011) can be adapted and scaffolded for use in pre-primary CLIL learning environments. Keywords

Social and emotional learning · SEL · Pre-primary · Early childhood education · CLIL · Bilingual

Development of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Social and emotional learning (SEL) is the process of acquiring the competences to recognise and manage emotions, develop caring and concern for others, establish positive relationships and handle challenging situations effectively (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017). Research suggests that when SEL is developed through school-based interventions, these have yielded significant positive effects on social and emotional competencies (Durlak et al., 2011) such as the promotion of personal strengths, positive values, positive identity and commitment to learning (Taylor et al., 2017). In point of fact, the National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development (NCSEAD) describes SEL as “the substance of education itself,” (2019, p. 6). Nowhere is this truer than in pre-primary where the role of early social and emotional competence has been seen to have a long-term impact on mental health, well-being and social behaviours (Jones et al., 2015; for a meta-analysis, see Taylor et al., 2017). At the same time, with the flourishing trend of introducing foreign languages from an earlier age, and the growing awareness of the importance of providing language in a contextualised setting, the implementation of the Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach in pre-primary has become increasingly common (for a detailed overview, see Pfenninger, 2016). Indeed, the exponential increase of CLIL within all educational stages in recent years (Pérez Cañado, 2016) has created numerous opportunities for research. Large-scale empirical studies on CLIL report the benefits in multiple areas related to learning and development, such as improved language outcomes (e.g. the longitudinal study of 2024 pupils in CLIL and non-CLIL programmes from primary to baccalaureate, conducted by Pérez Cañado, 2018); the positive attitudes learners develop towards the additional language (e.g. Doiz et al., 2014, of 393 EFL and CLIL students of secondary education); increased motivation in CLIL over EFL (e.g. Pfenninger, 2016); and reduced foreign language anxiety (e.g. De Smet et al., 2018). However, to the author’s knowledge, no empirical studies have been conducted on the development of SEL in pre-primary CLIL. This may be as a result of the fact

6

A Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). . .

81

that social and emotional competence in pre-primary is often considered a challenging educational stage to research, with studies, at times, producing seemingly contradictory findings (Wellman et al., 2001). This difficulty is, at least in part, due to the following factors: (1) the complexity of carrying out physiological tests on children in their early childhood, such as fMRI scans to show brain activity and responsiveness to stimuli (e.g. Hanson et al., 2015; Hölzel et al., 2011; Kuhl, 2010) or saliva tests to show the presence of stress hormones (e.g. Oberle & SchonertReichl, 2016); (2) the difficulty of interpreting qualitative data in young children with limited capacity to understand, express and explain their feelings and thoughts (see Basset et al., 2012), and (3) the array of variables that may influence a child’s environment, such as school and home environments (Strand et al., 2015). In addition, research in pre-primary frequently relies on observation techniques and quantitative data based on scales with a subsequent difficulty in establishing causal relationships. In this context, and in the absence of existing studies that specifically research SEL in pre-primary CLIL, the present chapter explores how the common features shared by both SEL and CLIL can be mutually beneficial in pre-primary CLIL. To this end, this chapter reviews and brings together research in the three following areas: (1) the features of social and emotional learning, the importance of developing the affective domain in young learners and how studies suggest it affects brain development; (2) the characteristics of CLIL learning environments and the role of language, the teacher and the school setting; and (3) existing frameworks for the development of SEL, such as SAFE (CASEL, 2015; Durlak et al., 2010, 2011). The author proposes how these frameworks can be adapted and scaffolded; thus, enabling the effective development of SEL in very young learners, when much of the learning takes place in an additional language.

Development of Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary Within pre-primary, SEL broadly refers to acquiring those skills necessary to understand and regulate one’s emotions to control automatic behaviour, for more “acceptable” or socially competent behaviour; to feel empathy and to recognise, and respect emotions in those around us; achieve sustained positive engagement with peers; and develop coping mechanisms and resilience when faced with adverse circumstances (Denham & Bassett, 2019; Denham et al., 2012; Ornaghi et al., 2020). These are essential skills in pre-primary for coping with complex situations such as daily parental separation, navigating the challenges of early schooling, forming a positive relationship with the teacher(s), enjoyment of play, sharing toys, playing harmoniously alongside other similarly aged children and creating and sustaining positive peer relationships (for a detailed overview, see Denham, 2007). In pre-primary, these skills can be developed as part of specific school-based programmes and interventions, ongoing classroom curricula, or after-school activities (for an overview of class-based programmes see Diamond & Lee, 2011; for research on pre-primary in the U.S. Head Start REDI programme, see Bierman et al.,

82

L. Mortimore

2008; for a literature review on after-school programmes, see Wallace & Palmer, 2018; for a meta-analysis on (i) school-based interventions, see Durlak et al., 2011; and (ii) after-school programmes, see Durlak et al., 2010). Effective pre-primary SEL programmes enable children to acquire those skills that are necessary for social behaviour (Bierman et al., 2008), to interact successfully with others and construct peer relationships (Conte et al., 2019; National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2004). Young children, for example, typically display lower levels of social and emotional competence and a greater tendency to react rather than pause and respond to negative stimuli as compared to adults, due to not yet having developed inhibitory control- the ability to regulate emotions (Wu et al., 2016). More precisely, Denham and Bassett (2019) describe the development of social and emotional competence in pre-primary as a crucial asset of life skills that supports social relationships and school success. Additionally, extensive research suggests that the results of effective SEL interventions in pre-primary are long lasting. Early social and emotional competence in pre-primary children acts as an important predictor of both their ability to manage the difficulties of social and academic challenges of early schooling (see Bassett et al., 2012), and their academic trajectories, such as in Maths and reading skills (McClelland et al., 2006, p. 471). In a longitudinal study that started with children in pre-primary and followed the same children up to first and third grade of school, Laible et al. (2014) correlated lower emotional competence (specifically emotion regulation) with less prosocial, cooperative behaviour and increased anger proneness. Social and emotional competence in pre-primary has also been shown to act as a constant predictor for key long-term outcomes in late adolescence and early adulthood “across multiple domains such as education, employment criminal activity, substance abuse, and mental health” (Jones et al., 2015, p. 2283).

The Brain and Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary The importance of including comprehensive SEL programmes for pre-primary children becomes clearer still when we look at neural development in the brain, and specifically at those areas closely linked to social and emotional competence. Emotional development and the architecture of the brain of young children are tightly interlinked-the brain develops in response to the individual personal experiences and the influences of the environment in which that child lives (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2004). Optimal development is favoured by the child’s exposure to a caring environment with a wide array of positive stimuli (for an overview on structural and functional brain development in early childhood, see Gilmore et al., 2018). With functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies becoming increasingly possible in very young children, a growing body of research has revealed that early childhood sees very high levels of neuroplasticity, especially with neurological maturation in the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain positioned just behind the forehead (Bunge & Wright, 2007; Tsujimoto, 2008; Werchan et al., 2016;

6

A Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). . .

83

among others). The prefrontal cortex is responsible for high seated cognitive functions, termed “executive functions” such as emotion recognition and regulation, inhibitory control, and selective attention (for a theoretical review, see Grossmann, 2013). In terms of neural development, social and emotional learning occurs through exposure to repeated positive (or negative) emotional stimuli which activate the neurons in the neural circuit, producing an electric signal. Repeated neural circuit activation strengthens the synaptic connections within the circuit leading to synaptic growth; hence, learning and development occur (for an overview, see Cantor et al., 2019; Siegel, 2020). This synaptic growth in neural circuits in areas of the brain such as the prefrontal cortex, the amygdala, and the hippocampus, enables, among other critical functions, social and emotional cognition (Mills et al., 2014). The amygdala is often referred to as the emotional centre of the brain and is involved in the so-called “flight-fight” response- the evolutionary response to threat (Panksepp, 2010; for an overview, see Roelofs, 2017). A more reactive amygdala is typically associated with higher reactivity within the individual, while, conversely, a less reactive amygdala, is associated with less reactivity (Hölzel et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2016), favourable to developing higher inhibitory control and self-regulation. The highly reactive amygdala in early childhood (Wu et al., 2016) renders it particularly sensitive to developmental deficits such as early life stress (ELS). ELS is caused by repeated and continued exposure to negative emotional stimuli, such as abuse or early neglect (Pechtel & Pizzagalli, 2011). Fan et al. (2014) identified ELS, specifically emotional abuse, as a major contributing factor in affecting the development of areas of the brain such as amygdala and prefrontal connectivity. Similarly, in a study of 128 children with a mean age of 11 years at the time of study, Hanson et al. (2015) reported structural differences of brain areas involved in emotion processing and regulation (such as the amygdala and hippocampus), in children affected by ELS.

Development of Social and Emotional Learning in Preprimary CLIL Pre-primary is the stage of education where many children have their first close socialisation with their peers, rather than family members. Children are encouraged to learn prosocial behaviours, self-regulation and develop positive peer and teacher relationships (see, for example, Conte et al., 2019; Weimer & Gasquoine, 2016). These are fundamental to developing long term social and emotional cognition and avoid the damaging consequences of peer rejection and victimisation in pre-primary (Godleski et al., 2015). With the significant effects that social and emotional competences have on early childhood development and consequential classroom behaviour, it is not surprising that pre-primary educators and researchers recognise this central role of SEL (see, for example, Denham & Bassett, 2019; Denham et al., 2012; Grant et al., 2017; NCSEAD, 2019; Page & Elfer, 2013).

84

L. Mortimore

CLIL is compatible with the development of emotional intelligence on many levels, and effective SEL approaches can be closely linked to the core objectives of CLIL (Mortimore, 2017a) which offer opportunities both within and beyond the regular curriculum to enrich learning, skill acquisition and development (Coyle et al., 2010). Within a pre-primary CLIL classroom, the emphasis is on the integration of learning through play, activities and tasks, and through using the additional language. But, while language may be one of the defining characteristics of CLIL learning contexts, it is not the only one. The very inception of CLIL is founded in creating a supportive learning atmosphere, where the classroom is viewed as a space for discourse (Dalton-Puffer, 2007), and complex content can be assimilated through dialogue, active learning and scaffolding (Coyle, 2008). In this environment, the integration of social and emotional development of pupils is, arguably, a natural, meaningful, and logical progression. Alongside the increasing implementation of CLIL, “how-to” manuals on teaching CLIL in different educational stages have flourished (see, for example, Coyle et al., 2010; Mehisto et al., 2008; Ting & Martínez Serrano, 2018). Much of this literature emphasises the importance of creating classroom environments that support learning (as opposed to teaching), pupil autonomy, cooperative learning such as teamwork, and dialogic teaching- a practice that promotes those teacherchild or child-child interactions that might be most beneficial for learning and development (Van Der Veen & Van Oers, 2017). As regards pre-primary CLIL, children are encouraged to learn through an active ludic approach involving varied activities such as play, music, singing, dancing, drama, dressing up, drawing and model making. In this authentic learning environment, the use of the L2 for teacher-pupil communication could arguably be viewed as a further step where the learner accepts the use of the language without consciously focusing on that language, much as would happen if the teacher-pupil communication happened in their L1. In point of fact, Coyle et al., 2010, stated that “it is often hard to distinguish CLIL from standard forms of good practice in early language learning” (p. 17). Research in emotional competence and motivation suggests that CLIL and SEL would appear to be compatible in many educational stages, not just in pre-primary, as suggested here. In a large-scale comparative study of 2710 CLIL to 17,969 non-CLIL secondary school students in Spain (average age of 14), Nieto Moreno De Diezmas concluded that “CLIL students are significantly more emotionally competent than their peers. We can therefore say that there is a connection between CLIL and the development of emotional competence” (2012, p. 66). The author speculates that this may be due to the transferable and multifunctional nature of key competences. However, according to the author, the acquisition of linguistic competences cannot explain the improved emotional competence found in CLIL over non-CLIL students. Therefore, factors such as CLIL classroom language, typically combined with teachers that are aware of the importance of language and dialogic teaching could play a “a capital role in the development of emotional strategies” (Nieto Moreno De Diezmas, 2012, p. 67).

6

A Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). . .

85

The Relationship Between Social and Emotional Learning and Language in School Settings A growing body of research suggests a child’s social and emotional competence is tightly interlinked with their language development (see for example, Conte et al., 2019; Ornaghi et al., 2019; Wake et al., 2012). Within the pre-primary CLIL classroom, as opposed to its monolingual counterpart, the use of an additional language is of key importance. In a CLIL context, where much of the learning takes place in the additional language and children potentially have very low levels of that language, language acquisition needs to be supported in a comfortable, encouraging, and non-threatening place. As we have seen, it is essential that a child perceives their environment as safe (Pérez Cañado, 2018). CLIL learning contexts should incorporate the child’s L1 and the L2 in a way that supports the development of both- after all, CLIL is not immersion, but a bilingual context (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010). For young children in pre-primary CLIL, with minimum L2 skills, the ability to access their whole language repertoire and interact at their choice with their teacher and peers in the L1 or L2, considerably reduces the difficulty of communicating and aids the development of social skills and interaction. Research in a pre-primary setting in Poland found that young children who learnt English as a Foreign Language found that children freely attempted to speak English during the intervention, despite (i) their higher L1 proficiency and (ii) the teacher responding equally to speech in the L1 and L2 (Łockiewicz et al., 2018). Furthermore, they concluded that young children are receptive to a language that is not their mother tongue- being able to differentiate between L1 and L2 discourse while showing no intimidation by the use of the L2 in the classroom. There are many variables and factors affecting the attitude a learner has towards the foreign language. Dewaele and MacIntyre (2014) found that gender, age, the number of languages known, educational level and the participants’ relative perception of their own level, all affected whether students felt more foreign language enjoyment or anxiety in the classroom. In terms of methodology, it is notable that the authors concluded that activities that empowered student choice (being allowed to have a sense of autonomy and to use their imagination) shaped and promoted the development of enjoyment in the foreign language. This is in line with the logical reasoning that increased enjoyment in foreign language learning is linked to reduced foreign language anxiety (see, for example Liu & Wang, 2021). This, furthermore, potentially supports both the development of SEL and language in a pre-primary CLIL context where children are exposed to the language through ludic activities, scaffolding and dialogic teaching. This is consistent with the growing body of research over the last decade on foreign language learning in CLIL contexts (Dafouz & Hibler, 2013; Dalton-Puffer et al., 2018; Llinares & Dalton-Puffer, 2015). Findings generally support the theory that, when compared to non-CLIL, CLIL students report lower anxiety (see, for example, the longitudinal study of 896 pupils by De Smet et al., 2018). In addition, in an empirical study that compared 100 participants learning in a CLIL environment to 100 participants learning in a non-CLIL environment, Pfenninger reports a bi-directional causal link between CLIL and

86

L. Mortimore

motivation and CLIL and learner outcomes and argues that learning in the L2 “boosts motivation” (2016, p. 137). As we have seen, the need for a constructive and encouraging atmosphere which supports language growth, such as that found in successful CLIL classrooms, is essential to support young learners. In terms of positive affect, intrinsic motivation (where behaviour is a result of internal satisfaction felt by the individual) acts as a powerful accelerator of learning. Moreover, increased interaction and scaffolding, such as that encouraged in CLIL classrooms, may prime and extend this motivation (National Research Council, 2012). Such features are also associated with SEL programmes- the successful implementation which is clearly dependent on the provision of a high-quality care setting. This setting is described by Schonert-Reichl (2017) as one that is safe, caring, supportive, participatory, and well-managed.

The Central Role of the Teacher in Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary CLIL The teacher, their attitude, experience and training are fundamental in providing caring and supportive class environments. Specifically for pre-primary, and equally applicable to pre-primary CLIL, Schachter (2017) highlights the central role of a teacher’s awareness and knowledge of their pupils to engage and help individual pupils during moment-to-moment instruction according to each pupil’s needs. Similarly, Ornaghi et al. (2020) found a clear link between 320 toddlers’ (mean age of 28 months) ability to regulate their emotions and the caregivers’ sensitive and contingent responsiveness. In addition, Williams and Berthelsen (2017) evidenced the role of quality early parenting of children and self-regulation to children’s later prosocial behaviour. In contrast, teachers who minimise emotional language; that is, use language that purposefully distances them from a young child’s emotions and discourages expression of their emotions, negatively affect their social emotional competence (King & La Paro, 2018). In this vein, studies suggest a significant link between the social and emotional competence of the caregiver and that of the child. For instance, Schonert-Reichl et al. (2017) emphasises the “crucial role” of the teachers’ own well-being and calls for SEL to be recognised and promoted as a necessary part of teacher training. Affect contagion (how the emotionally aroused state of one person can influence the emotions of those around them) is a powerful driver for group affect. This is particularly noticeable with negative affect, for example, with stress. In a study of 406 pupils with a mean age of 11.5 years, Oberle and Schonert-Reichl (2016) documented how stress contagion (in this case “teacher burnout”), increased the morning cortisol levels (commonly known as the “stress hormone”) of the pupils. In this highly stressed context, teaching and learning would clearly begin to break down at all educational stages, and no less so in pre-primary CLIL. To this effect, Pegalajar Palomino and López Hernáez (2015) suggest that pre-service pre-primary teachers should receive courses for their own emotional development, such as in mindfulness. However, for teachers to effectively develop SEL in pre-primary CLIL, the challenge is more complex as these teachers arguably require more extensive

6

A Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). . .

87

training than many teachers may receive as standard. Pre-primary CLIL teachers, that are equipped to develop SEL effectively in their class, need: (i) pre-primary teacher training and qualifications, (ii) specialised training in CLIL (Sanz Trigueros & Guillén Díaz, 2021); and (iii) knowledge and some degree of training in SEL (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017). Regarding the first point of teacher training, it appears that some pre-primary teachers have minimum qualifications. The U.S. Head Start REDI programme, referred to as the nation’s “premier” federally sponsored early childhood education programme (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2005 as cited by Bierman et al., 2008, p. 1802), showed considerable diversity in the training and qualifications of the teachers in the programme. The final report concluded that inconsistencies in findings could be due to the quality of interventions in different schools, with approximately 40 percent of the children having pre-primary teachers without a postsecondary degree (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2010, p. xxii) (Table 6.1). Secondly, in the case of training in specialised CLIL methodologies, pre-primary CLIL teachers need to be well-informed, close to their pupils and aware of the psychological development of pre-primary children (Andúgar & Cortina-Pérez, 2018). To take the example of Spain where bilingual education is an integral part of the educational scene, CLIL pre-service teacher training is often lacking (Pérez Cañado, 2020; Porcedda & González-Martínez, 2020). Standard teacher training courses often fail to include specific CLIL modules, despite those teachers often having to teach subjects such as Music or Physical Education through CLIL in school and, indeed, even those qualifications for foreign language teaching only include a very reduced number of (often optional) modules of teacher training in CLIL practices (Vinuesa, 2021). Specific teacher training in CLIL is often obtained after the standard teaching qualification through a specialised postgraduate or master’s degree programme in bilingual education (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2010). Teachers may be offered short CLIL courses run by the local educational authorities, taken as a matter of personal choice and professional development, but not as a legal requirement. Finally, in the case of teacher knowledge of SEL competencies and instruction, training is also vital for its successful implementation in the classroom. In fact, instructional practices are one of the three fundamental pillars, along with explicit SEL instruction and integration with the academic curriculum, for successful SEL (CASEL, 2015). Similarly, Bierman et al. (2008) highlighted the need for developmentally informed teacher practices to aid self-regulation development. Despite this importance of including a solid training in social and emotional competences, Table 6.1 Qualifications of teachers in the Head Start Programme Qualifications of teachers in the Head Start Programme, 2005–2010 BA degree Associate degree No post-secondary degree

% 30% 30% 40%

Adapted from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2010, p. xxii

88

L. Mortimore

according to Bisquerra Alzina, it is often absent in teaching degrees in Spain (2005). In contrast, within the U.S., in a study of four states, 85.01% of programmes reported training on “knowledge about children’s development and learning” (Cox et al., 2015, p. 120). However, it is worth highlighting that SEL, explicitly, was not mentioned. In recent years, there have been clear advances- SEL is now being included to some degree within the teaching certification requirements by 50 U.S states (see Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017, for a full report).

Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary CLIL As we have seen, a school setting and the informed teacher can provide children with an opportunity to interact interpersonally and learn how to cooperate and resolve conflicts (Jones et al., 2015). However, as Mortimore (2017a) underscored, cognitive development (aptitude, intelligence, learning strategies, content knowledge) has been favoured in education over affective development (motivation, attitudes, anxiety, selfregulation, and intrapersonal and emotional knowledge). Furthermore, and as highlighted by the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2004), policies that address children’s emotional and behavioural needs have been the exception, not the rule. Therefore, in this section, we will look at the scope of existing legislation and its provision for SEL. We will consider the current reality of SEL in pre-primary CLIL in Spain, the policies aimed at developing SEL in the U.S. and U.K. In addition, we will consider existing SEL educational frameworks and materials and how these can be adapted for use in pre-primary CLIL through scaffolding.

Legislative Framework for Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary CLIL In the case of Spain, education is devolved and the responsibility of each autonomous community. This has, at times, resulted in a lack of a coherent, centralised educational policy. For instance, with the exponential growth of CLIL in Spain, each of the 17 autonomous regions implements language policy in pre-primary as they see fit (Andúgar et al., 2019). However, despite their differences, all regional laws remain subject to national laws. The Royal Decree of 2006 (Decreto Real 1630/ 2006) which regulates pre-primary teaching for ages 3–6 is the common point upon which all regional law governing pre-primary is based. While no specific provision is made for CLIL learning contexts, it does broadly state the necessity of developing positive attitudes to both the first and foreign languages and increasing proximity of the language to known communicative contexts, fundamentally the classroom routines. This could be interpreted as encompassing the contextualised learning found in pre-primary CLIL. Far less attention of the regional policy makers has been paid to SEL. Consequently, educational policy is less dynamic, with differences between regions, less

6

A Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). . .

89

marked. However, in this regard, the Royal Decree of 2006 does make express provision for SEL. In the objectives of article 3, there is explicit mention of the need for pre-primary to contribute to developing affective capacities, autonomy and prosocial skills. The more recently passed Organic Law Amending the Organic Law of Education from 2020, (Ley Orgánica 3/2020, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006 [LOMLOE]) also makes specific reference to the need for affective and emotional development and emotionally positive learning experiences in pre-primary education (2020, article 14). However, despite these provisions and mentions, Spanish educational laws have not generally provided a detailed framework within which SEL can be effectively developed in the different stages of schooling, including pre-primary and pre-primary CLIL. Spain is not alone in this. Other countries have often faced a lack of a clear framework in which to develop SEL. In the U.S., education is generally regulated by each state, however, there are a few national initiatives, such as the Head Start programme. Two major reports, after 1 year and 5 years of intervention, analysed long term key outcomes and the circumstances that would lead to the greatest impact (i.e., benefit) on 4667 3–4-year-old pre-primary children, who were randomly assigned to test or control groups (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2005, 2010). Parent reported findings included better social skills, positive and closer child-parent relationships, and reduced hyperactivity (▶ Chap. 5, pp. 12–13). In 2015, the federal law, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Public Law 114-95, 2015) amended the previous 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESSA does not expressly mention social and emotional competencies and uses broader and more conventional terms such as providing “all students with access to a well-rounded education” (Section 4101) and fostering “safe, healthy, supportive, and drug-free environments that support student academic achievement” (section 4104). ESSA policy requires the use of evidence-based interventions for programme funding. This has, however, provided opportunities for local education authorities and school districts to incorporate SEL in schools (Grant et al., 2017). The bill for the Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning Act, proposed to include teacher training in practices that addresses the social and emotional development of the students, was not enacted into law (114th Congress, 2015–2016). More recently, The American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) represents a critical opportunity for state and local policymakers to ensure the implementation of SEL translates to intended outcomes (CASEL, 2021). Other countries have faced a similar lack of explicit legislation, even though more recent policies are aiming to bridge that gap. In the UK, where education is also devolved, each home country has its own policy. In England, The Character Education Policy (Department for Education, 2019) provides non-statutory guidance which emphasises the development of positive character traits, e.g., respect (p. 5), honesty and courage (p. 7); behavioural skills such as good manners and courtesy (p. 7); and emotional skills, as in social confidence, self-regulation, and good coping skills (p. 7). In contrast, Scotland and Wales have gone a step further and developed curricula that integrate these skills across all curricular areas (Nesta, 2020).

90

L. Mortimore

As can be seen, and taking into account that Spain, the US and the UK represent just a glimpse into the myriad of educational laws across the globe, all three have developed very different approaches regarding the incorporation of SEL into education.

Educational Framework for Social and Emotional Learning in Pre-primary CLIL While a gap may exist within legislative frameworks, implementation of SEL at a grassroots level -the classroom- often faces challenges too. Antisocial, disruptive behaviours and low emotion regulation displayed by pre-primary children take their toll on their peers and the teacher, to the point that expulsion from the school may be proposed as the last resort. One national study of over 40,000 pre-primary children in the U.S found that 10.4% of pre-primary teachers reported expelling at least one child in the last 12-month period (Gilliam, 2005). A follow-up study of 119 randomly selected pre-primary teachers in Massachusetts found that 39% reported expelling at least one child in the last 12-month period, with children at the age of 5–6 at greatest risk (Gilliam & Shahar, 2006). In this context, the need for quality and evidencebased interventions that pre-emptively develop social and emotional competences in pre-primary is clear, and equally so in pre-primary CLIL in those countries where CLIL classrooms form a significant chunk of the educational scene. However, there are no universal SEL frameworks or programmes. Nor are there set characteristics that these programmes should incorporate. According to NCSEAD (2019), the most effective interventions should be integrativeencompassing an “ecosystem” from policy makers, school heads, teachers, pupils, and parents. The scope and focus of interventions differ from programme to programme, with some centring on one set of skills, such as recognising and expressing emotions, while others are broader (Jones et al., 2021). The Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning, CASEL (2015) has defined a conceptual framework which includes five processes through which social and emotional competencies can be developed (see Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017 for a detailed report). These include self-awareness, self-management, responsible decision making, relationship skills, social awareness, as can be seen in Table 6.2: Furthermore, Durlak et al. (2010, 2011) carried out two studies on SEL schoolbased programmes. Specifically, the former analysed 69 after-school programs of which 46% were aimed at elementary pupils, while the latter analysed 213 schoolbased programmes involving 270,000 pupils from kindergarten to high-school. In both studies, the authors concluded that SEL is most effectively developed when it forms part of a comprehensive school programme that includes certain features, named under the acronym SAFE (Sequenced, Active, Focused and Explicit). The characteristics of SAFE are highly adaptable to many educational contexts and can be applied to classrooms across the educational spectrum and this arguably could include pre-primary CLIL contexts. The characteristics of SAFE have since been included in a report published by Jones et al. (2021) which analysed 33 leading SEL programmes

6

A Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). . .

91

Table 6.2 Framework of the five processes to develop social and emotional learning Self-awareness Self-management Responsible decision making

Relationship skills Social awareness

The ability to accurately recognize one’s emotions and thoughts and their influence on behaviour The ability to regulate one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviours effectively in different situations The ability to make constructive and respectful choices about personal behaviour and social interactions based on consideration of ethical standards, safety concerns, and social norms, the realistic evaluation of various actions, and the well-being of self and others The ability to establish and maintain healthy and rewarding relationships with diverse individuals and groups The ability to take the perspective of and empathise with others from diverse backgrounds and cultures, to understand social and ethical norms for behaviour, and to recognize family, school, and community resources and support

Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning, CASEL 2015, 2021; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2017

in pre-primary in the U.S. The report furthermore suggests that effective SEL programmes in pre-primary should include the following essential characteristics: • • • • •

Incorporate SAFE elements (Sequenced, Active, Focused and Explicit) Occur within supportive contexts Build adult competencies Be equitable, culturally responsive, trauma sensitive and socially just Set reasonable goals

Mortimore (2017a) suggested how SEL could be taught in primary CLIL classrooms through adapting SAFE and using methodologies promoted in CLIL such as active learning, and applying the 4C’s of CLIL: Culture, Cognition, Communication and Content (Coyle et al., 2010). Likewise, the author believes that SAFE is highly compatible with pre-primary CLIL. Specifically, in a pre-primary CLIL context, SAFE can be applied as a framework similarly as it can be in any pre-primary setting, with additional scaffolding to support learning in the L2. As a framework adapted for pre-primary CLIL, SAFE can be developed through: I. Sequenced, coordinated, scaffolded activities (Coyle et al., 2010); II. Active learning through ludic activities such as play, music, dressing up, puppets, drawing, stories. . .; the extensive use of toys, visuals and manipulatives (Andúgar & Cortina-Pérez, 2018); III. Focused on the holistic growth of the whole child (see Bland, 2015); dialogic teaching (Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, 2012) with the development of tasks through group and teamwork (Coyle et al., 2010); and individual learning needs developed through scaffolding, feedback, teachers’ diagnostic expertise and repertoire (Meyer et al., 2018); and IV. Explicit SEL content to promote social and emotional competences (Jones et al., 2021) adapted to pre-primary CLIL.

92

L. Mortimore

In Table 6.3, we can see the high compatibility of SAFE and its possible application as a framework in the pre-primary CLIL classroom: Within this framework, teaching materials should focus on the development of specific SEL concepts and skills. For younger children, Farrer (2010) reports how one pre-primary school in England uses animals to represent values; thus, thoughtfulness is an owl; respect, a tiger; responsibility, a monkey recycling his banana skin; and cooperation a group of ants carrying rainbow coloured cloth between them. Mindfulness techniques can be adapted for young children, for example, mindful breathing can incorporate a favourite cuddly toy on the stomach to emphasise the movements of breathing in and out, and listening to the noises around us in our classroom, and recognising, identifying and accepting as normal the emotions we

Table 6.3 Four elements of effective in-school and after-school SEL programmes S.A.F.E. as compiled from Durlak et al., 2011; Durlak et al., 2010) S SEQUENCED Activities are connected and coordinated to foster skills development

!

A

ACTIVE

Uses active forms of learning to help students strengthen new skills

!

F

FOCUSED

Dedicates time and attention to developing personal and social skills

!

E

EXPLICIT

Targets specific social and emotional skills

!

The possible application of S.A.F.E. for use in pre-primary CLIL (as proposed by Author, 2021) - Supports use of sequenced, coordinated and connected activities based on existing knowledge (schema) towards the growth of new knowledge that support both content (SEL) and language (L2), (Coyle et al., 2010) - Promotes active learning as an integral part of pre-primary CLIL: learning through play, music, singing, dancing, drama, puppets, dressing up, drawing, model making, stories - Encourages extensive use of toys, visuals, and manipulatives (Andúgar & Cortina-Pérez, 2018) - Aims at the holistic development of the whole child (see Bland, 2015) - Uses recommended CLIL practices such as dialogic teaching (Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, 2012), group work, peer interaction (Coyle et al., 2010) - Develops individual learning needs through appropriate communication, scaffolding, feedback, teachers’ diagnostic expertise and repertoire (Meyer et al., 2018) - Incorporates specific content to develop social and emotional competences such as those described by Jones et al. (2021)

Compiled from Durlak et al., 2011; Durlak et al., 2010; and how they may be adapted within a framework for pre-primary CLIL, by author, 2021

6

A Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). . .

93

feel (Mortimore, 2017a, b). Jones et al. (2021, pp. 20–21) suggested that SEL can be taught through activities such as class discussion, books and stories, specific SEL tools, drawing and videos (Table 6.4; see the full report for a more detailed description). Picturebooks enable abstract notions and other nuances to become Table 6.4 Instructional methods for developing SEL skills and competencies in pre-primary CLIL Instructional method Discussion Storytelling and picturebooks

Poem Vocabulary exercise

SEL tool

Meditation/ visualisation Drawing Songs Kinaesthetic Role-play

Art/Creative project

Visual display

Games

Computer/App Video

Description Whole class, peer discussion. Brainstorming, activity debrief Teacher reads aloud a book or short story, such as a picture book. In some instances, this may be a story developed by the programmers to illustrate a particular theme. In pre-primary CLIL picturebooks with reduced text can be especially useful Reading a poem out loud, composing a simple poem/phrase as class with close teacher scaffolding Activities used to teach language, words, or terms related to an SEL concept. In CLIL, this should be combined with visual scaffolding such as flashcards, facial gestures, body language, emojis etc. Use of a tool or object that reinforces SEL concepts and strategies by helping students understand and visualise them in a concrete way. In pre-primary CLIL these can be colouring happy/sad faces etc., using “emotionometers”, thermometers or emoticons, thumbs up/down etc. Mindfulness techniques like guided meditation and mindful listening to calm the body and focus the mind. Visualisation of a place that makes the children feel happy and secure Pupils draw a picture of something that makes them happy (rather than drawing about a specific time they felt happy) Songs, music videos, dance and bodily expression can reinforce a SEL theme and scaffold techniques such as calm breathing techniques Activities involving student movement and physical activity and games like Freeze Dance Teacher acts out a scene and/or uses puppets to demonstrate/practise emotion regulation strategies, problem solving processes or conflict management Art or creative project related to an SEL theme. May be an individual project, such as using modelling clay/plasticine to make faces that show different emotions, or a collaborative project Charts, posters, or other visual displays. Examples include classroom posters that break down emotion regulation strategies, a class rules chart, or recording brainstorming ideas on poster paper. Often used as a way to establish or reinforce routines in the classroom To reinforce a SEL theme/concept and transition in/out of the lesson. Charades with emotion and social cues, Simon says to practice cognition regulation etc. Technology like computer games, phones, tablets, internet to teach/ reinforce a SEL concept or skill Cartoons or videos typically depict children in challenging classroom or playground situations and are often used to prompt discussion around emotions, conflict resolution, and appropriate behaviours

Jones et al., 2021, pp. 20–21, adapted by author for use in pre-primary CLIL

94

L. Mortimore

accessible through the use of illustrations (Pérez & Vázquez, forthcoming). These, therefore, can be a particularly useful medium when working with young children (see, for example, Aparicio & Pérez, 2020). All the previously mentioned activities can be adapted and scaffolded for pre-primary CLIL. In fact, CLIL materials are often an adapted, scaffolded version of materials used in L1 classrooms that provide more support, through the use of visuals and manipulatives, for use with the additional language as can be seen in the following table. As we can see, these are activities that are commonly found in the pre-primary classroom that specifically focus on developing SEL. These same activities and materials can be further adapted and scaffolded for CLIL. It is worth highlighting, however, that an established framework may be necessary as the use of isolated activities aimed at developing SEL may be insufficient. As Page and Elfer (2013) point out, work on SEL at pre-primary level is vulnerable to discontinuity and disturbance with much of the work based on intuitive actions. This is, arguably, equally pertinent to pre-primary CLIL. A school wide policy of developing SEL, and the application of a coherent framework is likely to promote the effectiveness of the programme.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have reviewed research which highlights the far-reaching and long-term implications of SEL in pre-primary which directly affects the neural development within the highly plastic brain of the young child. A caring and supportive learning environment, combined with a trained and informed teacher that provides a wide array of positive stimuli are key to the successful implementation of both SEL and CLIL in pre-primary. Despite the apparent difficulties of teaching complex and abstract notions to young children through the L2, the use of instructional strategies typically associated with pre-primary CLIL learning appears to make this possible. CLIL learning environments promote techniques such as extensive scaffolding, dialogic teaching and ludic activities. These, when combined with the use of adapted materials specifically aimed at developing social and emotional skills, suggest that SEL can be effectively developed in the pre-primary CLIL classroom. Likewise, the interactive and supportive atmosphere of existing CLIL classrooms potentially aid the subsequent implementation of SEL. However, individual teacher initiatives appear insufficient- a school wide policy of developing SEL, and the application of a coherent educational framework, in tune with the needs of pre-primary CLIL learners, is likely to promote the effectiveness of school programmes and their benefits. This chapter contributes to the existing literature by bridging the gap between CLIL and SEL and highlighting the compatibility of both. The coexistence of CLIL and SEL appears not only possible within the pre-primary classroom, but mutually beneficial. Nonetheless, there are significant challenges to be faced. While the central role of the teacher is essential for the successful implementation of both CLIL and SEL programmes, teacher training in CLIL and SEL is an issue that has

6

A Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). . .

95

yet to be addressed satisfactorily. Similarly, the development of explicit legislative and educational frameworks is needed in which SEL can be effectively developed in pre-primary CLIL. There is a clear need for SEL specific policy on a regional and/or national scale. Furthermore, this policy needs to take into consideration the reality of the current educational scene, and be developed hand in hand with existing educational policy which promotes the establishment of widespread CLIL learning environments. This is essential to ensure homogeneity across pre-primary contexts. There are many areas for future research. Studies need to centre on the provision of SEL within pre-primary CLIL, research the characteristics of successful pre-primary CLIL SEL programmes, and the role of teacher training, CLIL and SEL. Furthermore, research is needed to determine the extent that SEL can be effectively developed in an additional language and determine how SEL can be optimised in this setting.

References Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning Act of 2015, H. R. 850, 114th Congress (2015–2016). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/850 Andúgar, A., & Cortina-Pérez, B. (2018). EFL teachers’ reflections on their teaching practice in Spanish preschools: A focus on motivation. In Preschool bilingual education (pp. 219–244). Springer. Andúgar, A., Cortina-Pérez, B., & Tornel, M. (2019). Tratamiento de la lengua extranjera en Educación Infantil en las distintas comunidades autónomas españolas. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 23(1), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.30827/ profesorado.v23i1.9163 Aparicio, Y., & Pérez, M. (2020). Storytelling: La lectura de álbumes ilustrados en la enseñanza de la lengua inglesa. Pirámide. Bassett, H. H., Denham, S., Mincic, M., & Graling, K. (2012). The structure of preschoolers’ emotion knowledge: Model equivalence and validity using a structural equation modeling approach. Early Education & Development, 23(3), 259–279. Bierman, K., Domitrovich, C. E., Nix, R., Gest, S., Welsh, J., Greenberg, M., Blair, C., Nelson, K., & Gill, S. (2008). Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The head start REDI program. Child Development, 79(6), 1802–1817. Bisquerra Alzina, R. (2005). La educación emocional en la formación del profesorado. Revista interuniversitaria de formación del profesorado. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo? codigo¼2126758. Bland, J. (Ed.). (2015). Teaching English to young learners: Critical issues in language teaching with 3–12 year olds. Bloomsbury Publishing. Bunge, S., & Wright, S. (2007). Neurodevelopmental changes in working memory and cognitive control. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17(2), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2007.02.005 Cantor, P., Osher, D., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2019). Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context. Applied Developmental Science, 23(4), 307. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1398649 Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2015). 2013 guide: Effective social and emotional learning programs: Preschool and elementary school edition. Chicago. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2017). Teaching activities to support the core competencies of SEL. https://casel.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/SampleTeaching-Activities-to-Support-Core-Competencies.pdf

96

L. Mortimore

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2021). SEL policy brief. The three highest priority investments to make in SEL with American rescue plan dollars. https://casel.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/SEL-Policy-Brief-on-ARP.pdf Conte, E., Ornaghi, V., Grazzani, I., Pepe, A., & Cavioni, V. (2019). Emotion knowledge, theory of mind, and language in young children: Testing a comprehensive conceptual model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2144. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02144 Cox, M. E., Hollingsworth, H., & Buysse, V. (2015). Exploring the professional development landscape: Summary from four states. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 32, 116–126. Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL – A pedagogical approach from the European perspective. In V. DeusenScholl & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1200–1214). Springer. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Dafouz, E., & Hibler, A. (2013). ‘Zip your lips’ or ‘Keep quiet’: Main teachers’ and language assistants’ classroom discourse in CLIL settings. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12026.x Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms (Vol. 20). John Benjamins Pub. Dalton-Puffer, C., Bauer-Marschallinger, S., Brückl-Mackey, K., Hofmann, V., Hopf, J., Kröss, L., & Lechner, L. (2018). Cognitive discourse functions in Austrian CLIL lessons: Towards an empirical validation of the CDF construct. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 5–29. De Smet, A., Mettewie, L., Galand, B., Hiligsmann, P., & Van Mensel, L. (2018). Classroom anxiety and enjoyment in CLIL and non-CLIL: Does the target language matter? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 47–71. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8. 1.3 Denham, S. A. (2007). Dealing with feelings: How children negotiate the worlds of emotions and social relationships. Cognition, Brain, Behavior, 11(1), 1. Denham, S. A., & Bassett, H. H. (2019). Early childhood teachers’ socialization of children’s emotional competence. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 12(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-01-2019-0007 Denham, S., Bassett, H., Mincic, M., Kalb, S., Way, E., Wyatt, T., & Segal, Y. (2012). Social–emotional learning profiles of preschoolers’ early school success: A person-centered approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(2), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif. 2011.05.001 Department for Education. (2020, November 19). Character Education Framework Guidance. Crown copyright 2019. Dewaele, J. M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4(2). Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333(6045), 959–964. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1204529 Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual and contextual variables. The Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 209–224. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09571736.2014.889508 Durlak, J., Weissberg, R., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 294–309. Durlak, J., Weissberg, R., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R., & Schellinger, K. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29782838 Fan, Y., Herrera-Melendez, A., Pestke, K., Feeser, M., Aust, S., Otte, C., Pruessner, J. C., Boker, H., Bajbouj, M., & Grimm, S. (2014). Early life stress modulates amygdala-prefrontal functional connectivity: Implications for oxytocin effects. Human Brain Mapping, 35(10), 5328–5339. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22553

6

A Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). . .

97

Farrer. (2010). Revisiting the quiet revolution. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey, & N. Clement (Eds.), International research handbook on values education and student wellbeing (pp. 395–408). Springer. Gilliam, W. S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten systems. Foundation for Child Development. Gilliam, W. S., & Shahar, G. (2006). Preschool and childcare expulsion and suspension. Infants and Young Children, 19(3), 228–245. Gilmore, J. H., Knickmeyer, R. C., & Gao, W. (2018). Imaging structural and functional brain development in early childhood. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 19(3), 123–137. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nrn.2018.1 Godleski, S., Kamper, K., Ostrov, J., Hart, E., & Blakely-McClure, S. (2015). Peer victimization and peer rejection during early childhood. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(3), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2014.940622 Grant, S., Hamilton, L. S., Wrabel, S. L., Gomez, C. J., Whitaker, A., Leschitz, J. Unlu, F., ChavezHerrerias, E. R., Baker, G., Barret, M., Harris, M., & Ramos, A. (2017). Social and emotional learning interventions under the every student succeeds act: Evidence review. https://www.rand. org/pubs/research_reports/RR2133.html Grossmann, T. (2013). Mapping prefrontal cortex functions in human infancy. Infancy, 18(3), 303–324. Hanson, J. L., Nacewicz, B. M., Sutterer, M. J., Cayo, A. A., Schaefer, S. M., Rudolph, K. D., Shirtcliff, E. A., Pollak, S. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). Behavioral problems after early life stress: Contributions of the hippocampus and amygdala. Biological Psychiatry, 77(4), 314–323. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24993057/ Hölzel, B. K., Carmody, J., Evans, K. C., Hoge, E. A., Dusek, J. A., Morgan, L., Pitman, R. K., & Lazar, S. W. (2010). Stress reduction correlates with structural changes in the amygdala. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsp034 Hölzel, B., Carmody, J., Vangel, M., Congleton, C., Yerramsetti, S., Gard, T., & Lazar, S. W. (2011). Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 191(1), 36–43. Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health, 105(11), 2283–2290. Jones, S., Brush, K., Ramirez, T., Mao, Z., Marenus, M., Wttje, S., Finney, K., Raisch, N., Podoloff, N., Kahn, J., Barnes, Stickle, L., Brion-Meisels, G., McIntyre, J., Cuartas, J., & Bailey, R. (2021). Navigating sel from the inside out – Looking inside and across 33 leading SEL programs: A practical resource for schools and OST providers (Revised and Expanded 2nd ed.). The Easel Lab at The Harvard Graduate School of Education with funding from The Wallace Foundation. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/navigating-socialand-emotional-learning-from-the-inside-out.aspx King, E. K., & La Paro, K. M. (2018). Teachers’ emotion minimizing language and toddlers’ social emotional competence. Early Education and Development, 29(8), 989–1003. Kuhl, P. (2010). Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition. Neuron, 67(5), 713–727. Laible, D., Carlo, G., Murphy, T., Augustine, M., & Roesch, S. (2014). Predicting children’s prosocial and co-operative behavior from their temperamental profiles: A person-centered approach. Social Development, 23(4), 734–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12072 Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2010). Immersion and CLIL in English: More differences than similarities. ELT Journal, 64(4), 367–375. Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación (LOMLOE), (2020, 30th December). Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE), 340. Liu, E., & Wang, J. (2021). Examining the relationship between grit and foreign language performance: Enjoyment and anxiety as mediators. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 666892. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.666892

98

L. Mortimore

Llinares, A., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2015). The role of different tasks in CLIL students’ use of evaluative language. System, 54, 69–79. Łockiewicz, M., Sarzała-Przybylska, Z., & Lipowska, M. (2018). Early predictors of learning a foreign language in pre-school – Polish as a first language, English as a foreign language. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1813. McClelland, M., Acock, A., & Morrison, F. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning-related skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.09.003 Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education (p. 2008). Macmillan Education. Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Imhof, M., & Connolly, T. (2018). Beyond CLIL: Fostering student and teacher engagement for personal growth and deeper learning. In Emotions in second language teaching (pp. 277–297). Springer. Mills, K. L., Lalonde, F., Clasen, L. S., Giedd, J. N., & Blakemore, S. J. (2014). Developmental changes in the structure of the social brain in late childhood and adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(1), 123–131. Mortimore, L. (2017a). The importance of developing social and emotional learning (SEL) within the CLIL classroom, with special reference to Spain. Encuentro: revista de investigación e innovación en la clase de idiomas, 26, 126–140. http://hdl.handle.net/10017/35102 Mortimore, L. (2017b). Mindfulness and foreign language anxiety in the bilingual primary classroom. Educación y futuro: revista de investigación aplicada y experiencias educativas (37). http://hdl.handle.net/11162/166901 National Commission on Social, Emotional, and Academic Development (NCSEAD). (2019). From a nation at risk to a nation at hope. Final Report for The Aspen Institute. http:// nationathope.org/report-from-the-nation-download/ National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. The National Academies Press. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2004). Children’s emotional development is built into the architecture of their brains (Working Paper No. 2). http://www. developingchild.net Nesta. (2020, October). Developing social and emotional skills. Education policy and practice in the UK home nations. University of Bath. Nieto Moreno de Diezmas, E. (2012). CLIL and development of emotional competence. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 45, 53–73. Oberle, E., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2016). Stress contagion in the classroom? The link between classroom teacher burnout and morning cortisol in elementary school students. Social Science & Medicine, 159, 30–37. Ornaghi, V., Pepe, A., Agliati, A., & Grazzani, I. (2019). The contribution of emotion knowledge, language ability, and maternal emotion socialization style to explaining toddlers’ emotion regulation. Social Development, 28(3), 581–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12351 Ornaghi, V., Conte, E., & Grazzani, I. (2020). Empathy in toddlers: The role of emotion regulation, language ability, and maternal emotion socialization style. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2844. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586862 Page, J., & Elfer, P. (2013). The emotional complexity of attachment interactions in nursery. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(4), 553–567. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1350293X.2013.766032 Panksepp, J. (2010). Affective neuroscience of the emotional BrainMind: Evolutionary perspectives and implications for understanding depression. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 12(4), 533–545. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2010.12.4/jpanksepp Pechtel, P., & Pizzagalli, D. A. (2011). Effects of early life stress on cognitive and affective function: An integrated review of human literature. Psychopharmacology, 214(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-010-2009-2

6

A Framework for Developing Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). . .

99

Pegalajar Palomino, M. C. & López Hernáez, L. (2015). Competencias emocionales en el proceso de formación del docente de educación infantil. Revista Electrónica Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 13(3). https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/551/ 55141402006.pdf Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9(1), 9–31. Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). CLIL and educational level: A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on language outcomes. Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, 29, 51–70. Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL teacher training. Theory Into Practice, 57(3), 1–10. Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2020). Addressing the research gap in teacher training for EMI: An evidencebased teacher education proposal in monolingual contexts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 48, 100927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100927 Pérez, M., & Vázquez, E. (forthcoming). The benefits of the picture book to introduce mathematics curriculum content in preschool. Children’s Literature in English Language Education, CLELE. Pfenninger, S. E. (2016). All good things come in threes: Early English learning, CLIL and motivation in Switzerland. Cahiers du Centre de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage, 48, 119–147. Porcedda, M. E., & González-Martínez, J. (2020). CLIL teacher training: Lacks and suggestions from a systematic literature review. Enseñanza & Teaching, 38(1), 49–68. Public Law 114-95. Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), December 10, 2015. Real Decreto 1630/2006, de 29 de diciembre, por el que se establecen las enseñanzas mínimas del segundo ciclo de Educación infantil, (2006, December 29). Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE), 4. Roelofs, K. (2017). Freeze for action: Neurobiological mechanisms in animal and human freezing. Philosophical transactions. Biological Sciences, 372(1718), 20160206. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rstb.2016.0206 Sanz Trigueros, F. J., & Guillén Díaz, C. (2021). Adaptación y desarrollo profesional docente de los especialistas de la enseñanza bilingüe. Revista Fuentes, 23(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.12795/ revistafuentes.2021.v23.i1.11572 Schachter, R. E. (2017). Early childhood teachers’ pedagogical reasoning about how children learn during language and literacy instruction. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-017-0179-3 Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2017). Social and emotional learning and teachers. The Future of Children, 27(1), 137–155. Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Kitil, M. J., & Hanson-Peterson, J. (2017). To reach the students, teach the teachers: A national scan of teacher preparation and social & emotional learning. A report prepared for Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). http://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED582029.pdf Siegel, D. J. (2020). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are (3rd ed.). Ringgold. Strand, P. S., Barbosa-Leiker, C., Arellano Piedra, M., & Downs, A. (2015). Exploring the bidirectionality of emotion understanding and classroom behavior with Spanish-and Englishspeaking preschoolers attending head start. Social Development, 24(3), 579–600. Taylor, R., Oberle, E., Durlak, J., & Weissberg, R. (2017). Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156–1171. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12864 Ting, Y. L. T., & Martínez Serrano, L. M. (2018). En el Corazón de AICLE: Materiales y Métodos. Manual para Profesorado de Educación Secundaria. UCO Press. Tsujimoto, S. (2008). The prefrontal cortex: Functional neural development during early childhood. The Neuroscientist, 14(4), 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858408316002

100

L. Mortimore

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS]. (2005). Head start impact study: First year findings. Administration for Children & Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/opre/hs_impact_study_final.pdf U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS]. (2010). Head start impact study. Final report. Administration for Children & Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/opre/hs_impact_study_final.pdf Van Der Veen, C., & Van Oers, B. (2017). Advances in research on classroom dialogue: Learning outcomes and assessments. Learning and Instruction, 48, 1–4. Elseiver. Vinuesa, V. (2021) [Plenary] Formación del profesorado AICLE: una asignatura pendiente. Congreso Internacional Educación Bilingüe (CIEB), University of Valladolid, Spain. Wake, M., Levickis, P., Tobin, S., Zens, N., Law, J., Gold, L., Ukoumunne, O., Golfield, S., Le, H., Skeat, J., & Reilly, S. (2012). Improving outcomes of preschool language delay in the community: Protocol for the language for learning randomised controlled trial. BMC Pediatrics, 12(1), 1–11. Wallace, A., & Palmer, J. (2018). Building social and emotional skills in afterschool programs. In National Conference of State Legislatures. https://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/educ/ Social_Emotional_32470.pdf. Weimer, A. A., & Gasquoine, P. G. (2016). Belief reasoning and emotion understanding in balanced bilingual and language-dominant Mexican American young children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 177(2), 33–43. Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655–684. Werchan, D. M., Collins, A. G., Frank, M. J., & Amso, D. (2016). Role of prefrontal cortex in learning and generalizing hierarchical rules in 8-month-old infants. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(40), 10314–10322. Williams, K. E., & Berthelsen, D. (2017). The development of prosocial behaviour in early childhood: Contributions of early parenting and self-regulation. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49(1), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-017-0185-5 Wu, M., Kujawa, A., Lu, L. H., Fitzgerald, D. A., Klumpp, H., Fitzgerald, K. D., Monk, C. S., & Phan, K. L. (2016). Age-related changes in amygdala-frontal connectivity during emotional face processing from childhood into young adulthood. Human Brain Mapping, 37(5), 1684–1695.

7

Play as a Key Construct in Early Childhood Education CLIL María Elena Go´mez Parra

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bilingual Early Childhood Education: The CLIL Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Play-Based Learning for Pre-primary CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

102 104 106 110

Abstract

The central axis of this chapter is play in CLIL within Early Childhood Education, being these topics the main pillars for this research. Firstly, the main theoretical foundations of bilingual programmes are developed by focusing on CLIL as the official European approach to bilingual education, endorsed by the European Commission since 1996. CLIL within Early Childhood Education is still underdeveloped due to two difficulties: the non-compulsory nature of schooling at this stage and intrinsic difficulties regarding children development and learning process. This allows the author to establish the theoretical underpinnings of play within bilingual education as a fundamental construct for learning both language and content. Play stands as a key factor for the holistic development of the child, which comprises languages and knowledge of the world. Therefore, its presence in bilingual (CLIL) Early Childhood Education must be boosted through classroom planning, for which some tips are offered in the last section of this study. Keywords

Play · Early Childhood Education · Bilingual education · Bilingual programmes · CLIL M. E. Gómez Parra (*) University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_7

101

102

M. E. Go´mez Parra

Introduction The history of human beings runs parallel to that of bilingualism (Mackey, 1978). There is not a nation where only one language has been spoken, or where its inhabitants have not participated (in one way or another) in the cultural or linguistic practices of another community. In fact, there is no country today that is completely monolingual (Meyerhoff, 2011). The evolution of human beings necessarily involves social contact between the members of different peoples. Therefore, linguistic exchange is identified as a sine qua non condition in the evolution of humanity (Gómez-Parra, 2021). The twenty-first century is witnessing unprecedented progress in the study and implementation of bilingual education worldwide. Not only have the most relevant international bodies made explicit their firm commitment to bilingual education (e.g., OECD, UNESCO, European Commission), but also governments and national education systems have (almost unanimously) declared themselves in favour of an approach that clearly shows its benefits in a multiplicity of contexts (Bialystok, 2018). Bilingualism has a long history, and this has meant that the term has become increasingly complicated with nuances in its definition. Bilingualism is a concept which, given the magnitude of contexts, educational approaches and fields of study and research, has evolved over time. Nowadays, the literature is profuse and puts a great deal of effort into defining the profile assigned to each type of bilingualism. When bilingualism is transferred to the educational context, the concept (and with it the evolution) of bilingual education appears which, again, complicates the issue, because bilingual education programmes are not uniform internationally and, more often than not, the approach adopted depends on the national educational authorities. Myers-Scotton (2006, p. 398) sets out a typology of the five most common types of bilingual programmes in the world, to which the specific education systems in different countries make particular adaptations (e.g., Early exit programs; Late exit programs; Structured immersion programs; Two-way programs and Sheltered or content-based programs). Years later, Wright and Baker (2017, pp. 67–68) offered a more holistic classification of different types of bilingual education than MyersScotton (2006), warning that any ascription may result in a simplistic way of analysing bilingual education. This chapter focuses on the European field of bilingual education (CLIL – Content and Language Integrated Learning), an approach that has been a revolution worldwide due to its complexity and flexibility. In this regard, the Centro Virtual Cervantes (2020, para. 6) states: Una versión particularmente elaborada del CBLL es el proyecto CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning). Este proyecto fue desarrollado a mediados de los años 90 del siglo pasado por un consorcio de universidades europeas coordinadas por la de Jyväskylä (Finlandia). En él, además de integrar lengua y contenido, se hace hincapié en otros aspectos importantes e innovadores del aprendizaje de segundas lenguas, como la dimensión intercultural de la comunicación, la integración europea y el desarrollo de estrategias de aprendizaje.

7

Play as a Key Construct in Early Childhood Education CLIL

103

CLIL has been officially endorsed by the European Commission since the publication of what has been known as the Commission Action Plan 2004–2006 (Commission of the European Communities, 2003), a process which Lorenzo (2007, p. 502) describes as follows: New recommendations, guidelines and policies put forward by The Council of Europe through its Division of Language Policies have made a significant contribution at the turn of the century to the blossoming of a new understanding of second language learning in educational and non-educational contexts. Having plurilingualism as an overall aim, one of the main tenets of the European dimension in the educational realm is the opening up of the educational systems to subject matter teaching in languages other than learners’ national tongues (content and language-integrated learning [CLIL]).

The implementation of the CLIL approach in Early Childhood Education (ECE), however, is not as widespread and, therefore, research at this stage of education is not as abundant (Gómez-Parra, 2021). This implementation is beginning to take off, and Brown (2006, p. 91) explained that there are a ‘multitude of reasons’ why children may experience certain personal, social, cultural and political difficulties in learning a second language. Marsh (2000) argues that CLIL offers more realistic and natural opportunities for early learners to learn and use a second language so that they soon forget that they are learning the language and focus on learning the content. Play constitutes the third conceptual pillar of this work (bilingual education – the CLIL approach – and Early Childhood Education being the other two). Play, identified by Plato in Book VII of The Republic as one of the methods used to educate (Ballén Molina, 2010, p. 39), stands as a powerful construct for learning (through which it is possible to build language learning and content acquisition), at the same time that it can become an outstanding instrument for the construction of intercultural communicative competence at the Early Childhood Education stage (Gómez-Parra, 2021). Then, the understanding of play as a key learning construct for Early Childhood Education is quintessential within the PETaL approach, because, in Scott’s (2019, p. 246) words: “The acknowledgement that childhood itself is a cultural construct (James & Prout, 2015) reminds us that dominant values and ideas about childhood are contingent on context and are, mostly, created by adults (Hendrick, 1997)”. The history of play research has undergone different stages, though it remains a topic of interest in the literature. Smith and Roopnarine (2019, p. 1) summarize the state of the art in this way: There are of course classical theories of play (see Chapter 20), and for children’s play the work of Lev Vygotsky from the 1930s remains influential [. . .]. However, the modern study of play, in both animals and humans, became active again in the 1970s and 1980s. After a quieter period in the 1990s and early 2000s, recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in theorizing and research on play.

104

M. E. Go´mez Parra

The importance of play for children’s development has been understood by the literature from a holistic viewpoint (Fleer, 2013; Hedegaard, 2012). For Vygotsky (1933), play creates the zone for proximal development, because children can develop imagination through play, at the same time that they adhere to constraints and regulations which they find either too hard, too boring or too challenging to deal with in real-life situations. Therefore, “when children play, they engage general desires, like becoming an adult, becoming a star football player, becoming recognized by important others.” (Winther-Lindqvist, 2019, p. 235). Play, from a sociocultural perspective, is a method for both, establishing, and testing reality, and for learning to think and act beyond it (Vadeboncoeur et al., 2016). Vygotsky’s (1930/2004) four laws constitute a way to understand that “imagination is not just an idle amusement, not merely an activity without consequences in reality, but rather a function essential to life” (p. 13). As Sutton-Smith (1979, p. 198) famously argued, “the opposite of play [. . .] is not work [. . .] it is depression.” Therefore, the PETaL approach to bilingual and intercultural education in ECE acknowledges the importance of integrating play as a key construct towards learning. In PETaL, toys and play are placed within the ‘enriched context’ and a main construct to build and enhance ECE pupils’ intercultural communicative competence (Gómez-Parra, 2021, p. 151): “. . .de ahí el papel que se les otorga en el enfoque PETaL en tanto que indiscutibles instrumentos universales, capaces de transmitir valores, competencias, actitudes y comportamientos que conduzcan al desarrollo de la competencia comunicativa intercultural.” The main objective of this chapter is, therefore, to offer the conceptual keys to the implementation of play as a powerful construct for ECE twenty-first century bilingual education within the CLIL approach.

Bilingual Early Childhood Education: The CLIL Approach Bilingual education at the Early Childhood Education stage stands nowadays as a necessity in most of the world’s education systems since, according to Castro and Pryshker (2019, p. 173), “Young children of the 21st century around the world are growing up in increasingly diverse communities, exposed to many languages and cultures”. According to Celce-Murcia and McIntosh (1989), individuals who start learning a foreign language at an early age are more prone to learn faster and more effectively. Escobar Urmeneta (2019) acknowledges CLIL as a relevant approach in Europe. Nevertheless, CLIL research (which is generous due to the rapid expansion of the approach) is not so abundant in Early Childhood Education because its implementation at this stage is not widespread due to two fundamental reasons: the non-compulsory nature of schooling, on the one hand, and the intrinsic difficulty of the stage, on the other (Almodóvar-Antequera & Gómez-Parra, 2017). It is undeniable that the implementation of a bilingual approach in Early Childhood Education is almost an obligation as well as an advantage for pupils aged 0–8 years, a range that covers level 0 of UNESCO’s ISCED – International Standard Classification of Education – (2011, p. 28) for Early Childhood Education. Language

7

Play as a Key Construct in Early Childhood Education CLIL

105

is the communication system which enables early childhood learners not only to interact with others, but also to develop their cognitive, neural, social and personal systems and therefore, as Bers (2019, p. 499) states, “it has a foundational role”. Thus, the introduction of several languages at an early age which, in addition, associates the learning of content, is a difficult model to implement in many international education systems, but which, on the other hand, must constitute a key objective for most countries’ education policies due to its relevance, its necessity and the benefits it entails. It is not only the language; it is also the content and the skills that the citizen of the twenty-first century must have in order to function in a ‘glocal’ world, defined as “reflecting or characterized by both local and global considerations” by the Oxford Living Dictionary (2019). Anderson et al. (2015, p. 138) put it this way: “CLIL not only provides learners with proficiency in the ‘vehicular language’ (VL) but also with the associated content knowledge and skills needed/required for a globalized world”. Furthermore, educational approaches must be holistic and allow for a globalised, international and up-to-date knowledge of the world, as Torras-Vila (2021, p. 44) affirms: “one of the main educational challenges nowadays is to move away from discipline-based programmes and fragmented knowledge.” CLIL is attested by Marsh et al. (2001) as a multidimensional approach which can easily support individual learning styles of students. In spite of the fact that CLIL has extensively been implemented across most European countries (Goris et al., 2019), it has exceeded the borders of the European Union and has started to spread worldwide, including countries such as Colombia (Mcdougald, 2009), Indonesia (Bax, 2010), and Russia (Godzhaeva et al., 2019) just to mention some from different continents. There even exists an academic association of scholars who implement and research on CLIL in Japan entitled J-CLIL (https://www.j-clil.com/english), which shows the progressive international interest in the approach. The multiple benefits of CLIL support such extended implementation. Relevant scholars shed light on its perceived linguistic benefits, such as the increased fluency in the foreign language (Coyle, 2013; Doiz et al., 2014) as well as on its non-linguistic benefits, which Ikeda (2013) points out on the rise in knowledge of the subject matter and improved communicative skills. Moreover, CLIL yields better results than foreign language education in monolingual societies in terms of functional knowledge and use of the target language (Varkuti, 2010). Language learning starting from pre-school is highly emphasized by European member country policies to help learners achieve proficiency in their first language, while they develop a better understanding of their own culture. Early Childhood Education pupils are encouraged to command (at least) two foreign languages in terms not only of language knowledge, but also communicative skills (European Commission, 2004), not forgetting the cultures that such languages convey. This is the reason why CLIL has gained a significant role in the achievement of these objectives. Even more, as Eurydice (2006) states, the EU Commission promotes bilingual education and linguistic diversity, whose foundations were underpinned through the Council Resolution of 31st March 1995 (EU, 1995, p. 207/4):

106

M. E. Go´mez Parra

In view of the developments that have taken place and the progress that has been made over the last 10 years in the teaching of languages in all the Member States of the Union, pupils should as a general rule have the opportunity of learning two languages of the Union other than their mother tongue(s) for a minimum of two consecutive years during compulsory schooling and if possible for a longer period; the aim of such teaching, going beyond introductory tuition, is the acquisition of clearly defined skills; it is for each Member State to specify those language skills and to determine the different levels of competence required and the appropriate forms of certifying achievement.

Then, it is reasonable to assert that children’s language development can be greatly benefitted from the implementation of an approach such as PETaL, which uses play as a key construct, and for which intercultural and bilingual education stand as its two main goals. The next section will deal with the role of play within pre-primary CLIL.

Play-Based Learning for Pre-primary CLIL The international community agrees on the importance of play within Early Childhood Education. Access to second languages should be considered one of the fundamental rights of the child, even though there is still no explicit recognition by official international bodies such as the UNESCO, which recognizes the right to play (UNICEF, 2020, right no. 31); the right to education in order to develop the child’s talents and skills (UNICEF, 2020, rights nos. 28 and 29); and the United Nations, which recognizes the right of the child to complete primary education (UN, 2015, right no. 2). The right to learn languages, as a necessary construct for the recognition of the cultural diversity of peoples, for communication between the inhabitants of the planet, and for the necessary socialization of the individual in a global world, should be included among the universal rights of the child. GómezParra (2021, p. 151) states that play has wrongly been considered a trivial activity that has no “serious” purpose, whereas research in the area has shown that play is one of the greatest human achievements, along with culture, language and technology (Whitebread et al., 2012, p. 1). Scarfe (1962, p. 120) affirmed (in a quotation which the literature has mistakenly attributed to Einstein, perhaps due to proximity): The highest form of research is essentially play. Einstein is quoted as saying, “The desire to arrive finally at logically connected concepts is the emotional basis of a vague play with basic ideas. This combinatorial or associative play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought.”

This idea finds support in current cognitive studies. For example, Bergen (2019, pp. 136–137) states that during the first year of infancy, as brain maturation continues in the areas where language and conceptual thinking are found, play development is elaborated through pretend actions and through language. As brain maturation continues through the second year of life, sensorimotor-based play remains an important modality for the child, involving dynamic combinations of

7

Play as a Key Construct in Early Childhood Education CLIL

107

construction-based and simulation-based play. Therefore, there is synergy between these two dynamical systems: brain maturation and play development which moreover have been in interaction for most of human history, but they have also interacted with another dynamical system: technology. Then, the link between play, brain maturation and language development is clearly established, which substantiates the use of play in CLIL for language and content learning. The idea that children learn by playing was started by Froebel (1782–1852), who stated the educational value of play and who believed that natural development occurs through play. Then, John Dewey (1859–1952) supported children’s active learning and believed that they learn through play activities based on their interests. Dewey also thought that opportunities must be created for children to engage in play associated with everyday activities, because it helps to prepare children for adult occupations. After him, Jean Piaget (1896–1980) believed that play promotes cognitive knowledge at the same time that it constitutes a means by which children construct knowledge of the world (physical, logical-mathematical, and social). According to Piaget, children learn about things and the physical properties of objects through active involvement. They also acquire knowledge of the environment and their roles in it, and acquire logical-mathematical knowledge such as numeration, time, classification, space, and number. Unlike Piaget, Lev S. Vygotsky (1896–1934) viewed the social interaction that occurs through play essential to children’s development. Vygotsky (1978, p. 101) already considered children’s play as “a fundamental factor in development” because cognitive development takes place by transforming information from the outside world and internalizing it mainly through language. When children play, they make sense of content by engaging in dialogue with themselves or with others. They imagine and play different roles, as well as experience different uses of language. Through play, children engage in social interaction, observe others, imitate them and receive feedback. Vygotsky argued that, because children who play always go beyond their everyday activities, play creates a zone of proximal development (ZPD): a distance between a child’s actual developmental level and the level potentially attainable with the help of others. The social interaction that occurs within a child’s ZPD is considered a fundamental basis for learning. Vygotsky (1978) thought that play is one of the predominant developmental activities at the preschool stage, an idea that has been supported by many researchers over time (see Duncan & Tarulli, 2003 for an in-depth study on this issue). Thus, play promotes cognitive development and provides a way to develop social skills. Finally, Maria Montessori (1870–1952) considered play as children’s work, and homes and preschools were the ‘workplaces’ where learning occurs through play. The centrality of play to human existence was soon promulgated by Huizinga (1947), who described human beings as homo ludens, arguing that this characteristic qualifies us better than homo sapiens. Cook (2000, p. 5) explains that play is highly beneficial for human development and continues by adding that play which includes language is particularly important not only for the process of language acquisition by children, but also for language learning by adults. Cook remarks that an analysis of the literature “has on the whole been neglected, or at least sidelined, in the study of

108

M. E. Go´mez Parra

language and language learning.” (Cook, 2000, pp. 4–5). It was not until the 2000s that second language research began to pay attention to the important role of play in language learning (the notable exception to this claim is Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996). Therefore, play should offer children varied opportunities for learning so that they can choose among well-planned activities. In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), research leaves no room for doubt: play is a wonderful ally in the L2 learning process and it should by no means be considered a ‘childish’ activity (Bell, 2005; Belz, 2002a, 2002b; Cook, 1997, 2000, 2001; Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996; Lantolf, 1997; and Sullivan, 2000, among others). In the context of play, children learn, develop and practice innovative behaviours and social competences. Panksepp (2004, p. 287) found that play stimulates the production of a protein in the amygdala and the pre-frontal cortex, which is responsible for planning for the future, and describes the human being as “a uniquely playful species.” Smith and Pellegrini (2008) affirm that early play facilitates language development, and Gray (2019, p. 91) states that “Children in all cultures acquire language through play” and continues: “But, of course, their language play is influenced by culture”. For Pellegrini (2009), following the classic philosophers Plato and Aristotle, play is an essential childhood activity, as it contributes to children’s cognitive, social, emotional and motor development. Through play, children can create and explore a world that they can master. Mourão (2014, p. 254) considers “that English learning areas might facilitate child-initiated play in the target language, and analyses the relationship between adult-led and child-initiated play, consequently outlining a possible format and its components: structure, role, and script.” Thus, the connection between language, culture and play is so close that these cannot be understood in isolation. Procedurally, Lancy’s (2016) anthropological study concluded that verbal teaching is not prevalent outside Western or Westernised cultures. Everywhere, children learn mainly by observing, listening and then incorporating what they see and hear in their play with other children. Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010, p. 16) acknowledge the structural function of play in language learning immersion models for pre-school pupils: The most typical models found with pre-school children often involve games and other playbased activities – a ludic approach, where the vehicular language is used to a greater or lesser extent. These models are often called “immersion” and involve introducing sounds, words and structures where the main focus is on stimulating, fun activities.

The use of play for learning both content and language should follow a ‘natural path’ in the implementation of the CLIL approach. Coyle (2013) conducts interesting research on successful learning among CLIL students, and the participants of this study “reported that they found the lessons boring because the teacher talked too much and there was too much translation” (p. 255). Then, she continues: “Learners also made frequent reference to having ‘fun’ and playing games, referring to activities where the games focused on content rather than on language. Consequently, such lessons were perceived as being more interesting, enjoyable and

7

Play as a Key Construct in Early Childhood Education CLIL

109

useful.” (Coyle, 2013, p. 255) CLIL, as a learner-centred approach, fosters interaction and active participation, practices which are conducive to learning content in a cognitively challenging way. The PETaL approach was born from the Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree entitled ‘Play, Education, Toys and Languages’ (PETaL EMJMD), funded by the European Commission in its 2017 call and coordinated by the University of Córdoba. In this way, Gómez-Parra (2021) describes the PETaL approach (Play, Education, Toys and Languages) for the education of 0 to 8 year-olds within bilingual and intercultural settings, which follows García and Flores’ (2012) guidelines to classroom planning so that: • Content is taught through different languages and is not compartmentalised. CLIL usually designates which subjects are taught in which languages. The flexibility of curricular content in Early Childhood Education facilitates translanguaging practices in the PETaL classroom, aided by teacher planning which is designed specifically for this purpose. • The teacher is flexible in the heterogeneous language practices of their students. The student in the PETaL approach must feel uninhibited to use different linguistic signs that allow them to name things. Mindfulness techniques and the promotion of self-confidence should contribute positively to the achievement of this objective. • Class schedule does not determine the time spent speaking one language or another. Again, the flexibility offered by the absence of ‘subjects’ in most early childhood curricula facilitates the practice of translanguaging techniques in the PETaL classroom, thus ensuring functional interrelation between languages (García, 2009). The practice of cooperative activities, planned interactions and learning corners should also support this. • Co-language practices should be facilitated in the classroom, for example by using ICT to allow the learner to choose the language of a narrative (see, for example, https://app.binogi.com). Learners’ creativity should not be stifled but encouraged by allowing them to use resources (materials in the classroom or from ICT) which satisfy their linguistic curiosity and, if possible, promote it. García and Kleifgen (2018, p. 78) offer an example: Young children’s potential for metalinguistic awareness, creative thinking, and communicative sensibility is forcefully documented in Perry Gilmore’s (2016) close analysis of two 5-year-old boys who shared no common language but soon fashioned their own language during daily play together on a hillside in Kenya.

• The languages used in the classroom should be contrasted to enable the learner to make inferences about their connections and differences (e.g., vocabulary, a practice widely used in Early Childhood Education). To conclude, the role of play as a fundamental construct within CLIL for the learning of both content and language is sufficiently supported by the literature as its role is quintessential to promote the participation and engagement of early childhood

110

M. E. Go´mez Parra

pupils. Ortega Ruiz (1988) states that children’s language in play is related to the search for social agreement, not only with regard to objects, but also to the feelings associated with them. Children use complex linguistic systems to guide conversation towards semiotic understanding, continually negotiating meanings until understanding is reached. This close relationship between play and language benefits greatly from translanguaging techniques within bilingual education approaches, where the transfer of terms in the language system is a classroom practice that facilitates the learning process. The PETaL approach incorporates the concept of translanguaging (Gómez-Parra, 2021), understanding that human beings follow a heteroglossic and dynamic behaviour where bilingualism is integrated into a single linguistic system which does not distinguish between one language and another. This does not mean that humans are not able to discern whether they speak in one language or another; heteroglossic behaviour, according to Bailey (2012), on the one hand, refers to the use of different types of forms or signs (which includes multilingualism) and, on the other hand, is based on the socio-historical associations that go with it. The concept of translanguaging, as it could not be otherwise, entails the concept of transculturalism as García (2009) points out, because it is not only languages that are transferred in the linguistic system but also the cultures that they convey. Play is, therefore, the most appropriate construct for teachers’ planning of translanguaging practices in the classroom, through which both language and culture are enhanced. The PETaL approach understands that play has an outstanding role to play in promoting translanguaging techniques because they facilitate the learner’s expression in different linguistic and cultural systems. To sum up, the PETaL approach assumes that language lies at the heart of human identity, activity and expression (Barron, 2012). Play, as a powerful transmitter of culture and trainer of intercultural communicative competence, stands as a key construct in the PETaL classroom to be used by teachers to help early childhood learners to build and develop intercultural communicative competence. This structural element is placed in PETaL enriched context, where translanguaging and classroom materials can be found and which contribute to creating a rich, positive and, above all, educationally fruitful experience for the twenty-first century child.

References Almodóvar-Antequera, J. M., & Gómez-Parra, M. E. (2017). Propuesta metodológica para la creación de materiales bilingües (AICLE) en Educación Infantil. Methodological proposal to design bilingual teaching resources (CLIL) in Early Childhood Education. El Guiniguada, 26, 77–88. Anderson, C. E., McDougald, J. S., & Cuesta Medina, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C. N. Giannikas, L. McLaughlin, G. Fanning, & N. D. Muller (Eds.), Children learning English: From research to practice (pp. 137–151). Garnet Education (IATEFL Young Learners & Teenagers Special Interest Group). Bailey, B. (2012). Heteroglossia. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 499–507). Routledge. Ballén Molina, R. A. (2010). La pedagogía en los Diálogos de Platón (Pedagogy in Plato’s Dialogues). Revista Diálogos del Saber, 33, 35–54.

7

Play as a Key Construct in Early Childhood Education CLIL

111

Barron, S. (2012). Why language matters for the millennium development goals. UNESCO Publishing. https://bit.ly/30TJCuv Bax, S. (2010). Researching English bilingual education in Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea. British Council. https://bit.ly/3nLK5YN Bell, N. (2005). Exploring L2 language play as an aid to SLL: A case study of humour in NS–NNS interaction. Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 192–218. Belz, J. (2002a). The myth of the deficient communicator. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 59–82. Belz, J. (2002b). Second language play as a representation of the multicompetent self in foreign language study. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 1, 13–39. Bergen, D. (2019). Infant sensorimotor play. In P. Smith & J. L. Roopnarine (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of play. Developmental and disciplinary perspectives (pp. 125–141). Cambridge University Press. Bers, M. U. (2019). Coding as another language: A pedagogical approach for teaching computer science in early childhood. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(4), 499–528. Bialystok, E. (2018). Bilingual education for young children: Review of the effects and consequences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(6), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1203859 Brown, H. D. (2006). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (5th ed.). Longman. Castro, D. C., & Pryshker, N. (2019). Early Childhood Education for bilingual children and the road to multilingualism. In C. Brown & M. B. McMullen (Eds.), Handbook of Early Childhood Care and Education (pp. 173–195). Wiley Blackwell Publishing. Celce-Murcia, M., & McIntosh, L. (1989). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Newbury House Publishers. Centro Virtual Cervantes. (2020). Aprendizaje de segundas lenguas mediante el estudio de materias (Second language learning through content subjects). https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/ bibliotecaele/diccioele/indice.htm#c Commission of the European Communities. (2003). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: An action plan 2004–2006. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼COM:2003:0449:FIN:en:PDF Cook, G. (1997). Language play, language learning. English Language Teaching Journal, 51(3), 224–231. Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford University Press. Cook, G. (2001). “The philosopher pulled the lower jaw of the hen”: Ludicrous invented sentences in language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 22(3), 366–387. Coyle, D. (2013). Listening to learners: An investigation into ‘successful learning’ across CLIL contexts. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777384 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2014). Giving voice to the students: What (de)motivates them in CLIL classes? In D. Lasagabaster, A. Doiz, & J. M. Sierra (Eds.), Motivation and foreign language learning: From theory to practice (pp. 117–138). John Benjamins. Duncan, R. M., & Tarulli, D. (2003). Play as the leading activity of the preschool period: Insights from Vygotsky, Leontev, and Bakhtin. Early Education & Development, 14(3), 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1403_2 Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2019). An introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for teachers and teacher educators. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.21

112

M. E. Go´mez Parra

EU (Official Journal of the European Communities). (1995). Council Resolution of 31 March 1995 on improving and diversifying language learning and teaching within the education systems of the European Union No. C 207/1. https://bit.ly/3CysDLv European Commission. (2004). Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity: An action plan 2004–2006. https://bit.ly/3ACHNOY Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Eurydice European Unit. https://bit.ly/3hP8WqV Fleer, M. (2013). Theorising play in the early years. Cambridge University Press. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley/Blackwell. García, O., & Flores, N. (2012). Multilingual pedagogies. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 232–246). Routledge. García, O., & Kleifgen, J. A. (Eds.). (2018). Educating emergent bilinguals: Policies, programs, and practices for English learners (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. Godzhaeva, N. S., Logunov, T. A., Lokteva, M. S., & Zolotareva, S. A. (2019). Approaching CLIL from the periphery: Integration of content and language in Russian Higher Education Institution. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 8. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2019.2.280. https://bit.ly/3CrKDqL. Gómez-Parra, M. E. (2021). Educación bilingüe en la infancia: El enfoque PETaL (Bilingual education in infancy: The PETaL approach). Peter Lang. Gray, P. (2019). Evolutionary functions of play. In P. Smith & J. L. Roopnarine (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of play. Developmental and disciplinary perspectives (pp. 84–102). Cambridge University Press. Hedegaard, M. (2012). Analyzing children’s learning and development in everyday settings from a cultural-historical wholeness approach. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(2), 127–138. Ikeda, M. (2013). Does CLIL work for Japanese secondary schools? International CLIL Research Journal, 2(1), 31–43. http://www.icrj.eu/21/article3.html Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. English Language Teaching Journal, 50, 199–212. Lancy, D. F. (2016). Ethnographic perspectives on culture acquisition. In C. L. Meehan & A. N. Crittenden (Eds.), Childhood: Origins, evolution and implications, (pp. 173–195). University of New Mexico Press. Lantolf, J. (1997). The function of language play in the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In A. PérezLeroux & W. Glass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish. Vol. 2: Production, processing, and comprehension (pp. 3–24). Cascadilla Press. Lorenzo, F. (2007). An analytical framework of language integration in L2 content-based courses: The European dimension. Language and Education, 21(6), 502–514. https://doi.org/10.2167/ le708.0 Mackey, W. F. (1978). The importation of bilingual education models. International dimensions of bilingual education. Georgetown University Press. Marsh, D. (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages: An introduction to content and language integrated learning for parents and young people. TIE-CLIL, University of Jyväskylä/Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. Marsh, D., Maljers, A., & Hartiala, A. K. (2001). Profiling European CLIL classrooms: Language open doors. University of Jyväskylä. https://bit.ly/2XH1Y07 Mcdougald, J. (2009). The state of language and content instruction in Colombia. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 2, 44–48. https://bit.ly/3klSQGS Meyerhoff, M. (2011). Introducing sociolinguistics (3rd ed.). Routledge. Mourão, S. (2014). Taking play seriously in the pre-primary English classroom. ELT Journal, 68(3), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu018 Myers-Scotton, C. (2006). Multiple voices: An introduction to bilingualism. Blackwell Publishing. Ortega Ruiz, R. (1988). Juego y conocimientos sociales. Un estudio sobre las preferencias lúdicas infantiles y el contenido de los juegos sociodramáticos. (Play and social knowledge. A study of

7

Play as a Key Construct in Early Childhood Education CLIL

113

children’s play preferences and the content of socio-dramatic play). Doctoral Thesis. https:// www.educacion.gob.es/teseo/mostrarRef.do?ref¼57657 Oxford Living Dictionary. (2019). Glocal. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/glocal Panksepp, J. (2004). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. University Press. Pellegrini, A. D. (2009). The role of play in human development. Oxford University Press. Scarfe, N. V. (1962). Play is education. Childhood Education, 39(3), 117–121. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00094056.1962.10726996 Scott, F. (2019). Troublesome binaries: Play and learning on screen and off. In P. K. Smith & J. L. Roopnarine (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of play. Developmental and disciplinary perspectives (pp. 240–258). Cambridge University Press. Smith, P. K., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2008). Learning through play. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development, 1–5. Smith, P. K., & Roopnarine, J. L. (Eds.) (2019). The Cambridge handbook of play: Developmental and disciplinary perspectives. Cambridge University Press. Sullivan, P. (2000). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a Vietnamese classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 113–131). Cambridge University Press. Sutton-Smith, B. (1979). Play and learning. Garden Press. Torras-Vila, B. (2021). Music as a tool for foreign language learning in Early Childhood Education and Primary Education. Proposing innovative CLIL Music teaching approaches. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 4(1), 35–47. https:// doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.60 UN (United Nations). (2015). Millennium development goals. https://www.un.org/ millenniumgoals/ UNESCO. (2011). International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 2011). UNESCO Statistics Institute. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000219109 UNICEF. (2020). Convention on the rights of the children. https://uni.cf/3tSVZ3S Vadeboncoeur, J. A., Perone, A., & Panina-Beard, N. (2016). Creativity as a practice of freedom: Imaginative play, moral imagination, and the production of culture. In V. P. Glaveanu (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of creativity and culture research (pp. 285–305). Palgrave Macmillan. Varkuti, A. (2010). Linguistic benefits of the CLIL approach measuring linguistic competences. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 67–79. https://bit.ly/3zp8Fkj Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97. Vygotsky, L. S. (1933). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. https://www. marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1933/play.htm Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Whitebread, D., Basilio, M., Kuvalja, M., & Verma, M. (2012). The importance of play. A report on the value of children’s play with a series of policy recommendations. Written for Toy Industries of Europe (TIE). Brussels. https://cutt.ly/sEzExcG Winther-Lindqvist, D. (2019). Playing games with rules in early child care and beyond. In Smith, & J. L. Roopnarine (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of play. Developmental and disciplinary perspectives (pp. 222–239). Cambridge University Press. Wright, W. E., & Baker, C. (2017). Key concepts in bilingual education. In O. García, A. M. Y. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (3rd ed., pp. 65–80). Springer.

Part II Mapping Pre-primary CLIL Internationally

8

Paving the Way for CLIL in Pre-primary Education: The Case of Madrid Xabier San Isidro

and A´ngel Huerga

Contents Introduction: ELT and CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Backdrop: Amalgamating Early-Start and Maximum-Exposure Policies . . . . . . . . . Early Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maximum Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Case of Madrid: Pioneering Provision and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From Early-Start ELT to Early-Start CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118 120 121 121 123 123 124 125 128 129

Abstract

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) provision in Spain has sparked a myriad of context-dependent models in the different regions of the country, usually linked to polarizing political standpoints on bi(multi)lingualism in education. Since its piloting stages, CLIL has developed mostly in primary and secondary education. This experience, however, has not translated into pre-primary education, possibly on the grounds of its own pedagogical raison d’être, which is far from the compartmentalized curricula of other educational stages. For more than two decades, infants’ exposure to foreign languages in schools has been taking place in the form of experimental projects aiming at promoting children’s awareness of multilingualism through an affective and natural approach to language learning. Despite the exponential increase in the body of literature in the field, research has only taken baby steps to analyse the viability of the CLIL approach in pre-primary education. In this chapter we X. San Isidro (*) Universidad de Jaén, Jaén, Spain Á. Huerga Universidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, Spain © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_8

117

118

X. San Isidro and A´. Huerga

(1) analyse the theoretical underpinning for additional language learning in pre-primary education; (2) discuss whether the CLIL approach conforms to the fundamentals of teaching very young learners; and (3) explore the reasons for the pioneering role of the Region of Madrid in developing provision. Keywords

CLIL · ELT · Pre-primary · Policy-making · Curriculum development

Introduction: ELT and CLIL Although globalisation is opening an unprecedented integration of markets, nations, people mobility and technology and hence triggering new and ever-changing educational needs, the process is not new and has been taking place for a few decades. What is new is not only the degree of global contact between the different languages and cultures, but also how English has become a global language and, most importantly in educational terms, how governments around the world are investing in (foreign) language teaching. Language has become the key ingredient to success in a world increasingly ‘interconnected by the exchange of information and knowledge’ (Mehisto et al., 2008, p. 10). Through the vertiginous technological advance, the meaning of language policy in general, and language-in-education in particular, has turned into a synonym for the economic and cultural relationship among people. However, the complexity of educational language planning requires a number of decisions to be taken and implemented in order to guarantee success. Sometimes those decisions clash with what research reveals or recommends due to difficulties in implementation or lack of resources, an insufficiency that can lead to the failure to meet language planning and learning objectives. In the past few years, a number of myths have arisen about language-in-education planning in general, and about the role of English as a foreign language in particular, relating to (1) English being a guarantee of access to economic and personal opportunity, and (2) early-start and maximum exposure policies leading to better outcomes. There exists a greater need than ever before to examine those myths and analyse their impact on language-ineducation policy-making. The valorization of ELT (English Language Teaching) in education, omnipresent in Europe, has led to a myriad of discussions not only about its utilitarian function and status in comparison to other European languages, but also about its growing economic and instrumental dominance in the approach to language policy, as opposed to individual and societal multilingualism (May, 2005). The debate around the spread of English being due to its wide political endorsement versus people’s desire to learn it as a personal need has been in the literature for years. Labelled a ‘contemporary phenomenon as a world language’ (Phillipson, 1992, p. 1), the impact of English on education has been interpreted in terms of linguistic imperialism, i.e. the pedagogy of English as a tool of politics (Phillipson, 1992), a view that has been contested a number of times. Pennycook (1994, p. 9), for instance, referred to

8

Paving the Way for CLIL in Pre-primary Education: The Case of Madrid

119

the expansion of English as ‘natural, neutral and beneficial’ and, rather than judging English as being a force that is imposing itself on other languages and cultures, he argues the existence of the political spread of English as the ‘natural result’ of global power of English-speaking countries and colonialism. This view was shared by Canagarajah (1999:41), who also held a position against blaming the language only. The spread of ELT, nonetheless, is not limited to the European context and is becoming globally prevalent as gradually more educational policies around the world introduce more English (and earlier) in the curriculum (Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2019), i.e. the so-called early-start and maximum-exposure language-ineducation policies. Interestingly, due to the fact that the development of English language skills is no longer a matter of choice but a requirement in education, career and life (Zhang, 2019), English has indisputably become not only the most widely taught foreign language in the education systems of Europe and most of nonEnglish-speaking countries, but also the foreign language chosen to teach very young learners. Contrarily, on the grounds of its own language diversity and for the purpose of preventing English from removing and replacing other languages in the different educational systems, the European Union (EU) education language policy, inherently multilingualism-oriented, has been trying to harmonize mutual understanding between the EU multilingual speakers and the preservation of regional and minority languages. Developing every individual’s language repertoire – the so-called plurilingual competence (Council of Europe, 2001) – and highlighting the social value of language diversity has been at the core of the Council of Europe’s language policy vision. Multilingual education challenges monolingual attitudes and embraces all types of language learning, ranging from first languages (L1), language(s) of schooling and foreign languages to regional and minority languages. Within this context, Content and Language Integration Learning (CLIL) originally developed in the 1990s as a response to the European policy aiming at EU citizens developing their communicative competence in their L1 plus two other EU languages (European Commission, 1995). The language-rich European Union lens has always come up against the utilitarian and instrumentalist perspective that can be found in the different member states’ policies (San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019), which has made English prevail as the main foreign language in the different national and regional curricula as a vehicle to introduce content. Setting the context of this chapter, Spain makes a really complex case for analysis in terms of language policy as it depends on the existence of several co-official (arguably minority and at times minoritized) languages in some of the regions (such as Galicia, Catalonia or the Basque Country), where immersion programmes have been in place since the 1970s with a view to endowing those languages with a status on a par with the one of the majority language of the country, Spanish. In these regions, where co-official languages struggle to maintain their linguistic heritage, prioritizing English in the school curriculum might inadvertently lead to playing down other languages of cultural, sentimental or instrumental value (May, 2005). This is the reason why language policy in those regions has been combining preservation and development of the co-official languages with CLIL programmes.

120

X. San Isidro and A´. Huerga

On the other hand, in the so-called ‘monolingual’ regions such as Madrid or Andalusia – the ones that lack the presence of a co-official language and, hence, with more curricular space for foreign languages – the widespread endorsement of CLIL from policy-makers and schools – usually called ‘bilingual’ – has resulted in an overwhelming adoption of English as the main vehicular language for CLIL. It is precisely due to these particular sociolinguistic hallmarks that Spanish CLIL provision and implementation have sparked off a number of context-dependent and disparate models in the different regions of the country (Otto & San Isidro, 2019), and those different models have been usually linked to polarizing political standpoints on bi(multi)lingualism in education. In terms of how it has made its way into the different education stages, and just as it has been happening on an international level since its very inception, CLIL has been developing in both primary and secondary education, mostly in English, in line with policy-makers’ view of this language as a required skill for life (Zhang, 2019). The CLIL experience, however, has not translated into pre-primary education, possibly on the grounds of its (pre-primary education’s) own pedagogical raison d’être along with its curricular organization, which is far from the compartmentalized view of other educational stages. For more than two decades, infants’ exposure to foreign languages in schools – mostly in English – has been taking place in the form of experimental projects aiming at promoting children’s awareness of multilingualism through an affective and natural approach to language learning, in alignment with the principles of the globalized teaching approach characteristic of pre-primary education (San Isidro, 2009). In the same vein, despite the fact that the body of literature in the field has increased exponentially, research has only taken baby steps (García Esteban, 2015) to analyse the viability of the CLIL approach in early childhood education. With this in mind, in this chapter we (1) analyse the theoretical underpinning for additional language learning in pre-primary education; (2) discuss whether the CLIL approach conforms to the fundamentals of teaching very young learners; and (3) explore the reasons for the pioneering role of the region of Madrid in developing provision.

Theoretical Backdrop: Amalgamating Early-Start and MaximumExposure Policies The principles of pre-primary education are related to how infants perceive the world along with how they develop their learning skills (Atienza, 1998; Moyano et al., 1996; San Isidro, 2009; Schachter, 2017). The acquisition of these skills by very young learners depends on their short attention spans and their global perception of the world, which usually guide their learning experiences. With the focus on emotional development, social skills, sense of self and physical and motor development, pre-primary curricula are designed with a basis on project-based global learning as opposed to the compartmentalized curricula which are part and parcel of other educational stages. The introduction of foreign languages in and through the pre-primary curricula should be carefully decided and designed in compliance with early childhood education fundamentals. As explained in the previous section, throughout Europe there is a growing

8

Paving the Way for CLIL in Pre-primary Education: The Case of Madrid

121

trend for the state members to develop foreign language education policies focusing on (1) an early start, and (2) a maximum exposure, to which CLIL has definitely been the most important contributor in the last 25 years.

Early Start In terms of a foreign or additional language learning early start, there exist clashing views about its early introduction with very young learners. According to Zein (2017), for instance, the theoretical basis for early-start policies is the Critical Period Hypothesis in second language acquisition (Lenneberg, 1967), which states, on the one hand, that the first few years of life is the crucial time in which a human being can acquire a first language – if presented with adequate stimuli – and, on the other hand, that first-language acquisition relies on neuroplasticity. According to Voss et al. (2017, p. 1), neuroplasticity ‘can be viewed as a general umbrella term that refers to the brain’s ability to modify, change, and adapt both structure and function throughout life and in response to experience’. Interestingly, there exists a common perception that an early exposure to a foreign language will help children acquire the language effortlessly, as happens with first language acquisition. The thrust of ‘the earlier the better’ argument is that language learning should happen in natural environments. Cenoz (2009, p. 189) reported that research in natural language environments supports the notion of an early start. This position has, nonetheless, been refuted a number of times precisely because the learning of foreign languages usually occurs in learning scenarios that are far from natural. According to Kirkpatrick (2012), for instance, it is more effective to delay the introduction of a foreign language until secondary education, because the majority of learners are not learning English in natural language environments, but learning it in contexts where teachers are not adequately proficient in the language, and where English has little role to play outside the classroom. Kirkpatrick’s criticisms of ‘the earlier the better’ approach have received considerable attention. As a matter of fact, a number of scholars have maintained that the early-start approach is an ideological fallacy (Phillipson, 1992, 2018; Cummins, 2008), and that the consequences of introducing English might negatively impact heritage language development (Kosonen, 2009). Although the Critical Period Hypothesis is purely a hypothesis and its application on ELT in most contexts is debatable, national governments and policymakers remain steadfast and resolute in their efforts to introduce the foreign language (English) earlier, clinging to the idea that infants are usually active, keen, enthusiastic, interested in exploration, and usually less anxious and inhibited than older language learners (Pinter, 2006).

Maximum Exposure As regards the maximum-exposure trend, which has also been deemed an ideological fallacy (Phillipson, 1992, 2018), two policy paths can be identified. The first one

122

X. San Isidro and A´. Huerga

is policy-makers’ increase of the number of hours devoted to the foreign language as a subject in the curriculum, whereas the second one is the concurrent introduction of foreign languages as a medium of instruction. Vis-à-vis the former, Kaplan et al. (2011, p. 107) stated that even with more hours allocated to English, this increase still seems to be ‘inadequate to achieve any sort of fluency’. By and large, language policies in general, and language-in-education policies in particular, need to be conceptualized, designed and implemented within the wider discourses of quality and equity that trigger current debates on education (Tupas, 2015). From a historical point of view, access to English has been unequally distributed and research has revealed that a longer period of instruction does not always mean better results. According to Bamgbose (2006), the detrimental effects of ‘more’ English can be seen in social stratification, exclusion, and problems associated with education and literacy, such as the decline in reading and writing skills in the younger generations. This is why the length of instruction in English does not automatically translate into better competence and educational outcomes. The second maximum-exposure policy path is the use of foreign languages as a medium of instruction. Despite issues regarding teacher training, teaching conditions, inadequate educational materials, and limited funding (Hobbs, 2012) having yet to be resolved, gradually more and more national governments are drifting towards using foreign languages (mostly English) as a vehicle for learning content (CLIL) on the grounds that ‘the best way to learn English is to use it as a medium of instruction’ (Benson, 2008, p. 2). Notwithstanding the clear policy intentions, more exposure to English by using it as a medium of instruction might be conducive to inefficient resource allocation and ineffective educational outcomes (Kosonen, 2017). Conversely, result-wise, a good number of longitudinal research studies undertaken in primary and secondary education have shown evidence of learners’ language gains sustained in time (Grisaleña et al., 2009; Pérez Cañado, 2018; San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019). What remains to be seen, however, is the analysis of the results of CLIL implementation with very young learners, i.e. the combination of a maximum exposure to the language in the curriculum with an early start policy. Despite some arguments against the introduction of English as the medium of instruction with young learners (Coleman, 2010; Hamid et al., 2013), most language-in-education policies in reality are grounded in both the ‘maximumexposure’ as well as the ‘early-start’ ideologies. The problem in these situations is that the demands of globalization and English as a world language (Lo Bianco, 2014) usually outmatch academic recommendations. In other words, the crux of the matter for policymakers seems to be whether CLIL should be implemented or not with very young learners, i.e. whether language-ineducation policies should amalgamate an early start and a maximum exposure with infants. As explained above, CLIL originated within the fundamentals of the EU vision of multilingualism and conceptually developed within Coyle’s theoretical framework, the 4 Cs (Coyle et al., 2010), interpreted as content (subject matter) and its interrelationship with communication (language), cognition (thinking skills) and culture (awareness of self and ‘otherness’). According to San Isidro and Lasagabaster (2020), CLIL requires pedagogical practices that adopt and adapt a

8

Paving the Way for CLIL in Pre-primary Education: The Case of Madrid

123

less compartmentalized view of the curriculum. From the onset, pedagogical practices related to this approach have involved learning content through an additional language. Despite policymakers largely opting for English as the language of instruction, in the course of more than two decades and influenced by the multilingual turn (Conteh & Meier, 2014), teachers implementing CLIL have started using more flexible and fluid language practices (Karabassova & San Isidro, 2020), in line with the ecological understanding of multilingualism, which acknowledges the value of broad linguistic repertoires. When implemented in schools, CLIL helps break down the walls of compartmentalized teaching (San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2020) as teachers collaboratively design and work, making connections between different subjects and languages. CLIL, thus, favours not only cross-curricular project-based work, but also the connection between the different languages. And this global perspective of teaching (and learning) together with a flexible and fluid language use might be the best argument to support the use of this approach in pre-primary education. CLIL might be understood as an approach more suitable for older children, on the grounds that they are already equipped with more advanced cognitive skills along with more competence in the vehicular language. Nonetheless, Coyle, Hood and Marsh (2010, p. 17) highlight that it is usually difficult to distinguish CLIL from standard language learning practice with very young learners as ‘the main focus is on doing –be it playing, singing, drawing, building models, or other activities–’. This means that good practice in teaching foreign languages to very young learners is good CLIL practice.

The Case of Madrid: Pioneering Provision and Regulations The Context The implementation of CLIL in Spain started by the end of the 1990s with no national provision and through different directives in both the monolingual and bilingual regions (San Isidro & Lasagabaster, 2019). Its exponential growth and the massive uptake on the part of schools and students has made Spain become one of the leading countries in both CLIL implementation and practice given the awareness of the importance that learning foreign languages has in a globalised society (Coyle, 2010). CLIL has become one of the cornerstones to both support multilingualism and enhance the learning of foreign languages. Nonetheless, the overall picture is quite varied as each region can regulate and design (GuillamónSuesta & Renau, 2015) its own provision based on its needs and interests, provided that it complies with the requirements in the legal framework set by the state educational law (Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). One of the earliest undertakings to introduce CLIL in Spain was the creation of the Bilingual and Bicultural Project by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science together with the British Council back in 1996, which was based on an integrated English and Spanish curriculum (Coba Arango, 2010). It started in Madrid, but it was later extended to other regions. This pilot experience was considered to be the starting

124

X. San Isidro and A´. Huerga

point and, possibly, the triggering effect for independent CLIL programmes in the different Spanish regions. At the moment it co-exists with the CLIL programmes of the different education departments in non-bilingual communities. The Region of Madrid is one of the so-called ‘monolingual’ regions in Spain with no co-official language, and thus, a language policy aiming to prioritize foreign languages in the statutory curriculum does not seem to pose a risk of hindering the development of other languages of sentimental or cultural value, as is the case in the bilingual regions. This, together with the space for foreign languages in the curriculum might have been the main reasons for the overwhelming adoption of English not only as the language chosen for very early language learning but also as the main vehicular language for CLIL. The language-in-education policy of Madrid is the very embodiment of the early-start and maximum-exposure combination analysed in the previous section. As a response to the European recommendations aiming at EU citizens developing their communicative competence in their L1 plus two other EU languages (European Commission, 1995), and ever since education was a devolved power to the region (Gobierno de España, 1999), its Department of Education has promoted both the very early learning of English – starting in pre-primary – and the introduction of foreign languages – mostly English – through CLIL. Since 2004, the Region of Madrid has been implementing the Spanish-English bilingual programme, a model of bilingual education which allows students to not only study English as a foreign language, but also receive curricular instruction for other subjects in English. Despite the existence of other programmes using foreign languages such as French or German for teaching and learning non-language content, the reality is that their presence is merely symbolic if we compare them to their SpanishEnglish counterparts. In line with what has been happening internationally, English has become not only the most widely taught foreign language in Madrid, but also the foreign language chosen to teach very young learners. As a working language, it is used across the curriculum within regional public and charter schools, which must comply with the provision set out by the regional Department of Education (Comunidad de Madrid, 2008). From its initial implementation in 26 primary schools, the Spanish-English Bilingual Programme is now operative in 403. This means that 49.75% of all primary schools within Madrid are part of the bilingual programme. Vis-à-vis secondary education, in the school year 2010–2011, 32 bilingual secondary schools opened their doors to welcome the first influx of students who had completed their bilingual primary education, a number that has risen to the 194 schools that are currently taking part in the programme. As far as pre-primary education is concerned, in the past two school years, Madrid has been pioneering the development of provision for its bilingual programme with very young learners. In the following sections the aim is to provide an overview of how and why this development has taken place.

Pre-primary Education Regarding pre-primary education, ever since the region took over responsibility for all non-university education in 1999, the focus was initially put on developing

8

Paving the Way for CLIL in Pre-primary Education: The Case of Madrid

125

educational provision and regulations in the second cycle of pre-primary. In Spain, at national and regional level, pre-primary education is divided into two different cycles (0–3 and 3–6 years), which can be implemented either in separate settings – the first cycle in first-cycle pre-primary schools, and the second cycle in pre-primary and primary schools – or in combined settings for both cycles – pre-primary schools–. The two cycles differ in terms of both the qualifications required for teachers and the curriculum content. First cycle teachers are required to have an HND (Higher National Diploma) in pre-primary education, whereas second cycle teachers must have a teaching degree in pre-primary education. As to the statutory curriculum, it is prescribed by the State and the Autonomous Communities, as a shared responsibility. The general principles and goals of pre-primary education are developed by the central Government. However, while for the second cycle there is a national core curriculum as well as regulations on the organisation and functioning of schools, the first cycle falls under the responsibility of the Autonomous Communities. From 3 years of age, children are legally entitled to free pre-primary education. The general principles and goals of pre-primary education are laid down and defined by articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Royal Decree 1630/2006 (Gobierno de España, 2006), which sets out the minimum teaching requirements for the second cycle of pre-primary education and clearly states that early childhood education must contribute to promoting and supporting every child’s physical, affective, social and intellectual development. One of the main goals is to ensure that every child will develop their ability to communicate and express themselves in a foreign language. More specifically, as detailed in article 5, it is for educational policymakers to facilitate a first approach to foreign language learning (English) in the second cycle of pre-primary education. In accordance with the fundamentals of teaching and learning in early childhood education, this national provision also establishes three learning areas, along with educational goals, content and assessment criteria: 1. self-knowledge and personal autonomy; 2. knowledge of the environment; 3. and languages (communication and representation). These areas are related to the learners’ development of skills (emotional development, social skills, sense of self and physical and motor development) as well as to their global perception of the world, which usually guide their learning experiences (Atienza, 1998; Moyano et al., 1996; San Isidro, 2009; Schachter, 2017).

From Early-Start ELT to Early-Start CLIL Besides its complex language-in-education policy, Spain also makes an interesting case as to the design of statutory curricula, since that responsibility is shared by the State and the Autonomous Communities, which sport devolution regarding the competence in education. Curricula are developed in three different levels. The first

126

X. San Isidro and A´. Huerga

level is the national framework first published by the Ministry of Education through royal decrees, which are later developed in the different regions and published through different decrees and directives. In Spain there are no local educational authorities, which makes schools and educators responsible for adapting the statutory curriculum to the characteristics of their context through an official document, which is called School Educational Project and comprises the annual programmes of all the subjects (second level). Teachers are the ultimate responsible for curriculum development in the third level, as they have to adapt the general programme to their classroom planning for a specific group. As is always the case with all the regions when it comes to developing educational policy, the provision described in the previous section was ultimately developed by the region of Madrid, through the Decree 17/2008 (Community of Madrid 2008), a directive which mainstreamed the teaching of English as a foreign language to children in the second cycle of pre-primary education. In its article 11, this directive details the following aspects: lessons will be led by qualified English primary school teachers; at least 1.5 h – a minimum of two 45-min teaching periods – per week should be devoted to the teaching of the foreign language; the content from the learning areas will be incorporated in the English lessons as much as possible. This provision also develops the curriculum content from the three different learning areas, which, according to the curriculum development levels explained above, has to be further developed by schools and teachers: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Self-knowledge and personal autonomy: The body and self-image Game and movement Activity and daily life Personal care and health Knowledge of the environment: Physical environment: elements, relations and measurement Approach to nature Culture and life in society Languages: communication and representation. Verbal language (where the foreign language is included) Audiovisual language and information and communication technologies Visual language Musical language Body language

In Madrid, the same as in the other Spanish regions, prior to the regulation of ELT in early childhood education, infants’ exposure to foreign languages in schools had been taking place in the form of experimental projects aiming at promoting

8

Paving the Way for CLIL in Pre-primary Education: The Case of Madrid

127

children’s awareness of multilingualism through an affective and natural approach to language learning (San Isidro, 2009). The directive above systematized the teaching of English as a foreign language in the second cycle of pre-primary education until the school year 2017–2018. It is important to underscore that it was English primary school teachers – not pre-primary teachers with a specialism in English – that were entitled to teach the foreign language. Nonetheless, given the integrated nature of the curriculum in early childhood education, the teachers involved were encouraged to set cross-curricular links between ELT and the other learning areas, something feasible given the collaborative environment characteristic of pre-primary and primary schools, in which teachers are used to coordinating among themselves (Moyano et al., 1996; San Isidro, 2009), which hence makes it possible for them to incorporate non-language content in ELT. These experiences, the development of policy and the endorsement from schools lay the foundations for the Department of Education to extend the Spanish-English Bilingual Programme to pre-primary education from the school year 2017–2018 through the publication of the Order 2126/2017 (Comunidad de Madrid, 2017). In an attempt to merge the previously implemented early-start and maximum-exposure policies in the second cycle of early childhood education, this directive aims to both regulate the extension of the Spanish-English Bilingual Programme to the second cycle of pre-primary education, and establish the official procedure to be followed by the primary schools wishing to implement the programme. Besides including the two 45-min periods for ELT established in the previous regulation, it also sets out the minimum number of teaching hours devoted to the teaching of content in English as follows: First year (3-year-olds): a minimum of three 45-min periods per week Second year (4-year-olds): a minimum of four 45-min periods per week Third year (5-year-olds): a minimum of five 45-min periods per week Surprisingly, no initial piloting or ongoing monitoring has been undertaken. The Madrid Department of Education seems to have relied on the previous early-start policy without considering that the education scenario is utterly different, as are the teachers’ profiles. Under the new regulations, schools are allowed to make decisions on CLIL teaching times considering these minimums, provided (1) the decision is approved by the teaching staff and the school board, and (2) the school has a sufficient number of qualified teachers, i.e. pre-primary teachers who hold an approved accreditation (‘habilitación lingüística’) for the teaching of content through English as a medium of instruction. As distinct from other Spanish regions in which a B2 level is necessary (Andúgar et al., 2019), Madrid teachers’ level of English must be at C1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001), and they receive a monthly productivity allowance on top of their salary. The accreditation procedure must be completed in accordance with the Official Call issued by the General Directorate of Human Resources. There exist two ways for a teacher to be accredited:

128

X. San Isidro and A´. Huerga

• By submitting certain university degrees or official language certifications deemed to be equivalent to a CEFRL level C1 or above. These degrees and certifications are listed in the above-mentioned Official Call. • By passing an exam which recognizes – exclusively for teaching positions in the region of Madrid – a C1 level of linguistic proficiency according to the CEFRL. In contrast to primary and secondary education, where learning is compartmentalized into different areas and subjects, in pre-primary education learning takes place in a global way in alignment with the fundamentals of early childhood education. All learning experiences at this stage are designed around the three general learning areas mentioned above: self-knowledge and personal autonomy; knowledge of the environment; and languages (communication and representation). The policy hence allows CLIL implementation through English in content-oriented sessions focusing, for instance, on psychomotor development (within the learning area of selfknowledge and personal autonomy); or on music (within the area of languages, communication and representation). However, what provision in Madrid lacks is top-down pedagogical and curricular recommendations for practitioners to be able to implement integration-based practices. Besides policy and accreditation, the development of CLIL in general and now its extension to pre-primary in particular has put teacher training under the spotlight. The lack of specific linguistic training was a widespread concern in some regions after the initial stages of CLIL implementation (Otto & San Isidro, 2019). However, once teachers were gradually obtaining the required language competence credentials, specific training on CLIL pedagogy was developed (Fernández & Halbach, 2011). In the case of Madrid, teacher training has been essential to maintain the high calibre of the Bilingual Programme. The Department of Education has made a firm commitment and significant investment to provide Madrid practitioners with professional development courses adapted to the specific needs of the Bilingual Programme. The Foreign Language Training Plan (PFLE), an annual call for teachers that has always been part and parcel of the Bilingual Programme since its inception in 2004, offers linguistic, methodological and ICT training to help bilingual teachers improve their skills in English. It offers courses in a language immersion format for qualified teachers who are accredited or willing to be accredited as well as for teachers wishing to share their good practices in the classroom. Despite the lack of CLIL-related professional development courses for teachers specialized in pre-primary education prior to their enrolling the Bilingual Programme, in-service teacher training is, by and large, the most important takeaway from Madrid’s provision.

Conclusion This chapter has discussed whether CLIL conforms to the principles of early years education through showcasing how language-in-education policies around the world are aiming towards the amalgamation of early-start and maximum-exposure models; the dichotomy between ELT vs multilingualism in education; and an analysis of

8

Paving the Way for CLIL in Pre-primary Education: The Case of Madrid

129

policy-development in a particular context, Madrid. It could be said that, after 3 years of implementation, the Madrid Department of Education is still in its infancy although resolutely paving the way for CLIL provision in pre-primary education. It remains to be seen, however, which the consequences will be regarding very early learners’ acquisition and learning of languages, as no piloting or monitoring has been conducted prior to general implementation. Madrid has opted for developing a utilitarian and instrumentalist language-in-education policy, focusing on incorporating English across the curriculum and introducing it from early years. While, as said above, the region’s provision is not sidelining other languages with sentimental or cultural value and the extension of CLIL to pre-primary education is the natural result of a language-in-education policy that has lasted for more than 15 years, the reality is that caution is needed and more attention should be paid to academic researchers, who have already sounded alarms about policy-makers’ rush to incorporate a maximum exposure to the foreign language across the curriculum with learners that are still developing their L1. It has long been recognized that making young children operate in school scenarios with an underdeveloped competence in a foreign language and without recourse to their L1 might be detrimental to the quality of their learning (Baker, 2011; Cummins, 1984). Genesee (1987) observed that, when compared to older learners, a high exposure to an additional/foreign language with very young learners might slow down the acquisition of literacy skills in their L1. Having said this, in relation to more specifically CLIL-related research with young learners, Jäppinen (2005) found that the use of the learners’ L1 elsewhere in the curriculum might be pivotal to the success of a CLIL programme at this level. In this vein, it is also important to note that learners might not have a level of proficiency in their L1 appropriate enough to face content learning (Cummins, 2008) and this might be the reason for the authors of this chapter to consider a well-planned balance of L1 and foreign language as the possible basis for implementing quality CLIL in pre-primary education. And this might be the main challenge and way forward. After all, CLIL, as the acronym indicates, is about integrating content and language (be it L1 or a foreign/additional language), and it hence aims to provide flexible and fluid language practices that allow learners to develop their whole linguistic repertoire.

References Andúgar, A., Cortina Pérez, B., & Tornel, M. (2019). Tratamiento de la lengua extranjera en Educación Infantil en las distintas comunidades autónomas españolas. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y formación del profesorado, Vol. 23 Núm. 1 (2019): Hacia una educación inclusiva para todos. Nuevas contribuciones, Colaboración, 467–487. Atienza, J. L. (1998). Emoción y aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras [Emotion and learning of foreign languages]. Aula de innovación educativa, 27–30. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Multilingual Matters. Bamgbose, A. (2006). A recurring decimal: English in language policy and planning. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. L. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of World Englishes. Blackwell.

130

X. San Isidro and A´. Huerga

Benson, C. (2008). Summary overview. Mother tongue-based education in multilingual contexts. In C. Haddad (Ed.), Improving the quality of mother tongue-based literacy and learning. Case studies from Asia, Africa and South America (pp. 2–11). UNESCO. Canagarajah, A. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English language teaching. Oxford University Press. Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education. Multilingual Matters. Coba Arango, E. (2010). Foreword. In A. Dobson, M. Pérez Murillo, & R. Johnstone (Eds.), Bilingual education project Spain. Evaluation report 5. Ministerio de Educación, Subdirección General de Documentación y Publicaciones. Coleman, H. (2010). The English language in development. British Council. Available online at www.teachingenglish.org.uk/transform/book. Comunidad de Madrid (2008). Decreto 17/2008, de 6 de marzo, del Consejo de Gobierno, por el que se desarrollan para la Comunidad de Madrid las enseñanzas de Educación Infantil. Boletín Oficial de la Comunidad de Madrid. Comunidad de Madrid (2017). Orden 2126/2017, de 15 de junio, de la Consejería de Educación, Juventud y Deporte, por la que se regula la extensión del Programa Bilingüe español-inglés al segundo ciclo de Educación Infantil en los colegios públicos bilingües de Educación Infantil y Primaria de la Comunidad de Madrid. Boletín Oficial de la Comunidad de Madrid. Conteh, J., & Meier, G. (Eds.). (2014). The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges. Multilingual Matters. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Coyle, D. (2010). Foreword. In D. Lasagabaster & Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL – Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 65–75). Springer. European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and training. Retrieved from https:// publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d0a8aa7a-5311-4eee-904c98fa541108d8/language-en Fernández, R., & Halbach, A. (2011). Analysing the situation of teachers in the Madrid bilingual project after four years of implementation. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Manuel Sierra, & F. Gallardo del Puerto (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning. Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp. 41–70). Peter Lang. García Esteban, S. (2015). Soft CLIL in infant education bilingual contexts in Spain. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 1(Special Issue), 30–36. Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages: Studies of immersion and bilingual education. Newbury House. Gobierno de España (1999). Real Decreto 926/1999, de 28 de mayo, sobre traspaso de funciones y servicios de la Administración del Estado a la Comunidad de Madrid en materia de enseñanza no universitaria. Boletín Oficial del Estado. Grisaleña, J., Alonso, E., & Campo, A. (2009). Enseñanza plurilingüe en centros de educación secundaria: análisis de resultados [Plurilingual teaching in secondary education schools: Analysis of results]. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 49(1), 1–12. Guillamón-Suesta, F., & Renau, M. L. (2015). A critical vision of the CLIL approach in secondary education: A study in the Valencian Community in Spain. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(1), 1–12. Hamid, M. O., Nguyen, H. T. M., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2013). Medium of instruction in Asia: Context, processes and outcomes. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 1–15.

8

Paving the Way for CLIL in Pre-primary Education: The Case of Madrid

131

Hobbs, R. D. (2012). Diverse multilingual researchers contribute language acquisition components to an integrated model of education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(3), 204–234. Jäppinen, A. K. (2005). Thinking and content learning of mathematics and science as cognitional development in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Teaching through a foreign language in Finland. Language and Education, 19(2), 147–168. Kaplan, R., Baldauf, R., & Kamwangamalu, N. (2011). Why educational language plans sometimes fail. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208. 2011.591716 Karabassova, L., & San Isidro, X. (2020). Towards translanguaging in CLIL: A study on teachers’ perceptions and practices in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Multilingualism. https://doi. org/10.1080/14790718.2020.1828426 Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). English in ASEAN: Implications for regional multilingualism. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33, 331–344. Kirkpatrick, A., & Liddicoat, A. J. (Eds.). (2019). Routledge international handbook of language education policy in Asia. Routledge. Kosonen, K. (2009). Language-in-education policies in Southeast Asia: An overview. In K. Kosonen & C. Young (Eds.), Mother tongue as bridge language of instruction: Policies and experiences in Southeast Asia (pp. 22–41). The Southeast Asia Ministers of Education Organisation. Kosonen, K. (2017). Language of instruction in Southeast Asia. Paper commissioned for the 2017/ 8. Global Education Monitoring Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. UNESCO: UNESCO Digital Library. Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundation of language. Wiley and Sons. Lo Bianco, J. (2014). Domesticating the foreign: globalisation’s effects on the place/s of languages. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 312–325. May, S. (2005). Deconstructing the instrumental/identity divide in language policy debates. In S. May, M. Franken, & R. Barnard (Eds.). LED 2003: 1st International Conference on Language, Education and Diversity, Refereed Conference Proceedings and Keynotes, 26–29 November 2003 [CD-ROM]. Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research, The University of Waikato. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Education. Moyano, A., Muños, A., & Pérez, P. (Eds.). (1996). Enseñar y aprender una lengua extranjera en el segundo ciclo de la Educación Infantil [Teaching and learning a foreign language in the second cycle of pre-primary education]. Rosa Sensat. Centro de Publicaciones del MEC. Otto, A., & San Isidro, X. (2019). Language as the articulator of a CLIL ecosystem: The Spanish case. Nebrija Journal of Applied Linguistics to Language Teaching, 13(27), 14–31. https://doi. org/10.26378/rnlael1327338 Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. Longman Group Limited. Pérez Cañado M. L. (2018). The evolution of bilingual education in monolingual contexts: An Andalusian case study. In P. Romanowski & M. Jedynak (Eds.), Current research in bilingualism and bilingual education (Multilingual Education, Vol. 26, pp. 207–241). Springer. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2018). Linguistic imperialism and NNESTs. In J. I. Liontas & M. DelliCarpini (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). Wiley Blackwell. Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford University Press. San Isidro, X. (Ed.) (2009) El inglés en infantil: una puerta hacia el plurilingüismo. Consellería de Educación e Ordenación Universitaria. Xunta de Galicia. San Isidro, X., & Lasagabaster, D. (2019). The impact of CLIL on pluriliteracy development and content learning in a rural multilingual setting: A longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 23(5), 584–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817754103

132

X. San Isidro and A´. Huerga

San Isidro, X., & Lasagabaster, D. (2020). Lessons to be learned: A professional development approach to curriculum planning in a multilingual school in Galicia. In K. Bower, G. Chambers, D. Coyle, & R. Cross (Eds.), Curriculum integrated language teaching: CLIL in practice. Cambridge University Press. Schachter, R. E. (2017). Early childhood teachers’ pedagogical reasoning about how children learn during language and literacy instruction. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-017-0179-3 Tupas, R. (2015). Inequalities of multilingualism: Challenges to mother tongue-based multilingual education. Language and Education, 29(2), 112–124. Voss, P., Thomas, M. E., Cisneros-Franco, J. M., & de Villers-Sidani, É. (2017). Dynamic brains and the changing rules of neuroplasticity: Implications for learning and recovery. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1657). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01657 Zein, M. S. (2017). To postpone or not to postpone? Examining access policy on early foreign language learning from second language acquisition and language planning and policy perspectives. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(4), 419–439. Zhang, H. (2019). Does English help you accomplish more? Exploring the instrumentality of English learning in East and Southeast Asia. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(3), 279–292.

9

Infan CLIL: A Model for Implementing Plurilingual Projects in Pre-primary Education in Spain and Portugal Pilar Couto-Cantero and Maria Ellison

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plurilingual Education in Pre-primary Education in Spain and Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The 6 Is. Identity, Inclusion, Integration, Interaction, Imagination and Investigation . . . . . The 6 Cs: The 4 Cs of CLIL and Two More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative Learning and Project Based Learning Within the CLIL Approach . . . . . . . . . . . The InfanCLIL Model in Four Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenge, Proposal and Final Product Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Planning and Group Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Connecting the Project with the Current Legislation Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation, Dissemination and Transferability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Final Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

134 135 137 140 141 143 144 144 144 145 147 147 149

Abstract

The onset of early foreign language learning is a global phenomenon brought about by a range of political, economic and social factors. In parallel with increased levels of migration and movements of people(s) across and within continents, there is even more of a need to provide education in the early years which fosters positive attitudes towards languages and international citizenship whilst supporting the understanding and development of self and community. From the collaboration of scholars in two national contexts, namely Spain and Portugal, a proposal for a model, InfanCLIL, which endorses the above has emerged. The conceptual framework of this model is grounded on 6Is: Identity, P. Couto-Cantero (*) Universidad de A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain e-mail: [email protected] M. Ellison University of Porto, Porto, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_9

133

134

P. Couto-Cantero and M. Ellison

Inclusion, Integration, Interaction, Imagination and Investigation which acknowledge the potential of pre-schools in the development of plurilingual/ pluricultural competences; and 6Cs: the 4Cs of the CLIL approach (Content, Communication, Cognition and Culture) (Coyle, Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press, 2010) to which the authors have added a further two, Context and Collaboration, essential to situating teaching and learning, and framing a constructive educational process. In this chapter, the aforementioned conceptual framework is discussed, followed by a practical example of the model which incorporates the topic ‘Harvest’ within the methodology of Project Based Learning. It is hoped that the proposed InfanCLIL model of 6 Is and 6 Cs will provide guidance to pre-primary teachers on how to develop plurilingual projects resulting from close international collaboration. Keywords

Pre-primary education · Bilingual education · CLIL · Plurlingual · Pluricultural · 6Is · 6Cs

Introduction Children are increasingly being exposed to more languages at younger ages through ‘formal’ education at school where the early introduction to foreign language learning is now a global reality, or ‘informally’ via the media or ‘intercultural’ encounters which are a consequence of increased movement of peoples worldwide. Both formal and informal education present challenges and opportunities regarding the transmission of values and fostering of attitudes towards self and others. This underscores the importance of citizenship education in the early years, and the pre-school as a community where plurilingualism (Plurilingualism is here defined as “the dynamic and developing linguistic repertoire of an individual user/learner (CEFR Companion volume, 2020. p. 30)) can be appreciated and developed. One educational approach which promotes the development of intercultural understanding and global citizenship is Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 39). Combining ‘Culture’ with its other pedagogic pillars, Content, Communication and Cognition, CLIL “opens an intercultural door, where learners can have experiences which they would not have in a monolingual setting meaning, (. . .) it provides a rich catalyst for ‘living’ intercultural experiences which are fundamental to a deeper understanding of global citizenship” (ibid, p. 39). CLIL is an approach which focuses on using language(s) in situ for authentic, communicative purposes rather than instructional language learning itself. It is dual focused, so language and content are learned simultaneously and purposefully during interaction with others in ‘communities’ of learning. This makes CLIL appropriate for pre-school where there is an emphasis on integrative, holistic learning and the development of the whole child.

9

Infan CLIL: A Model for Implementing Plurilingual Projects in Pre-primary. . .

135

This chapter is meant to exemplify how the CLIL approach can be suited to the preschool level by making the required adaptations and understanding of the unique features of this age when it comes to language, holistic and experiential learning, and it also aims to provide guidance for teachers in supporting the implementation of plurilingual projects in pre-school education drawing on the principles of CLIL and the methodology of project based learning where opportunities are made for languages to be noticed and used in activities which promote interaction and inquiry. Thus, it taps into the languaging potential of young learners, their physical and intellectual attributes, and natural curiosity. The proposed InfanCLIL model adheres to the pre-primary curriculum, but also additional language learning from a plurilingual perspective. In this case, the languages are Spanish, Galician, Portuguese, and English. The abovementioned proposal for a model for the development of plurilingual projects at pre-school level has been designed through close international collaboration of scholars in Spain and Portugal. The authors’ hypothesis is founded on the need for collaboration between countries and colleagues to elaborate proposals which aim to foster intercultural understanding at the same time as learning Foreign Languages (FL) at pre-primary level. One means of operationalising this is through the design and presentation of practical examples which may be considered as a guide or model for other contexts. Thereafter, it will be necessary to monitor their implementation and improve measures for ensuring quality for further projects in the future. The chapter is divided into three parts. First, the theoretical framework of this model is discussed. This is grounded on: (1) a brief state of arts; (2) explanation of the 6Is: Identity, Inclusion, Integration, Interaction, Imagination and Investigation considered fundamental in the configuring of pre-schools as plurilingual/ pluricultural communities; (3) the 6Cs, including the 4Cs of the CLIL approach Content, Communication, Cognition and Culture (Coyle et al., 2010) to which the authors have added a further two, Context and Collaboration, and finally; (4) the importance of the strong connection between Project Based Learning (PBL), Cooperative Learning (CL) and the CLIL approach to execute this kind of proposal. The second part of this chapter presents a practical example of the model in action, which incorporates the topic ‘Harvest’ with the methodology of PBL for two national contexts, namely Spain and Portugal and the languages of these contexts, namely Spanish, Galician, Portuguese and the main foreign language, English. Final considerations about the model are presented in the conclusions.

Theoretical Framework Early childhood is the most important developmental phase in a human’s life when the foundations of a range of competences: motor, cognitive, linguistic and socioemotional are established. From a neuroscientific perspective, the most rapid period of brain development occurs in the first years of life and the impact of the quality of this development lasts throughout a person’s life (Shaeffer, 2020). Research on plurilingualism has demonstrated that it is possible to acquire more than two

136

P. Couto-Cantero and M. Ellison

languages at early developmental levels which poses no problem to cognitive development in young learners (Nacamulli, 2015; Ferjan & Kuhl, 2017). Some researchers ascertain that plurilingualism contributes to the development of metalinguistic awareness as well as creativity (Jessner, 1999; Baker et al., 2016). Most studies about Bilingual Education (BE) highlight the positive effect of acquiring a third foreign or additional language (Navés & Muñoz, 2000). This positive influence can be explained thanks to linguistic interdependence, to a vast metalinguistic awareness, and to the different strategies used to learn languages. In addition, Cenoz (1997) demonstrated that learning a third language at the same time as mother tongue, with a fixed number of hours a week, constitutes no obstacle at all for learners to the development of all languages involved. Pavlenko (2005) states that being bilingual has a positive impact on critical thinking. Moreover, LindholmLeary (2001) affirms that bilingual programmes improve academic performance and have positive effects on language learning. Recent studies also support the implementation of BE at all educational levels, including initial stages (Bialystok, 2016). On more specific terms, BE has also proven to be beneficial at cognitive and neurolinguistic levels (Hanesová, 2014; Baker et al., 2016); and also at social and intercultural levels (Dewaele & Wei, 2013; Fielding & Harbon, 2013). Moreover, the benefits of a bilingual brain in contrast with a monolingual brain, including the idea of a linguistic sophistication demonstrated by bilinguals, have also been confirmed by recent studies (Nacamulli, 2015; García & Lin, 2017; Ferjan & Kuhl, 2017). Pre-primary education seems to be, therefore, the perfect stage of life to develop foreign language learning capacities, among others (Schwartz, 2020). If one takes all these elements into account, pre-primary education constitutes an ideal opportunity to foster plurilingualism. Attempts have been made to do this in Europe through the implementation of pluralistic approaches (Candelier et al., 2012) among which is ‘Awakening to languages’, “a theoretically incisive and pedagogically-friendly framework for introducing foreign languages to young children” (Maad, 2016, p. 16) which is “anchored in a pedagogy of discovery and inquiry (. . .) for the purpose of raising children’s intercultural awareness through projects that underscore the learning qualities of curiosity, reflection and interaction” (ibid, p. 323). Awakening to languages is “characterised by the fact that some of the learning activities are concerned with languages which are generally not intended to be taught in school” (ibid, p. 245) (See Candelier (ed), 2004, for European interpretations, case studies and experiences of this approach). Coelho et al. (2018, p. 200) characterise programmes incorporating Awakening to languages as ones which enable children to “explore a myriad of new sounds, observe different writing systems, reflect on differences and similarities between languages, compare and contrast languages and their sounds, and recognise their own linguistic repertoire as a valuable asset when learning other languages”. This therefore accounts for the languages which children ‘bring’ to school, as well as those which educators may or may not strategically incorporate in the classroom. Of the former, positive outcomes in relation to syntactic ability and attitudes towards language and cultural diversity have been noted (Coelho et al., 2018) and phonological awareness (Lourenço & Andrade, 2014) in studies conducted in pre-schools in Portugal. In the Portuguese

9

Infan CLIL: A Model for Implementing Plurilingual Projects in Pre-primary. . .

137

context (see below), the foreign language that tends to be ‘formerly’ introduced in pre-primary education is English. This is not to say that other languages of immigrant populations or those of regions bordering Portugal as is the case of neighbouring Spain and the region of Galicia – the focus of the InfanCLIL collaboration- should not be ‘present’ in the pre-primary classroom in Portugal. The authors’ intention is to afford opportunities for the development of plurilingual projects through Content and Language Integrated Learning which they consider as containing elements of a pluralistic approach. In recent decades, the CLIL approach has been implemented in different levels of education with subsequent revisions: Primary (Pappa, 2021), Secondary (Couto-Cantero, 2020; Fazzi & Lasagabaster, 2021), and Higher Education (Fajardo Dack et al., 2020). In stark contrast, few studies have been focused on CLIL at Pre-primary level, and few sets of guidelines exist for teachers on how to implement it at this level (for an example see Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011; Bobadilla-Perez & Couto-Cantero, 2015). Hence, the need for proposals for pre-primary CLIL are necessary.

Plurilingual Education in Pre-primary Education in Spain and Portugal Pre-primary education is currently non-compulsory in Spain and available to children from the age of zero to six. Pre-primary education may be directed by state, state-funded or private institutions and, unfortunately, educational policies on this matter are not equal and may vary depending on the Autonomous Community (Andúgar et al., 2019) (Territorially, the decentralization system in Spain is divided into 17 Autonomous Communities and 2 cities with autonomy statute - Ceuta and Melilla). Therefore, there is no consensus in Spain with regards to language policies. As the InfanCLIL model has been designed in Galicia (North-Western Spain), which is very close to Portugal and has a lot in common with this country, the following statements will be directed precisely to this Autonomous Community and its legislation. The official languages in Galicia are Spanish and Galician, with the same number of hours included in the curriculum for both. This means that there is little space left to devote to first foreign language learning, and little or nothing to the learning of a second foreign language advocated by the Council of Europe in 2001 and 2020. According to the Decree law 330/2009, the educational content for pre-primary education in Galicia is divided into three main areas: (1) Knowledge of the self and personal autonomy; (2) Knowledge of the surroundings, and (3) Languages: communication and representation. The Decree law 79/2010 which regulates the implementation of plurlingualism in Galicia constitutes an attempt at formal implementation of BE programmes in schools. However, this regulation only refers to primary and secondary education, whereas for pre-primary education little or no guidelines were provided. In pre-primary education, the CLIL approach was defined by the so-called: “immersion model”. This model is based on the use of games and the active participation of pupils. This approach encourages unconscious learning, so that

138

P. Couto-Cantero and M. Ellison

children focus on the activity without realising that they are in fact learning (García & Ruiz de Adana, 2009). Regulation in the directions given to pre-primary institutions about the teaching of FL was very flexible. In fact, it only recommended the introduction of the FL in the last year suggesting three 20-min sessions of English per week. Consequently, a lack of coordination in the development of coherent Plurilingual programmes for pre-primary education in Galicia emerged (BobadillaPerez & Couto-Cantero, 2015). Fortunately, the situation has changed, and the Government in Galicia implemented the Plan Galego de Potenciación das Linguas Estranxeiras from 2010–11 to 2016–17, with very positive quantitative and qualitative results. This programme fostered the teaching and learning of the FL through many different options: Implementing Plurilingual Education Centres; Bilingual Sections; the PIALE Programme for teachers; the CUALE Programme for students accreditation in FLs; The CALC Programme for teachers to certify linguistic competence; AXUDASLE formative summer-activities for students in FL; Auxiliares de conversación Programme which hires native speakers to promote oral conversation and support teachers in Plurilingual Official Centres (12 h minimum), and the Autumn Linguistic Immersion Programme for sixth year Primary students and second year Secondary compulsory education students for a week in different places all around Spain during October and November. Furthermore, the Plan EDUlingüe was launched in Galicia in 2020. This plan was designed to provide continuity with the previous one and to promote FL covering all educational levels, and including not only students and teachers, but also families. The aim is for every student to learn a foreign language (mainly English and Portuguese) from Pre-primary to University through a holistic and integrative perspective. Learners will be able to certify their language competences and skills at the end of the Baccalaureate. At this moment, 42 pre-primary schools in Galicia have already applied for the “Plurinfantil Star” which certifies Plurilingual education. Young learners will receive 1/3 of curricular areas in a FL with a methodological approach based on Games and Play, Cooperative Learning and Project Based Learning. In these Plurinfantil Centres, teachers should have at least a B2 level in the FL and will be helped by native conversation assistants (16 h minimum) (For further information on this matter, see: http://xuventude.xunta.es/images/Observatorio_ Galego_da_Xuventude/ano_2021/Estratexia_Galega_de_Linguas_Estranxeiras_ 2020.pdf). Pre-school education in Portugal is non-compulsory and available to children from the age of three until the onset of compulsory primary school (usually at the age of six). It may be administered by state or private institutions. In the decree law n
5/97, nine objectives (a-i) are specified which focus on the personal and social development of the child and their inclusion in society. These include democratic citizenship, respect for other cultures, access to equal opportunities, development of expression and communication through various ‘languages’ in order to understand the world around them, awaken curiosity and critical thinking, and encourage parental participation in education in order to foster healthy ties with the community. Guidelines for curriculum organisation and administration (Orientações Curriculares para a Educação Pré-Escolar) are provided by the Ministry of Education

9

Infan CLIL: A Model for Implementing Plurilingual Projects in Pre-primary. . .

139

(Lopes da Silva et al., 2016). These guidelines promote a type of pre-school education which is holistic, flexible, inclusive and innovative. The curricular content focuses on three areas: (1) Personal and social development; (2) Expression and communication which is further subdivided into Physical Education; Artistic Education; Maths; Language – spoken and written; and (3) Knowledge of the World. Suggested methods for implementing the curriculum are through project and group work. In Portugal, the official language is Portuguese although Mirandese is recognised as a regional language. Recent economic immigration has brought many people from Eastern Europe and Asia, namely China. There is wide exposure to other languages, mainly English through the media (films, music, advertising). Films and TV series are subtitled rather than dubbed, so the Portuguese population is exposed to many language varieties. The main FL taught in schools is English – officially from the third year of primary education through to the penultimate year of upper secondary education. A second foreign language is introduced in middle school (fifth year). According to a survey conducted by the Associação Portuguesa de Professores de Inglês (APPI) the results of which were published in 2016 (APPI Report: Inquérito: Oferta de Lingua Estrangeira na Educação Pre-Escolar em Portugal. https://appi.pt/storage/app/media/ docs_appi/Relat%C3%B3rio-Inqu%C3%A9rito-Pr%C3%A9-escolar-2016_Finaljulho-revisto.pdf), there is a substantial number of pre-schools in the public and private sectors which offer English to the early years despite there being no official guidelines for implementation. Thus, there is considerable variation in approaches, methods and techniques across the country. In the main, the teaching of English in pre-schools is done by English language teachers although they might not have had any initial training for teaching in pre-school. Among recommendations made by APPI is the development of curricular projects which incorporate the FL and engage both English language teacher and pre-school educationalist in collaborative work. Bilingual Education in Portugal is not compulsory at any level of schooling. Schools, whether public or private, may implement it. For public and some private schools (which follow the Portuguese national curriculum), this is through annual application to the Bilingual Schools Programme (PEBI) of the Ministry of Education via the Direção-Geral de Educação (DGE) in collaboration with the British Council (running since 2016 (See: https://www.dge.mec.pt/noticias/programa-escolasbilinguesbilingual-schools-programme-em-ingles-pebi-abertas-candidaturas)) after a successful pilot project in primary schools across the country from 2011–2015. The other route to implementing CLIL/Bilingual Education is via curricular flexibility permitted by the Ministry of Education (on application). This has afforded grassroots CLIL projects to develop. CLIL/Bilingual Education is growing in Portugal, yet it is still underexplored (see Ellison, 2018). Private schools may develop bilingual projects at their own discretion. There are several international or other national schools which use other languages as media of instruction. Drawing on the principles and objectives of pre-school education in Spain (Galicia) and Portugal, (and aligning these with those of Bilingual/plurilingual programmes), we can see that they share a similar context, they are geographically very close, and both languages (Portuguese and Galician) are also similar. Therefore,

140

P. Couto-Cantero and M. Ellison

the InfanCLIL model is appropriately suited to this partnership. The model subscribes to six fundamentals, henceforth known as the 6Is, which these authors consider important for the development of plurilingual/pluricultural awareness. These are further elaborated on below.

The 6 Is. Identity, Inclusion, Integration, Interaction, Imagination and Investigation The child is not a blank slate when he/she begins pre-school. From conception/birth aspects of their identity are already formed. Identity is further shaped by the home environment, local and national community/culture and values to which these purport. Early schooling nurtures the socialisation process where the child begins to learn a sense of self in relation to others their age in their immediate milieu. Pre-school education which fosters plurilingualism draws on the linguistic and cultural repertoires of children and their families as funds of knowledge to be appreciated, shared and learned about. An understanding of ‘self’ is key to understanding others. The young child does not discriminate, nor do they expect to be discriminated against. They are accepting of others. Pre-school education which includes exposure to foreign languages and cultures is in itself inclusive, welcoming and appreciative of the richness that this provides. Pre-school education is, by default, integrationist in that learning is not compartmentalised into subjects, but rather focused on topics which support the development of the whole child – physical, emotional, social, cognitive, linguistic, and moral. Integration is at the core of education which is interdisciplinary and holistic. Integrative methodologies employed in pre-school embrace this holistic perspective. As a social being, the young child needs to interact in order to fulfil basic human needs. From conversations with themselves to communication with others, the pre-school child must be provided with opportunities to communicate with his/her peers and educators through language and other means. Through interaction, language skills are developed and bonds with others are formed. Languaging requires cognitive engagement which in turn exercises meaning-making (Fig. 9.1). Imagination is paramount in the child’s world. Imagination needs to be stimulated through play, and make-believe providing a release and opportunity for creativity. The pre-school educator needs to tap into the child’s imagination, to help them construct and create. In fostering plurilingualism, the imagination can be stimulated to think about others – their lives, culture, feelings and circumstances. The young child is curious. They have an innate need to explore and discover their world and seek explanations which satisfy, but also fuel their curiosity. Investigation comes naturally to young children. Thus, activities which encourage them to find out about something, how to do something or about others are essential. Reflection on such activities enables children to language their understanding and stimulates other types of thinking. This may be achieved in group work involving problem-solving activities.

9

Infan CLIL: A Model for Implementing Plurilingual Projects in Pre-primary. . .

Integration

141

Inclusion

Interaction The InfanCLIL 6 Is

Imagination

Identity Investigation

Fig. 9.1 InfanCLIL. The 6 I’s

The 6 Cs: The 4 Cs of CLIL and Two More Content, Communication, Cognition and Culture, the acclaimed ‘4Cs’ of CLIL (see Coyle et al., 2010) are widely acknowledged as a set of principles on which the approach is based, as well as a useful framework for topic/lesson planning (Coyle, 2005) and by some, the focus of curriculum analysis (Couto-Cantero & BobadillaPérez, 2018; Ellison, 2019; Carrió-Pastor, 2020; Gómez-Parra, 2020; Gómez-Parra & Huertas Abril, 2020). This applies to all educational levels from pre-school to higher education. In planning for CLIL, each C can be audited for the set topic/ lesson. Thus, Content is the knowledge, skills and competences of the topic. Communication is the language needed to transmit and express understanding of the content. It is ‘languaging’ in the sense of “learning to use language and using language to learn” (Coyle, 2005). This may be further divided into language of, for and through learning (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 36–37), in other words, key subject terminology, functional exponents and cognitive discourse functions (Dalton-Puffer, 2013) used in conjunction with key terms, as well as language required when working with others and asking questions; and lastly language through learning is that which the learner actually uses in acts of communication. Language of and for learning can be predicted and planned for; language through learning cannot, but the teacher can be on hand to provide and support emergent language. Cognition or activation and development of thinking skills is crucial in CLIL. Learners need to be challenged to think in different ways and construct meaning. The revised taxonomy of Bloom, The Cognitive Process Dimension by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) is frequently cited in conjunction with this C with its categories of thinking. Meaningmaking may be facilitated through interaction with others. In this sense, CLIL draws on socio-constructivism which links to Culture or Community (Mehisto et al., 2008). This C may be interpreted as the classroom culture and beyond where learners learn about themselves and from, with and about each other through direct or indirect contact that acknowledges other realities and perspectives. This is embedded in

142

P. Couto-Cantero and M. Ellison

Collaboration

Content

The InfanCLIL 6 Cs

Culture

Context Communication

Cognition

Fig. 9.2 InfanCLIL. The 6 Cs

artefacts and materials which provide authenticity and departure for intercultural education. Culture may also signify ‘disciplinary culture’ or the culture of the subject in which behaving and thinking of this culture is crucial to knowing how to learn within it, for example, behaving and thinking like a scientist if the subject is Science. In an environment of learning where other cultures are acknowledged and appreciated, and linguistic repertoires drawn upon and used, CLIL is an excellent opportunity “for our pluricultural and plurilingual world to be celebrated and its potential realised” (Coyle, 2005) (Fig. 9.2). Coyle et al. (2010) describe the 4Cs as “four contextualized building blocks” which constitute a framework which “takes account of integrating content learning and language learning within specific contexts and acknowledges the symbiotic relationship that exists between these elements” (2010, p.41). CLIL is thus moulded to specific features of subject disciplines and communities of practice. In the classroom context, CLIL involves the teacher(s) and learners in acts of communication that are real, authentic and involve situated utilitarian use of the language for learning, making CLIL different from traditional FL lessons. On a broader scale, context-dependency (or flexibility) extends to national contexts where its practice may be determined at the macro level by ministries of education or a micro level of grassroots projects in schools. It is this that has attributed CLIL many guises, as well as the description ‘flexible approach’. CLIL is also ‘inter-contextual’ in the sense of learning about and working with others from different national contexts. Here it can be juxtaposed with the C of Culture with an emphasis on the development of intercultural awareness. Working with others is deeply entrenched in socioconstructivist theories and methodologies such as project based and cooperative learning (see section “Cooperative Learning and Project Based Learning Within the CLIL Approach” below) to which CLIL adheres. As with context, collaboration is a multi-faceted concept. CLIL necessitates collaboration. Collaboration between learners provides opportunities for the co-construction of knowledge through languaging, allowing them to draw on their

9

Infan CLIL: A Model for Implementing Plurilingual Projects in Pre-primary. . .

143

linguistic repertoires in acts of meaning making. Collaboration between teachers (content and language) is crucial and will ultimately determine the quality of the CLIL experience for learners, since both types of teacher offer expertise from the knowledge bases of their respective disciplines. Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential to ensuring curricular content is taught, and knowledge, skills and understanding are developed in a way that allows for overall progression. Collaboration also constitutes intercultural dialogue where teachers and learners cooperate in projects that develop positive attitudes towards international citizenship and foster understanding of self and others. Thus, these authors wish to underscore the importance of Context and Collaboration within InfanCLIL and position these Cs alongside those of Coyle et al. (2010, 2014).

Cooperative Learning and Project Based Learning Within the CLIL Approach According to the information provided by many educational institutions in their internal documents and on websites it can be ascertained that the CLIL approach is mostly implemented through Cooperative Learning (CL) and Project Based Learning (PBL). This is because it allows for a holistic perspective combining a multisubject learning experience in which learners are the centre of the teaching and learning process, and content and language elements are very closely related in all tasks, activities and exercises implemented. The benefits of implementing Cooperative Learning in educational settings are well documented (Johnson et al., 1999). Likewise, the strong relationship between CL and PBL has also been reinforced (Kagan, 2001; Trujillo, 2012; Couto-Cantero, 2020). All this facilitates the opportunity to incorporate the methodology of PBL within the CLIL approach in Pre-primary settings, and this is one of the main targets for our InfanCLIL model. There are many different models of PBL (Trujillo, 2012; Aksela & Haatainen, 2019; Ruano, 2021). According to Gilleran (2014) a number of elements should be considered for successful PBL: involve students from the beginning; break down the topic into well-defined tasks; plan well, set goals, define outcomes; divide your class into working groups with well-defined tasks; create a tangible artefact as an outcome; arrive at a conclusion and, finally, document and present it to a public audience. Based on the above, these authors have decided to create a series of four steps which provide initial guidance to pre-primary teachers for the development of a project of this kind: Step 1. Challenge, proposal and final product definition; step 2. Planning and group making; step 3. Connecting the project with the parameters of current legislation; step 4. Evaluation, dissemination and transferability. To conclude this section, it is worth mentioning that the use of CL strategies (Johnson et al., 1999; Kagan, 2001; Trujillo, 2012; Couto-Cantero, 2020) together with the implementation of projects according to the PBL methodology within the CLIL approach seems to be the perfect combination to develop the pre-primary InfanCLIL model which is further explained below.

144

P. Couto-Cantero and M. Ellison

The InfanCLIL Model in Four Steps This subchapter is devoted to providing a practical example of how the InfanCLIL model can be implemented at pre-primary level in two countries, Spain and Portugal. The four steps mentioned above are further explained to better understand the different stages of the process.

Challenge, Proposal and Final Product Definition Teachers need to start with an original challenge and proposal which should be motivating and appealing for learners. It should take into consideration the inclusion of the 6 Is and the 6 Cs from the outset. Moreover, it is very important to highlight that one has to start with the end in mind, so that the proposal is connected to a welldefined final product. Languages should be considered and who can contribute ideas for tasks and materials. This will come from international collaboration. For example, a pre-school in Galicia and one in Portugal work together. They decide on the topic and then audit it according to the 6Cs and their language(s) as well as potential group work tasks. Teachers from each context may then contribute tasks and suggest materials which involve/include their respective language(s). The challenge for the InfanCLIL model is then launched. All young learners seated in U-shape or circle time modality are given all information required to understand the aim of the project, participants, stages, languages and content involved, tasks and final product. The entry event may start with a motivating song related to the topic, in this example the harvest in the farm. For the launching of the event other options can be explored, for example an invited speaker from the local community. It can be a farmer or anyone who can talk about the topic. This will motivate learners to begin the project. Learners are also made aware of the final stage of the project which involves group presentations of their own hand-made artefact. As the InfanCLIL model has been designed to enable cooperation between teachers and learners from different countries, young learners need to know that there will be at least two or three moments (pre, during and after) the project in which all participants will be interacting by means of an online platform available in the schools. This is planned in advance by the teachers involved from both contexts.

Planning and Group Making At this stage, planning the number of sessions, workshops, the timing, and the activities to be delivered according to the school context is key. The use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) resources, if available, and technical tools for this purpose greatly facilitate task and materials development. In this step, it is necessary to plan the group work, decide how many and which children will be in each group and their potential roles. In line with the 6Is previously explained in the theoretical background, groups are divided into six ‘corners’, one

9

Infan CLIL: A Model for Implementing Plurilingual Projects in Pre-primary. . .

145

The InfanCLIL Model Meeting Point. All learners Entry event and presentation of the Project Identity Corner Integration Corner Interaction Corner (4-5 children) (4-5 children) (4-5 children) Tasks Tasks Tasks - Name your farm. - Compare harvests. - Guess what the other - Find harvest words in all - Discuss what you like groups’ harvests are like. languages involved. about the harvests. - Play with your Dollies. - List typical seeds. - Draw a farm. (Teacher - Ask your partners about helps with images and their harvests. examples on screen). Investigation Corner Inclusion Corner Imagination Corner (4-5 children) (4-5 children) (4-5 children) Tasks Tasks Tasks Investigate Hay Day - Describe what you see. - Imagine the perfect (videogame). - Classify words in the harvest. - Design your corn Dolly. languages involved. - Think about... - Plan a visit to a farm. Explore your - Create your corn Dolly. surroundings. Meeting Point. All learners Final product. Presentation of each group’s harvest Fig. 9.3 Group making around the 6Is corners

for each I: Identity corner, Integration corner, Interaction corner, investigation corner Inclusion corner and Imagination corner. Each corner includes a small number of tasks appropriately planned to be developed by young learners according to the concept in question. Another important element worth mentioning at this stage is that all activities and tasks included in the six corners have been planned and designed bearing in mind the revised taxonomy of Bloom. Action-verbs related to the taxonomy are chosen for specific tasks. Therefore, not only is the concept of each I itself taken into account (integration, inclusion, etc.), but also the cognitive process dimensions: remember, understand, apply, analyse, evaluate and create (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) (Fig. 9.3).

Connecting the Project with the Current Legislation Parameters The plurilingual InfanCLIL model is framed within a Pre-primary educational context. Therefore, it has been designed according to the current Portuguese and Spanish (Galician) legislation. These authors understand that the Pre-primary Curriculum means the collection of objectives, content, competences, pedagogical methods and assessment criteria which regulate the teaching and learning practice

146

P. Couto-Cantero and M. Ellison

during this educational stage. Therefore, as stated in the theoretical section all curricular standards and guidelines in both countries have been considered. At Pre-primary level there are three interdependent areas of knowledge which must be considered from a global perspective: (1) Self-knowledge and personal autonomy, (2) Knowledge of the surroundings, and (3) Languages: communication and representation. Regarding the first, positive attitudes, accepting one’s identity and that of others and respect for differences need to be included. Moreover, cooperation and interaction are fostered to establish positive relations among learners. The second area is centred on the approach to Nature. It is about learning related to discovering and understanding both the plant and animal worlds. Learners are also expected to observe changes and explore their own environment by being allowed to give opinions, show interest and concern about topics. Finally, the third area is focused on languages, especially verbal language. Learners will use their oral skills to tell stories, acquire knowledge, ask questions and to communicate their ideas, feelings and emotions. They will also learn vocabulary according to their level of cognitive development, which will allow them to construct phrases and sentences all of which are related to the harvest. At pre-primary level, oral skills are promoted to foster conversation, short speeches, games, and so on, among students. Intonation, tone and pronunciation are key to enriching communicative competences at these ages. It is also very important to teach children to respect turns when speaking and to listen carefully to others without interrupting. And last but not least, introducing learners to routines and social conventions such as: salutations, good manners, etc. not only in their mother tongue but also in the foreign languages involved in the teaching and learning process. All objectives of this InfanCLIL model should be fulfilled along the entirety of the process. The main aim is to make children aware of other languages and cultures in line with a plurilingual approach as stated in the CEFR: The plurilingual approach emphasises the fact that as an individual person’s experience of language in its cultural contexts expands, from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples (. . .), he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact. (2001, p. 4).

It is paramount to introduce this plurilingual approach at pre-primary level and the authors believe, if it is well implemented in pre-school, it should be given continuity in other levels of education. The other objectives and basic competences planned for this InfanCLIL model have been adapted from both Portuguese and Galician legislation for this level. They are all designed around the topic ‘harvest’ and relate to: being able to observe and explore their natural surroundings, socialising with partners and working together to build their own harvest, developing their communicative skills to talk about the topic and, being able to develop a positive attitude towards foreign languages and cultures. The global and holistic perspective of pre-primary education takes us to the basic competences acknowledged by the

9

Infan CLIL: A Model for Implementing Plurilingual Projects in Pre-primary. . .

147

European Union, which must be acquired in a progressive and coherent manner. Out of the eight basic competences for this InfanCLIL model, special attention has been paid to: Communicative Language Competence, Knowledge and Interaction with the physical world, and Autonomy and Personal Initiative. To end this section about the connection between the Curriculum and the InfanCLIL model it is important to return to the idea of the creation of a tangible artefact as one of the outcomes established for this model. Hand-made objects designed and created by young learners are very useful to develop their psychomotor skills and this is an important issue included in curricular guidelines for Pre-primary education. Learners in small groups are encouraged to create their own harvest made out of plasticine, recycled plastic materials, real products from their homes: carrots, potatoes, rice, corn, etc.

Evaluation, Dissemination and Transferability The last step for a project to be complete is the evaluation of the whole process (teachers and learners included) and the final product. Any weaknesses and difficulties in the project must be detected in order to make improvements for future implementation. Thereafter, it is also important to disseminate the results of the project, not only in educational environments, but also to the wider community. These authors have provided a flexible model for implementing plurilingual projects at pre-primary level in two countries, but the four steps, suggestions and considerations included here can be transferred to other contexts and levels of education. The countries, languages, topic, final product, and everything included in this example can be transferred and adapted so a new teaching and learning process can be started from this one. The following table provides a checklist of what should be done when implementing an InfanCLIL project (Table 9.1):

Conclusions and Final Considerations The InfanCLIL model constitutes an example of the implementation of plurilingual and pluricultural projects in pre-primary education. It is intended to be a starting point to facilitate the progressive inclusion of projects of this kind at these early educational stages. We consider that it is precisely in these early pre-primary stages when children are more receptive to noticing, acquiring and using other languages that such projects should be implemented. All agents involved in pre-school education should, therefore, be willing and able to embrace a positive attitude towards the teaching and learning of languages and cultures. The six Is and six 6Cs are important concepts to be considered in the development of these kinds of projects. The two Cs added by these authors: collaboration and the context in which these proposals are implemented are important in achieving a successful partnership and final product.

148

P. Couto-Cantero and M. Ellison

Table 9.1 The InfanCLIL Checklist InfanCLIL checklist Brainstorm your idea and visualise your classroom Decide the languages involved: Portuguese, English, Spanish, Galician . . . Bear in mind the National Curriculum of each country (areas of knowledge, aims, content, competences, etc.) Decide the agents involved in the project. (E-twinning, pre-school teachers, language teachers, other schools) Consider the 6 Is (identity, inclusion, integration, interaction, investigation & imagination) Consider the 6 Cs (content, communication, culture, cognition, context & collaboration) Name your project Plan the stages, time, tasks. . . Organise your groups for teamwork Incorporate ICT resources (if applicable), materials, etc. Think of an entry event: Song, picture book, guest speaker Define a final product Create a hand-made artefact Think of global and continuous evaluation Consider how you will disseminate the project Consider how the InfanCLIL model could be transferred to other educational levels

Done √

The implementation of projects like this at pre-primary level help teachers to develop valuable strategies which support the cognitive development of young learners. They also motivate children and facilitate the development of interpersonal relationships establishing bonds with other children within the classroom, and with those in other classrooms outside of the national context. In doing so, learners feel part of a group and a large community, which helps to foster their active participation in the project. With the InfanCLIL model meaningful learning is also fostered, where children take part in real learning situations from the very beginning, and are encouraged to be involved in making proposals, decisions and organising their actions throughout the various stages of the project. In addition and given the emphasis that European and National legislation is placing on the development of Plurilingualism and Pluriculturalism, current preschool teachers and language teachers should be encouraged to participate in training programmes which focus on developing plurilingual competences and CLIL/Bilingual Education in order to further develop their understanding of approaches, methods and techniques needed to implement these projects at school. Finally, the importance of the languages involved and the close collaboration between countries, institutions, teachers, and students cannot be underestimated. The InfanCLIL model provided in this chapter is not only a project about “learning languages” but also about communication, about learning content, understanding cultures and identities, fostering universal values, supporting inclusion and respect for diversity, all of which are needed to prepare children to become good citizens of the present and future.

9

Infan CLIL: A Model for Implementing Plurilingual Projects in Pre-primary. . .

149

References Aksela, M., & Haatainen, O. (2019). Project-Based Learning (PBL) in practise: Active teachers’ views of its’ advantages and challenges. In Integrated Education for the Real World 5th International STEM in Education Conference Post-Conference Proceedings. Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/3jHlEZI Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. Andúgar, A., Cortina Pérez, B., & Tornel, M. (2019). Tratamiento de la lengua extranjera en Educación Infantil en las distintas comunidades autónomas españolas. Profesorado, Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 23(1), 10.30827/profesorado.v23i1.9163. Associação Portuguesa de Professores de Inglês. (2016). Inquérito: Oferta de Língua Estrangeira na Educação Pré-escolar em Portugal. Baker, D. L., Basaraba, D. L., & Polanco, P. (2016). Connecting the present to the past. Furthering the research on bilingual education and bilingualism. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 821–883. Bialystok, E. (2016). Bilingual education for young children: Review of the effects and consequences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(6), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1203859 Bobadilla-Perez, M., & Couto-Cantero, P. (2015). Development and implementation of plurilingual/bilingual projects in pre-school and primary schools. INTED2015 Proceedings, 7448–7458. https://library.iated.org/view/BOBADILLAPEREZ2015DEV Candelier, M. (Ed.). Andrade, A. I., Bernaus, M., Kervran, M., Martins, F., Murkowska, A., Noguerol, A. Oomen-Welke, I., Perregaux, C., Saudan, V., & Zielinska, J. (2004). Janua Linguarum – The gateway to languages: The introduction of language awareness into the curriculum: Awakening to languages. Council of Europe Publishing. Candelier, M., Daryai-Hansen, P., & Schröder-Sura, A. (2012). The framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures – A complement to the CEFR to develop plurilingual and intercultural competences. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2012.725252 Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2020). The implementation of content and language integrated learning in Spain: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. In P. Mickan & I. Wallace (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language education curriculum design (pp. 77–89). Routledge. Cenoz, J. (1997). The influence of bilingualism on multilingual acquisition: Some data from the Basque country. In I Simposio Internacional sobre o Bilingüismo: Comunidades e individuos bilingües (pp. 278–287). Vigo: Universidade de Vigo. Coelho, D., Andrade, A. I., & Portugal, G. (2018). The awakening to languages approach at pre-school: Developing children’s communicative competence. Language Awareness, 27(3), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2018.1486407 Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe Publishing. https://bit.ly/3xhdICu Couto-Cantero, P. (2020). Aprendizaje Cooperativo en entornos plurilingües. Un ejemplo para Educación Secundaria. En Gómez Parra Mª E. y Cristina A. Huertas Abril (Eds.), Educación bilingüe: perspectivas desde el sistema educativo español (pp. 113–132). Fundación Pública Andaluza Centro de Estudios Andaluces, Consejería de la Presidencia, Administración Pública e Interior, Junta de Andalucía. Couto-Cantero, P., & Bobadilla-Pérez, M. (2018). Ten fundamentals for novice CLIL teachers. E-Teals: An E-Journal of Teacher Education and Applied Language Studies, 0(9), 108–131. https://ojs.letras.up.pt/index.php/et/article/view/6107 Coyle, D. (2005). Planning tools for teachers. University of Nottingham. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.

150

P. Couto-Cantero and M. Ellison

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2014). The CLIL tool kit: Transforming theory into practice. https://bit.ly/2ouluvi Dalton-Puffer, C. (2013). A construct of cognitive discourse functions for conceptualizing contentlanguage integration in CLIL and multilingual education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 216–253. Decreto 330/2009, de 4 de junio, por el que se establece el currículo de la educación infantil en la Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia. Diario Oficial de Galicia, 121, de 23 de junio de 2009, 10.773-10799. https://bit.ly/3GpEApj Dewaele, J., & Wei, L. (2013). Is multilingualism linked to a higher tolerance of ambiguity? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 231–240. Ellison, M. (2018). (Net)working CLIL in Portugal and beyond. Special Edition eTEALS on Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9, 4–22. Ellison, M. (2019). CLIL in the primary school context. In S. Garton & F. Copland (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 247–268). Routledge. Fajardo Dack, T., Argudo, J., & Abad, M. (2020). Language and teaching methodology features of CLIL in university classrooms: A research synthesis. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 22(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085/13878 Fazzi, F., & Lasagabaster, D. (2021). Learning beyond the classroom: Students’ attitudes towards the integration of CLIL and museum-based pedagogies. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1714630 Ferjan, N., & Kuhl, P. (2017). The brain science of bilingualism. Young Children, 72(2), 38–44. Fielding, R., & Harbon, L. (2013). Examining bilingual and bicultural identity in young students. Foreign Language Annals, 46(4), 527–544. García, F., & Ruiz de Adana, M. A. (2009). Imaginemos el inglés. Bilingüismo-AICLE en el aula de infantil. https://bit.ly/3pEDqjW García, O., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2017). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O. García, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed., pp. 117–130). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02258-1_9 Gilleran, A. (2014). How to design project-based learning activities [YouTube video]. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼_3yAODXnAsg Gómez-Parra, M. E. (2020). Measuring intercultural learning through CLIL. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 9(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2020.1.457 Gómez-Parra, M. E., & Huertas Abril, C. A. (Eds.). (2020). Educación bilingüe: perspectivas desde el sistema educativo español. Fundación Pública Andaluza Centro de Estudios Andaluces, Consejería de la Presidencia, Administración Pública e Interior, Junta de Andalucía. Hanesová, D. (2014). Development of critical and creative thinking skills in CLIL. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2(2), 33–51. Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (Eds.). (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education. European Commission. Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third language learning. Language Awareness, 8(3–4), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658419908667129 Johnson, D. W.; Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. (1999). El aprendizaje cooperativo en el aula, Traducido del inglés por G. Vitale, Buenos Aires, Paidós SAICF, 1994. Kagan, S. (2001). Kagan structures: Research and Rationale. Kagan Online Magazine, Spring. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing: https://bit.ly/3BcMBdH Lindholm-Leary, K. J. (2001). Dual language education. Multilingual Matters. Lopes da Silva, I., Marques, L., Mata, M., & Rosa, M. (2016). Orientações Curriculares para a Educação Pré-Escolar. Ministério da Educação/Direção-Geral da Educação. Lourenço, M., & Andrade, A. I. (2014). Promoting phonological awareness in pre-primary education: Possibilities of the ‘awakening to languages’ approach. Language Awareness, 23(4), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.783585

9

Infan CLIL: A Model for Implementing Plurilingual Projects in Pre-primary. . .

151

Maad, M. R. B. (2016). Awakening young children to foreign languages: Openness to diversity highlighted. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07908318.2016.1184679 Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan. Nacamulli, M. (2015). The benefits of a bilingual brain – Mia Nacamulli. TED-Ed. https://bit.ly/ 3mfmMoS Navés, T., & Muñoz, C. (2000). Usar las lenguas extranjeras para aprender y aprender a usar las lenguas extranjeras. Recuperado de http://www.ub.edu/filoan/CLIL/padres.pdf. Pappa, S. (2021). Identity and emotions in teaching CLIL: The case of primary school teachers in Finland. In K. R. Talbot, M.-T. Gruber, & R. Nishida (Eds.), The psychological experience of integrating content and language (pp. 16–32). Multilingual Matters. Pavlenko, A. (2005). Bilingualism and thought. In F. Kroll & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 433–453). Oxford University Press. Ruano, E. (2021). Design of a board game to revise contents from different subjects through projectbased learning and serious educational games (Unpublished MA thesis). Universidad de A Coruña. UDC. Spain. Schwartz, M. (2020). Language-conducive strategies in early language education. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Handbook of early language education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47073-9_24-1 Shaeffer, S. F. (2020). Mother tongue and early childhood care and education: Synergies and challenges. UNESCO Report. Asia-Pacific Regional Network on Early Childhood (ARNEC). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374419 Trujillo, F. (2012). Enseñanza basada en proyectos: una propuesta eficaz para el aprendizaje y el desarrollo de las competencias básicas. Revista Eufonía – Didáctica de la Educación Musical, 55, 7–15. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/3GjHAUp

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and Project-Based Learning (PBL) in Pre-primary Education: A European Perspective Ana M. Piquer-Piriz

10

and Ana Pe´rez-Valenzuela

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL and PBL with Very Young Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Brief Overview of CLIL in Pre-primary Education in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PBL in Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL for Young European Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL4YEC: Main Aims and Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL4YEC: Development and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL4YEC in Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks: CLIL, PBL and CLIL4YEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

154 155 156 158 160 160 162 163 165 166 167

Abstract

Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) is an educational approach that originated in Europe three decades ago both as a reactive and a proactive response (Coyle et al., Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press, 2010) to second and additional language learning in the continent. Although CLIL has been predominantly implemented in other educational levels, there have also been some experiences in Pre-primary levels across the continent (Eurydice, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Eurydice, 2006). The practical implementation of CLIL has developed alongside an important research strand devoted to this educational approach together with specific projects funded by the EU to further develop and analyse best CLIL practices. This chapter will report the results of one of these projects, CLIL for young European Citizenships (CLIL4YEC) that aims to promote CLIL in combination with Project-Based Learning (PBL) with young and very young A. M. Piquer-Piriz (*) · A. Pérez-Valenzuela Universidad de Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_10

153

154

A. M. Piquer-Piriz and A. Pe´rez-Valenzuela

learners in order to develop Citizenship, Environmental and Basic Financial Education as basic cross-curricular areas for integration, wellness and sustainable living. The main aims and outputs of the project as well as its development and piloting will be described, paying special attention to those aspects of the project that can be implemented in Pre-primary Education. Keywords

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) · Project-based learning (PBL) · Pre-primary education

Introduction As is well known, CLIL is an educational approach that originated in Europe three decades ago both as a reactive and proactive response (Coyle et al., 2010) to second and additional language learning in the continent. Developing from precedents such as immersion programmes in North America, regional language teaching (Spain, Belgium, Wales or Ireland) and different approaches to L2 instruction, CLIL promotes the teaching of contents through an L2. Although CLIL is often equated to the teaching of disciplinary subjects (e.g., Social or Natural Science, Music, Technology or Chemistry) in a foreign language, it was conceived as a flexible construct (Mehisto et al., 2008) and a broader perspective, that can be applied to educational contexts with its own features such as Pre-primary education, can be also adopted. In formal instructional settings (as opposed to immersion contexts), the most relevant feature of CLIL, in our view, is that it reproduces in the classroom a meaningful learning context in which the foreign language is no longer the aim but the means through which new concepts, procedures and competences are achieved. The term CLIL was coined by Marsh in 1994 and, since then, CLIL programmes have rapidly expanded throughout the continent (Eurydice report, 2006, 2017; Pérez-Cañado, 2012) and in other parts of the world, prominently, in Asia (Robertson & Adamson, 2013; Tsuchiya & Pérez-Murillo, 2019; “Authors, ▶ Chap. 14,” this volume) and South America (“Authors, ▶ Chap. 15,” this volume). CLIL has predominantly been implemented in Primary (around ages 6–12, in most countries) and compulsory Secondary (around ages 12–16, in most countries) educational levels. However, it has also been increasingly developed in tertiary education, where it is closely connected to English Medium Instruction (EMI), see Macaro et al., 2018 for a review. And CLIL has also been applied, to some extent, to Pre-primary education, the educational level on which this chapter is focused, across the continent (Eurydice, 2006). The practical implementation of CLIL has developed alongside an important research strand devoted to this educational approach together with specific projects funded by the EU to further develop and analyse best CLIL practices. This chapter will report on the results of one of these projects, CLIL for young European

10

CLIL and PBL in Pre-primary Education: A European Perspective

155

Citizenships (CLIL4YEC, Project No. 2019-1-IT02-KA201-063222, Erasmus+ Program – Call 2019 – Key Action 2 Strategic Partnership – KA201, https://clil4yec.eu/) that aims to promote the use of CLIL with young learners (YL) and very young learners (VYL) to develop Citizenship, Environmental and Basic Financial Education as basic cross-curricular areas for integration, wellness and sustainable living. Thus, in this project, CLIL moves a step forward, from integration of language learning and curricular subjects to cross-curricular and intercultural education competences and basic skills. In order to do so, the project proposes the combination of CLIL and project-based learning (PBL), a particularly interesting pedagogical methodology that promotes the connection among different subjects or topics of the curriculum while facilitating the integration between what is learned at school with the real world, all of which will be achieved through real language use. As Krauss and Boss (2013, p. 5) put it: “In project-based learning, students gain important knowledge, skills, and dispositions by investigating open-ended questions to ‘make meaning’ that they transmit in purposeful ways.” PBL is particularly suited for Pre-primary education as these very young learners are in a crucial developmental stage in which their intellectual growth, their motivations, attitudes, and behaviours are developing and, therefore, involving Pre-primary pupils in their own learning through the development of projects can positively influence their capacities. Furthermore, in our view, the combination of PBL with an early introduction of CLIL practices in the VYL classroom can facilitate a ‘smooth transition’ (Fleta Guillén, 2019) from the Pre-primary to the primary educational stage avoiding the sudden impact for the pupils, families, and teachers of facing disciplinary subjects taught in English. This chapter is organized as follows: We start with a very brief overview of the application of both CLIL and PBL at Pre-primary education. Then, we describe the EU-funded project CLIL for young European Citizenships (CLIL4YEC) focusing on its main aims, outputs, development, and the results of its first pilot and paying special attention to those aspects of the project that can be implemented in Pre-primary Education.

CLIL and PBL with Very Young Learners Being aware of the principles and benefits of both CLIL and PBL is crucial as their combination enhances their advantages in language acquisition and in reinforcing scaffolding (Cubero, 2019). Both approaches share some of their main features and aims such as the importance given to context, culture, and communication to face social and educational demands through authentic language learning and the use of language with a purpose. As stated by Casan-Pitarch (2015), project work can complete CLIL principles as cooperative work has a main role in the former, so language and content are integrated through the combination of interaction and learning while motivating, involving students and presenting real contexts and challenges. These shared concepts and ideas between CLIL and PBL allow the promotion of learning environments that provide not only a meaningful treatment

156

A. M. Piquer-Piriz and A. Pe´rez-Valenzuela

of content, but also the integration of language teaching and learning practices that create communicative contexts in any subject area or topic. The main CLIL principle is to learn contents through a foreign language, and project work helps to promote it through students’ interaction and participation in content development even with very young learners. The teacher acts as a facilitator of the process: project work will be successfully implemented if CLIL principles (content, communication, cognition and culture, Coyle et al., 2010) are contemplated and carefully planned. The practical and integrative nature of projects increases language practice, language skills and autonomous learning in a flexible way. In addition, it has been shown that motivation and positive attitudes grow, as well as communicative, personal and cognitive development that help to satisfy linguistic and educational aims (Sierra, 2011). A practical example of the combination between CLIL and PBL is illustrated in the project CLIL for Young European Citizens (CLIL4YEC), which will be presented in greater detail in section “CLIL for Young European Citizens.” CLIL4YEC aims to develop PBL lesson plans around cross-curricular topics in the last year of Pre-primary Education (5-year-olds pupils) and in the whole Primary Education stage. The next two sub-sections aim to provide a brief overview of some of the key points in relation to the suitability of both the CLIL approach and a methodology based on Project-Based Learning for Pre-primary learners.

A Brief Overview of CLIL in Pre-primary Education in Europe As mentioned in the introduction, although CLIL is not new in Europe or in Spain, its practical application in Pre-primary contexts is still somehow marginal. In the case of Spain, both the Spanish Pre-primary official curriculum (Real Decreto 1630/2006) and the Spanish Educational Act (Ley Orgánica 3/2020) contemplate the introduction of a foreign language in the official syllabus from the earliest years of the Pre-primary educational stage, that is, from age 3. This foreign language is English, i.e., EFL, in the great majority of schools. In fact, the teaching of EFL in Pre-primary education in most state schools across the country is a reality from the early 2000s. But, in practice, this mainstream EFL instruction with very young learners has mostly consisted in two hours of EFL per week, organised in different slots depending on the school and, until recently, often taught by a Primary school teacher, specialised in English. Currently, and particularly since the adaptation of the Spanish university degree system to the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), some official degrees in Pre-primary Education offer a specialisation in language teaching. Besides, some Pre-primary teachers also complement their training with either a further degree in Primary education with a specialisation in Foreign Languages or specialised master’s programmes. All this is contributing to enhance the qualifications of in-service Pre-primary teachers in relation to the teaching of foreign languages, in general, and of CLIL, in particular.

10

CLIL and PBL in Pre-primary Education: A European Perspective

157

With the expansion of CLIL programmes in the country from the mid 2000s, the situation of mainstream EFL instruction in Pre-primary education started to change as CLIL began to gradually reach this educational stage too but, to the best of our knowledge, this has not been officially regulated yet and it depends on the multilingualism policies set up in each region. In the case of Extremadura, for example, the so-called CLIL schools (‘centros bilingües’) implement CLIL from Pre-primary education but they are still only a minority in the total number of state schools in the region. From a more global, European perspective, the Eurydice report (2006) provides specific details about CLIL provision in Pre-primary education in the continent. At the time where the data was gathered (2005), eight European countries, namely, Belgium, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Spain and Romania offered some type of CLIL provision that included foreign languages and regional or minority languages. Nevertheless, its implementation was not homogeneous and its availability in Pre-primary Education showed variations among countries depending on different circumstances such as time, periods, grades, and sections (i.e., classes of the same grade) or programs involved in it. Moreover, CLIL was not always available throughout the whole Pre-primary educational stage. In Belgium, for example CLIL was provided in all Pre-primary sections whereas in Italy, CLIL at this level was still a marginal field, with only a few classes involved. In between, there was Latvia, where CLIL was included in part of the Pre-primary programmes; Finland, with some kindergartens and Pre-primary schools involved; or the UK, where CLIL provision in pre-school settings appeared in Welsh-medium playgroups and Irishmedium pre-schools. In the case of Spain, the situation varied depending on each region. Focusing our attention on those languages associated with CLIL provision in Europe, the Eurydice report analyses the situation in primary and secondary education, although this information can also help us understand the status of target languages in the different educational levels, including Pre-primary. Most European countries, including Spain, combine foreign, regional and/or minority languages, while others (the Czech Republic, England and Bulgaria) focus exclusively on foreign languages. Regional and minority languages are associated with CLIL in Slovenia and the rest of the United Kingdom, although other countries such as Belgium or Ireland also combine their official state languages. This scenario shows the variety, also in relation to target languages in CLIL, among countries when it comes to CLIL implementation. However, when analysing the provision of foreign languages, English predominates as the preferred foreign language to be learned in almost all countries, although French, German, Spanish and Italian are also widely extended. This Eurydice report also provides information about the official minimum amount of time allocated to CLIL in Pre-primary Education each week, which clearly shows, again, its heterogeneous implementation. For example, in countries such as Belgium, between one and three hours a week are devoted to the approach (and no more than three-quarters of weekly provision in French-speaking

158

A. M. Piquer-Piriz and A. Pe´rez-Valenzuela

communities), while in Spain CLIL provision varies between seven and nine hours per week. Despite this heterogeneity, the fundamental principles of CLIL implementation at this level are usually clear as the nature and main methods when working with very young learners facilitate teachers’ performance and even standard language learning techniques are not far from CLIL teaching and learning methods in most cases (Coyle et al., 2010). Therefore, CLIL, together with the essence of Pre-primary Education, mostly based on a holistic approach that ensures interdisciplinary, meaningful learning, and the way children learn and acquire languages at their earliest years, can reinforce the exposure to authentic learning situations that create excellent conditions to reinforce learners’ first experiences with languages (Marsh & Langé, 2000). It is well known that the most suitable methodologies for Pre-primary education should provide children with playful and participative environments no matter the area or content being taught. Activities must be adapted to these young learners’ capabilities and cognitive development, so CLIL strategies should not stray from this premise, as Anderson et al. (2015) recommend. That is, experiences need to be linked to their senses, and the role of the teacher becomes essential when providing opportunities for imitation and repetition, also when a foreign language is involved, while maintaining the focus on a balanced treatment of the language use and content acquisition. Nevertheless, even when teaching methodologies seem to be clear in relation to CLIL at different educational levels, a more specialised approach to teacher training was still needed not so many years ago (Eurydice, 2006) and still seems to be a need nowadays.

PBL in Pre-primary Education Different definitions of PBL (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Markham, 2011) have mostly emphasized how this student-centred methodology enhances the importance of learning by doing. Through project work, children are engaged in investigation starting with a driving question or problem to, then, discuss ideas, make predictions, design plans or experiments, gather and analyse data, draw conclusions to finally create a product to present the solution to the problem or the answer to the initial question. PBL is an educational method based on the active construct of understanding through real and meaningful problems (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). As a student-driven approach (Bell, 2010), learners take an active role in their learning process while “learning by doing”, which makes PBL a suitable method when approaching CLIL requirements: language and content are addressed from a realistic and experiential point of view. Thus, the teacher acts as a guide throughout the process of developing different skills and subject contents. PBL encourages the acquisition of daily life abilities while it promotes some long-term skills, as mentioned by Krauss and Boss

10

CLIL and PBL in Pre-primary Education: A European Perspective

159

(2013): Flexibility, organization, self-control, time management, metacognition and personal reflection. Apart from all these aspects, Larmer and Mergendoller (2010) describe some other main characteristics that define PBL lessons and their structure: the use of a driving question and the final product, two key elements for students to apply knowledge. According to these authors the driving question helps to set out the problem to be solved and to lead students’ research, while the final product will provide an answer to this initial issue. PBL is, therefore, a particularly interesting pedagogical methodology to stimulate the connection between different subjects or topics of the curriculum and to facilitate the integration between what is learned at school with the real world, all of which will be achieved through real language use and, therefore, very relevant to CLIL. PBL is not only suitable for older learners. As pointed out by Katz and Chard (2000), the nature of the Pre-primary curriculum makes this stage a perfect field for the implementation of projects through different materials and activities. In fact, Pre-primary learners are at a crucial evolutionary stage: it is a period of intellectual growth, and their motivations, attitudes and behaviours are developing during these years, so involving them in their own learning through project work can positively influence their capacities (DeVries, Reese-Learned & Morgan, cited by Helm & Katz, 2016). PBL can help children observe their local environment, identify the main problems happening there, think about solutions. Furthermore, it encourages the acquisition of different abilities needed in their daily lives. As shown by Krauss and Boss (2013), PBL promotes certain skills that will be useful to children in the long term. Different authors and studies have focused their efforts on analysing the effect that project work can have on very young learners and some benefits in different areas have been observed. For instance, Helm and Katz (2016) highlight improvements when applying PBL not only regarding academic development, but also personal and social aspects. Thus, projects can improve learners’ academic achievement as they are mainly focused on children’s interests and pupils can control their own learning from early years. Secondly and highly related to the previous aspect, the emotional involvement experienced during the learning process helps to promote social and emotional development, while curiosity and desire to learn are intensified. Literacy is considered another favoured field in project-based learning as a purpose and motivational reason for reading and writing is presented. Learners become aware of the importance and the function of those concepts they are learning as problem solving is experienced in a natural way. Even families’ involvement and interest towards their children’s work is improved when the latter are involved in projects. School experiences are shared and communication about them increases at home. Some other studies have also shown interesting contributions of Project-based learning in Pre-primary education by exploring teachers’ views about the implementation of project work in this educational level and about learners’ main outcomes. Regarding teachers’ perceptions, some aspects are clearly emphasized such as

160

A. M. Piquer-Piriz and A. Pe´rez-Valenzuela

planning, assessment (benefited by the creation of final products) and more practical teaching-learning experiences that improve curricular treatment through a diversity of topics despite children’s diverse abilities (Beneke, 2000). Beneke and Ostrosky (2009) emphasise that meaningful classroom activities are easy to adapt and children’s participation, motivation, social behaviour and attention span increase as a consequence. Connections with the real world are reinforced through authentic materials, so links between the concepts learned occur. Thus, social and academic areas are developed, but it also influences self-esteem. Therefore, these types of achievements not only have an impact on learning, but also on teachers’ practices and professional development. Focusing our attention on learners, the positive effect of PBL is observed in the development of some particular areas. Aral et al. (2010), for example, point out the conceptual development identified in Pre-primary learners exposed to PBL settings. The comprehension of different educational concepts, such as colours, letters, numbers, sizes, shapes, direction or position, self-social awareness, texture or material, quantity, and time or sequence, is strengthened. Other specific aspects also benefit from PBL when working with Pre-primary learners, such as vocabulary acquisition, even when a foreign or a second language is involved. When combining the principles of PBL with those of a CLIL approach, the acquisition of subject-specific concepts is promoted, as meaningful learning is reinforced to a greater extent than when working with more traditional language teaching methods, as shown in the study carried out by Pérez Valenzuela (2021). This study was designed to measure the influence of PBL in the vocabulary acquisition of 45 CLIL, Pre-primary students belonging to two different age groups (4 and 5 years of age) that were exposed to a different, two-hour, PBL lesson plan, designed within the EU-funded project ‘CLIL for Young European Citizens’. An adaptation of the Picture Vocabulary Size Test (PVST), designed by Anthony and Nation (2017), was first used to obtain information about students’ general vocabulary level in English. Two more tests based on the PVST format were designed and implemented in order to measure the effects of PBL lessons on the acquisition of specific vocabulary. The analysis of the data yielded better scores in the PBL tests than in the general English test and statistically significant differences between the two age groups were also found.

CLIL for Young European Citizens CLIL4YEC: Main Aims and Outputs CLIL For Young European Citizens (from now on CLIL4YEC) is an Erasmus+ Project (Project No. 2019-1-IT02-KA201-063222, Erasmus+ Program – Call 2019 – Key Action 2 Strategic Partnership – KA201) whose aim is to promote a better European integration and sustainable living, through the implementation of CLIL at early ages to develop relevant issues such as European and Global citizenship, Environment Conservation and Protection and Basic Financial Education. From

10

CLIL and PBL in Pre-primary Education: A European Perspective

161

this new perspective, CLIL goes beyond the integration of content and language in curricular subjects: CLIL4YEC encourages the acquisition of key competences and basic skills through the integration of foreign language and content learning as well as cross-curricular and intercultural education in combination with PBL. In addition, CLIL4YEC attempts to promote the improvement of digital skills and offers new possibilities in early years through collaborative work, the use of selected Open Educational Resources (OERs) and virtual exchanges. The implementation of all these innovative practices not only involves teachers and students as target groups, but also families that are also key stakeholders for successful educational achievements as well as other professionals in the field: teacher trainers, universities and language schools. The strategic partnership involved in the project was led by Giunty Psychometrics (Florence, Italy) and included partners from Italy, Portugal, Romania, and Spain. There were three higher education institutions – Instituto Politecnico de Castelo Branco (Castelo Branco, Portugal), Universitatea din Pitesti (Pitesti, Romania) and Universidad de Extremadura (Badajoz, Spain) –, and seven schools – The Language Center (Todi, Italy), Direzione Didattica di Todi (Todi, Italy), Direzione Didattica Aldo Moro di Terni (Terni, Italy), Agrupamento de Escolas Gardunha e Xisto (Fundão, Portugal), Scoala Gimnaziala Alexandru Davila (Pitesti, Romania), CEIP Las Vaguadas (Badajoz, Spain). The combination of language educators, experts on CLIL and in-service teachers from different countries created a very enriching working atmosphere and positively influenced the quality of the intellectual outputs produced. The main intellectual outcomes of the project (https://clil4yec.eu/) are the following: • A State-of-the-Art Report about how to use CLIL to develop Citizenship Education, Environmental Education and Basic Financial Education in the above mentioned countries. • A census of OERs addressed to Primary Schools for the development of CLIL activities based on the three above-mentioned cross-curricular topics. • An online CLIL OER Repository with sharing and rating functions. • A guide addressed to teachers on how to use CLIL in Primary Schools for Innovative Activities on cross-curricular topics. • A guide addressed to teachers on how to involve families in these CLIL activities. • E-Courses to guide teachers and families in the development of cross-curricular topics through CLIL. • 18 lesson plans that present useful CLIL materials for the development of crosscurricular topics. Apart from promoting the implementation of CLIL, bearing in mind its specific idiosyncrasy and taking into account the different stakeholders involved in the project, all these intellectual outputs are in direct connection with European priorities: promoting a comprehensive approach to language teaching and learning; open education and innovative practices in a digital era and supporting individuals in acquiring and developing basic skills and key competences.

162

A. M. Piquer-Piriz and A. Pe´rez-Valenzuela

In the rest of the chapter, we will mostly focus on the last output, i.e., the 18 lesson plans, created and presented together with the Guide Addressed to Teachers to facilitate the implementation of CLIL innovative activities through a methodology based on PBL, which offers an integration of content and language in real contexts and meaningful activities focused on students interests and real-life situations.

CLIL4YEC: Development and Implementation As mentioned above, PBL was a key aspect in CLIL4YEC work. The project encourages the application of this method to CLIL contexts with the purpose of developing the three cross-curricular areas proposed. The different partners from Spain, Italy, Portugal and Romania jointly took part in the development and implementation of CLIL4YEC. Two online training events were planned in the project. In the first one, led by Giunty Psychometrics, the main methodological questions were discussed and agreed on and training sessions on CLIL, PBL and virtual exchanges were delivered by the university lecturers to the school teachers. The second training event was led by the university of Extremadura and was devoted to the planning of the 18 lesson plans by the schoolteachers and the university lecturers. The lesson plans are distributed according to each cross-curricular area (citizenship, environmental and financial education), addressed through different subtopics and aimed at three different age groups: the younger group (5- to 8-year-olds), intermediate group (8- to 10-year-olds) and older group (10- to 12-year-olds). As can be observed, the younger age group includes Pre-primary learners (5-year-olds). This was a decision made by the CLIL4YEC partnership. The group of participating schoolteachers included Pre-primary teachers that were already implementing CLIL in their daily practice and the aims and content of the project suited this educational stage. Each lesson plan is expected to be developed in two hours as part of different curricular subjects along 3 weeks, so they are organised in sequenced steps which also include family’s involvement. Most of them also incorporate virtual exchanges as an opportunity to share learning and experiences. The distribution of each topic across these age groups is shown in Fig. 10.1, that summarises the PBL-based lesson plans: The sequence when putting these lesson plans into practice is provided by a template that is divided into different parts and sets up clear guidelines: • An introduction, where the driving question is presented, as well as a brief description of the group of students and the relevance of the topic addressed. • A contextualisation that is aimed at giving an overview of the lesson: crosscurricular topic, subtopic and age group, materials and resources needed, the implementation of Virtual Exchanges, the content subjects in which each lesson plan is defined, and the key competences covered through the project proposed. • The aims of the lesson, focused on both content and language and following the main CLIL principles.

10

CLIL and PBL in Pre-primary Education: A European Perspective

163

Citizenship Education Kindness and bullying

Kindness

Bullying

Cyberbullying

Myself and the others

Together in diversity

5-8

8-10

10-12

5-8

8-10

Topic Age group

Together in diversity Human rights around the world 10-12

Environmental Education Environmental disasters Topic Age group

Threats to animals and plants

Pollution and environmental disasters

5-8

8-10

The 3 Rs: recycling, reducing, reusing 10-12

Energy

Green energy

Transportation

Fair trade and responsible consumption

5-8

8-10

10-12

Financial Education Saving and spending money Topic Age group

Needs and wishes 5-8

Income and savings 8-10

Bank/ banking 10-12

Barter and commerce Create a market 5-8

Story of money

Taxes

8-10

10-12

Fig. 10.1 CLIL4YEC lesson plans

• The sequence of steps that will reflect the organisation of the activities. • Assessment tools for teachers and students to evaluate their practices. • Appendices with the materials and resources.

CLIL4YEC in Pre-primary Education The lesson plan proposals developed by the CLIL4YEC team cover different age groups that make up the age span which comprises Primary Education in most European countries. However, as mentioned earlier, those lesson lesson plans created for the younger age group (5–8 years old) have been designed taking into account Pre-primary learners (4- to 5-year-olds) and can be implemented at this level. It is important to bear in mind that these very young learners are starting to

164

A. M. Piquer-Piriz and A. Pe´rez-Valenzuela

become familiar with studying in English, so teachers’ guidance is considered essential here. The lesson plans created for the younger age group are distributed as shown in Fig. 10.2: A brief description of each lesson plan addressed to the younger group is provided in Appendix I, in order to clarify their specific aims. A first pilot of the materials already took place in the partner schools between May and July 2021. Some of the lesson plans designed for the younger age group were implemented in some Pre-primary classrooms, involving 4-, 5- and 6-years old learners: “Myself and the others” and “Threats to animals and plants”. These two lesson plans were first piloted in Spain, although the implementation of “Myself and the others” in the lower levels of Primary Education was also carried out in Romania

Fig. 10.2 CLIL4YEC Pre-primary lesson plans

Citizenship Education Kindness and bullying

Together in diversity

Kindness

Myself and the others

Environmental Education Environmental disasters

Energy

Threats to animals and paints

Green energy

Financial Education Saving and spending money

Needs and wishes

Barter and commerce

Create a market

10

CLIL and PBL in Pre-primary Education: A European Perspective

165

and Italy, as well as “Threats to animals and plants”, whose results were also analysed in Portugal. Focusing our attention on the two Pre-primary groups, two different teachers implemented the two lesson plans (one each) with two different groups and their comments about this first piloting process were collected. They positively highlighted the effectiveness of the project when motivating learners, involving families, and reaching the main objectives of the lesson. However, some weak points were also underlined as they found that some of the proposals regarding activities development and language were too demanding. Therefore, some adjustments were necessary to adapt them to their learners’ age and capabilities (e.g., more visual support, working on more familiar concepts or adapting some activities that involved writing or other particular skills that were too complex for the pupils). This enriching feedback can aid understanding the needs of younger learners and paves the way for future considerations. The final version of all the lesson plans, after a second piloting phase, is available at the project website (https://clil4yec.eu).

Concluding Remarks: CLIL, PBL and CLIL4YEC As has been shown in the first part of this chapter, the teaching and learning of foreign languages at the Pre-primary educational level, let alone the implementation of CLIL at this stage, is still an underexplored area. Even so, the scarce research literature in the field together with the innovative teaching experiences that have been conducted point to the benefits of both CLIL and PBL for very young learners. CLIL4YEC attempts to make a contribution in this area by encouraging teachers to implement innovative teaching strategies when integrating content and language at such early levels while monitoring and, hopefully, enhancing the capabilities of their very young learners. The implementation of CLIL4YEC not only makes visible the improvement of learning scenarios and learning experiences, but it also brings the whole educational community together (through the involvement of parents and other stakeholders) with an innovative perspective that can help to understand the learning process. CLIL4YEC attempts to work on providing suitable CLIL environments for the achievement of its educational goals while fostering the approach in Europe beyond its usual conception. The analysis of teachers’ views about CLIL4YEC resources and methods is considered a key element for the development of the project, as well as for the study of learners’ needs when facing the proposals. Thus, although CLIL4YEC is mainly examined through Primary Education experiences, the incorporation of Pre-primary piloting groups and the creation of resources that are also expected to be used by Pre-primary learners and teachers, allows early years to be taken into consideration, despite their marginal condition in the field. In our view, CLIL has an important contribution to make in Pre-primary education and PBL may be its perfect partner in this task.

166

A. M. Piquer-Piriz and A. Pe´rez-Valenzuela

Acknowledgements The lesson plans described in this publication have been developed under CLIL For Young European Citizens (from now on CLIL4YEC) is an Erasmus+ Project (Project No. 2019-1-IT02-KA201-063222, Erasmus+ Program – Call 2019 – Key Action 2 Strategic Partnership – KA201). The content of this publication does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the publication lies entirely with the authors.

Appendix 1 CLIL4YEC Lesson Plans: Pre-primary Education (Younger Group) Lesson plan Area Subtopic Aim and description Kindness Citizenship Kindness and The aim of this lesson is to help children Education bullying realize that they can have an important impact in their community through kind acts. Emotions are the key element addressed. A real act of kindness will be performed as a final product with their families’ help, getting feedback through social media. Myself and Citizenship Together in This lesson plan is aimed at promoting the others Education diversity education on civic values and intercultural competences while respecting personal differences and encouraging tolerance and empathy. The final product will cover all these aspects by creating a game based on physical and personal characteristics. A virtual exchange in which the game will be shared is suggested. Threats to Environmental Environmental Environmental awareness will be animals and Education disasters encouraged through this project, so the plants main aim focuses on creating a healthier environment. Thus, the importance of local species in air preservation will be explored and experienced by planting a tree as a final product. Green Environmental Energy The main objective is to raise awareness energy Education on environmental issues by learning about renewable and non-renewable energies and the importance of the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse and Recycle). At the end of the project, learners will create recycled toys to be shared with other schools in a virtual exchange. Needs and Financial Saving and The main aim is to reflect about spending wishes Education spending and wasting money, and learning how to money save, spend and share money in order to help people with economic difficulties. A (continued)

10

CLIL and PBL in Pre-primary Education: A European Perspective

167

CLIL4YEC Lesson Plans: Pre-primary Education (Younger Group) Lesson plan Area Subtopic Aim and description

Create a market

Financial Education

Barter and commerce

sponsored walk will be organised as a final product of the project while promoting values such as solidarity and personal responsibility to contribute to community’s development. Families’ participation will be required after each step. This lesson plan aims to raise awareness of social and financial issues while reflecting on the value of money and promoting solidarity and personal responsibility. Families’ involvement is of key importance in this lesson plan. Two extra sessions will be devoted to the final product (a charity market) and to share experiences through a virtual exchange.

References Anderson, C., Mcdougald, J., & Cuesta, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C. N. Giannikas, L. McLaughlin, G. Fanning, & N. D. Muller (Eds.), Children learning English: From research to practice (pp. 137–151). Garnet Education. Anthony, L., & Nation, I. S. P. (2017). Picture vocabulary size test (Version 1.2.0) [Computer Software]. Waseda University. Available from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/pvst Aral, N., Kandir, A., Ayhan, A. B., & Yaşar, M. C. (2010). The influence of project-based curricula on six-year old preschoolersʼ conceptual development. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38(8), 1073–1079. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43. Beneke, S. (2000). Implementing the Project Approach in part-time Early Childhood Education programs. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 2(1), 1–23. Beneke, S., & Ostrosky, M. M. (2009). Teachers’ views of the efficacy of incorporating the Project Approach into classroom practice with diverse learners. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 11(1), 1–9. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, M. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398. Casan-Pitarch, R. (2015). Project work in CLIL: A biographical review. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 212–236. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2015. 8.2.7 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Cubero, K. (2019). Contextualized activities to promote cultural awareness: Under the umbrella of CLIL and PBL in English as a foreign language. In Redine (Ed.), Conference proceedings EDUNOVATIC 2019 (pp. 485–490). Redine. Eurydice. (2006). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at School in Europe. Eurydice.

168

A. M. Piquer-Piriz and A. Pe´rez-Valenzuela

Eurydice. (2017). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. Eurydice. Fleta Guillén, M. T. (2019). Practices to scaffold CLIL at transition to primary. In K. Tsuchiya & M. D. Pérez-Murillo (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts: Policy, practice and pedagogy (pp. 59–90). Palgrave Macmillan. Helm, J., & Katz, L. (2016). Young investigators: The Project Approach in the early years. Teachers College Press. Katz, L., & Chard, S. (2000). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Krauss, J., & Boss, S. (2013). Thinking through project-based learning: Guiding deeper inquiry. Corwin Press. Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. (2010). 7 essentials for project-based learning. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 34–37. Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación. (2020). Boletín Oficial del Estado, 340, sec. I, 30 diciembre de 2020, 122868–122953. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444817000350 Markham, T. (2011). Project based learning: A bridge just far enough. Teacher Librarian, 39(2), 38–42. Marsh, D., & Langé, G. (Eds.). (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. University of Jyväskylä. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan. Pérez-Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15, 315–341. Real Decreto 1630/2006, de 29 de diciembre, por el que se establecen las enseñanzas mínimas del segundo ciclo de Educación infantil. (2006). Boletín Oficial del Estado, 4, sec. I, 4 de enero de 2007, 474–482. Robertson, P., & Adamson, J. (Eds.). (2013). CLIL in Asian contexts: Emerging trends. Asian EFL Journal, 15(4). Sierra, J. M. (2011). CLIL and project work: Contributions from the classroom. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Sierra, & F. Gallardo (Eds.), Content and foreign language integrated learning: Contributions to multilingualism in European contexts (pp. 211–240). Peter Lang. Tsuchiya, K., & Pérez-Murillo, M. D. (Eds.). (2019). Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts: Policy, practice and pedagogy. Palgrave Macmillan. Valenzuela, P. (2021). Project-based learning and vocabulary acquisition in pre-primary CLIL students. Unpublished Master’s dissertation. University of Extremadura. http://hdl.handle.net/ 10662/12732

11

The Multiplicity of Pre-primary CLIL in Finland Karita Ma˚rd-Miettinen , Anu Paloja¨rvi , Katri Hansell Kristiina Skinnari , and Josephine Moate

,

Contents Introduction and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Finnish Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ECEC and Pre-primary Education Curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL in Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL in Foreign Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL in National Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

170 170 171 172 174 175 176 179 181

Abstract

Finland has language-friendly national curricula that aim to support the presence of the two national languages, Finnish and Swedish as well as other languages, and to foster bi- and multilingual language development. These curricula have encouraged many early years education units in Finland to take the opportunity to engage with languages in innovative ways, for example, by implementing various types of extensive (large-scale) and less extensive (small-scale) content and language integrated (CLIL) arrangements in different languages. This chapter provides an overview of CLIL in the Finnish- and Swedish-medium pre-primary systems in Finland from its national spread and implementations to its curriculum goals. The chapter also provides three research-based examples of pre-primary CLIL in English, Finnish and Swedish that illustrate pedagogical approaches K. Mård-Miettinen (*) · A. Palojärvi · K. Skinnari · J. Moate University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylän yliopisto, Finland e-mail: karita.mard-miettinen@jyu.fi; anu.k.palojarvi@jyu.fi; kristiina.skinnari@jyu.fi; josephine.m.moate@jyu.fi K. Hansell Åbo Akademi University, Vaasa, Finland e-mail: katri.hansell@abo.fi © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_11

169

170

K. Ma˚rd-Miettinen et al.

teachers in Finland implement when they integrate content and language learning in their everyday activities. Keywords

Bilingual education · Curriculum · Everyday pedagogy · Age-appropriate pedagogy · Language enrichment

Introduction and Context A significant number of early education providers in Finland have embraced the opportunity to engage with languages in innovative ways within their everyday pedagogical activities. Most of these innovations are based on practices which involve content and language integrated learning (CLIL). In the core curricula (EDUFI, 2016, 2022), these practices are included under the umbrella term of bilingual education which encompasses both language immersion education and various CLIL approaches. This chapter focuses on CLIL approaches in Finland. In this chapter, we begin by briefly introducing the Finnish educational context and with a particular focus on CLIL in Finland. We then provide three examples to illustrate how educators in Finland have integrated content and language learning through different approaches that all build on research based development and have been followed through scientific research.

The Finnish Context Finland is a bilingual country where Swedish by status is an official language equal to Finnish, but a minority language in terms of numbers of speakers. In 2020, 86.9% of the population were registered as Finnish speakers, 5.2% as Swedish speakers while 7.8% had other languages registered as their mother tongue (OSF, 2021). The educational system in Finland builds on parallel Finnish- and Swedish-medium tracks. In the last two decades the number of speakers of other languages has significantly increased in Finland (from 1.9% in 2000 to 7.8% in 2020, OSF, 2021). This change has highlighted the need to address language development for individuals and as part of the wider community. On the one hand, children learning Finnish or Swedish as an additional language need support to develop a good foundation in the community language and to maintain and develop their first language(s) (EDUFI, 2016, 2022). On the other hand, these children can also benefit from the opportunity to be acquainted with the other national language (Hansell et al., 2020). In Finland, early childhood education and care (ECEC) is for children from 10 months until the year a child turns 6 years old. The last year before starting basic education is called pre-primary education, which is meant for six-year-olds (starting in autumn the calendar year the child turns 6 years). In 2019, about 77% of

11

The Multiplicity of Pre-primary CLIL in Finland

171

children were attending ECEC (THL, 2020) while all children attended pre-primary education as part of compulsory education. In this chapter, we use these both terms (ECEC and pre-primary education) to best explain the Finnish situation. Governed by legislation, education must be provided in the official languages of Finland, Finnish and Swedish, as well as in the heritage language, Sámi (mainly offered in the Sámi region in northern Finland in government-funded language nests, Pasanen, 2015). Furthermore, ECEC should also –– collaboratively with parents and minority communities –– support the language and culture of children with a Romany background, an immigrant background, as well as those using sign language (EDUFI, 2022). Each ECEC and pre-primary unit in Finland assigns its primary language of instruction. In the core curricula, this language is labelled ‘language of instruction’ (EDUFI, 2016, 2022). However, within one ECEC and pre-primary education unit, groups can have different working languages. A unit can also provide different forms of bilingual education programmes (e.g., CLIL) in the national languages or in foreign languages. The core curricula use the label ‘target language’ for this language (EDUFI, 2016, 2022). As the range of languages that children bring to ECEC and pre-primary education increases, so the language resources expand within the Finnish community. Hence, curriculum developments in recent years have paid special attention to the role, presence, and multiplicity of languages within the curriculum and as part of children’s language repertoires. The Finnish core curricula for ECEC (EDUFI, 2022) and pre-primary education (EDUFI, 2016), for example, include a particular chapter addressing issues of minority and immigrant languages as well as bilingual education (for details, see section “CLIL in Finland” below).

ECEC and Pre-primary Education Curricula ECEC and pre-primary education in Finland are guided by the national core curricula (EDUFI, 2016, 2022). The national core curricula are complemented by local curricula, in which the education provider specifies the national core curricula on how the goals of the core curriculum are to be met. In addition, an individual ECEC and pre-primary education plan is made for each child, stating e.g., how the educators will support the child’s learning and wellbeing (EDUFI, 2016, 2022). The national core curricula consist mainly of an overall description of contents and aims as well as philosophical viewpoints towards education. Although the ECEC and pre-primary educators are required to follow the core curricula, as well as the local curricula, they have a high degree of freedom in planning and implementing ECEC and pre-primary education (cf. Korkeamäki & Dreher, 2012). Therefore educators in Finland have a great responsibility in bringing policy into practice and implementing it in pedagogical activities (cf. Bergroth & Hansell, 2020). The high level of freedom given to educators is supported by the high qualifications held by ECEC and pre-primary education staff. There are legislative demands on qualifications of the staff. All staff must have at least secondary-level education and ECEC and pre-primary teachers, who have the main responsibility for planning,

172

K. Ma˚rd-Miettinen et al.

evaluation, and outcomes of the goals and practices, have tertiary-level, researchbased education (at a minimum a Bachelor’s degree) (Melasalmi & Husu, 2018; Moate et al., 2021). In this chapter, the term teacher is used to explicitly refer to the ECEC and pre-primary teachers while all staff including both ECEC and pre primary teachers, childcare workers etc. is referred to as educators. Instead of conventional formal approaches to learning, the national core curricula (EDUFI, 2016, 2022) highlight learning through approaches derived from children’s natural ways of being, such as play-based learning, learning by doing, moving, and exploring. The core curricula also outline transversal competences (e.g., ‘cultural competence, interaction and self-expression’) and broad based learning areas (e.g., ‘rich world of languages’ and ‘grow, move and develop’) which should be used in the development of local curricula. On this basis integrating language and content in ECEC and pre-primary education in Finland can refer to various ways of using language(s) to develop transversal competences through everyday routines as well as through more formal learning situations in a playful, explorative, and active manner. ECEC and pre-primary education also aim at strengthening children’s participation and agency which are seen as central for learning and acting in society (EDUFI, 2016, 2022). The current national core curricula (EDUFI, 2016, 2022) emphasise language awareness both explicitly and implicitly. In the core curricula, language awareness is understood in a broad way and includes both awareness within a language and across different languages. The educators are encouraged to be aware of their own language use (EDUFI, 2022) and foster the children’s language awareness with wide-ranging language usage (EDUFI, 2016). Educators should encourage children to focus their attention on linguistic structures and support the development of multiliteracy skills (EDUFI, 2016, 2022). Regarding awareness across languages, the core curricula state that educators should be aware of the multiplicity of languages, aim to make multilingualism visible and encourage the children to observe different languages (EDUFI, 2016, 2022). In practice, it is the role of individual practitioners working at the local level to implement this vision (Bergroth & Hansell, 2020) and while language awareness is relevant in all educational settings, it is especially important in bilingual education, including CLIL.

CLIL in Finland In Finland, ECEC and pre-primary CLIL can take various forms and different names. Grassroot CLIL initiatives in Finland date back to the 1960s with an extensive growth in the 1990s. In 2017, a national survey on the overall situation of the provision of CLIL and immersion in ECEC, pre-primary education and basic education in Finland was administered and reported in two volumes: one volume focused mainly on national languages (Sjöberg et al., 2018) and the other one on foreign languages (Peltoniemi et al., 2018). The survey showed, firstly, that education providers call their approaches with multiple names, for example, language shower, language nest, Swedish immersion, language enrichment, and CLIL. CLIL

11

The Multiplicity of Pre-primary CLIL in Finland

173

and language enrichment will be defined and discussed in more detail later in this chapter, but language shower is an approach with daily or weekly foreign language activities intended to familiarize children with a foreign language and to develop positive attitudes to language learning (e.g., Mehisto et al., 2008; Nikula & Marsh, 1997). Language nest, on the other hand, is a Samí language ECEC unit in Finland where Finnish-speaking children are instructed in one of the three heritage Samí languages in Finland. Language nests derive from Maori language nests in New Zealand (Pasanen, 2015). Swedish immersion in Finland is defined in Björklund et al. (2014) as a programmatic form of additive bilingual schooling where children from Finnish-speaking families are learning ECEC, pre-primary, and school content partly in Swedish and in Finnish. During the pre-primary years all instructions are in Swedish and in school the proportion on teaching in Finnish increases to about 50% for Grades 5–9 in primary school. The survey (Sjöberg et al., 2018) showed that the most extensive programmes that are often labelled language immersion, are more established and less geographically spread. The majority of less extensive approaches are quite new with about 35% of them having been offered for less than a year at the time of the survey (Peltoniemi et al., 2018). A major reason for the expansion of this type of provision is the national funding that has been directed at language enrichment projects to motivate Finnish children to study languages, a need recently highlighted in national reports (Pyykkö, 2017). As the same term can be used for vastly different practices it sometimes confuses parents who make enrolment decisions for their children (Peltoniemi et al., 2018). It also is difficult to generalise research results from the different approaches (Dalton-Puffer et al., 2014). However, in Finland each education provider has the freedom to choose any label for their practices. The national survey (Peltoniemi et al., 2018) also showed that CLIL is implemented across the country but mainly in bigger bilingual cities along the southern and western coast, an area covering almost 60% of the population in Finland. Furthermore, CLIL is provided in many languages (English, Swedish, Finnish, German, French, Russian, Sámi, Spanish, and Chinese) but mainly in English and the two national languages, Swedish and Finnish. In contrast to ECEC and pre-primary education in some other settings, in Finland educators have the freedom to draw on and to use different languages and are encouraged to use children’s wider language repertoires as part of their developmental journey (EDUFI, 2016, 2022). This principle is complemented by the support and encouragement parents have given to a variety of bilingual educational approaches and opportunities (Björklund et al., 2014; Palviainen & Mård-Miettinen, 2015; Peltoniemi et al., 2018). The newest core curricula (EDUFI, 2016, 2022) give more detailed guidelines than before on how to implement CLIL as it includes a particular section on CLIL (the term used in the curricula is ‘bilingual education’). The core curricula stress that the goal of CLIL is to give a foundation for life-long language learning and to ‘utilise the children’s early sensitive period for language learning’ (EDUFI, 2016, p. 54, 2022, p. 50). Hence, it takes a holistic approach to CLIL (Baker & Wright, 2021). CLIL is expected to give children opportunities for ‘acquiring language

174

K. Ma˚rd-Miettinen et al.

skills and using languages functionally and through play’ (EDUFI, 2016, p. 54, 2022, p. 50). As to extent, the curricula state that CLIL approaches can be either large-scale with over 25% in the target language or small-scale with less than 25% in the target language. This distinction is purely administrative and, hence, is neither based on research evidence nor is it easy to work out in practice. For large-scale CLIL, the aim is to ‘create capabilities for the children to act in bilingual environments and to learn not only in the [official] language of instruction [of the ECEC or pre primary unit] but also in some other languages. The curricula emphasise that instruction in both languages ‘forms an entity where both languages are present and developed’ (EDUFI, 2016, p. 57, 2022, p. 51). Whereas educators are encouraged to use only one language with the children, the children are encouraged to be versatile in their language use and and to actively participate through both languages. Furthermore, the curricula emphasise the importance of accessing cultures connected to different languages. Cooperation between different educational levels is highlighted in the curricula and this is realised in most cases of large-scale CLIL through the formation of a path from ECEC to pre-primary education and on to basic education. Small-scale CLIL is also referred to as language-enriched ECEC/pre-primary education in the curricula and the aim of small-scale CLIL is to ‘stir interest in and a positive attitude towards language’ (EDUFI, 2016, p. 54, 2022, p. 50). Small-scale CLIL refers to activities that are ‘regularly and systematically provided in a language other than the language of instruction’ of the ECEC and pre-primary unit’ (EDUFI, 2016, p. 57, 2022, p. 51). In this type of CLIL, children’s language learning is supported and motivated as they are introduced to multilingualism and cultural encounters through everyday activities. Furthermore, children are guided to simultaneously be users and learners of language. Small-scale CLIL can, but do not need to, form a path to languageenriched primary education, or even to large-scale primary CLIL. Overall, the curricula provide rather detailed guidelines for how early total immersion in the national languages is implemented, although large-scale CLIL provisions and small-scale language-enriched CLIL are guided to a lesser extent. The lack of guidelines may well be due to the focus on target language learning in large-scale CLIL provisions, whereas small-scale CLIL provisions address language attitudes and language awareness. Although the national core curricula implicitly point to the value of continua in educational pathways, continuity is dependent on the development of local curricula and pedagogical practices of teachers. This open-endedness requires education providers and individual teachers to actively transform policy into practice in turn leading to significant variation in the practices implemented in the field.

CLIL Practices In this section, some selected research-based examples of CLIL practices in Finland are introduced. These examples are unified by a shared focus on everyday pedagogy which means that the use of the CLIL language is closely integrated with the content of

11

The Multiplicity of Pre-primary CLIL in Finland

175

ECEC and pre-primary education. The selected practices are also similar in that they arise from age-appropriate and community-based ways of working. Nevertheless, as different research-based approaches have been used to examine CLIL, the descriptions provide different angles that highlight key issues particular to each practice.

CLIL in Foreign Languages This first case example is a well-established example of a combined Finnish language ECEC and pre-primary unit explicitly seeking to integrate English into the everyday activities and relationships of the Finnish-speaking and increasingly multilingual community. This example complements the ideas of the core curricula to enhance multilingualism and cultural encounters in children’s daily life (see section “CLIL in Finland”). This initiative began over 20 years ago, and despite changes in the staff, the community has managed to maintain and develop the use of English with the young children. Starting with the three to five-year-olds, the children are introduced to English through playful activities including songs, rhymes, games and stories. The staff actively seek opportunities to re-use English words and phrases with the children and to foster a positive attitude towards language learning, towards the presence of different languages and towards different people. The guiding pedagogical principle in this unit is to provide positive language learning experiences through the intentional use of English in everyday routines and formal learning situations. Everyday routines include when the children prepare to go outside to play and lunchtime when children are introduced to different foods. As the children collect their food, they can learn how to respond to questions (e.g., ‘A little or a lot?’) and use different phrases (e.g., ‘More, please’). When the children explore a topic such as autumn, English is integrated as the children learn the names of autumnal colours and key features of Finnish autumn including the changing colours of leaves and mushrooms. The use of English is further strengthened in this unit through the presence of an English-speaking member of staff who regularly interacts with the staff and children through English, for example talking about their favourite food at the dinner table. Another pedagogical principle observed in this unit is to provide opportunities for children to develop their agency as language learners. Over time the children learn to cope with uncertainty, developing different strategies to discern meaning and the courage to take risks to demonstrate understanding through actions and words (Holmila & Moate, 2020). Re-using terms and phrases in familiar situations gradually builds the children’s repertoire of phrases, and also provides them with tools for responding to spontaneous events. During one observation, for example, when the children noticed snow had started to fall they spontaneously started to sing a song about snow in English (Palojärvi et al., 2021). Using language in a flexible, openended way also creates opportunities for educators to observe how the children’s understanding of language is developing. When using English to give instructions rather than only asking children to repeat words and phrases, educators can observe the extent to which children have understood.

176

K. Ma˚rd-Miettinen et al.

The educators in this unit also aim to be sensitive to children’s reflections on their learning and development in general, as well as with regard to their expanding language awareness. Small-scale interviews carried out with the children provide insights into how the children regard English as a positive challenge and, although it is not always easy, they are willing to participate using English. The interviews also indicate how children recognise the need to be active in making sense of how English is being used and that over time their understanding of English changes and develops. The children’s comments suggest that they regard their ability to navigate the presence and use of English as something to be proud of and something that positively contributes to their sense of identity. These insights highlight children’s perspectives and reflections on their CLIL experiences (Holmila & Moate, 2020). Moreover, these insights illustrate the active participation of children and the rich resources and developmental opportunities that can be offered by routines and the everyday presence of different languages in ECEC and pre-primary education. Arguably this CLIL approach provides positive learning experiences as outlined in the curricula and prepares an important foundation for CLIL as the children’s educational pathways continue.

CLIL in National Languages A more recent development in Finland is to implement small-scale CLIL in national languages, Finnish and Swedish. In this section we will present two such approaches that have involved scientific research and that have been developed in teacherresearcher teams.

A Programme for Communicative Finnish In 2018, a small-scale bilingual education programme including Finnish within a Swedish-medium ECEC was started in a Swedish-majority municipality. In this municipality 85.6% of the inhabitants’ registered mother tongue is Swedish, 6.6% Finnish and 7.8% other languages (OSF, 2021). As Swedish has a strong local and regional majority position, Finnish is not naturally part of most families’ everyday life. The parents, teachers and the local educational administration in this municipality have therefore recognised the need to strengthen the children’s communicative skills in Finnish from early years to prepare them for national bilingual realities (Björklund et al., 2018). An important pedagogical principle underpinning this model is the authentic use of Finnish during everyday routines, instruction, and interactions with the children. This programme is being developed and documented through action-research oriented teacher-researcher cooperation (e.g., Björklund et al., 2018; Hansell & Björklund, 2022). The programme starts with five-year-old children and the aim is to continue to the end of basic education (grade 9, age 15). As a complement to the local curriculum, pedagogical guidelines for the daily bilingual communication in ECEC, pre-primary education and basic education, have been developed for the programme by a working group of teachers from the different educational levels and a researcher.

11

The Multiplicity of Pre-primary CLIL in Finland

177

The guidelines recommend that Finnish should be used for 20 minutes per day (Björklund et al., 2018) and staff are encouraged to switch between languages during the day, rather than to strictly track the use of time. According to the guidelines, Finnish should be included in the themes the age group is working with in order to support the content-based goals set up for ECEC and pre-primary education. Moreover, the guidelines include recommended practices for bilingual interaction (e.g., using Finnish in everyday routines, avoiding direct translations) and support for the staff’s use of Finnish (e.g., appropriate vocabulary, idiomatic utterances, digital materials) offering support especially for teachers and staff members that do not consider themselves fluent in Finnish. A pedagogical principle for the teachers in ECEC and pre-primary education is to occasionally switch to Finnish, in order to offer the children a model of (L2) communication in Finnish. For ECEC this is done throughout the day in both educational and care activities. Pre-primary education for the six-year-old children in this municipality, however, is arranged on school campuses for 4 hours a day, while morning and afternoon activities are arranged by other staff not involved in the bilingual programme. This means that the pre-primary teachers spend notably less time with the children and participate in fewer everyday routines than the ECEC staff. The opportunities for the pre-primary teachers to use Finnish are therefore more restricted to formal learning situations. In this particular ECEC unit, Finnish is frequently and consistently used in everyday routines, including mealtimes, when dressing and undressing, and transitions between different parts of the daily programme, in a similar way to other CLIL contexts described in this chapter. The topics discussed in Finnish are mostly concrete, context-dependent, and repeated day after day (cf. Mård-Miettinen et al., 2015). The everyday routines are rich in repetitions of the same phrases with individual children (e.g., Do you want blueberries on your porridge?), and often relate to language and content learned during the formal learning situations (colours, numbers, clothes etc.). An important part of the formal learning situations in ECEC comprises circle time, where Finnish is used frequently and intentionally in songs and activities focussing on particular content and vocabulary (e.g., weather, weekdays/months/seasons, colours, numbers, body parts). In pre-primary education and upwards in the programme, the everyday routines are gradually less and less important contexts for language learning as the children are expected to manage for example, meals, dressing and various transitions more independently. However, there still are plenty of transitions from classroom to the yard, lunchroom, gym etc., where Finnish can be included in less formal daily situations. In formal learning situations, new content is mostly introduced in Swedish and as the children become familiar with the topic or activity, Finnish is increasingly used as well. The pedagogical principles behind this practice is to avoid making content-based and language-based demands at the same time (Cummins, 2001). Although educators are less involved in playtime than everyday routines and formal learning situations, nevertheless playtime is also an opportunity to introduce Finnish, for example by naming objects (toys, pictures in memory games etc.) the children are playing with in Finnish or by responding to children’s initiatives in Finnish. Including bilingual language use in

178

K. Ma˚rd-Miettinen et al.

playtime provides the children with affordances to learn Finnish related to their individual interests and initiatives. Other languages are included alongside Finnish based on the children’s interests but not as systematically and extensively as Finnish.

Bilingual Pedagogy In 2012, a combined ECEC and pre-primary unit located in a Finnish-speaking region of Finland wanted to give Finnish-speaking children an opportunity to become familiar with the second national language, Swedish. In this unit, using and learning Swedish was combined with the overall goals and aims of ECEC and pre-primary education in the national core curricula (EDUFI, 2016, 2022). The practices used in the unit were developed by a teacher appointed to implement this initiative. Through this teacher’s work a novel way of implementing small-scale CLIL in Finland was established (Palviainen & Mård-Miettinen, 2015). The pedagogical and linguistic principles of this approach were identified by a team of university researchers conducting ethnographic research at the unit (see e.g., Mård-Miettinen et al., 2015, 2018; Palviainen & Mård Miettinen, 2015). The guiding principle in bilingual pedagogy is that the two languages of instruction (Finnish and Swedish in this case) are used throughout the day in all activities and are given equal value. This is realised, for example, by explicitly indicating that the children can use Finnish or Swedish and the teacher will appreciate their contributions in both languages and react equally to them (Mård-Miettinen et al., 2015). This is done to give the children an opportunity to communicate in the language they feel comfortable with at the moment, which was felt to be important for very young children (see also García, 2009). Another pedagogical principle is that the teacher’s language use is carefully planned. The teacher uses the two languages in equal amounts and flexibly by implementing responsible code switching (García, 2009). Responsible codeswitching refers in this teacher’s case to the use of the two languages for different purposes to avoid translating between them (Mård-Miettinen et al., 2015). The teacher uses Finnish, the children’s mother tongue, when working with more demanding content, when resolving conflicts and when it is important for the children to understand everything, such as when giving safety instructions (Mård-Miettinen et al., 2015). Swedish, the new language to the children, is used in less complicated, hands-on, and recurring situations. When using Swedish, the teacher supports children’s understanding with scaffolds, like mimes and gestures. In this way the teacher aims to make Swedish understandable for the children and creates a safe atmosphere for language learning. Both languages are used in certain everyday routines, such as at mealtimes and when dressing and undressing, as well as in formal learning situations including craft activities, physical education, circle time. Example A below illustrates how the teacher uses the two languages in a good morning routine. In the example she mainly uses Swedish and scaffolds it with gestures (pointing and tapping the body parts in lines 1, 3 and 5). She strategically switches to Finnish (line 3, in bold) to catch the children’s attention and then continues in Swedish.

11

The Multiplicity of Pre-primary CLIL in Finland

179

Example A Good Morning Routine, Circle Time (Miettinen et al., 2015)

1 Teacher:

2 Children: 3 Teacher:

4 Children: 5 Teacher:

6 Children:

å gomorron Isabellas (points to Isabella’s nose) and good morning Isabella’s (points to Isabella’s nose) näsa nose nyt mäpäs otan jotain ihan uutta vänta gomorron Lauras (points to Laura’s eye) hej gomorron Lauras now I’ll take something completely new wait good morning Laura’s (points to Laura’s eye) hi good morning Laura’s öga eye öga. å gomorron [Teacher 2]’s (taps Teacher 2’s back) eye. and good morning [Teacher 2]’s (taps Teacher 2’s back) selkä back

Typical principles of bilingual pedagogy modelled in this extract include the teacher’s aim to generate authentic, natural interaction with the children as well as to take the children’s experiences and learning into consideration. The teacher also pays attention to and develops her practices according to her observations and reflections (e.g., Palviainen & Mård-Miettinen, 2015). Recently the teacher moved to a new unit to work with a linguistically diverse group that includes children with multilingual backgrounds. In this unit, the teacher has started to develop her bilingual pedagogy towards a more multilingual way of working by striving to include the children’s first languages. She has been actively encouraging the children and their families to use their languages in ECEC and pre-primary education, showing appreciation for these languages and trying to learn them herself. At the same time the teacher also strives to support these multilingual children in learning both Finnish and Swedish and adapts her use of Finnish and Swedish to the children’s emerging language proficiency in these languages. (For more details, see Palojärvi et al., 2021).

Concluding Remarks This chapter provides a brief overview of CLIL in ECEC and pre-primary education in Finland. In the Finnish context, CLIL can have been implemented in a variety of ways, from small-scale to large-scale implementations, using national and foreign

180

K. Ma˚rd-Miettinen et al.

languages. The very general and ideologically-oriented national core curricula do not give concrete tools for practitioners on how to implement CLIL and the diverse names given to different implementations makes it difficult to describe what Finnish CLIL (or bilingual education) in ECEC and pre-primary education actually entails. Nevertheless, practical choices made at the local level allow the approach to be flexible and adapted to the needs and wishes of local communities. The examples of CLIL practices presented here feature three distinct ways of implementing CLIL that also share some features and pedagogical principles. One similarity is the use of age-appropriate pedagogy that takes into account the developmental stage of individual children and aims to enhance their language awareness and multilingualism. Another shared feature is the intertwining of CLIL with everyday routines and formal learning situations of the unit, rather than having separate ‘language teaching’ moments. The three pedagogical practices described here offer stable learning environments with repeated activities where children can use language learned in everyday routines and formal learning situations as resources in spontaneous play supporting further development. A further shared feature is the interest among the educators in the three units to welcome researchers to the unit to help develop the practices in a researcher-educator team. Despite the many similarities, the examples also showcase distinctive features of each approach. The first example of CLIL-in-English is a well-established practice that the staff in the unit have together developed. In the development work particular attention has been paid to the importance of creating spaces for children’s agentic participation and the active role children themselves play in language learning (Holmila & Moate, 2020). The second example of CLIL-in-Finnish also introduces an approach developed in a community involving all staff members. This example draws attention to the way pedagogical practices change and develop in response to the age and abilities of children and underlines the importance of developing a transitional pathway that recognises children’s progression as language learners and users. The third example with CLIL-in-Swedish illustrates how an initiative of a single teacher can develop into a new local practice that can be shared with others. It draws attention to carefully planned principles of bilingual language use that is sensitive particularly to when, how and with whom the two languages of instruction are used. As shown in this chapter, a holistic approach is emphasised in the implementation of CLIL in Finland (Baker & Wright, 2021). Age-appropriate activities are foregrounded and the CLIL language is integrated in the everyday practice of ECEC and pre-primary education. In Finland, each ECEC and pre-primary education unit specifies the broad overall national curriculum guidelines in the local curricula and adapts them to the operational culture of the unit. This open-ended guidance which emphasises the local decision-making has, however, pros and cons. On one hand, it enables adapting the practices to the local context and encourages the development of a broad range of local practices (Palviainen & Mård-Miettinen, 2015). On the other hand, focussing on local unit-based development risks practices being developed and implemented that do not necessarily form an educational path that supports the language development of children across several educational levels.

11

The Multiplicity of Pre-primary CLIL in Finland

181

There is also a risk that locally developed CLIL practices remain unit-based or even educator-based initiatives rather than become an approach implemented in the local educational community in large (cf. Hansell & Björklund, 2021). Another issue that connects to the descriptive national guidance is that it places considerable pressure on single educators that need to be qualified, motivated, interested and able to develop local practices. In Finland, the university-level training of ECEC and pre-primary teachers should provide the basis for research-based development work (cf. Bergroth & Hansell, 2020; Moate et al., 2021; Palviainen & MårdMiettinen, 2015). However, in a unique educational context like CLIL, even Finnish educators appreciated additional guidance and training. Guidance is especially need so that educators are able to work with increasing diversity of linguistically heterogeneous children entering ECEC and pre-primary education in Finland, including CLIL (cf. Pyykkö, 2017). Some local developments have already been made to gather linguistic diversity in CLIL but there is an urgent need for more general guidelines to support the local development work on this issue. The three examples outlined here, however, indicate the value of sharing different approaches to and forms of implementation. Moreover, the examples shared here point to the importance of understanding the pedagogical principles that underpin different forms of practical implementation in CLIL as a foundation for building CLIL pathways that can support the ongoing development of children and educators. Acknowledgements The writing of this chapter has been supported by The Innovative Map and Compass for Language Education (IKI), a spearhead project (2018–2021) funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, OKM/87/592/2018.

References Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2021). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (7th ed.). Multilingual Matters. Bergroth, M., & Hansell, K. (2020). Language-aware operational culture: Developing in-service training for early childhood education and care. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 14(1), 85–102. https://apples.journal.fi/article/view/98004 Björklund, S., Mård-Miettinen, K., & Savijärvi, M. (2014). Swedish immersion in the early years in Finland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.866628 Björklund, S., Hansell, K., & Tötterman-Engström, T. (2018). Absolut ingen rädsla utan nyfikenhet.’ Tidigareläggning av finska – Case Nykarleby [Absolutely no fear, on the contrary curiosity. Earlier start in Finnish – Case Nykarleby]. Kieli, koulutus ja yhteiskunta, 9(4). https:// www.kieliverkosto.fi/fi/journals/kieli-koulutus-ja-yhteiskunta-kesakuu-2018/absolut-ingenradsla-utan-nyfikenhet-tidigarelaggning-av-finska-case-nykarleby Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). California Association for Bilingual Education. Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F., & Nikula, T. (2014). You can stand under my umbrella’: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010 EDUFI. (2016). National core curriculum for pre-primary education 2014 (Publications 2016:6). Finnish National Agency for Education.

182

K. Ma˚rd-Miettinen et al.

EDUFI. (2022). National core curriculum for early childhood education and care 2022 (Regulation OPH-700-2022). Finnish National Agency for Education. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century. Wiley-Blackwell. Hansell, K., & Björklund, S. (2022). Developing bilingual pedagogy in early childhood education and care: Analysis of teacher interaction. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 11 (1), 179–203. https://journal.fi/jecer/article/view/114013/67209. Hansell, K., & Björklund, S. (2021). Transitional stages in bilingual education. In J. Moate, A. Palojärvi, T. Kangasvieri, & L. Lempel (Eds.), A map and compass for innovative language education: Steps towards development (pp. 16–17). University of Jyväskylä. http://urn.fi/URN: ISBN:978-951-39-8801-2 Hansell, K., Palojärvi, A., Björklund, S., & Pärkkä, M. (2020). Kielirikasteinen varhaiskasvatus ja toinen kotimainen kieli avaimina kielitietoisuuteen ja monikielisyyteen [Language-enriched ECEC and the second national language as keys to language awareness and multilingualism]. Kieli, koulutus ja yhteiskunta, 11(3). https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/68985 Holmila, Z., & Moate, J. (2020). Children’s strategic participation in a bilingual early childhood education and care centre. Kieli, koulutus ja yhteiskunta, 11(1). https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/ 123456789/67824 Korkeamäki, R.-L., & Dreher, M. J. (2012). Implementing curricula that depend on the teacher professionalism: Finnish preschool and early childhood core curricula and literary-related practices. European Early Education Research Journal, 20(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1350293X.2012.681128 Mård-Miettinen, K., Palojärvi, A., & Palviainen, Å. (2015). Kaksikielisen pedagogiikan toteuttaminen päiväkodissa [Implementing bilingual pedagogy in pre-primary settings]. In T. Nikula, J. Kalliokoski, & K. Mård-Miettinen (Eds.), Kieli koulutuksen resurssina: vieraalla ja toisella kielellä oppimisen ja opetuksen näkökulmia [Language as a resource in education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in a foreign and a second language], AFinLA-e. Soveltavan kielitieteen tutkimuksia 8 (pp. 130–150). Jyväskylän yliopisto. https://journal.fi/ afinla/article/view/53776 Mård-Miettinen, K., Palviainen, Å., & Palojärvi, A. (2018). Dynamics in bilingual team teaching: Examples from a Finnish preschool classroom. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education: Agency in interactions between children, teachers, and parents (Multilingual Education Series) (pp. 163–189). Springer. https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/59745 Mehistö, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan. Melasalmi, A., & Husu, J. (2018). A narrative examination of early childhood teachers’ shared identities in teamwork. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 39(2), 90–113. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2017.1389786 Moate, J. (2014). A narrative account of a teacher community. Teacher Development, 18(3), 384–402. Moate, J. (2017). Developing an integrated content and language integrated learning (CLIL) pathway in Central Finland. Kieli, koulutus ja yhteiskunta, 14. https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/ 123456789/57485 Moate, J., Lempel, L., Palojärvi, A., & Kangasvieri, T. (published online, 2021). Teacher development through language-related innovation in a decentralised educational system. Professional Development in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1902838 Nikula, T., & Marsh, D. (1997). Vieraskielisen opetuksen tavoitteet ja toteuttaminen [Goals and implementation of teaching in a foreign language]. Opetushallitus. OSF¼Official Statistics of Finland. (2021). Population structure. Retrieved August 20, 2021, from http://www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/index_en.html Palojärvi, A., Mård-Miettinen, M., Koivula, M., & Rutanen, N. (2021). Eksperttiopettajan kielikasvatuksen käyttöteoria monikielisten lasten varhaiskasvatuksessa [A practical theory of an expert teacher implementing bilingual pedagogy with multilingual children]. JECER, 10(3), 121–146. https://urly.fi/2b2f

11

The Multiplicity of Pre-primary CLIL in Finland

183

Palviainen, Å., & Mård-Miettinen, K. (2015). Creating a bilingual pre-school classroom: The multilayered discourses of a bilingual teacher. Language and Education, 29(5), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1009092 Pasanen, A. (2015). The language nest. Meeting of the Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee, Barcelona, April 21th to 23th, 2015, http://www.visat.cat/articles/eng/116/the-languagenest.html Peltoniemi, A., Skinnari, K., Sjöberg, S., & Mård-Miettinen, K. (2018). Monella kielellä Suomen kunnissa 2017. Selvitys muun laajamittaisen ja suppeamman kaksikielisen varhaiskasvatuksen, esiopetuksen ja perusopetuksen tilanteesta [In many languages in Finnish municipalities 2017: A national survey on large-scale and small-scale bilingual education in ECEC, pre-primary education and basic education in Finland]. University of Jyväskylä. https://jyx. jyu.fi/handle/123456789/57577 Pyykkö, R. (2017). Monikielisyys vahvuudeksi. Selvitys Suomen kielivarannon tilasta ja tasosta [Multilingualism into a strength. A report of the status and levels of language competences in Finland]. Publications of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2017:51. Helsinki. Sjöberg, S., Mård-Miettinen, K., Peltoniemi, A., & Skinnari, K. (2018). Kielikylpy Suomen kunnissa. Selvitys kotimaisten kielten kielikylvyn tilanteesta varhaiskasvatuksessa, esiopetuksessa ja perusopetuksessa. [Language immersion in Finnish municipalities in 2017: A national survey on immersion in national languages in ECEC, pre-primary education and basic education]. University of Jyväskylä. https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/57575 THL. 2020. Tilastoraportti [Statistic report] 33/2020. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2020092976135

CLIL at Pre-primary in Italy: Insights and Experiences Olivia Mair

12

and Francesca Costa

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Italian ECEC Principles and CLIL Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Italian Pre-primary School: Foreign Language Teaching and CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The School Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Italian Pre-primary and Foreign Language Learning: Legislation and Curricular Indications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL in Italian Education Policy and Public Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-primary CLIL Experimentation and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The ECEC CLIL Teacher in an Italian Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

186 187 189 189 190 190 191 194 195 196

Abstract

This chapter considers CLIL in relation to Italian early childhood education and care, focusing specifically on the 3–6 years age group and the “scuola dell’infanzia” or pre-primary school. It begins by providing an outline of the municipal tradition of ECEC in Italy and identifying its salient features, before considering these features in relation to the theoretical underpinnings and practices associated with CLIL. Although a brief perusal of Italian ECEC centres and school websites reveals that early childhood educators are engaged with questions of multilingualism and second language education for very young children, and The chapter was conceived by both authors. For the sake of Italian publishing norms, Olivia Mair was responsible for the following sections: Introduction, Italian ECEC Principles and CLIL Practice, Pre-primary CLIL Experimentation and Implementation, and The ECEC CLIL Teacher in an Italian Context. Francesca Costa was responsible for: The Italian Pre-primary School: Foreign Language Teaching, and CLIL and Implications for the Future. O. Mair (*) · F. Costa Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_12

185

186

O. Mair and F. Costa

that several CLIL projects have been implemented at pre-primary level and selfdocumented, there are few formal accounts of CLIL in Italian ECEC settings. This chapter considers Italian legislation relating to CLIL, ECEC teacher education and CLIL and how CLIL at pre-primary level overlaps with other types of early language learning. It also provides examples of CLIL implementation in Italian ECEC as a starting point for educators and school communities that are considering adopting this approach. Keywords

ECEC and CLIL in Italy · Bilingual education · Italian pre-primary schools · Italian ECEC · Influence of social constructivist theory · English as a foreign language

Introduction Italy has a rich culture of early childhood education and care (ECEC) and has produced two of the most influential early childhood pedagogies, Montessori and Reggio Emilia (Pramling & Pramling Samuelsson, 2018). Its pre-primary school tradition began in the nineteenth century and was legally recognised in Decree Number 1054 of May 6, 1923, Art. 57 which defined pre-primary schools or children’s houses. A new era in Italian ECEC began with Law 444 in 1968, which created state-run pre-primary schools according to special guidelines (1969). Later guidelines (Ministerial Decree of June 3, 1991) changed the name of these types of pre-primary school from “scuola materna” to “scuola dell’infanzia.” Since the 1970s, early childhood education from birth to 6 years has been divided into two stages, day care and pre-primary. The first is known as the “nido” (“nest” in English) and regards the 0–3 years age group, while the second, which is the focus of this chapter, regards 3–6 year-olds. A distinguishing feature is that all ECEC services for children under three are run by local governments, and the majority of scuole dell’infanzia are as well (Musatti & Picchio, 2010), enabling continuity of planning and pedagogical approach across the two stages. This feature, however, has also resulted in some variation of provision and practice across different regions and cities and led to the development of local ECEC culture(s). In 1980 the establishment of a national association, Gruppo Nazionale Nidi Infanzia, by the renowned early childhood educator Loris Malaguzzi, helped to spread and share examples of local educational experience and best practice. The association has maintained a strong commitment to quality provision at both the scientific level and the political level, by “organising conferences and seminars on early childhood and educational issues, and [. . .] campaigning for ECEC extension and qualification” (Musatti & Picchio, 2010, p. 145). Over time, Italian ECEC has proved to have an innovative and democratic approach, with a strong commitment to continuous professional development for staff and to working with families, as well as an emphasis on reflective practice and pedagogical experimentation.

12

CLIL at Pre-primary in Italy: Insights and Experiences

187

This openness and freedom to experiment has also facilitated experimentation with foreign language teaching and CLIL. A report on a national survey of Italian pre-primary schools conducted in 2014 revealed that 84.8% offered some form of foreign language instruction ranging from raising awareness of foreign languages to explicit instruction (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2014). While the awareness of foreign languages initiatives supported multilingualism by using French, Arabic, Spanish, German and Chinese (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2014), in the vast majority of cases, the foreign language instruction was English. No evidence of CLIL was noted in the survey. At the time of writing, there is no legislation regarding the use of CLIL at pre-primary level in Italy, and there are no available statistics about how many schools are conducting or have conducted CLIL projects to date. To gain insight into the nature of CLIL in Italian ECEC, there are four possible areas of inquiry: projects made available online by individual teachers, schools or as part of European projects; a few examples of small-scale implementation outlined in research; mentions of CLIL in policy documents and public discourse; and pre-service teacher training programmes. By drawing on all four areas of inquiry, this chapter will provide a portrait of the current position of CLIL at pre-primary level in Italy and make cautious observations about likely future directions. It will begin by addressing overlaps in the theoretical underpinnings of ECEC and CLIL and describing the nature of pre-primary education in Italy, before presenting experiences of CLIL and addressing pre-primary teacher education in Italy. Finally, it will make cautious predictions about future developments.

Italian ECEC Principles and CLIL Practice It is important to consider any synergies between the theoretical underpinning of CLIL and the principles of Italian ECEC in order to understand how CLIL may be implemented appropriately and effectively at this level. This section provides a brief overview of the origins of contemporary ECEC culture in Italy and how this culture shares some characteristics with CLIL practice. Of the many examples of quality local ECEC culture in Italy, the best known is that of Reggio Emilia, a city in the Emilia Romagna region in northern Italy. Reggio Emilia built and opened its first municipal pre-primary school for children aged 3–6 years in 1963. By the mid-1970s, there were 19 pre-primary schools. In a similar timeframe, in nearby Bologna, the educator Bruno Ciari implemented municipal ECEC services based on Dewey’s progressive education model (Biroli et al., 2017). The schools are based on a set of principles and practices that are a result of specific political and social circumstances. Lazzari (2012, p. 557) explains that the origins of public ECEC institutions lie in “progressive movements for the promotion of civil rights: on the one side, there were women’s movements claiming for equal opportunities (such as the right to employment and maternity leave), while on the other, social justice movements claimed a more equal society in which the right to education should be granted to all children, especially those from lower social classes.” It is no coincidence that the municipal schools developed in areas with a

188

O. Mair and F. Costa

tradition of civic engagement and political involvement in the resistance movement during the Fascist years (Lazzari, 2012). Central to the Reggio Emilia approach (also known as the “Reggio Approach” or “Reggio Children”) is the idea of children as “active agents of their own learning and as citizens entitled to participate in the social and cultural life of their community” (Lazzari, 2012, p. 558). This strong emphasis on democratic values bears comparison with ECEC in Norway, Sweden and Iceland (Smidt, 2012). Developing children’s ability to question, think, collaborate and communicate is at the heart of the approach. Related to the democratic ideal is a strong emphasis on documentation, transparency and dialogue. A further distinguishing feature of the Reggio approach is the absence of a curriculum. These aspects have been influential nationally and have also helped the Reggio approach gain widespread praise and recognition internationally. In Italy, ECEC educators tend to be wary of outcomes-based approaches that measure academic progress and so-called “developmental milestones.” Even though there is a national curriculum for the scuola dell’infanzia, which is published in the same document as that of the primary curriculum, the guidelines it contains offer very little in the way of directives for teachers. Instead, they are focused on five “areas of experience” for the children: the self and the other; the body and movement; images, sounds and colours; speech and words; and knowledge of the world (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2012). Overall, these areas of experience are to be developed through play, experimentation and discovery. Children are involved in defining and developing the curricular content by asking questions and being encouraged to respond to an idea imaginatively (Rinaldi, 2006; Biroli et al., 2017). The role of the educators is to “support children’s initiatives by encouraging them to explore possibilities of interacting with peers and cultural artefacts” (Lazzari, 2012, p. 559). Italian ECEC thus regards children and teachers as co-creators of knowledge. The adoption of a reflective and flexible stance on the part of teachers, which ensures the aims and education methods are constantly revised and renewed, is viewed as critical for their success (Lazzari, 2012; Gustafsson, 2018). Both CLIL and Italian ECEC are underpinned by a social-constructivist approach to learning which places importance on the interplay between prior knowledge and new learning and conceives of knowledge as co-constructed through social interaction. Both have been influenced by the same theories of psychology and early childhood education such as those of Vygotsky, Dewey and Piaget (Mantovani, 2010; Rinaldi, 2006; Biroli et al., 2017; Casal Madinabeitia, 2007; Nikula et al., 2013). This may explain why CLIL resonates with some ECEC teachers as an approach (Mair, 2021). It does not rely on a more formal transmission learning model or the notion of language progression, which are often associated with traditional foreign language instruction, but instead emphasises the importance of negotiation of meaning and dialogue (Costa & Pladevall-Ballester, 2021). The most significant CLIL framework is that of the Four Cs (Coyle et al., 2010): content (subject matter), communication (language learning and using), cognition (learning and thinking processes), and culture (developing intercultural understanding and global citizenship). As far as culture is concerned, Coyle et al. (2010, p. 54) suggest

12

CLIL at Pre-primary in Italy: Insights and Experiences

189

“‘self’ and ‘other’ awareness, identity, citizenship, and progression towards pluricultural understanding” as priorities for inclusion in any CLIL program. As Mair (2021, p. 14) notes, this may be viewed as a suitable match for a CLIL approach in ECEC, where children are learning about “other points of view, empathy, and tolerance.” Another significant point is that the grassroots, experimental nature of CLIL in pre-primary settings, in which projects are activated by single school communities rather than implemented by local government authorities or researchers, is perhaps typical of Italian early childhood pedagogy in general. Indeed Mantovani (2010, p. 63) identifies a tradition of “community practice becoming method or theory” rather than the opposite, which would equate to a more top-down implementation.

The Italian Pre-primary School: Foreign Language Teaching and CLIL This section gives a brief outline of the way Italian pre-primary schools are organised, and of Italian legislation and curricular indications regarding foreign language teaching and CLIL.

The School Day Attendance of Italian pre-primary schools is not compulsory, so parents freely decide whether to send their children or not. Statistics show that over 96% of 3–6 year-olds attend state, municipal or private pre-primary schools (Musatti & Picchio, 2010). State and local government-run schools are free and schools liaise closely with families to consider their needs. School time is approximately 8 h per day over 40 weeks and lunch is included because it is seen as an important educational experience. Usually the teachers are in co-presence in order to be able to pay attention to children in small groups. Most pre-primary schools have a pedagogical coordinator with a Master’s level degree who is responsible for management, organisation of personnel and the educational programme. (Musatti & Picchio, 2010). The day is marked by routines (care, relations, learning, play and exploration) and also uses “laboratori” or workshop-style teaching at specific times, enabling children to focus on creative arts, nature learning and experimentation with material within dedicated areas. These aspects reflect the influence of both Montessori and Reggio Emilia pedagogies. Careful attention to spatial arrangement within Italian ECEC settings has been shown to facilitate learning by enhancing engagement and concentration (Musatti & Mayer, 2011). Although the educational programme is not divided into “subjects”, it is rich in content and project-based learning, which can potentially be integrated with foreign language learning. Any planning for a CLIL project needs to take into account the pre-primary school’s routines, care aspects and the five areas of experience stipulated by the ministerial guidelines, thus integrating content and language planning.

190

O. Mair and F. Costa

The Italian Pre-primary and Foreign Language Learning: Legislation and Curricular Indications When it comes to both EFL and CLIL, the section on language in the National Indications strongly emphasises the importance of the mother tongue, but also emphasises that learning other languages helps to broaden children’s horizons, and affirms that early learning is an advantage (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2012). The national guidelines for the curriculum include parts that refer specifically to languages and acknowledge the increasingly multilingual nature of Italian society (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2012, p. 21): “Children often live in multilingual environments and, if properly guided, can become familiar with a second language, in natural situations, in dialogue, in everyday life, becoming progressively aware of different sounds, tones and meanings.” Moreover, the legislative decree of 19 February 2004, n. 59, containing the definition of the general rules relating to pre-primary and primary (the “first cycle” of education), pursuant to article 1 of law no. 53 and subsequent amendments and in particular Article 1, provides that the pre-primary: “contributes to the integral education of girls and boys, also by promoting multilingualism through the acquisition of the first elements of the English language.” It should be noted that the aim of enhancing and protecting multilingualism conflicts somewhat with the prioritization of English in foreign language education at all levels.

CLIL in Italian Education Policy and Public Discourse CLIL is present at all levels of education in Italy, but at the time of writing, is not implemented as a policy, with the exception of high school level. Even though this article focuses on pre-school education, it is important to recognise that CLIL at the upper secondary level of education in Italy is compulsory by law (Moratti Law, 53/2003): CLIL must be carried out starting from the third year of Licei Linguistici (linguistic high schools) (DPR n. 89 of March 15 2010, Art. 6 paragraph 2), and in the fifth year of all other types of high schools (Presidential Decree n. 89 of March 15 2010, Art. 10 paragraph 5). This is evidence of a formal engagement with CLIL on the part of the Italian government and suggests that the question of CLIL at lower school levels could be addressed more formally in the near future. The 2014 national survey of language education in Italian pre-primary schools was partly motivated by national education discourse concerning the “open school” and the perception of the need to innovate and modernise in response to an increasingly multicultural, global and digital society (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2014). The survey report makes this clear when it cites Education Minister at the time Stefania Giannini’s planning guidelines (Giannini, 2014): ‘Opening’ is a vague concept that needs defining. In the case of teaching or awareness [of languages], ‘open’, as the Minister observes, means “capable of widening the horizons and the gaze: thus a primary school or even a pre-primary school, where children can learn a

12

CLIL at Pre-primary in Italy: Insights and Experiences

191

foreign language (English) thanks to a CLIL approach, a method for teaching a non-linguistic discipline in a foreign language, which guarantees continuity of teaching for the entire schooling” (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione). [translated from the Italian by the authors of the chapter]

The publication of the survey report received media attention and enhanced community interest about language teaching in pre-primary schools and CLIL as a possible means to carry it out. The brief mention of CLIL contributed to it becoming harnessed to notions of continuity and openness in the public imagination. The acronym CLIL is now commonplace in Italy at all levels of schooling and is widely known by parents, who are particularly important stakeholders when it comes to Italian ECEC contexts.

Pre-primary CLIL Experimentation and Implementation Although the 2014 national survey (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2014) did not uncover references to CLIL in pre-primary language education, there is evidence of experimentation with CLIL at this level dating back almost two decades. The 2006 Eurydice survey found that there were pre-primary CLIL projects in many European countries, including Belgium, Spain, Italy, Slovakia and the UK (Directorate-General for Education and Culture, 2006). The Milan local government, within the Lombardy region, activated a project using external providers to train pre-primary teachers in CLIL in 2004 (https://www.clil.app/il-progetto-inglese-nelle-scuole-dellinfanzia-delcomune-di-milano/). The project used English as the CLIL language, but as far as the authors of this chapter are aware, there is no available research on it. In other Italian regions there has been extensive experimentation with early language learning in pre-primary contexts since the 1990s, but seldom has a CLIL framework been adopted. The Veneto and Lombardy regions, on the other hand, have launched several CLIL pilot projects, but at primary and secondary levels. Partnering with schools in other countries, a few Italian schools have taken part in European projects that introduced CLIL at pre-primary schools alongside primary and lower secondary schools. This is partly because many pre-primary schools are located in so-called comprehensive institutes, which include pre-primary, primary and lower secondary schools, even if, in some cases, the pre-primary school may fall under the governance of local government authorities rather than the state. This is an important consideration because of the issue of continuity in language education: by establishing a CLIL project at three different school levels simultaneously, in a vertical implementation, there is a greater chance of ensuring continuity. The need for continuity is common to early foreign language learning implementation in general (Enever, 2011). One recent example of this kind is the Erasmus+ project “CLIL: My open window on the world around me”, which ran from 2015–2018 and involved partner institutes in Finland, Latvia, Malta, Spain, Italy, Lithuania and Turkey (http://www.clilmyopenwindowontheworldaroundme.eu/). It addressed children aged 3–14 years and their teachers. The project website notes that “an innovative aspect of the project is the inclusion of CLIL in kindergartens of partner schools

192

O. Mair and F. Costa

to foster excellence in education and early childhood care.” It aimed to enable teachers from the three levels (pre-primary, primary and lower secondary) the chance to “collaborate more effectively, improve educational continuity and thus facilitate the transition process of children and their families.” The Italian institution involved was the Istituto Comprensivo Statale L. Pirandello in Pesaro in the Marche region, which has four pre-primary schools, five primary schools and two lower secondary schools within the same institute. The project produced a number of lesson plans, available on its website. Such projects, while offering a valuable opportunity for exchange of ideas among teachers, the creation of materials and resources, and the documentation of examples of good practice, do not reveal much about the benefits and challenges of CLIL and what ECEC CLIL practice looks like in the classroom. There are few accounts of pre-primary CLIL in research. Mair (2018) describes the small-scale implementation of a CLIL project using English at two pre-primary schools which were part of the same comprehensive institute in Milan. Four teachers participated in the in-service training and at the implementation stage, the project involved approximately 75 children in three classes. The research gathered teachers’ and children’s perspectives through focus groups and interviews, as well as data from classroom observation. Carbonara (2019, p. 177) presents data from a three-year project that involved “ethnographic observations and [. . .] a process of micro-level language policy intervention” in an ItalianTurkish pre-primary in Istanbul. The research led to the creation of a framework of teachers’ competences and skills, a useful resource for teacher educators and schools wishing to implement CLIL at this level, which will be addressed in the section on teacher education. Given that there is not much data available regarding CLIL projects that use Italian as the CLIL language, this study represents a significant contribution to research about CLIL and pre-primary education. A glimpse into the planning stages involved in an Italian pre-primary CLIL project and the type of content that can be covered is given by Mair (2018). The four pre-primary teachers took part in the same CLIL training as the primary and lower secondary teachers of the same comprehensive institute, and were thus part of a vertical implementation. The training for all teachers covered CLIL theoretical underpinning, intercultural competence, classroom language, lesson planning and materials design, while the pre-primary teachers also participated in workshops dedicated to using children’s literature, songs and audio-visual resources in CLIL teaching. The details are provided in an appendix. The pre-primary teachers designed content around the topic of the four seasons, involving nature learning, songs, movement, art and craft and play activities. The study also includes data from classroom observation and filming, which provides insight into interaction and play and the type of classroom strategies that can be adopted by the pre-primary CLIL practitioner. In one example, one of the teachers sets up a game, using gesture and “modeling” of the rules to do so (Mair, 2018, p. 35): Teacher: Shall we do [sic] a game? [Teacher distributes flash cards, acts out hiding the card and keeping it to herself. Children giggle and hide cards from the teacher.]

12

CLIL at Pre-primary in Italy: Insights and Experiences

193

Teacher. It’s a secret! Don’t show anyone!. . . When I say the name of the flashcard, you show it to the friends around you.

In another game, which this time involves dressing appropriately for the four seasons, the same teacher again uses voice control, repetition, gesture and humour (Mair, 2018, p. 36): Teacher: Where do you put your scarf? Around your belly? Children: Noooo. . .. Teacher: Around your. . ..? Children: collo! Teacher: N. . .n. . .n. . .neck Teacher. Do you wear a pom pom hat in summer? Children: No. . .. winter!

By performing the actions of the game, and supporting the meaning through gesture and movement, the teacher engages children in the activity, models the conventions of the game and opens up the possibility of child-initiated play afterwards, in which children can use the material spontaneously. The Narrative Format (NF) approach, pioneered in Rome with very young learners in the 1990s, and based on psycholinguistic concepts, likewise highlights the need for slow and careful speech, repetitive gesture and imitation (Taeschner et al., 2013; Sofronieva, 2015; McElwee, 2015). Experimentation using the NF approach took place in pre-primary schools in Italy in the 1990s (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2014). Creating opportunities for peer interaction and child-led, spontaneous play is important when planning foreign language classes (Mourão, 2018) and CLIL with young children. A recent noteworthy study about CLIL and young learners in Italy regards a lower primary class with 7–8 year olds, but it presents evidence that is applicable to contexts with pre-primary children because of the focus on play (Piazzoli, 2018). In particular, it highlights the affective dimension of learning through play and physical activity. In this CLIL project, the researcher-practitioner created drama classes based on six illustrated children’s books as a way of teaching an aspect of the science curriculum: leaf anatomy (Piazzoli, 2018). Piazzoli presents a detailed breakdown of each class and the drama strategies used as well as a reflection about the use of process drama in CLIL with young learners. Both Piazzoli (2018) and Mair (2018) draw attention to the value of performative input in CLIL interventions, but at the same time highlight the extensive planning required if such projects are to unfold successfully, and the need to support the activities through use of children’s L1. Piazzoli however raises a perplexing issue: the school had required her to use English exclusively in all communication with the children. This runs counter to the most recent research, which highlights the value of translanguaging and the importance of allowing and building on children’s use of their L1 (Costa, 2020). The use of codeswitching is widespread in most CLIL and early foreign language learning settings (Gort & Sembiante, 2015; Mifsud & Vella, 2018; Prošić-Santovac & Radović, 2018). However, some teachers and schools may still cling to beliefs about languages needing to be separated rigidly as a result of

194

O. Mair and F. Costa

monolingual ideologies or because of prior knowledge about an earlier generation of immersion research, which “recommended the exclusive use of one language so as to expose learners as much as possible to the target language” (Costa, 2020, p. 283). All available studies on Italian pre-primary CLIL programmes also point to the need for a high degree of competence in the CLIL language, allowing for spontaneity and affective engagement. As Anderson, McDougald, and Cuesta Medina (2015, p. 142) assert: “Given that these learners are focused mainly on performing actions, activities (such as playing, singing, drawing and building models) of their performance can be highly appropriate and effective. It should be noted that, at this level, teachers have a significant (perhaps unique) impact as role models for oral communication, and so teachers with a high degree of fluency (though not necessarily ‘native-like’ pronunciation characteristics) are required.” Overall, the type of activities most used in Italian schools for CLIL at pre-primary, as outlined in this section, are common to pre-primary CLIL projects in other countries: storytelling, drama, synthetic phonics, TPR, songs and nature learning (Ioannou-Georgiou, 2011; Holmila, 2019; García Esteban, 2015; Bajoraitytė, 2017). Further research regarding Italian ECEC and CLIL is starting to emerge in the form of theses (see for example Ciuffardi, 2014).

The ECEC CLIL Teacher in an Italian Context The Italian studies of CLIL implementation at pre-primary level draw attention to the difficulty of finding the right combination of L2 competence and pedagogical competence in CLIL and foreign language teachers for pre-primary schools (Carbonara, 2019; Mair, 2018). The 2014 national survey showed that less than half of the pre-primary teachers engaged in foreign language instruction had the recommended Common European Framework of Reference B2 level (corresponding to independent users) or above. One fifth only held an A2 level (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2014). On the other hand, visiting language teachers often lack the pedagogical experience, and even if they hold a language teaching qualification, may only have experience in teaching the foreign language to adults or older children. In the project referred to by Carbonara (2019), only one of the nine participating teachers had a degree in early childhood studies. In the project outlined by Mair (2018), only one of the four teachers who undertook CLIL training had a CEFR B2 English language level, yet all had substantial early childhood teaching experience and the requisite pedagogical competence. Visiting language teachers who attend schools on a weekly basis, sometimes employed because they are native speakers, often lack appropriate pedagogical training for both CLIL and ECEC and the necessary knowledge of Italian ECEC culture and practice. This risks creating a situation of conflict with class teachers and inappropriate practice with young children. Studies show that teachers themselves highlight these problems in interviews and focus groups (Carbonara, 2019; Mair, 2018). One teacher in Mair’s study reflected on the different abilities of the visiting native language teacher and those of the class teacher in engaging children: “As education takes place through a

12

CLIL at Pre-primary in Italy: Insights and Experiences

195

relationship, I have almost become more authoritative in English than the native speaker” [translated from the Italian] (Mair, 2018, p. 39). The comment points to the importance of the affective, relational foundation of ECEC. This is also significant for CLIL because within a socio-cultural paradigm, emotion and cognition are inseparable in second language development (Piazzoli, 2018; Swain, 2012). Teachers in Carbonara’s study expressed concern about not knowing how to adopt a child-centred approach and about lacking classroom management skills (Carbonara, 2019). They showed an awareness of the importance of relationships with parents and colleagues in negotiating the syllabus and of the need to develop empathy to engage children more effectively (Carbonara, 2019). Overall, this highlights the need for teacher education that combines CLIL literacy with ECEC preparation, a matter addressed in ▶ Chap. 9. The problem largely stems from insufficient teacher training opportunities (Carbonara, 2019). Currently, Italian degrees in pre-primary and primary teaching have little space in the study programme for CLIL or indeed foreign language instruction, which is always focused on English. A degree in pre-primary and primary education lasts 5 years and for each year there is a ‘laboratorio di lingua inglese’ (English language laboratory) in which both language teaching techniques and general English skills are developed. At the end of the 5 years the students are required to have a B2 level in English. The inclusion of CLIL in the programme is at the discretion of the individual professor, although most universities that offer a degree in pre-primary and primary school include CLIL as a topic within the ‘laboratori’ hours (Costa, 2019). In response to the lack of indications for Italian pre-primary CLIL teachers, Carbonara and colleagues devised a framework for teachers’ competences and skills (Carbonara, 2019). It is based on a CLIL project using Italian as the CLIL language, but as the researchers acknowledge, it could be a useful resource for Italian bilingual pre-primary schools and indeed pre-primary schools wishing to experiment with CLIL. Unfortunately, given the current lack of national guidelines for CLIL and ECEC and lack of a coordinated approach to CLIL pre-service teacher education, the widespread adoption of this framework, with its picture of an ideal ECEC CLIL teacher, remains a remote possibility. However, it is a very sound starting point for any pre-primary school wishing to embark on the CLIL journey.

Implications for the Future This chapter has discussed the current state of affairs in CLIL at pre-primary level in Italy. It began by providing a brief overview of the origins and rich tradition of ECEC in Italy before addressing the synergies between the theoretical underpinnings of Italian ECEC and CLIL. It then provided a portrait of pre-primary CLIL by outlining examples of small-scale implementation of CLIL projects using English and Italian language, presenting insights from the classroom and discussing a framework of ECEC CLIL teacher competences. A brief look at pre-primary teacher education in Italy suggests that there is a need for more substantial CLIL training in order to give future teachers concrete guidelines for planning and a sense of the

196

O. Mair and F. Costa

theoretical underpinnings, and to ensure CLIL can be applied in a more systematic fashion. With the lack of a policy framework and official guidelines for CLIL implementation (Giordano & Maurizio, 2021), Italian pre-primary schools that wish to establish a new project must rely on examples of experimental practice in Italy and beyond. It is likely that CLIL will continue to proliferate at a grassroots level. It is now vital to gather data from such projects, widen the dialogue between teachers, ECEC pedagogical coordinators and researchers, and to involve ECEC educators in CLIL research. A recent article on research and practice in Italian language policies and education names pre-primary education as an emerging research focus (Lopriore, 2021). Overall, there is a need for longitudinal studies to determine the benefits and challenges of CLIL at this level. Given that there is little focus on CLIL in primary and pre-primary teaching degrees, in-service professional development, of the kind that Italian ECEC is already strongly committed to, is a suitable solution for pre-primary schools that wish to use a CLIL framework. Particular focus in such training needs to be on CLIL planning and how to integrate the local learning priorities and objectives with language objectives. At the time of this chapter going to press, a significant development was announced by the Italian Education Ministry: CLIL training would be opened up to teachers from pre-primary level (3–6 years) (Decreto Dipartimentale n. 1511, 23 June 2022). This top-down initiative is likely to lead to much greater attention on CLIL at pre-primary level in Italy. As in other European countries, there is an over-reliance on English as the language used in CLIL programmes in Italy (Mair, 2021). Given the plurilingual intentions with which CLIL was founded and the stated Italian goals of recognizing and protecting multilingualism in pre-primary education (Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, 2012), it would be satisfying to see the inception of CLIL projects using major migrant languages, such as Romanian, Arabic, Spanish or Chinese, which are among the ten most common languages spoken by immigrants in Italy (ISTAT, 2014), as well as other European languages. Arguably, CLIL could potentially be a driver for quality in that it engages a school community in dialogue, promotes reflective practice and matches many of the principles of Italian ECEC. As Coyle et al. (2010) note, it can be hard to distinguish between CLIL and standard forms of good practice in early language learning.

References Anderson, C. E., McDougald, J. S., & Cuesta Medina, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C. N. Giannikas, L. McLaughlin, G. Fanning, & N. Deutsch Muller (Eds.), Children learning English: From research to practice (pp. 137–151). Garnet. Bajoraitytė, R. (2017). Content language integrated learning (CLIL). Adaptation possibilities into Lithuanian kindergartens (Master’s thesis). Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania.

12

CLIL at Pre-primary in Italy: Insights and Experiences

197

Biroli, P., Del Boca, D., Heckman, J. J., Pettler Heckman, L., Koh, Y. K., Kuperman, S., Moktan, S., Pronzato, C. D., & Ziff, A. (2017). Evaluation of the Reggio approach to early education (IZA discussion papers, no. 10742). Institute of Labor Economics (IZA). Carbonara, V. (2019). Teaching Italian language in a bilingual kindergarten in Turkey: A framework for teacher training. In S. Zein & S. Garton (Eds.), Early language learning and teacher education: International research and practice (pp. 177–196). Multilingual Matters. Casal Madinabeitia, S. (2007). The integrated curriculum, CLIL and constructivism. Revista española de lingüística aplicada, 1, 55–66. Ciuffardi, A. (2014). CLIL a piccoli passi verso il bilinguismo. Dalla routine della scuola dell’infanzia alla matematica della scuola primaria (Master’s thesis). Università degli studi di Genova, Genoa, Italy. Costa, F. (2019). Enjoy teaching English. Insegnare inglese nella scuola primaria. Giunti. Costa, F. (2020). Learners and teachers’ linguistic alternation (Italian-English) in EFL pre-primary school lessons. In L. Shiriha (Ed.), Comparative studies in bilingualism and bilingual education (pp. 283–300). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Costa, F., & Pladevall-Ballester, E. (2021). Introduction to the special issue: Learners’ outcomes and effective strategies in early second language learning. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages E-JournALL, 6(2), 78–84. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. C. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Directorate-General for Education and Culture (European Commission), Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Brussels, from https://op.europa. eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/756ebdaa-f694-44e4-8409-21eef02c9b9b Enever, J. (Ed.). (2011). ELLiE: Early language learning in Europe. British Council. García Esteban, S. (2015). Integrating curricular contents and language through storytelling: Criteria for effective CLIL lesson planning. Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences, 212, 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.297 Giannini, S. (2014, April 24). Linee Programmatiche del Ministro Stefania Giannini. http://www. istruzione.it/allegati/2014/linee_programmatiche_giannini.pdf/. Accessed 25 Sept 2021. Giordano, C., & Maurizio, C. (2021). Il CLIL nella scuola primaria e dell’infanzia. Carocci. Gort, M., & Sembiante, S. (2015). Navigating hybridized language learning spaces through translanguaging pedagogy: Dual language preschool teachers’ languaging practices in support of emergent bilingual children’s performance of academic discourse. International Multilingual Research Journal, 9(1), 7–25. Gustafsson, C. (2018). In M. Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood education (pp. 1439–1456). Springer International Publishing. Holmila, Z. (2019). A CLIL community at work: An ethnographic case study of a Finnish early childhood education centre (Master’s thesis). University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2011). Transition into CLIL: Guidelines for the beginning stages of CLIL. In S. Ioannou-Georgiou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education. PROCLIL, from http://arbeitsplattform.bildung.hessen.de/fach/bilin gual/Magazin/mat_aufsaetze/clilimplementation.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2021. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica/National Statistics Institute (ISTAT). (2014). Diversità linguistiche tra i cittadini stranieri. https://www.istat.it/it/files/2014/07/diversit%C3%A0-linguistiche-imp. pdf?title¼Diversit%C3%A0. Accessed 30 Sept 2021. Lazzari, A. (2012). The public good. Historical and political roots of municipal preschools in Emilia Romagna. European Journal of Education, 47(4), 556–568. Lopriore, L. (2021). More than meets the eye: Research and practice in Italian foreign language policies and education. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 69–88. Mair, O. (2018). Four seasons of CLIL at two Italian pre-schools. In F. Costa, C. Cucchi, O. Mair, & A. Murphy (Eds.), English for young learners from pre-school to lower secondary: A CLIL teachers training project in Italian schools (pp. 21–54). Universitas Studiorum.

198

O. Mair and F. Costa

Mair, O. (2021). Content and language integrated learning in European preschools. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Handbook of early language education (pp. 1–35). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-030-47073-9_14-1 Mantovani, S. (2010). Vygotsky and the early years of ECEC in Italy. In A. Tuna & J. Hayden (Eds.), Early childhood programs as the doorway to social cohesion: Application of Vygotsky’s ideas from an east-west perspective (pp. 63–72). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. McElwee, J. (2015). Introducing French to pre-primary children in the North East of English: The narrative format approach. In S. Mourão & M. Lourenço (Eds.), Early years second language education: International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 109–119). Routledge. Mifsud, C. L., & Vella, L. A. (2018). To mix languages or not? Preschool bilingual education in Malta. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education (pp. 57–98). Springer International Publishing. Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. (2012). Indicazioni nazionali per il curricolo della scuola d’infanzia e del primo ciclo. Annali della Pubblica Istruzione. Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. (2014). Esperienze di insegnamento in lingua straniera nella Scuola dell’Infanzia. MIUR – Direzione Generale per gli Ordinamenti scolastici e la Valutazione del Sistema Nazionale di Istruzione. https://www.istruzione.it/allegati/2015/INFANZIA_ Lingue_Straniere_Rapporto_Monitoraggio_Dicembre%202014.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2020. Mourão, S. (2018). Play and peer interaction in a low-exposure foreign language-learning programme. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Bilingual preschool education: Agency in interactions between children, teachers, and parents (pp. 313–342). Springer. Musatti, T., & Mayer, S. (2011). Sharing attention and activities among toddlers: The spatial dimension of the setting and the educator’s role. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(2), 207–221. Musatti, T., & Picchio, M. (2010). Early education in Italy: Research and practice. International Journal of Early Childhood, 42(2), 141–153. Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., & Llinares, A. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–100. Piazzoli, E. (2018). Embodying language in action. The artistry of process drama in second language education. Palgrave. Pramling, N., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2018). Pedagogies in early childhood education. In M. Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood education (pp. 1311–1322). Springer International Publishing. Prošić-Santovac, D., & Radović, D. (2018). Separating the languages in a bilingual preschool: To do or not to do? In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education (pp. 27–56). Springer International Publishing. Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and learning. Routledge. Smidt, S. (2012). Introducing Malaguzzi: Exploring the life and work of Reggio Emilia’s founding father. Routledge. Sofronieva, E. (2015). Measuring empathy and teachers’ readiness to adopt innovations in second language learning. In S. Mourão & M. Lourenço (Eds.), Early years second language education: International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 289–203). Routledge. Swain, M. (2012). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning. Language Teaching, 46(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000486 Taeschner, T., Colibaba, A., & Gheorghiu, I. (2013). ‘The narrative format’ for learning and teaching languages to children and adults. Innovative approaches to language teaching and learning through international projects. Synergy, 9(2), 223–235.

PEBI: Bilingual Education in Portuguese Kindergartens

13

Ana Xavier, Conceic¸a˜o Baptista, Helena Gil, Jessica Ridge, and Julie Tice

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-primary Education within the Portuguese Education System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curriculum Guidelines for Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Brief Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Possible Links Between Pre-primary Education and Early Bilingual Education . . . . . . . . . . PEBI in Portuguese Kindergartens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenges for Educators and English Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training in Language and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Training Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Content and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participant Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Monitoring Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Best Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion: The Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200 201 202 202 203 205 205 206 208 209 209 210 212 212 212 213 215 216

Abstract

Drawing on a successful bilingual pilot project first implemented in 2011–2015 in a small number of state primary schools in Portugal, the Portuguese Ministry of Education and the British Council have been working collaboratively with a view to helping state Portuguese schools and kindergartens provide bilingual education through the medium of English. By 2021, the Bilingual Schools Programme or A. Xavier (*) · C. Baptista · H. Gil Directorate-General for Education/Portuguese Ministry of Education, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] J. Ridge · J. Tice British Council Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_13

199

200

A. Xavier et al.

Programa Escolas Bilingues em Inglês (PEBI) involved almost 3000 learners, 200 teachers and 28 school clusters in mainland Portugal, teaching children from Pre-primary through to lower Secondary levels. In this chapter, we begin by introducing Pre-primary education in Portugal, identifying links between the curriculum guidelines for Pre-primary education or Orientações Curriculares para a Educação Pré-Escolar (OCEPE) and good bilingual education/CLIL practice at policy level. We explore why and how the Bilingual Schools Programme has been implemented and identify challenges that this poses. We go on to describe the key role of the training programme developed for Pre-primary educators, which has included language and methodology training and follow-up support and monitoring. We give insights into examples of best practice observed in bilingual kindergartens and identify continuing areas for development. To conclude, we look to the future and how the bilingual schools programme may further develop in Pre-primary in Portugal. Keywords

Bilingual education · CLIL · Curriculum · Pre-primary education · Teacher training · Portugal

Introduction When we think of education we need to consider the wider scenario of learning development across school age learners. When considering a bilingual education provision, we tend to automatically think of an early start so as to provide learners with the opportunity of learning two languages from the age of 3 in addition to growing up and making sense of the world around them in a bilingual learning setting. The Portuguese education context favours early bilingual education for several reasons. On the one hand, because it can include most children in the system as even though pre-primary education attendance is optional, most families opt for enrolling their children in the kindergarten since the latest figures dated 2020 indicate a 97.1% attendance rate (Pordata, 2021). On the other hand, there is a widespread interest in foreign language provision across kindergartens in Portugal. Furthermore, the national pre-primary curriculum provides a rationale that is very much in line with what is expected in quality bilingual education. The PEBI is a bilingual education provision that draws on features of the Bilingual Education Programme that has been implemented by the Spanish Ministry of Education and the British Council Spain since 1996. Accordingly, the Portuguese programme is in line with Johnstone’s definition of bilingual education (2009) that is believed to take place when children are educated in two languages from a very young age, in this case, as from kindergarten onwards. One of these languages is as expected the mother tongue in which official education is provided and an additional foreign language. This entails 25–50% of the curriculum consistently carried out

13

PEBI: Bilingual Education in Portuguese Kindergartens

201

through the target language, from pre-primary education until the end of compulsory schooling. In terms of learning, the goals of the Portuguese Programme are to provide an inclusive and intercultural education, which entails: • sensitizing pre-primary education children to learning English, using a natural and play-based approach and taking into account their interests, preferences and suggestions • encouraging and enabling primary and secondary learners to develop a high level of competence in English as well as in Portuguese • developing mastery of curriculum content in both English and Portuguese through an integrated content-based curriculum Knowing that language competence is first developed receptively by children, as they try to make sense of what the adult tells them and all the language rich setting around them, they gradually internalize the additional language, acquiring, over time, fluency and confidence as speakers, both in Portuguese and in English. This will also help them develop self-confidence, adopt positive attitudes towards other ways of life and gain a sense of citizenship within an interconnected and global world. Throughout this chapter we will be discussing this as we share our experience with early bilingual education in Portuguese kindergartens.

Pre-primary Education within the Portuguese Education System According to the Portuguese Curriculum Guidelines for Pre-Primary Education (Orientações Curriculares para a Educação Pré-Escolar - OCEPE), all children have the right to education. The guidelines also state that early childhood education plays a key role in creating equal opportunities for children in terms of how they live and how they learn in the future. This is especially true for children whose family background does not provide that which the school environment can. Indeed, longitudinal studies confirm that quality early childhood education has a lasting impact on children’s current and future lives, as well as on their educational success and social integration. In Portugal, pre-primary education is the first stage in the education system and is aimed at children between 3 and 6 years old, the latter being the age at which children start compulsory education. Although children are not required by law to attend pre-primary, currently all children of 4 years old are legally entitled to education. This being so, the state is obliged to provide pre-primary provision which guarantees a place for every child from the age of 4. This provision is expected to be extended in the future to children who are 3 years old. In Portugal, there is both state and private pre-primary education. In the state sector, the pre-primary groups belong to state school clusters and the private sector consists of non-profit and profit kindergartens.

202

A. Xavier et al.

In both the state and private sectors, the following are guaranteed to children and their families: • 5 h a day of educational activities led by a pre-primary educator • optional extra activities in addition to these 5 h Except for in the private profit-making sector, the state ensures that the 5 h of educational activities are free for all children. The Ministry of Education is responsible for ensuring the quality of the core 5 h of education both in state and private sectors.

Curriculum Guidelines for Pre-primary Education A Brief Description The OCEPE were published in 1997 and then revised and updated in 2016, with the aim of improving the quality of pre-primary education. This is the guiding legal document for the design and execution of the curriculum in public and private kindergartens. Its purpose is to give pedagogical support to educators. As such, the OCEPE is not a prescriptive program, but rather a point of reference to help educators develop and manage the curriculum, adapting it according to social context, the characteristics of the children and families involved and the development of the individual child and the group (OCEPE, 2016, p. 13). The guidelines incorporate pedagogy and curriculum and are based on a socioconstructivist perspective. As such, they present a constructed, emerging curriculum that takes into account not only what is needed to learn, but also social influences on the ways in which one learns, the differences in gender, differences in sociocultural status and so on. The term curriculum itself is understood as “a set of interactions, experiences, activities, routines and planned and unplanned events that take place in an inclusive educational environment, organized to promote the well-being, development and learning of children” (OCEPE, 2016, p. 106). The OCEPE 2016 are divided into three major sections, namely focusing on background, content areas, learning continuity and transitions. Their highlights include for example: • the recognition of the child as the subject and main agent of their learning by giving them the opportunity to be listened to and to participate in decisions related to the educational process • content areas which are areas of development which not only contain reference to the acquisition of knowledge but also to sociocultural factors such as attitude, affective filters and approach to learning • educational transitions (e.g. from the family to the crèche, from the crèche to the kindergarten or from the kindergarten to primary school) which need to be in

13

PEBI: Bilingual Education in Portuguese Kindergartens

203

place to continue the developmental growth and the learning path of the child, whether this happens at home or in an institutional context • and practical strategies and suggestions for reflections for both educators and primary teachers, with a view to further learning The following section will attempt to establish links between the rationale in the OCEPE and what we aim at in a bilingual approach.

Possible Links Between Pre-primary Education and Early Bilingual Education The OCEPE rationale and principles of childhood pedagogy are closely intertwined in the sense that they both focus on the child and the way they learn and develop, the quality of close relationships within education and care, development and learning as inseparable aspects of the education process and an articulated construction of knowledge in which the different areas will be addressed in an integrated and holistic way. The rationale underlying the guiding principles includes: 1. Child development and learning are inseparable and that makes each child unique: with their own needs, interests and characteristics within their cultural and family context 2. Recognition of the child as an active learner, with the right to be heard, whose opinions are taken into account and who participates in their learning process 3. The imperative of responding to all children, recognizing that all are entitled to quality education, based on equal opportunities and the right to be welcomed, respected and valued in the educational context 4. An articulated construction of knowledge, which suggests that development and learning take place in a holistic way and that recognizes play as the main learning means for the child, drawing on their children’s natural curiosity, interest in exploring and interacting with others and objects This chiefly agrees with CLIL principles in the sense that it is based on holistic learning by means of integration of both language and content, involving mediation, social artefacts, co-construction of knowledge, learning while interacting, which are fundamental features of sociocultural theories. The OCEPE emphasize that development and learning take place in a holistic way, which is the natural way in which the child learns, in which play is the privileged means of learning and that leads to the development of transversal skills across all content areas. Thus, play is a right of the child. As opposed to the narrow understanding of play which regards play as a mere entertaining activity that keeps the child busy, play is regarded in the OCEPE as a rich and stimulating activity that promotes development and learning and is characterized by the child’s high level of engagement demonstrated through signs such as pleasure, concentration, persistence and commitment.

204

A. Xavier et al.

Regarding awareness of a foreign language in pre-primary education, and again in line with CLIL, the OCEPE states that this learning should: • be situated in the specific context in which the child finds himself • based on the children’s suggestions, interests and preferences • adopt a playful and informal approach In line with CLIL principles and methodology, the OCEPE also emphasize that raising the children’s awareness of a foreign language must: • take place in a natural way embedded in the daily kindergarten routines • liaise with the different content areas and domains within a holistic perspective of the curriculum and taking into account the global nature of learning at this age range Raising the children’s awareness of a foreign language “allows you to develop a broader sense of belonging and citizenship and even opportunities as European citizens that wish to be multilingual. Therefore, contact with children from other countries allows the child to recognize the advantages of knowing how to speak and understand other languages” (OCEPE, 2016, p. 61). Bilingual education fits the previously described rationale like a glove as several links can be found between them. Below are a few examples. One of them is the similarity between the pre-primary ethos described by the OCEPE and the second-language acquisition learning environment: both are meant to be, not only safe, social, varied and stimulating, but also language-rich. Likewise, routines, which are already naturally, clearly and meaningfully established in Portuguese kindergartens alongside the use of classroom management strategies, will enable children to feel safe while they play and feel their ideas, interests and preferences are considered. This will enable children to have as much exposure to target language as possible (input) and provide informal opportunities for children to produce the target language and interact with peers and adults (output). By having meaningful interactions, language acquisition will be facilitated as this will resemble the process children undergo when they are acquiring their native language (Krashen, 1982; Lightbown & Spada, 2005; Long, 1990; Swain, 2000, as cited in Navés, 2009). These opportunities for starting early with foreign language input and output are again in line with the foreign language awareness embedded in the OCEPE. Another link is the respect for the learners’ individual experience and knowledge of the world. Their individuality is linked to (their) age and their special characteristics which differentiate them from older learners and understanding these differences is crucial to create an effective learning environment. Accordingly, both pre-primary and bilingual education cater for children’s age, their specific characteristics, needs, vulnerability and emotional, cognitive and physical growth. In this vein, the child is regarded as an active learner who can be helped build their own knowledge and develop a number of personal, social and emotional skills

13

PEBI: Bilingual Education in Portuguese Kindergartens

205

through appropriate scaffolding as they are involved through a hands-on approach to learning, mostly entailing direct and age-appropriate real-life experiences involving sound, sight, movement and play. Being given thinking time to process what they hear in the target language is again in harmony with pre-primary and bilingual education. This can also intertwine with the building of learner autonomy as children are able to be heard, reflect, choose and actively make their own decisions regarding their learning process and that of their peers. Challenging children with interesting projects and activities of their own preference that can effectively engage them and positively reflect what they can do will also be motivational. Providing feedback will also help them feel confident as they attempt to try their best and grow more and more aware of their progress. Creating both learner and educator awareness of learning progress and drawing on this in the teaching process will boost both learner and educator confidence and ability to reflect. This can indeed link with the educational purpose underlying and guiding the educators’ pedagogical work and their reflection to find out if planning and practice have been effective (Bentley, 2010, p. 84). All these links found between the OCEPE and bilingual education help us come to understand that implementing bilingual education and an early learning stage targeting 3–6 year-olds would fit the bilingual education context in Portugal in a very natural way. The following section will address the PEBI in the context of Portuguese pre-primary education.

PEBI in Portuguese Kindergartens Rationale As mentioned in the previous section, it felt natural, both in pedagogical and curriculum terms, to implement bilingual education at pre-primary education level given the similarities that could be found in both rationales. Moreover, the Portuguese education context was favourable to the implementation of bilingual education at pre-primary level as foreign language learning has already been real in most kindergartens, whereby English is the most widespread foreign language (APPI, 2016). In fact, this is the first foreign language learnt in Portugal on a mandatory basis for 7 years, from primary to lower secondary education, targeting learners of the 7–15 age range. This is relevant in terms of learning continuity. Accordingly, ensuring an early start in bilingual education, through the medium of English, in the Portuguese education system, would be appropriate as it would also enable Portuguese children/learners to become European and global citizens who can be better prepared to thrive in a multilingual and multicultural world and contribute to communicative progress in the target language. The progress of a plurilingual and intercultural education must thus integrate a transversal project to

206

A. Xavier et al.

the curriculum accommodating knowledge of language and different areas in an integrated way.

Implementation Aware of a European context, whereby bilingual education in the form of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) provision have been considered as one of the most effective ways of learning a foreign language, the Directorate-General for Education and the British Council Portugal created the Bilingual Schools Programme (PEBI), within the framework of a Cooperation Agreement (July 2016). The PEBI focuses on the integrated learning of curriculum content and language and has been implemented in Portugal in pre-primary, primary and lower secondary education, since 2016/2017. It has always targeted state kindergartens and schools but since 2021/2022 it included the private network. Institutional support is given to teachers through the provision of reference documentation, updated annually (Documento Enquadrador and Orientações), accredited teacher training and monitoring (please see section “Monitoring”). The Documento Enquadrador provides the background and context for implementing bilingual education in Portugal, whereas the Orientações contain essential and structuring guidelines at management and pedagogical-didactic level. These are reference documents that are designed to help bilingual kindergartens and schools reflect on where the Programme is going throughout the school year. Aiming at an early start and articulation across all education levels involved, the PEBI covers: (i) pre-primary education (3–6 year-olds), as this is the first education level within the lifelong learning process, where raising the children’s awareness of a foreign language is allowed and it should naturally integrate the kindergarten routines and be overall in line with the OCEPE. (ii) primary and lower secondary education (6–15 year-olds), in order to allow learning continuity of curriculum content and the gradual development of the English language.

According to the Orientações, it is recommended that the PEBI is developed, initially, on a small scale, in one to two kindergartens/groups, at an earlier education level and then that it gradually and sustainably expands from pre-primary education onwards. Even so, it is possible to implement the PEBI at the education level that best suits the specificity of its context as well as the availability of qualified human resources, as long as the start is at the beginning of an education level (for example, if the choice falls upon primary, then the start is at year 1 and not year 2 or 3). The Ministry of Education launches an annual call that enables schools which comply with a number of eligibility criteria to apply for implementing the PEBI. The ten eligibility criteria encompass key success factors for quality bilingual education both at an management level and at a pedagogical-didactic level, and schools must demonstrate that they fulfil these criteria to implement the PEBI with quality.

13

PEBI: Bilingual Education in Portuguese Kindergartens

207

In line with the OCEPE, the PEBI in pre-primary education aims to: • raise the children’s awareness for English language learning within their specific context, with full respect for their own individual ideas and suggestions, interests and preferences, and adopting a playful and informal approach • promote inclusive and intercultural citizenship education It also aims to train educators in English language and in bilingual education/CLIL methodology for children by sharing best practice. Thus, at the level of pre-primary education, the PEBI consists of raising awareness of English learning, naturally integrated into kindergarten routines, adopting a playful and informal approach, 5 h a week, which represents 20% of curriculum time (out of the 25-h pre-primary curriculum). • the Orientações document states a successful implementation of the PEBI can for example depend on: • collaborative work between the educator and the English teacher • a natural integration in the daily kindergarten routines – at various times of the day when children take part in activities and develop projects in small and large groups, in pairs or individually, which are proposed by the educator/English teacher and children – covering, for example, activities such storytelling, attendance register, weather chart, the calendar of the year, etc. – which create opportunities for (spontaneous) English-language interactions with the educator and/or the English teacher e.g. while playing a game, or playing in a classroom area, or during project development, taking into account the ideas, preferences and interests of children • the creation of bilingual environments, with the participation and involvement of the children • the intersection of the different curriculum content areas, domains and sub-domains of the OCEPE, promoting integrated learning, taking into account the holistic perspective of the curriculum • develop phonological awareness in a foreign language, for example through rhymes, songs, stories, games, role-play, etc. Within the PEBI, the educator is the privileged interlocutor with the children, while communicating in English, whereas the English teacher is their English language assistant, who can help the educator ensure quality interactions with children in the target language. To this end, it is required that, in the case of educators and primary teachers, the level of proficiency in English, according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, and Assessment (Council of Europe, 2001) is, at least B1, which should gradually progress to level B2. The implementation of the PEBI also requires and promotes collaborative work, and for this purpose, the school directorate must ensure this collaboration between

208

A. Xavier et al.

teachers (educators and English teacher), in planning, while preparing pedagogical and didactic resources and in the evaluation of the work developed. In 2020/2021, there were 19 out of a total of 28 school clusters implementing the PEBI in pre-primary in mainland Portugal involving 1088 children and 38 educators. This means that the programme is more widespread in pre-primary education than at other levels (67.8% of participating schools). Despite the fact that the Orientações have been devised to support the quality implementation of bilingual education, it would not be fair to say that all goes according to these guidelines as there are issues which still pose challenges for a key pedagogical team, consisting of both educators and English teachers. The following section will look at these challenges in the Portuguese context.

Challenges for Educators and English Teachers It is widely recognised that the introduction of a change such as implementing CLIL provision will bring significant and new challenges to teachers. Pavón-Vazquez and Ellison (2013) discuss these challenges for teachers referring to the roles of subject and English teachers, the changes needed in methodology and the need for training. Marsh et al. (2010) refer to the ‘multiple types of expertise’ that CLIL teachers need, referring among others to content subject knowledge, proficiency in the language and best practice in teaching and learning. In our own context, we have confronted many of these issues. Traditionally, in Portuguese state schools, English teachers would not have had experience in working with pre-primary educators, so teamworking in itself could pose new challenges in terms of logistics (availability) as well as roles and expectations. One of the recognised requirements for successful implementation of CLIL relates to the teacher’s proficiency in the language, although how high a level is open to debate. Navés (2009), for example, refers to teachers needing to be bilingual and fully proficient in the language of instruction. However, Nikula and Marsh (1999), as cited in Pavón-Vázquez and Ellison (2013), make the point that ‘native-like competence’ is not necessary for the content teacher. Pavón-Vázquez and Ellison (2013) meanwhile refer to teachers needing ‘sufficient language competence’ to teach content. In our context, we also believe that the required skills and type of proficiency in the English language varies for teachers at different life stages within the school system. For example the type of language used by the pre-primary educator is very different from that needed by a Secondary teacher of biology or history. English does not form part of an educator’s initial teacher training in Portugal so some have a fairly low level of English (they need to provide evidence of an overall B1 level to participate in the PEBI), and many are unused to using it and therefore lack confidence in using the language to communicate. Perhaps not surprisingly, we observed that when the English teachers were in the classroom with the educators, there was a tendency sometimes for them to look to the English teachers to take on the main ‘teacher’ role, although this was not part of our intended approach.

13

PEBI: Bilingual Education in Portuguese Kindergartens

209

The English teachers themselves may also have felt it was more their role to be delivering the activities through English, believing that with a higher level of proficiency in English, they would automatically be better positioned to do this. There were challenges for both the educators and English teachers in understanding the approach to be used in PEBI at pre-primary level. While the school would have shared the Orientacões for PEBI, there was some variation in the extent to which they were understood or adopted. Furthermore, while the educators were familiar with the OCEPE, we still found that there was a tendency for some educators to ‘instruct’ rather than work with the interests and needs of the individual child. For the most part, English teachers were not familiar with the OCEPE or with best practice in working with pre-primary aged children. The suggested approach for PEBI in pre-primary and indeed the OCEPE are very different from how they are used to working with older school children, or what they might have expected with young children. They needed to understand that their role was language support and that while they may sometimes be in the classroom with the educator and interacting with the children, it was not their role to take over or teach the children. The pre-primary educators of course have extensive experience of working in Portuguese with children of this age and can provide appropriate learning activities. However, when it came to introducing English, the type of approach advocated by the programme was in some cases rather different from what some educators would have expected in terms of methodology. English teachers also had different expectations based on their own teaching experience. Often when English as a foreign language is introduced to young children at school, in pre-primary or primary, the approach taken is based on instruction, introducing a limited number of discrete vocabulary items at a time, often with direct translation as well as visuals or realia to illustrate meaning. The medium of communication in the classroom remains Portuguese. The approach we were advocating was very different: integrating English into the day-to-day functioning of the Pre-primary group in the form of daily routines and transitions, games and play, stories, the creative arts and project work. As well as being different from expectations, this approach also requires a broader grasp of English on the part of the educators as they are required to carry out different activities using more extended utterances and a greater range of language than in a tightly controlled, vocabulary-based approach.

Training in Language and Methodology The Training Plan Training was required for educators both in language and methodology and, for the English teachers supporting them, training in methodology. Our approach has been to prioritise methodology training before language training. This varies from other European countries which opt for valuing language (European Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2017). In our situation, we needed to respond to immediate

210

A. Xavier et al.

needs as schools joined the programme and were expected to implement the programme as soon as possible in that school year. The recommendation for pre-primary is 5 h per week of activities through English. We believed that ‘good teaching’, in line with the OCEPE and the Orientações, would be more effective in helping the children learn than focussing on providing teachers with a high level of English. The methodology training would be conducted through English and be highly practical, focussing on modelling learning activities, along with providing the rationale, and providing opportunities for the educators and English teachers to develop and reflect on their own activities. The training would provide a lot of exposure to English and particularly the type of English they would need to use in their own educational context. This should help the educators improve and become more confident in using their English. Similarly the language course for educators would focus on providing them specifically with the language they need to deliver activities through English in their context, rather than trying to improve their proficiency level in general English. Our approach to the training also aimed to meet other criteria that we consider as key in delivering any effective continuing professional development (CPD). Referring to the model described by Richardson and Díaz Maggioli (2018) our training was designed to be impactful (enhancing children’s learning), needs based (highly contextually relevant for the participants), peer collaborative (educators from the same and different schools, along with the English teachers supporting them, working on producing ideas and materials together), practical and classroom based (providing opportunities for the teachers and educators to plan activities and carry them out in their classes), reflective (encouraging teachers to consistently reflect on and improve their own practice and evaluated (seeking feedback from children and peers). Initially in 2016 we offered a 9 h methodology workshop for pre-primary educators and English teachers, but subsequent training was accredited by the official body in Portugal, the Conselho Cientifico-Pedagógico de Formação Contínua – CCPFC (or Scientific and Pedagogic Council for Continuing Professional Development). Course outlines drawn up by DGE and the British Council were duly approved and offered from 2018. These consisted of a 50 h methodology workshop (25 h of group sessions and 50 h of autonomous work) for pre-primary educators and English teachers and a 25 h language course for pre-primary educators. All courses and workshops were run by British Council trainers familiar with the PEBI programme and the pre-primary context in Portuguese state schools, and with experience in teacher training and working with pre-primary aged children.

Content and Methodology The foundation for the structure of the methodology training workshops had the underlying principle of adopting a holistic approach to the introduction of PEBI to the pre-primary classroom in line with the OCEPE. As such, the 25 h of group sessions were organised around meaningful activities which would normally take

13

PEBI: Bilingual Education in Portuguese Kindergartens

211

place in the pre-primary classroom, which educators and children might be involved in their day-to-day routine. The aim was to support educators and teachers when approaching these activities in English, in a way which might prove to be productive in terms of promoting communicative competence, whilst also maximising the intrinsic value of the activities themselves. The group sessions were divided into sessions on routines, storytelling, games and play (at all stages of the continuum of playful learning), creative arts (e.g visual art, dance, drama, puppetry, and music), project work and experiments. Activities during the sessions included discussions of key concepts either as a whole group or with participants divided into small groups. There were also trainerled demonstrations of activities and analysis of videos which related to the areas covered within the training. Following the input, participants worked in small groups to prepare an activity they could undertake with their children related to the particular area (for example, an experiment, a story, the creation of a game). Small groups then presented their ideas to their peers and participants had the opportunity to feedback and reflect. Small groups were systematically re-organised so that participants had the opportunity to share ideas with as many of their peers as possible. The course aimed to promote and make accessible fundamental concepts which resonated throughout all the areas covered within the individual input sessions. These concepts being: • the significance of content-based whole child learning (with reference to OCEPE) within the bilingual context • the importance of encouraging children’s input, autonomy and critical thinking • the importance of maximising involvement and engagement in activities in English by considering the appropriacy of different types of classroom interaction patterns • the significance of staging activities and providing the appropriate scaffolding for children, both in terms of the introduction of language and facilitation of the sequence of the task itself • the importance of thoughtful and consistent introduction of contextualised communicative chunks of language rather than discrete items of vocabulary • the relevance of a physical classroom/school environment containing resources which serve as a consistent point of contact with English for children (for example, displays, books, games and so on) • the importance of teamwork within the bilingual school context and the delineation of clearly defined roles for the educator and the supporting English teacher In addition to the group sessions, the methodology training workshops required participants to undertake 25 h of autonomous work, divided between two tasks. This allowed them the opportunity to gain a clear understanding of the methodology and put into practice their learning by planning learning progressions and developing accompanying materials, undertaking the activities with their children, and reflecting on the implementation.

212

A. Xavier et al.

The 25-h language training course had a practical approach similar to the methodology workshops where sessions were organised around activities regularly undertaken in the pre-primary classroom in line with the OCEPE. The language input was chosen according to contextual relevance rather than traditional structural grading. The focus of the sessions (routines and the classroom environment, maths and science, visual art, music and movement and story-telling) naturally defined the language items, both structural and lexical, to be explored. As with the methodology workshops, the language sessions involved input, analysis/reflection and culminated in participants working together on a task in small groups.

Participant Feedback Participants provided informal feedback during the training sessions and also completed an end of course questionnaire. Overall, the feedback was predominantly positive for both the methodology training workshops and the language training course. For the methodology workshops, there was particularly strong feedback regarding the initial steps in their training, the interactive nature of the sessions, course content, the task-based approach, and the value of the autonomous tasks as they allowed them to put into practice concepts/activities that they were exploring during the sessions. From the language training courses, feedback showed that participants benefited from the opportunity to practise using English, helping them improve confidence and fluency, and get feedback and correction of ingrained errors. They also highly valued the contextual approach, in that the language was what they needed to carry out activities in their day to day routine and linked clearly to the methodology. As new schools and new teachers join the programme, the need for training remains. The follow up to the training, ensuring the further criteria for effective CPD that it is ‘sustained’ (Richardson & Díaz Maggioli, 2018), comes next in the form of a monitoring plan which will help confirm to what extent the trained teachers have adjusted their practice and provide further opportunities for feedback and reflection.

Monitoring The Monitoring Plan Every year a monitoring plan is devised and implemented by a monitoring team, which includes both Ministry of Education and British Council staff, to come to understand to what extent the PEBI reference documents, namely the Documento Enquadrador and the Orientações previously described (please see section “PEBI in Portuguese Kindergartens”) and the teacher training plan can support schools in providing quality bilingual education. In this vein, it is important to state that the monitoring targets teachers, school management and ultimately the children and the

13

PEBI: Bilingual Education in Portuguese Kindergartens

213

learners as the primary beneficiaries of quality bilingual education. The following are included in the plan: • regular support to schools by telephone and/or email all year long • collection of relevant indicators (e.g. number of schools, learners, teachers involved) that will enable a snapshot of the programme across mainland Portugal at the beginning of the school year • welcome online meetings at the beginning of the school year • collection and analysis of learning evidence • follow up online meetings to provide feedback on the learning evidence analysed and reflect on the implementation of the programme in the light of the Orientações • school visits which include observation of learning activities in kindergartens • end of the year online meeting for sharing best practice • end of the year evaluation report and feedback with recommendations on areas for improvement and continuity

Best Practice Both the monitoring visits and the portfolios of work submitted by participants during the methodology workshops revealed that key elements of the training had been absorbed and were being reflected within the schools which were involved in the bilingual programme. For many educators and teachers, feeling completely at ease with the demands of the bilingual programme is something which requires time and confidence in themselves and the capacities of their children. As such, monitoring visits and subsequent feedback were extremely important in highlighting strengths, helping educators and teachers gain confidence and supporting them in their future development. For schools that were entering the programme, routines were clearly one of the first and simplest activities to take on board, as educators already had them in place in their classroom and their sequential, script-like quality made it relatively easy for them to be adapted to English. Examples of good practice were found in schools where there was a range of routines in English (for example, register, weather, transition, monitors) which formed part of the day to day functioning of the group. The most successful examples were when the routines were inclusive, varied and managed to maintain children’s involvement. Evidence of these routines themselves formed part of the classroom space in the form of displays and charts which acted as a constant point of reference for children. The best examples of these were displays which the children had been involved in making themselves and where emergent literacy skills were encouraged with colour-coded labelling (one colour for English and a different colour for Portuguese). Evidence of awareness of the training could also be found in some schools in the form of the classroom/school environment. Good examples were where we saw the physical school environment reflecting a bilingual feel in the form of labelled

214

A. Xavier et al.

displays of individualistic work done by the children in English. A number of schools had integrated the idea of an area in the classroom where ‘English’ activities were kept. Good examples of these contained a variety of different items for the children to access autonomously: English stories, ‘English speaking’ puppets, and a variety of games. The best examples were where children were actively involved in the creation of the area, deciding what should be present in the area and creating the materials themselves. Clearly the evidence of good practice in the bilingual context is inextricably tied to the underlying principle of adopting a holistic approach to the introduction of PEBI to the pre-primary classroom in line with the OCEPE. Good examples of this could be found in groups where the educator had retained this as absolutely pivotal. There was evidence of this in some schools where the educators had evidently held this as good practice when working with children in Portuguese and had transferred it whole-heartedly to the bilingual context. Examples of this could be found where educators had worked closely with the ideas suggested by the children and had elaborated multi-faceted projects guided by the children themselves. One particular example of this was a project on plants which was initiated by children, when they were playing outside wondering ´How do plants actually grow?’. The educator worked with this initial interest to propose activities which allowed children to express themselves through dramatization and mime, games, the sharing of a story, graphing activities, and creating a book. Registering the different stages of the project in different ways encouraged children to think critically about the relationship of each part to the whole. The project served to develop a variety of developmental areas (knowledge of the world, personal and social development, maths, creative arts, physical education and emergent literacy) in a highly childcentred context. During monitoring visits, indications of a child-centred approach could also be observed at times in some educators’ awareness of the importance of appropriate interaction patterns. It was encouraging when we saw educators working in English on curriculum related activities with small groups of children. It was in these contexts that the educators were able to respond more fully to the children’s individual needs and undertake formative assessment. Also, from the language perspective, children were allowed more ‘talking time’ and there was the opportunity for the educator to input language and support according to the children’s individual interests and needs. Activities of this kind we observed resembled a discussion between adult and child, with the adult recasting the child’s interjections from Portuguese to English when appropriate. Very simple yet effective examples of this we saw were where educators supported and interacted in English while children were involved in small group activities of their choice (for example, modelling, painting, playing with maths manipulatives). Teamwork and clear delineation of roles is also key to the successful implementation of the bilingual pre-primary programme and constituted a significant element of the training. During monitoring, examples of this could be found in schools which had a very strong grasp of the concept. Good examples were when the coordinator of the programme helped to encourage and sustain communication between the

13

PEBI: Bilingual Education in Portuguese Kindergartens

215

different stakeholders involved in the programme – educators, English teachers and parents. One example of this was in a group of schools new to the programme in September which had two pre-primary groups and two first year primary groups involved, based in different schools. The team had regular planning meetings to share ideas with each other and worked together to produce a Padlet, accessible to parents which showed examples of what was happening within their particular groups and examples of work that the children had done. Examples of teamwork like this constitute a productive wholeness of approach which promotes continuity and clarity. Within the context of the pre-primary classroom itself, the relationship and roles of the educators and the English teachers was another issue discussed in training. Good examples of effective teamwork between them were evident in schools where the English teachers had truly taken on the supporting role that was required of them. On certain visits to schools, it was encouraging to observe the English teacher present in the class, playing with children during free play only in English and supporting small group activities which had been set up by the educator. This showed that the methodology training workshops, at least in some cases, had helped to move away from the idea of the role of the English teacher as the instructor of prescriptive language items which had little relation to the holistic pre-primary environment outlined in the OCEPE.

Conclusion: The Future There continues to be growing interest in bilingual education for pre-primary and, as schools expand the programme and involve more educators, and more schools join, ongoing support is crucial to the success of the programme. We need to continue to ensure schools receive sufficient and clear guidelines through documentation and meetings to help them make appropriate decisions about whether and how to implement the programme. We know that the understanding, support and enthusiasm of school directors and coordinators is a key factor in the success of the programme. It is also crucially important that we are able to support the educators and teachers directly involved in implementing the programme, to ensure that they can deliver high quality, child-centred education within the OCEPE guidelines using effective CLIL methodology. It is also important that the educators continue to receive language support from an English teacher, and that they are encouraged to take on responsibility for their ongoing improvement in their English language level. Training has been a key part of the support we have provided and this needs to continue, both to support those continuing in the programme and those who are new to it each year. This may mean accrediting further courses and workshops or providing other means of CPD for teachers in the programme. To ensure longer term sustainability and autonomy for the schools in the programme, one goal is to involve educators and English teachers working with them in delivering the training. This will entail identifying teachers and educators with confidence in using English,

216

A. Xavier et al.

a good understanding of the approach and methodology as well as hands-on experience with best practice. Initially they will work alongside one of our experienced trainers and then take on full responsibility for delivering training and workshops. Following up on training, monitoring how the programme is being implemented in each school is essential. We are in the process of identifying and inviting other partners who can participate in the monitoring process. The teachers and educators who are involved in future delivery of training will also have an important role here. A further means of support essential to the development and growth of the programme is the sharing of good practice. We want to encourage schools to network more with others involved in the programme. This has already happened informally when newer schools have sought support from more experienced ones. We can systematise this through either a buddying system between small numbers of schools, or identifying certain schools as ‘lead schools’ in the programme that others can go to for support. Another way of encouraging schools to learn from each other and share good practice is the setting up of a central online resource bank for curricular content, materials, and ideas. This is currently under development but we will need to plan how this can be best managed to ensure quality and well organised, easily accessible resources. Finally, we would like to hold a symposium to encourage further sharing, learning and confidence building. We referred earlier to the challenges faced by educators and English teachers in adapting to the requirements of the programme, both in terms of their level and confidence in using English and adapting to CLIL methodology. English is now an obligatory subject in the national school curriculum, from year 3 of Primary to year 9. This should mean that as younger pre-school educators qualify, they have a better level of English than ones who qualified years before. Also, with the growing interest in bilingual education, more training institutions may begin to introduce CLIL methodology and a foreign language into their courses.

References APPI. (2016). Report by the National Association of English Teachers on a survey of foreign language provision in pre-primary education in Portugal. Oferta de Língua Estrangeira na Educação Pré-Escolar em Portugal. https://appi.pt/storage/app/media/docs_appi/Relat%C3% B3rio-Inqu%C3%A9rito-Pr%C3%A9-escolar-2016_Final-julho-revisto.pdf Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT teaching knowledge test course: CLIL module: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2017). Key data on teaching languages at School in Europe – 2017 edition (Eurydice report). Publications Office of the European Union. https:// eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/key-data-teaching-languages-schooleurope-%E2%80%93-2017-edition_en FFMS. (2021). Gross enrollment rate by level of education. Taxa bruta de escolarização por nível de ensino. PORDATA. https://www.pordata.pt/Portugal/Taxa+bruta+de+escolariza%C3%A7% C3%A3o+por+n%C3%ADvel+de+ensino-434

13

PEBI: Bilingual Education in Portuguese Kindergartens

217

Johnstone, R. (2009). Early bilingual education (EBE). Ensino Bilingue Precoce (EBP) (British Council unpublished document specifically produced for the Portuguese education context to provide background on early bilingual education to primary schools taking part in a feasibility study). Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2010). The European framework for CLIL teacher education. European Centre for Modern Languages. https://www.english-efl.com/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/CLIL-EN.pdf Ministério da Educação (Ed.) (2016). Curriculum guidelines for pre-primary education. Orientações Curriculares para a Educação Pré-Escolar. Ministério da Educação. http://www. dge.mec.pt/ocepe/ Navés, T. (2009). Effective CLIL programmes. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & R. M. J. Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 22–40). Multilingual Matters. Nikula, T., & Marsh, D. (1999). Case study: Finland. In D. Marsh & G. Langé (Eds.), Implementing content and language integrated learning (pp. 17–72). Continuum Education Centre. Pavón Vázquez, V., & Ellison, M. (2013). Examining teacher roles and competences in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Linguarum Arena, 4, 65–78. https://ler.letras.up.pt/ uploads/ficheiros/12007.pdf Richardson, S., & Díaz Maggioli, G. (2018). Effective professional development: Principles and best practice (Part of the Cambridge papers in ELT series). [pdf] Cambridge University Press.

Mapping Pre-primary CLIL in Russia Victoria Pogosian , Anna Barkova Olga Selivanovskaya

14

, Ana A. Uvarova, and

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-school Foreign Language Education in Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL in the Context of Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal State Educational Standard for Pre-school Education and the Content of Integration with Foreign Language Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Russian Teachers’ Views on CLIL Implementation at Pre-primary Level of Education . . . . . . A Case of CLIL Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The CLIL Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Programme Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of a Sample Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL Implementation Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

220 221 223 225 226 227 228 228 229 229 231 231

Abstract

The chapter discusses the challenges of mapping the implementation of CLIL in the context of Russian pre-primary education. These challenges are caused by lack of state regulations concerning foreign language education at pre-primary level, and intransparency of foreign language curricula offered by state and private kindergartens and foreign language courses. The Federal State Educa-

V. Pogosian (*) · A. Barkova · O. Selivanovskaya Department of Teaching Modern Languages to Young Learners, Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, Saint Petersburg, Russia e-mail: [email protected] A. A. Uvarova Pavlovo School, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_14

219

220

V. Pogosian et al.

tional Standard for Pre-school Education is discussed to identify content areas for integrating foreign language education at pre-primary level and suggestions are made as to how exactly CLIL may be employed in these content areas. A smallscale research findings are presented to highlight the Russian teachers’ views on the advantages and disadvantages of CLIL. The chapter presents a case study of one of the best practices of implementing CLIL at pre-primary level. Keywords

CLIL · Russian pre-primary education, language immersion, teachers’ views · CLIL implementation · best practices

Introduction Assumingly, the implementation of any pedagogical idea is performed in a certain national context, and is partly shaped by it. That is why this chapter starts with a general overview of foreign language education at pre-school level in Russia focusing on the variety of programmes offered in Saint Petersburg, the second largest city in the Russian Federation. These programmes vary depending on a range of factors, such as: parents’ demand and preferences, institutions offering the programmes, teachers’ views and competencies as well as the approaches and methods of teaching they employ; all these factors have an impact on the feasibility of embedding CLIL, as well as the requirements of Federal State Educational Standard for Pre-school Education (2013) which on the one hand, does not include foreign language education, on the other hand, it defines the content of education at pre-primary level which is to be integrated with language education of the pre-primary age (In Russia it is the age from 3 to 6). Mapping the implementation of CLIL in pre-primary education in Russia is challenging for several reasons. The first one deals with a high degree of variability and intransparency of foreign language curricula for young learners. This happens due to the fact that both privately owned and state funded kindergartens are reluctant to disclose their foreign language curricula. There are no common state regulations concerning these curricula, and that is why teachers and institutions design them according to their views on the methodology most appropriate for the pre-primary age of learners. To find out if CLIL is used a small scale research findings are presented in this chapter demonstrating how the teachers understand CLIL and how they employ it. Another challenge deals with the problem of what may be regarded as CLIL in pre-primary education. First of all, which content of pre-primary education can be integrated with language education of young learners. Besides, CLIL being an umbrella term, it is often associated with foreign language immersion programmes. This chapter attempts to pinpoint the key features of CLIL differentiating it from language immersion.

14

Mapping Pre-primary CLIL in Russia

221

Pre-school Foreign Language Education in Russia Pre-primary foreign language education in Russia has been developing for the past 30 years meeting the growing demand (Pogosian, 2014, p. 99). In general, pre-primary education is to comply with Federal State Educational Standard for Pre-school Education (2013), but foreign language education is not included in this Standard, which has several relevant consequences in terms of how this education is organised and regulated, what kind of curricula and methods are used for teaching: there are no state regulations concerning pre-primary foreign language curricula, there is no official position for a foreign language teacher at kindergartens. First of all, at state-funded kindergartens foreign language education, not being part of the Standard, is supposed to be optional education and as a result it is to be offered for fees. This means that in case there are parents who want their children to learn a foreign language, the kindergarten may hire a teacher and negotiate the costs depending on the number of lessons per week and their duration. This teacher is not a kindergarten permanent staff member (the position of a foreign language teacher does not exist at the kindergarten level) and in fact this teacher is not supposed to be competent in the pre-primary educational areas, such as art, crafts, music, etc.). As there are no state regulations concerning the foreign language programmes, the teachers design their programmes themselves. These programmes take into account the course duration (which may vary depending on how much spare time for conducting it the teacher has, and how affordable the course is for parents), these programmes sometimes are based on the available textbooks, sometimes they are limited to learning songs and rhymes. In general, their content and methodology are highly influenced by the teachers’ beliefs, educational and practical experience, competencies and preferences. Some teachers are very open for discussing their programmes and cooperate with teacher training institutions allowing student teachers to observe their lessons and analyse their lessons and programmes, but sometimes they are reluctant to disclose their programmes, and it is very seldom that a kindergarten administration demands that these programmes are reviewed or assessed by experts. As a result, it is difficult to find out what programmes, approaches and methods are actually used in the statefunded kindergartens. Besides, as soon as either the teacher or parents decide so, the programmes would be discontinued. There are few state-maintained kindergartens where foreign languages are taught on a regular basis. Another important consequence of foreign language being an optional subject in state-funded kindergartens is the schedule and duration of these lessons. The number and duration of optional lessons are regulated by Sanitary Rules and Norms for Pre-school Educational Institutions (2013). Optional lessons are to be held in the afternoon leaving the morning hours for compulsory lessons. According to the Sanitary Rules, the length and the number of optional lessons per week should not exceed the following: • for children aged 3: one lesson per week, not longer than 15 min; • for children aged 4: two lessons per week, each not longer than 20 min;

222

V. Pogosian et al.

• for children aged 5: two lessons per week, each not longer than 25 min; • for children aged 6: up to three lessons per week, each not longer than 30 min. To comply with these requirements, foreign language lessons are usually held about 2 times per week in the evening, so that the learners could participate in other activities with the rest of the children. Obviously the number of learning sessions is too small. At the same time, currently there are many privately owned kindergartens in Russia and most of them offer foreign language lessons to attract parents. These lessons are given on a regular basis. Private kindergartens employ professional teaching staff trained in the area of early foreign language education, and also native speakers. According to N. Koricheva who in 2018 analysed 569 web-sites of Saint Petersburg kindergartens offering English programmes, 9% (n ¼ 51) of private kindergartens provide English lessons during the whole day (usually these kindergartens position themselves as bilingual); 74% (n ¼ 421) offer these lessons 2–3 times per week (lesson duration varying from 15 to 45 min); and 85% (n ¼ 484) offer lessons in the evenings or weekends. Most of these kindergartens (83%, n ¼ 472) claim that their curricula are based on British or American ELT programmes (Koricheva, 2021, pp. 26–27), some of them claim that they follow British or American educational programmes, but most of them do not publish their programmes. Besides privately-owned kindergartens where children spend the whole day, there are a lot of privately-owned courses, centres, schools, clubs, etc., offering English at pre-primary level. Some of them have their corporate curricula and learning materials (such companies as English First, Mortimer Club, etc.), they usually organize training for their teachers introducing the methods and materials to be used. Small companies design their own programmes and learning materials. Each private institution boasts its best learning outcomes, the most innovative methods and approaches used, but the details of teaching mainly remain a commercial secret. Koricheva analysed 289 web-sites of foreign language courses for pre-primary children in Saint Petersburg, and she reports that in general these courses offer lessons from 2 to 5 days per week, and their duration is from 45 to 90 min. Native speakers work in 42% (n ¼ 121) of these institutions. As pointed out by Koricheva, many of the programmes integrate English into other activities (music, dancing, crafts, etc.) (Koricheva, 2021, p. 29). At the same time it should be pointed out that the description of the courses and programmes is usually very brief, communicative methods would be mentioned without other details. To summarize, the landscape of pre-primary foreign language education in Russia is varied, and not quite transparent in terms of what is taught and which methods are used. There is a big variety of programmes, methods and approaches implemented for teaching pre-primary children foreign languages, and though not all of them are available for the analyses, it is possible to draw some general conclusions:

14

Mapping Pre-primary CLIL in Russia

223

• Some programmes are based on the textbooks for young learners and the analysis of the textbooks may reveal which content is taught and which methods are employed. • In some institutions the programmes are designed by teachers (e.g. in state kindergartens) and in this case their content and the methods used depend on the teacher’s beliefs and experience. • The programmes may be designed by the institutions offering them (private kindergartens or language schools), in this case they are based on institutional policy of foreign language education. When describing their programmes, the private institutions do not go into details. They usually refer to them as bilingual (if appropriate), and the methods are described as communicative. The term CLIL is usually not used in the descriptions. • Private institutions offering foreign language education employ native speakers and provide lessons every day which provides opportunities for language immersion. As far as there is no state regulation and no formal requirements for foreign language education, many teachers design their programmes based on their own views and on the textbooks for young learners, to find out if CLIL is implemented it is helpful to analyse the teachers views on CLIL in pre-primary foreign language education. Besides, both state-funded and private kindergartens are to meet the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard for Pre-school Education, and it seems to be reasonable to find out which areas of integration with language learning there are in the Standard.

CLIL in the Context of Pre-primary Education The term ‘CLIL’ was introduced in 1994 by David Marsh as an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of situations “where subjects, or parts of subjects, are taught through a foreign language with dual-focused aims, namely the learning of content and the simultaneous learning of a foreign language” (Marsh, 1994). There are numerous models of implementation which are included under the “umbrella term” of CLIL. For example, Bentley describes three possible CLIL models (Bentley, 2010): • language-led or soft CLIL where some curricular topics are taught during a language course; • subject-led (modular) where schools or teachers choose parts of the subject syllabus which they teach in the target language; • subject-led (partial immersion) or hard CLIL where almost half the curriculum is taught in the target language.

224

V. Pogosian et al.

Another classification of CLIL varieties is suggested by Ioannou-Georgiou and Pavlou (2011, p. 16). These varieties include • different kinds of immersion (from partial to total); • subject courses where curricular subjects apart from languages can be taught through the target language; • CLIL language showers at pre-primary and early years of primary education where there is a regular, short, continuous exposure to CLIL usually in one subject area, delivered in the target language for 15 or 30 min several times a week; • language classes based on thematic units with emphasis on content where the syllabus and lesson plans involve a topic-based approach including specific themes or content to be dealt with in the language lesson. Although the above classifications are aimed to distinguish different varieties of CLIL implementations, they also need some clarifications, as they include immersion, both partial and total, and this may imply an assumption that any foreign language immersion is a variety of CLIL. This raises a question of differentiating between CLIL and immersion when some curriculum subjects or the whole curriculum is taught in a foreign language. The answer to this question may be found in the original definition of CLIL with its emphasis on the ‘dual-focused aims’ of CLIL, while language immersion implies using a foreign language as a medium of instruction, the goal of instruction being the subject content. Arguably, the difference between CLIL and using a foreign language as a language of instruction is that CLIL implies an actual integration of two aims – teaching for a specific content knowledge and teaching for foreign language competence. The concept of integration was specified in detail by Coyle, Hood, Marsh and Bentley (Coyle et al., 2010; Bentley, 2010), who identify 4 interrelated components integrated through the implementation of CLIL (‘4 Cs’) - content, communication, cognition, culture. This approach makes it possible not only to distinguish CLIL from language immersion, but also to define CLIL through teaching aims and learning outcomes (Bentley, 2010, p. 7). Thus, there is a difference between foreign language immersion method and CLIL. Immersion enhances a foreign language acquisition in general and creates favourable conditions for it through using the target language as the language of instruction, but it does not presuppose the implementation of CLIL unless the lesson aims at integrating the “4 Cs”. Anderson et al. (2015, p. 140) note that CLIL may often be understood as an approach more suitable for older children, already equipped with more advanced academic/cognitive skills as well as perhaps some competence in the target language. At the same time, CLIL has a great deal of potential in teaching young learners. Marsh (2000) argues that CLIL offers young learners more realistic and natural opportunities to learn and use an additional language in such a way that they soon forget about learning the language as such and focus only on learning the content.

14

Mapping Pre-primary CLIL in Russia

225

Federal State Educational Standard for Pre-school Education and the Content of Integration with Foreign Language Education At pre-primary level, where there are no particular subjects, and where it is more appropriate to use the term development rather than teaching, it seems to be reasonable to identify the areas of children’s development which may be integrated in foreign language education. The Russian Federal Standard for Pre-school Education sets the following areas for children’s development and education: social and communicative area, cognitive development, speech development, artistic and aesthetic development, physical development (Standard, 2013, p. 10). Arguably, all these areas may be integrated with foreign language education. According to the Standard, cognitive development at preschool age involves such areas as properties and relationships of objects (form, shape, size, quality, etc.), the development of skills of using numbers (Standard, 2013, p. 10). Barkova and Selivanovskaya suggest integrating learning these concepts and skills not only with foreign language learning, but also with various activities and games (Barkova & Selivanovskaya, 2020, p. 28). For example, “children cut basic geometrical shapes drawn on cartons, then using these shapes, they construct pictures. Teacher gives instructions: “Cut the circles. Take 3 circles: a small circle, a big circle, a very big circle. Put the biggest circle in the bottom, put the big circle above it, put the small circle on top. Look! It is a snowman!” (Barkova & Selivanovskaya, 2020, p. 29). Another example demonstrates the integration of learning counting and English. “Children are asked to tidy the room and to put the toys into the box. Teacher: Let’s tidy the room. Count the toys on the floor. Take the kitten. Put it into the box. How many toys are there on the floor?” (Barkova & Selivanovskaya, 2020, p. 30). One more example may be given for teaching such notions as long and short. Children learn to measure things with the help of steps or other objects. They are asked to count the length of the classroom, the carpet on the floor, their playground etc. (Teacher’s instructions: How long is the carpet? Count your steps.) (Barkova & Selivanovskaya, 2020, p. 30). At preschool age children also learn about the world around them, nature, birds, animals, plants, etc. (Standard, 2013, p. 10). Many activities integrating these topics with foreign language education may be suggested. For example, matching the pictures, when children match the pictures while listening to the teacher: A bird lives in a nest. (Barkova & Selivanovskaya, 2020, p. 30). Besides, learning about nature may involve a whole range of research activities: observations and projects, which are suitable for integrating foreign language education. All the above examples may be described as implementation of the soft CLIL model. Artistic and aesthetic development is also an area which involves various kinds of children’s activities (drawing, painting, modelling, crafts) which may be integrated with language education. These activities are used in the process of early foreign language education (Vronskaya, 2016). As Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010, p. 17)

226

V. Pogosian et al.

point out that “it is often hard to distinguish CLIL from standard forms of good practice in early language learning” in which young learners’ “main focus is on the doing – be it playing, singing, drawing, building models, or other activities”. At the same time, it is possible to identify if CLIL is used, if the above mentioned 4 Cs are integrated in the lesson, particularly, content and cognition. It may be argued that CLIL refers to the integration of foreign language education with other areas of education, while physical development of children is not such a sphere, as it deals with training of the body and health. At the same time, when physical training sessions are conducted through the implementation of TPR, these sessions may be used for introducing and training such vocabulary topics as Body Parts, Verbs of Movement, etc. In this case, again, only if all the 4 components implied by CLIL are involved in the lesson, the physical development lessons may be described as CLIL. Social and communicative development, as well as speech development included in the Standard refer to the native language and culture. At the same time, combining these areas of development with teaching foreign languages is certain to enhance both native and foreign language development and raise language awareness. For example, when children learn how to be polite, how to behave in certain social situations (for example, eating, asking for help, etc.) in their own culture, they would be ready and interested to learn and compare the patterns of communication and behaviour in other cultures. In this case CLIL is quite applicable for teaching social skills both in native in foreign cultures. The above overview demonstrates that even when lessons of foreign language are offered 2 times per week, a soft model of CLIL may be implemented in case the teacher, as a programme designer and implementer, decides to do it. That is why teachers’ views on CLIL implementation at pre-primary level of education are to be found out.

Russian Teachers’ Views on CLIL Implementation at Pre-primary Level of Education Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia (Saint Petersburg) was the first university in Russia which started training foreign language teachers for pre-primary institutions in the end of 1980s. Initially it offered a 5-year training programme “Methodology of teaching foreign languages for pre-primary learners” (Pogosian, 2008). The graduates of this programme were qualified to work full-time in kindergartens not only as foreign language teachers, but also as teachers of the whole pre-primary curriculum; besides, they were qualified to give courses on pre-primary pedagogy and psychology at teacher training colleges. Later it was found out that the graduates preferred to teach only foreign languages, and this programme was terminated and replaced with a new programme. Currently the university offers Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programmes training foreign language teachers for pre-primary and primary levels of education. CLIL is included as one of the topics of the courses on Methodology of Teaching Foreign Languages to

14

Mapping Pre-primary CLIL in Russia

227

Young Learners. The students not only develop theoretical knowledge of CLIL, but also get some practical skills during their teaching practice where they are engaged in lesson observations and analyses, and also in teaching; some students write their graduation papers on CLIL and conduct research in this area. Besides, the students are trained for taking a TKT (Teacher Knowledge Test) which has a special module on CLIL, and this module is based on the ‘4Cs’ approach (Bentley, 2010). To find out Russian teachers’ views on implementing CLIL in pre-primary foreign language education, an on-line questionnaire was held with 48 respondents replying. All the respondents were English teachers working in state and private kindergartens of Saint Petersburg, teaching 3–6 year old children, using different syllabi and teaching approaches. The respondents’ teaching experience varied from 2 to 10 years. Only 5 of them (10%) had teaching qualifications in the field of early foreign language education; 60% had taken various short-term courses on methods of teaching foreign languages or participated in workshops offered by various publishers of teaching/learning materials for foreign language education (Express Publishing, Cambridge University Press Publishing, Pearson English, Macmillan Publishers, etc.). The questionnaire consisted of 10 questions, 6 of them were multiple-choice and 4 open ended. The respondents replied to the questions concerning their understanding of CLIL, the reasons for using CLIL, its advantages and disadvantages, and the content areas of integration. The analysis of the replies revealed that the majority (92%) know about CLIL and how to apply it in pre-primary teaching. For 60% of those who are aware of CLIL, it is associated with using a foreign language during such activities as drawing, crafting, modelling, 55% understand CLIL as a partial or total foreign language immersion. Two thirds of the respondents pointed out that they use CLIL. Basically, according to those who employ CLIL, the content integrated into foreign language lessons covers such topics as numbers and counting and other mathematical concepts (87,5%), drawing (75%); 25% of teachers also mentioned topics related to nature. Those who do not use CLIL explained that they are not sure how to use CLIL correctly, and that the preparation for lessons with CLIL is time consuming. Among the benefits of CLIL in pre-primary education the respondents pointed out the possibility to introduce new vocabulary in interesting and motivating situations and hence the possibility to hold children’s attention, as well as a positive impact on learners’ memorization of the vocabulary. Those teachers who do not think that CLIL is efficient in pre-primary language education consider that it can make the process of learning more complicated. They explain that a 20–30 min lesson does not allow introducing any other theme besides the target language.

A Case of CLIL Implementation The following section describes how CLIL approach has been implemented by two educational institutions at pre-primary level in Russia.

228

V. Pogosian et al.

The CLIL Context This section will be focusing on two language schools participating in a longitudinal study of CLIL implementation in Russia. One of the schools is situated in Moscow, the other is situated in Norilsk, Krasnoyarsk Krai. Both schools have been offering 60-min CLIL classes to children aged 3–6 years old since 2020. The children are divided in small groups (up to 10 children in each group) by age (3–4, 4–5, 5–6 and 6–7 yo). The Moscow school runs classes 5 times a week in the morning, whereas the Norilsk school provides them twice a week in the afternoon. Nevertheless, both schools follow a similar CLIL programme that will be described below. According to the school administration, the main reasons to introduce the CLIL programme were the directors’ desire to implement innovative methods in language teaching as well as the popularity of the CLIL approach among European communities. The lessons are taught by experienced teachers who have been working with very young learners for more than 5 years. The teachers are Russian who speak English fluently (C1 or above on CEFR scale). Each teacher is assigned the groups to work with through all the pre-primary years. The details of how teaching/learning is organised is summarised in Table 14.1.

Programme Structure Curriculum model for pre-primary education (Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation, 2015) points out the importance of whole-child development of children at pre-primary level that includes physical, cognitive, social and communication areas. Therefore, the thematic-based CLIL variety was chosen for the language lessons that allows to integrate all areas of development into language learning (Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011). Table 14.1 Moscow and Norilsk language schools Length of classes Frequency of classes Time Teachers

Groups Age groups

Moscow 60 min

Norilsk 60 min

5 classes a week

2 classes a week

Morning 2 teachers (5+ years of experience, C1+ on CEFR scale) 8–10 children 3–4 yo (1) 4–5 yo (1) 5–6 yo (1) 6–7 yo (1)

Afternoon 2 teachers (5+ years of experience, C1 on CEFR scale), each teacher works with their own groups 8–10 children 4–5 yo (2) 5–6 yo (1) 6–7 (1)

14

Mapping Pre-primary CLIL in Russia

229

The programme consists of thematic blocks, each comprising several lessons. Each block allows children to develop both content and language knowledge. Though CLIL is a balanced dual-focused approach, the content plays an important role and determines the language to be included in the lesson. Therefore, every lesson has a clear content aim to be taught that allows teachers to identify the language to be dealt with throughout the lesson (Bentley, 2010).

Overview of a Sample Block The sample thematic block presented here is called “Polar lands” that has been designed for children aged 5–6 yo. The main aim of the block is for children to learn about polar lands and how they differ from other regions. In order to reach the content aim the children will require the following vocabulary – polar animals (seal, whale, polar bear, penguin, etc) and such structures as “It lives . . .”, “It doesn’t live . . .”, “It’s cold/snowy/etc”, “I need a jacket/scarf/etc”, “It can . . .”. The main aim can be divided into several sub-aims that facilitate lesson planning for teachers (See Table 14.2 below). The whole block is built on the knowledge that the learners already possess with a subsequent elaboration through different activities. For example, they might know that polar lands are cold, but they have to analyse and evaluate this knowledge to choose the best clothes for their Polar trip. This goes in accordance with Coyle et al. (2010) who underline the importance of creating students’ own knowledge based on acquired knowledge. Moreover, these lessons involve children in meaningful interaction through sensory boxes, scientific and art projects, sharing their ideas and pretend-playing.

CLIL Implementation Outcomes It is too early to evaluate the results of the CLIL programme described above as it has been run only for 2 years. However, the CLIL teachers and school administrators have been interviewed to find out their attitudes towards CLIL implementation in this context. The teachers pointed out that the children get easily involved and motivated in the lesson. They are eager to complete different activities, especially scientific and art projects. The teachers explain that the content-driven nature of the lessons allows them to respond to learners’ needs and interests. This is in line with Lasagabaster and Beloqui (2015) who underline that CLIL approach has a positive influence on some components of motivation. CLIL lessons have encouraged the teachers to use more varied language units and provide plenty of meaningful input. Moreover, the learners are engaged into natural interaction that develops their overall language awareness. Similar results have been observed by Ikeda (2019) when comparing CLIL and PPP lesson frameworks. The

230

V. Pogosian et al.

Table 14.2 The sub-aims of the thematic block “Polar lands” Sub-aim Where are polar lands? How do they differ from other regions?

What animals live in polar lands? How do South and North pole habitats differ?

How can polar animals survive extreme cold?

Possible activities prepare for their travel to the poles; learn where polar lands are situated on the world map; complete their own maps; discuss how local weather differs from the region where the kids come from; group art project “Polar lands”; choose what clothes they need when travelling to the poles, discuss why they might need and get ready for their trip; act out Finger play “Keep me warm” with various pieces of clothing; set off on polar adventures; make binoculars to spot the polar animals; go on a polar scavenger hunt; choose the animals that can live in the North/South Pole complete a Venn diagram (North Pole vs South Pole) create a sensory box “North Pole” and “South Pole” How can people keep warm in cold weather? brainstorm ideas and act them out Why do polar animals never get cold? scientific experiment “Blubber science” that demonstrates how blubber helps polar animals keep warm

Key vocabulary The North Pole; The South Pole; pieces of clothing (a jacket, a scarf, a hat, mittens, boots, etc.)

Key structures It’s cold; It’s snowy; It’s windy; Keep my . . . warm; I need . . . .;

Polar animals (a polar bear, an arctic fox, a snowy owl, an arctic hare, a penguin, a puffin, a seal, a whale, an orca, etc.)

It lives in North/South Pole; It doesn’t live in North/South Pole; It lives in water/on land; It doesn’t live in water/on land;

The students usually get creative at this stage and come up with various ideas, so teachers have to work a lot with emergent language. Experiment - cold water, ice, butter

The students usually get creative at this stage and come up with various ideas, so teachers have to work a lot with emergent language. Experiment – deep it in the water, it’s cold, it’s colder/warmer.

14

Mapping Pre-primary CLIL in Russia

231

teachers were observed to use more varied language structures when delivering CLIL classes. On the other hand, both the school administrators and teachers notice that CLIL lesson preparation requires more time and financial support. It could be explained by the fact that there are not many CLIL materials for preschoolers available in Russia. That is why the teachers tend to adapt materials designed for American or British Curricula. Moreover, in order to create engaging art/scientific projects, sensory boxes or pretend-play scenes the school has to invest into additional supplies.

Conclusion To sum up, educational opportunities for pre-school foreign language learners are different and vary greatly from two 30 min foreign language lessons a week to the whole day of learning activities, which depends on the type of the kindergarten, the foreign language programme, as well as professional teachers’ skills. There is great interest in CLIL among kindergarten teachers in Russia. Social and communicative areas, cognitive, speech development, artistic and aesthetic development, and physical development are the areas which can be integrated with foreign language education in kindergartens in Russia at least through the implementation of the soft CLIL model. Although mapping CLIL implementation in Russia is challenging, as the foreign language programmes for young learners usually are not disclosed by the institutions offering them, based on the teachers’ views it is possible to state the following. The soft CLIL model may be and is implemented in state kindergartens, the hard CLIL model is implemented mainly in private kindergartens. The teachers practising CLIL consider the method to be effective as it makes learners understand and use a foreign language in a natural way, it helps memorizing new vocabulary and makes general education more exciting to children. At the same time, as the teachers express concern that the preparation for a CLIL lesson is time consuming, there is a need for more learning materials for CLIL implementation to be published. Besides, there is a need for in-service teachers training in CLIL application.

References Anderson, C. E., McDougald, J. S., & Cuesta Medina, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C. N. Giannikas, L. McLaughlin, G. Fanning, & N. Deutsch Muller (Eds.), Children learning English: From research to practice (pp. 137–151). Garnet. Barkova, A. F., & Selivanovskaya, O. A. (2020). Using CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) while teaching English to preschool children. Pedagogy. Theory & Practice, 5(1), 27–32. Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course: CLIL module. CUP. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.

232

V. Pogosian et al.

Federal State Educational Standard of Pre-primary Education. (2013). Retrieved https://base.garant. ru/70512244/53f89421bbdaf741eb2d1ecc4ddb4c33/ Ikeda, M. (2019). CLIL in comparison with PPP: A revolution in ELT by competency-based language education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12567-7_3 Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education. PROCLIL. Koricheva, N. (2021). Foreign language teaching toolkit to Foster young learners to communicate in English. Russian preschool context. Ita-Suomen yliopisto. Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Lasagabaster, D., & Beloqui, R. L. (2015). The impact of type of approach (CLIL Versus EFL) and methodology (Book-Based Versus Project Work) on Motivation. Porta Linguarium, 41–57. Marsh, D. (1994). Bilingual Education & Content and language integrated learning. International Association for Cross-cultural Communication, Language Teaching in the Member States of the European Union (Lingua) University of Sorbonne. Marsh, D. (2000). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages: An introduction to content and language integrated learning for parents and young people (D. Marsh & G. Langé, Eds.). TIE-CLIL, University of Jyväskylä/Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation. (2015). Curriculum model for pre-primary education. Pogosian, V. (2008). The Russian system of training teachers of foreign languages for young learners: History and new developments. In: Seminar papers on early foreign language education. University of Joensuu (pp. 48–58). http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_978-952-219188-5/urn_isbn_978-952-219-188-5.pdf Pogosian, V. (2014). Teaching foreign languages to preschool children in Russia. In J. Enever, E. Lindgren, & S. Ivanov (Eds.), Conference proceedings from early language learning: Theory and practice 2014. Umea, 12–14 June 2014 (pp. 95–100). Umea University. Sanitary Rules and Norms for Pre-school Educational Institutions. (May 15, 2013). https://base. garant.ru/70414724/ Vronskaya, I. V. (2016). 105 English lessons with pre-schoolers. КАРО.

CLIL for Pre-primary Education in South America: Curriculum and Practice Darío Luis Banegas

, Marisa Cleff

15

, and Luciana Ferna´ndez

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-primary Education in South America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL in South America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The CLIL Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL Instances into the South-American Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-primary CLIL in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

234 234 235 236 238 240 240 243 244 245

Abstract

CLIL for pre-primary education is an area which has not received systematic research attention in South America. While CLIL with pre-primary learners have gained traction in the continent, its implementation has been limited to private institutions or incipient and local initiatives run in state schools. Against this background, the aim of the chapter is to describe CLIL curriculum development and enactment with pre-primary learners at institutional level. As research publications in the region are scarce, the chapter adopts case study and narrative inquiry to describe experiences located in different South American cities. The chapter also features teachers’ narratives and views as vignettes to describe onsite practice. The chapter is organised as follows: (1) A brief description of D. L. Banegas (*) School of Education, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland e-mail: [email protected] M. Cleff Gente Miúda School, Rio Grande, Brazil L. Fernández Colegio Galileo – ESSARP, La Plata, Argentina © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_15

233

234

D. L. Banegas et al.

pre-primary education in the region, (2) A brief situated description of CLIL in South America, (3) A discussion of CLIL curriculum and practice and how they may inform policy, (4) A critical description of CLIL curriculum illustrated by cases from different Latin American cities, (5) A description of practice illustrated with vignettes written by practitioners, and (6) concluding remarks based on the cases and vignettes presented. Keywords

South America · CLIL · Curriculum · Practice · Pre-primary · Argentina · Brazil

Introduction Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) can be broadly understood as an educational approach which merges the teaching of school content and an additional language. In most cases, this entails the teaching of curricular subject matter through the medium of English. CLIL has gained traction in primary (e.g., Pappa, 2021), secondary (e.g., Fazzi & Lasagabaster, 2021), and higher education (e.g., Fajardo Dack et al., 2020) given its dual aim of delivering curricular content and additional language learning in tandem. Recent publications (e.g., Carrió-Pastor & BellésFortuño, 2021; Hemmi & Banegas, 2021; Merino & Lasagabaster, 2018) show that CLIL exercises a positive influence on learners’ development across levels of education in multilingual/multicultural settings. Notwithstanding, CLIL in pre-primary is an area which has received less attention in academic publications even when it is often adopted in private bilingual schools. In the context of South America, the teaching of at least one additional language is often present in primary, secondary, and higher education usually undergirded in communicative language teaching approaches. While it may be optional in primary, additional language learning is more dominant in secondary education. This cursory view demonstrates that the teaching of additional languages in pre-primary is still in its infancy (Ghiglione, 2011) and legislation is patchy (Truscott de Mejía & Fonseca Duque, 2009); however, there are some examples of English language education in this level of education by conflating content and language learning. The aim of the chapter is to discuss CLIL curriculum development and enactment with pre-primary learners at institutional level in South America.

Pre-primary Education in South America In South America, pre-primary education can take many forms and labels. In broad terms, pre-primary education may comprise formal education from 45 days of age to 5 or 6. Educational systems such those of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia or Uruguay exhibit a tendency to consider mandatory the formal education of children between the ages of 4 and 5 (Da Silva, 2021; Pinto & Misas, 2014; Soarez da Silva &

15

CLIL for Pre-primary Education in South America: Curriculum and Practice

235

Noronha de Souza, 2014). Across the systems in these countries and their legislation, there is a shared understanding that pre-primary education aims at providing learners with experiences and experiential instruction that will contribute to their identity, social skills, citizenship, and comprehensive wellbeing. In relation to the dominant paradigms that characterise pre-primary education in the region, a study conducted on the pre-primary curriculum design of nine countries (Requena Arellano & Dávila Padrón, 2021) reveals that national legislations and pedagogical decisions are informed by a social constructivist perspective, i.e., a social view of learning that emphasises the construction of meaningful experiences in interaction. Previous publications have also been emphatic about the learnercentred approach in kindergarten. For example, Malajovich (2000) suggests that an inquiry-based approach to education not only responds to children’s interests and curiosity, but it also hones their autonomy and cooperation skills. Ramírez and Román (2005) add that a focus on autonomy within a framework that encourages social interaction, creativity, and play can shape and be shaped by an agenda that promotes diversity and differentiation. The authors underline that learners have the right to an education that is adapted to their needs and contextual circumstances. It should be highlighted that what these authors expect is nothing more than what may naturally exist outside formal education, i.e., heterogeneity, interaction, and curiosity and drive to solve problems. In response to this pedagogical architecture, between the ages of 4 and 5, learners in kindergarten become engaged in a wide arrange of activities, often game-based and inquiry-driven, connected to different areas of education such as emotions and social understanding, physical, the natural and social environments, mathematics, artistic expression, and language. Language learning in pre-primary predominantly entails developing mediation skills in the dominant language of a wider context (e.g., Spanish in Argentina, or Portuguese in Brazil). This is, in most cases, the learners’ first language (L1). In addition, there are pre-primary initiatives and government legislation and programmes that promote what is termed intercultural bilingual education, i.e., the teaching of heritage languages (Becerra Lubies & Mayo González, 2017) in areas with indigenous children (e.g. Mapuche communities in Chile). Other programmes, often found in the private sector, promote the teaching of additional languages such as English alongside the language of the wider context or partial or total instruction in one or two additional languages. For example, in the city of Trevelin, southern Argentina, a private school has a multilingual approach as they include Spanish (L1), Welsh (heritage immigrant language), and English (additional language). It is within this context that CLIL emerges as a viable approach in the provision of bilingual education from an early age.

CLIL in South America CLIL crossed the Atlantic and landed in South America around the year 2008 judging by seminal publications about CLIL in Argentina and Colombia, as identified in Banegas et al. (2020) and the commodification of CLIL among private

236

D. L. Banegas et al.

schools in Brazil as a distinctive feature of quality and superiority in educational services (Landau et al., 2021). As in other settings, CLIL has been channelled through a plethora of models that, when placed on a continuum, prioritise either content learning or L2 learning, with heterogeneous combinations and modes of delivery between these two ends. Educational legislation materialised through curricula and guidelines for teaching additional languages may suggest the deployment of CLIL alongside other language teaching approaches such as task-based learning depending on specific circumstances such as learners’ development in the additional language (often English) taught or technical/vocational pathways within secondary education provision (Banegas, 2021). A thorough review of current legislation demonstrates that there are no policies which mandate the use of CLIL. In their review of CLIL in Latin America, Banegas et al. (2020) analysed 41 empirical studies and 19 reflective or practice-driven accounts published between 2008 and 2018. The authors detected the following common themes across these publications: (1) CLIL pedagogy, (2) CLIL perceptions and beliefs, (3) teacher education, (4) global citizenship, and (5) language development. These topics reveal that CLIL in South America is garnering attention not only in terms of provision and implementation but also in terms of teacher preparation. Concomitant with these interests, Banegas (2021) concludes that CLIL in South America has yielded positive findings pertaining to language learning motivation and intercultural communicative competence and citizenship, and mixed results concerning language learning and cognitive development. Banegas et al.’s (2020) review highlights that there is a tendency to witness CLIL implementation in the private sector, particularly in primary and secondary education possibly due to the higher number of contact hours in L2 that characterise private bilingual education. In this regard, publications on CLIL in primary education (e.g., Correa Guzmán, 2017; Leal, 2016) seem to indicate that as learners are younger, CLIL tends to be implemented as an educational approach and hence, content delivered in an L2, almost exclusively English, is foregrounded.

The CLIL Curriculum For the purposes of this chapter it may suffice to understand the term curriculum as a construct that refers to the processes that underlie the design, delivery and evaluation of a course (Graves, 2008; Richards, 2013; Young, 2014). A curriculum is an organiser that helps educational actors plan and monitor the input, teaching and learning processes, and outputs of a course by attending to different dimensions. According to Macalister and Nation (2020), curriculum design processes consist of several parts which could be organised around two interrelated dimensions. One dimension includes those broad elements that lead to macro decisions. Such elements are: needs analysis, environment analysis, and educational principles. The second dimension may be understood as influenced by those broader elements, and it involves the delineations of goals and the associated development of content and sequencing, monitoring and assessment, and format and presentation. Both

15

CLIL for Pre-primary Education in South America: Curriculum and Practice

237

dimensions are subject to constant curriculum evaluation. How these elements are considered may vary as they are influenced by contextual circumstances, policy, and ideological views on education. As discussed above, CLIL curriculum models can be placed along a continuum that ranges from content-driven CLIL, i.e. the teaching of a school subject through the medium of an additional language, to language-driven CLIL, i.e. the teaching of an additional language through contextualising topics coming from the school curriculum. Regardless of the decisions that prompt an institution to adopt a particular model, certain frameworks inform curriculum design and practice. According to Halbach (2020), three frameworks have gained traction among practitioners and researchers. The 4Cs Framework (Coyle et al., 2010) has been widely adopted to inform CLIL models given its wide-encompassing nature. The Cs represent content (the subject matter), communication (language learning), cognition (thinking skills development), and culture (intercultural awareness). A second framework is that put forward in Ball et al. (2015). This framework revolves around three dimensions: concepts (i.e. content), language and procedures. The latter refers to the competences learners need to develop to reach the learning outcomes in a course. These competences amalgamate thinking skills as well as other intellectual processes that help learners increase their knowledge of content and an additional language. A third framework is that based on literacy since language is the medium through which content is delivered and co-constructed with learners. Hence, this framework emphasises working with text genres and academic language functions. In this framework, and to some extent the others mentioned, language is approached from a systemic functional perspective. From this stance, language is a meaning-making system and as such, learners are supported in the development of making themselves understood within an academic environment. It may be said that these three frameworks respond to those micro-elements of curriculum design since they organise CLIL curriculum delivery in relation to goals and how these are operationalised in a manner that is systemically coherent and conceptually sound. Recent publications have discussed CLIL curriculum development in different settings and educational levels. For example, Carrió-Pastor (2020) underscores that CLIL implementation from primary to higher education in Spain has necessitated the formulation of new language and educational policies that provides a validating framework for CLIL in practice. The author asserts that CLIL has been taken as an approach that enriches the language curriculum because it is based on social needs rather than on discrete linguistic elements such as grammar. However, Carrió-Pastor signals that a weakness that CLIL has in Spain is that both content and language teachers have little participation in curriculum design and development, particularly in relation to the elements included in Macalister and Nation’s (2020) second dimension of curriculum development. As it will be described in this chapter, in the case of pre-primary education, Coyle et al. (2010) state that The most typical models found with pre-school children often involve games and other playbased activities – a ludic approach, where the vehicular language is used to a greater or lesser

238

D. L. Banegas et al.

extent. (. . .) It is often hard to distinguish CLIL from other standard forms of good practice (. . .) because the learning topic is often highly authentic for the children. (p. 16)

This quote recognises that the integration of content and language is an inherent property in the very early stages of formal education. Hence, authenticity, which is one of the distinctive features of CLIL (Pinner, 2021), plays a pivotal role since learners begin to construct their knowledge and experience of the world through a language or languages in naturalistic-oriented forms typical of their physical-socioemotional development. Suggestions for CLIL seem to be shared with primary education. For example, in 2011, Ioannou-Georgiou and Pavlou edited a volume on guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary. Ioannou-Georgiou (2011) highlights that to move from successful CLIL curriculum design to implementation, teachers need to find support in other teachers, digital technologies, and parents through open communication channels to cement it as an institutional undertaking. The author adds that learners need to be placed at the centre so that CLIL resonates with them within a safe and nurturing environment. In the same volume, Massler, IoannouGeorgiou and Steiert (2011) put forward helpful teaching techniques that respond to supporting verbal, content, and learning process scaffolding. Across the recommended strategies, the authors emphasise the roles that the learners’ L1 can play in facilitating input, output and classroom interaction.

CLIL Instances into the South-American Pre-primary Education This section describes instances of CLIL curriculum in practice according to a selection of cases from different South American cities. The selection does not intend to be representative of the plethora of circumstances and options available to families. However, they illustrate that bilingual education is an educational model that has proliferated in private, often elitist, education. The information collected to construct these cases comes from institutional websites. Despite the public availability of this information, we have preferred to maintain the schools’ anonymity for ethical reasons. Case 1: Bogotá This case is a private school in Colombia’s capital city. The kindergarten curriculum is anchored in two interconnected approaches to education. The first is the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. This approach places learners as active constructors of knowledge within a collaborative, creative, and democratic environment (McNally & Slutsky, 2017). The second approach refers to STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and maths) (Khine & Areepattamannil, 2019), which the school channels through projects that learners carry out to solve different problems. The curriculum also highlights the importance that digital technologies and the arts play in promoting the children’s curiosity, needs, and wants.

15

CLIL for Pre-primary Education in South America: Curriculum and Practice

239

Case 2: Santiago de Chile This case is an exclusive private school in Chile’s capital city. The kindergarten curriculum aims at the development of children’s independence and autonomy, selfconfidence, social skills, work habits, logical thinking and math readiness, fine and gross motor development, literacy (pre-reading and pre-writing skills), listening and speaking skills, and English language learning. The latter is in fact omnipresent since all classroom instruction is delivered through the medium of English. The combination of what we may call linguistic and non-linguistic aims is achieved through the deployment of project-based instruction, which places children as agents of their own investigations. Case 3: Córdoba This case is a private trilingual (Spanish, English, and French) school located in the second largest city of Argentina. Kindergarten is organised in four classrooms according to age (2, 3, 4, and 5). In 2 and 3, learners are exposed to what the school calls early immersion to develop awareness of English. In 4, learners acquire English while working on projects that stimulate their curiosity and creativity. In 5, the curriculum splits into two, according to the language of instruction. In the morning, learners work on the official curriculum for kindergarten. In the afternoon, English is taught through science, maths, literature, drama, and the arts. From the institutional website, it is not clear whether the English-medium curriculum responds to the official curriculum, delivered in Spanish, or the forms in which content and language learning are integrated and operationalised. Case 4: Quito This is a private bilingual school in Ecuador’s capital city. The kindergarten curriculum follows an inquiry-based, interdisciplinary framework which sees learners as active agents of their own learning. Thus, they work on projects that allow them to develop situated knowledge and hone their personal skills within a supporting community and nurturing environment. English is the language of instruction and learners are supported by both kindergarten as well as teachers of English. Case 5: Lima This is a private bilingual school in Peru’s capital city. The kindergarten curriculum’s main aim is to stimulate learner development in cognitive, affective, and psychomotor areas. The integration of content and language learning is operationalised through project-based education. The projects are carried out in spaces termed learning centres, spaces in which the learners share their projects to promote inquiry attitudes, critical thinking, responsibility, and autonomy. English is used to carry out these projects and further reinforced through play, arts-based activities, and martial arts. Albeit limited, the information provided by the institutions on their websites shows that CLIL is implemented through project-based learning as it allows a holistic learning experience that combines learner-centredness and genuine

240

D. L. Banegas et al.

interdisciplinarity. Hence, the 4Cs parameters and concepts, languages, and procedures are conflated to engage learners in inclusive understandings of literacy through project-based learning. According to Krajcik and Shin (2014), Project-based learning is a form of situated learning and it is based on the constructivist finding that students gain a deeper understanding of material when they actively construct their understandings by working with and using ideas. In project-based learning, students engage in real, meaningful problems that are important to them. A project-based classroom allows students to investigate questions, propose hypotheses and explanations, discuss their ideas, challenge the ideas of others, and try out new ideas. (pp. 275–276)

When reflecting on these five cases, it may be concurred that they are aligned with a project-based vision of learning since it is learners who engage in active construction of learning by working on a question of their own within their context and in interaction with others. In line with the institutions’ aims for kindergarten, a CLIL curriculum oriented towards project-based learning contributes to the development of curiosity, creativity, and autonomy. Furthermore, English is operationalised as another language to create meanings, understandings, and knowledge. Together with projects, the institutions also emphasise play-based learning (Fesseha & Pyle, 2016) to support children’s growth in a stimulating environment. In sum, these cases show how CLIL can be combined with different language teaching approaches and broad educational models that promote holistic learning. It is important to underscore that in this combination of pedagogical perspectives, children always play a pivotal role since they are at the centre of curriculum and instruction.

Pre-primary CLIL in Practice Underpinned by an interpretivist paradigm, this chapter combines case study research (Yin, 2018) and narrative inquiry (Barkhuizen, 2013). Two selected educators with experience and expertise in pre-primary English were invited to write a narrative text which addressed the following questions based on their recent practice: (a) What’s your teaching context like?, (b) What are the aims of your class/curriculum?, (c) How do you put CLIL into practice?, (d), How did the learners react to what you have described in the previous question?, (e) In your experience, what are the benefits of CLIL with your pre-primary learners?, and (f) What challenges do you face sometimes?

Argentina In the following vignette, Laura (pseudonym) summarised her work at a new school in the city of La Plata in which she is the English provision coordinator. Galileo is a private school in La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina. It is a bilingual school in which children learn Spanish, which is their mother tongue, and English.

15

CLIL for Pre-primary Education in South America: Curriculum and Practice

241

Galileo School opened its doors in 2020 with only two groups: 2 year-olds and 3 year-olds. At present there is one more group: 4 year-olds. Children attend school every day from 8 am to 4 pm, but because of the pandemic they are now (March, 2021) attending school every day from 8 to 12 pm. The three groups attending school at present have daily English classes which last from 20 to 30 min, and these classes are conducted by the teacher of English and sometimes by the coordinator as well. Once the pandemic is over and children start coming to school as initially planned, English teachers will enter the classroom more often and work collaboratively with the Spanish teacher. In Galileo School the additional language is English and it is used as a medium for overall learning. Teaching is adapted according to the competences and the needs of the learners. The additional language is integrated in the everyday practices for learning. In class, the choice for the language depends on the objectives and the situations involved. We make sure children have exposure to English in different situations (arrival, dismissal, toilet and snack time) to ensure that English becomes part of our learners’ daily life. Apart from the daily routine in which we greet learners, discuss weather and check attendance, we plan activities that allow the learners to learn content and skills within the thematic unit which may or may not be shared with the Spanish teacher. Sometimes thematic units are shared, that is to say, both teachers plan a thematic unit and some skills and content are learnt in both languages and sometimes in one language or the other. If the thematic unit is not shared (for example the Spanish teacher might be working on a thematic unit on Families while the teacher of English may be working on another one on Means of transport), both teachers agree on skills or links across the curriculum that can be made. From the very beginning all of us in Galileo agreed we wanted both languages, Spanish and English to co-exist and that teachers could, as much as possible, share projects and/or thematic units. At Galileo there is an English Syllabus with specific vocabulary and grammar that children need to learn but when it comes to content, we make sure teachers of English can support the national curriculum contents when possible. This is why our teachers make sure language becomes a vehicle for the learning of science, social studies, math, PE, etc. For example, both Spanish and English teachers decided to work on a thematic unit about autumn. This became a perfect context for language within the English syllabus (colours, numbers, feelings, weather) but the teacher of English planned together with the Spanish teacher so that while children are learning and using the language they are also involved in the learning of skills and content of other subject areas. The following is vocabulary which is included in the Language syllabus: colours, numbers from 1 to 10, adjectives: big and small. The following structures are also included in the Language syllabus: What color is it? It is. . ., Is it big or small? It is. . ., How many? There is /are. . ., This is bigger than / smaller than. . ., There are more / less. . . We asked K2 (4 year-olds) families to go for a walk with their children and collect fallen leaves (they were asked to bring fallen leaves of different colours and sizes) and these are some of the activities we carried out during English classes. We

242

D. L. Banegas et al.

classified leaves according to colour, size and shape which is a math skill that allowed us to use the language meaningfully (Fig. 15.1). With our three year-olds we worked with the storybook “Little Blue and Little Yellow” and apart from revising colours, we took the opportunity to work on mixing colours (Fig. 15.2). During the English class and when learners see their teachers of English in other contexts such as the playground, lunch room, library or toilet they are addressed in English. We use gestures, body language and lots of realia to make ourselves understood and children take it naturally. They answer many of our questions in Spanish and that is fine for us but we just repeat what they have said in English and even invite them to repeat. To our surprise, they are using a lot of English while participating in the different activities. Translanguaging occurs all the time both inside and outside the classroom. If we feel an activity will be demanding, we might explain it in the learner’s L1 and then go back to English as the activity is in progress. At Galileo we believe this educational approach brings English into the daily life of our school and gets our children to use the two languages taught at school in different contexts and subjects. Our main objective with CLIL is to nurture our

Fig. 15.1 Classifying leaves

Fig. 15.2 Mixing colours display

15

CLIL for Pre-primary Education in South America: Curriculum and Practice

243

learners’ self confidence in using the new language and to encourage them to produce it. We believe learning curricular content in different subjects develops the learners’ communication, critical thinking, creative and collaboration skills as well as their vocabulary and structures in the target language. We are a school which only started in 2020 and we are just a few educators involved in the school project. The main challenge we are aware of is understanding that children do not need to learn something in their L1 before they can learn it or explore it in another language. Erasing the barriers between one language and the other and between different areas of the curriculum, getting teachers to plan interdisciplinary projects and work collaboratively are and will be the main challenges.

Brazil The following vignette was written by María (pseudonym) based on her teaching practice at a kindergarten school oriented towards the Reggio Emilia’s approach. As discussed above, Reggio Emilia’s philosophy is based on social constructivist theories, which define children as social active actors in the construction and determination of their social lives. The goals are to let learners think and investigate about the things around them. Her lessons for her 2–5-year olds are developed according to this approach and in line with CLIL features. The classroom teachers share their project with me. I am the only English and Spanish teacher in the kindergarten. For example, the kindergarten teacher was working with the topic of colours. I decided to put CLIL into practice. I told them the story of Pete the cat in ‘I love my white shoes’ (Litwin & Dean, 2011). For this project, I chose two iconic painters: Salvador Dalí and Piet Mondrian. I presented them to my students and associated some of their painting to Pete’s sneakers. After that, the children decided whose painting technique they would use to decorate their trainers. I used the following driving questions to support my learners: Have you visited an art exhibition? How can we use one of the techniques in Pete’ sneakers? Now that you know about these two artists, what could we do to let our sneakers be more creative? What about creating stylish sneakers with an artist signature? For another project, the topic was animals around the world. I wanted to exploit learners’ curiosity by studying wild animals, pet animals, from the brown bear story and other animals the students would like to know more about. They made cut-outs out of animals from magazines and created their own animal puppets to play and introduce them to other animals. Using a large world map, I showed the learners where the animals live, eliciting more about the places where animals live. For example, I asked: Where can we find bears? Do polar bears live in Africa? Do panda bears live in Brazil? Where’s Brazil on the map? We then played an online memory game using information about some animals (e.g., kangaroo – lives in Australia – like most marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch). For this project, I used the following driving questions to support learning: Now that you know about bears around the world, what could

244

D. L. Banegas et al.

we do to keep them safe? What about creating a fantastic place to let our bears feel protected? Through this work on animals, I introduced the following language structures: Can you describe your animal to me? What animal is it? Where does it live? What color is it? My animal is a horse, it lives on the farms, it’s white and brown. I then created a map that I placed on the board. Following up on my questions, I would then let the learners come to the board and stick a picture of their animal on the map. In both projects, the learners reacted in a positive way as they had the chance to personalise learning since they painted their own trainers in any way they wished, or decided to describe an animal of their choice. In my experience, I feel that CLIL brings benefits inside and outside the classroom as children actively participate and use the language to talk about their own explorations and discoveries. And then, parents tell me that they go back home and want to find out more about what we have worked on in class. As CLIL is something relatively new in Brazil, some subject teachers sometimes struggle to understand that we need to work together. This is a challenge because second language provision is somehow detached from the school curriculum and therefore interdisciplinary seems hard to achieve. The other challenge is teacher development. Some of the teachers at schools don’t speak English. This is sad but real. Some of them know the grammar, but they don’t worry about speaking development. They just focus on reading even from a very early age. Working with CLIL in our storytelling sessions and promoting interdisciplinary with other subject areas will help our children to develop language and content in a natural way.

Conclusion The cases and vignettes above exhibit that the pre-primary CLIL curriculum in South America takes a holistic approach to education. Learners are guided and immersed in bilingual education through pedagogical frameworks that draw on inquiry, projectbased learning, play, and the integration of areas of knowledge. Therefore, the pre-primary CLIL curriculum focuses on learners’ totalising experience, and languages play a mediating role to construct, understand, and share knowledge. This stance necessitates a comprehensive analysis of needs, contexts, and demands in order to ensure alignment between macro and micro aspects of curriculum development. As the two vignettes illustrate, successful pre-primary CLIL implementation implies a situated understanding of practice, children’s interests and activities outside and inside the school environment, and the support of their families in the deployment of pedagogical practices that hone learning as an inherent and inevitable practice of human development. In other words, learning happens everywhere, and it cannot be constrained to the school space. Children inhabit and create shared learning spaces that diffuse the apparent barriers between formal and informal learning. Such a complex and multifaceted approach to situated practice needs

15

CLIL for Pre-primary Education in South America: Curriculum and Practice

245

robust teacher preparation in pedagogy and practice, including their own literacy development in the languages of instruction. A key driver in the cases and vignettes included is learners’ holistic and inclusive experience which is, in turn, directed by curiosity, inquiry, and collaboration. It stands to reason that teachers are supported in the development of research-informed and practice-based professional skills and strategies that enhance their awareness of learners’ translingual and intercultural universes.

References Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press. Banegas, D. L. (2021). Research into practice: CLIL in South America. Language Teaching, 55, 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000622 Banegas, D. L., Poole, P. M., & Corrales, K. A. (2020). Content and language integrated learning in Latin America 2008–2018: Ten years of research and practice. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 283–305. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.2.4 Barkhuizen, G. (Ed.). (2013). Narrative research in applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Becerra Lubies, R., & Mayo González, S. (2017). Alianzas en jardines interculturales bilingües y comunidades mapuche en la Región Metropolitana, Chile: Negociaciones en una zona de contacto [Alliances between intercultural bilingual kindergartens and Mapuche communities in the Metropolitan Region, Chile]. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 25(114). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2518 Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2020). The implementation of content and language integrated learning in Spain: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. In P. Mickan & I. Wallace (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language education curriculum design (pp. 77–89). Routledge. Carrió-Pastor, M. L., & Bellés-Fortuño, B. (Eds.). (2021). Teaching language and content in multicultural and multilingual classrooms: CLIL and EMI approaches. Palgrave. Correa Guzmán, J. M. (2017). Integration of CLIL fundamentals and principles in the initial cycle at San Bonifacio de las Lanzas School. Unpublished MA thesis, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, Spain. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Da Silva, M. E. (2021). Narrativas digitales colaborativas para la creación de encuentros interculturales en una escuela pública en Montevideo [Collaborative digital narratives for the creation of intercultural encounters in a public school in Montevideo]. Revista Científica Sobre Diversidad Cultural, 5, 20–36. https://doi.org/10.30827/modulema.v5i0.17992 Fajardo Dack, T., Argudo, J., & Abad, M. (2020). Language and teaching methodology features of CLIL in university classrooms: A research synthesis. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 22(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085/13878 Fazzi, F., & Lasagabaster, D. (2021). Learning beyond the classroom: Students’ attitudes towards the integration of CLIL and museum-based pedagogies. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1714630 Fesseha, E., & Pyle, A. (2016). Conceptualising play-based learning from kindergarten teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(3), 361–377. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09669760.2016.1174105 Ghiglione, M. P. (2011). “Lo esencial es invisible a los ojos”: algunos puntos de partida para la enseñanza del inglés como lengua extranjera en el nivel inicial. El Toldo de Astier, 2(2), 1–17.

246

D. L. Banegas et al.

Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective. Language Teaching, 41(2), 147–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004867 Halbach, A. (2020). English language teaching goes CLIL: Fostering literacy and language development in secondary schools in Spain. In P. Mickan & I. Wallace (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language education curriculum design (pp. 175–189). Routledge. Hemmi, C., & Banegas, D. L. (Eds.). (2021). International perspectives on CLIL. Palgrave. Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2011). Transition into CLIL: Guidelines for the beginning stages of CLIL. In S. Ioannou-Georgiou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education (pp. 34–54). European Commission. Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (Eds.). (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education. European Commission. Khine, M., & Areepattamannil, S. (Eds.). (2019). STEAM education: Theory and practice. Springer. Krajcik, J., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based learning. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 275–297). Cambridge University Press. Landau, Albuquerque Paraná, R., & Siqueira, S. (2021). Sistemas Educacionais (SE) and CLIL developments in Brazil: From promises to prospects. In C. Hemmi & D. L. Banegas (Eds.), International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 259–279). Palgrave. Leal, J. P. (2016). Assessment in CLIL: Test development at content and language for teaching natural science in English as a foreign language. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 293–317. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2016.9.2.3 Litwin, E., & Dean, J. (2011). Pete the cat: I love my white shoes. Harper Collins. Macalister, J., & Nation, I. (2020). Language curriculum design (2nd ed.). Routledge. Malajovich, A. (Ed.). (2000). Recorridos didácticos en la educación inicial [Didactic paths in initial education]. Paidós. Massler, U., Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Steiert, C. (2011). Effective CLIL teaching techniques. In S. Ioannou-Georgiou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education (pp. 66–97). European Commission. McNally, S., & Slutsky, R. (2017). Key elements of the Reggio Emilia approach and how they are interconnected to create the highly regarded system of early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care, 187(12), 1925–1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1197920 Merino, J. A., & Lasagabaster, D. (2018). CLIL as a way to multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050. 2015.1128386 Pappa, S. (2021). Identity and emotions in teaching CLIL: The case of primary school teachers in Finland. In K. R. Talbot, M.-T. Gruber, & R. Nishida (Eds.), The psychological experience of integrating content and language (pp. 16–32). Multilingual Matters. Pinner, R. (2021). Authenticity and motivation in CLIL: Creating a meaningful purpose by experiencing the language in use. In C. Hemmi & D. L. Banegas (Eds.), International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 23–41). Palgrave. Pinto, M., & Misas, M. (2014). La educación inicial y la educación preescolar: Perspectivas de desarrollo en Colombia y su importancia en la configuración del mundo de los niños [Initial education and pre-primary: Developmental perspectives in Colombis and their importance in children’s world]. Cultura Educación y Sociedad, 5(1), 119–140. Ramírez, F., & Román, C. (2005). Mezclar la hacienda: Diversidad en las salas de jardín [Diversity in kindergarten classrooms]. e-Eccleston: Estudios sobre el Nivel Inicial, 1(2), 23–36. Requena Arellano, M. A., & Dávila Padrón, I. D. J. (2021). Coherencia interna de diseños curriculares de educación inicial en Latinoamérica en relación con su enfoque de aprendizaje [Internal coherence in initial education curriculum design in Latin America in relation to learning approaches]. Horizonte de la Ciencia, 11(20), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.26490/ uncp.horizonteciencia.2021.20.775 Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212473293

15

CLIL for Pre-primary Education in South America: Curriculum and Practice

247

Soarez da Silva, A. P., & Noronha de Souza, T. (2014). Educación de niños y niñas de 0 a 5 años en Brasil: Retos para la política y práctica de la educación infantil en el medio rural. Tabanque: Revista Pedagógica, 27, 65–82. Truscott de Mejía, A., & Fonseca Duque, L. (2009). Orientaciones para políticas bilingües y multilingües en lenguas extranjeras en Colombia. Universidad de los Andes. Available at https://bit.ly/3hsRM2s Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage. Young, M. (2014). What is a curriculum and what can it do? The Curriculum Journal, 25(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2014.902526

CLIL in Cyprus Pre-primary Education

16

Sophie Ioannou Georgiou

Contents The Cyprus Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paving the Way for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL in Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodological Aspects of CLIL in Cyprus Pre-primary Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Making CLIL a Seamless Part of the School Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Emphasis on Oral/Aural Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Songs, Games and Storytelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The CLIL Classroom: A Bilingual Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Training and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feedback and Outcomes of CLIL in Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL Awards Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parents’, Teachers’ and Childrens’ Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

250 250 251 253 253 254 254 255 257 258 258 258 259 260

Abstract

This chapter presents how CLIL is implemented in Cyprus pre-primary education. It briefly describes the Cyprus context and how foreign language learning, and CLIL especially, has been introduced in pre-primary education through a recent educational reform. It then describes the CLIL models used and the methodology which is adopted in pre-primary CLIL teaching. The chapter also discusses the teacher training and teacher support offered to CLIL teachers and concludes by presenting some research results as regards parent, teacher and children’s perceptions of the pre-primary CLIL programme.

S. Ioannou Georgiou (*) Ministry of Education, Sport and Youth, Nicosia, Cyprus e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_16

249

250

S. Ioannou Georgiou

Keywords

CLIL · Pre-primary education · Teacher training · In-service training · Early language learning

The Cyprus Context Cyprus has a long history of conquerors ranging from the ancient Phoenicians, the Assyrians, the Persians and Egyptians to the Venetians, the Ottomans and the British. This constant flow of people to and from the island, in addition to the many other travellers and merchants that visited Cyprus, led to the development of a culture that is outward looking and values language learning. Furthermore, foreign language learning was made compulsory for all students by the British during their colonisation of the island. Indeed, Cyprus was one of the first countries to introduce foreign language learning to young learners since the teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL) was introduced in the last 2 years of primary school in 1956 (Matsangos, 1990). After the end of British rule, Cyprus became an independent country in 1960 and chose to have two official languages: Greek and Turkish. English continued to be used by the government for official business until the mid-1980s to mid-1990s (Karoulla-Vrikki 2001, 2009). English retains a prestigious position on the island and it is widely spoken and used on signs and in advertisements, while TV channels and cinemas do not dub movies, shows or cartoons but use subtitles instead. The Cypriot people value foreign language competence and Cyprus has been described as a country where ‘practically everyone recognizes the benefits of knowing languages’ (European Commission, 2006). The government EFL policy, however, did not progress with the times but remained the same as regards starting age for decades. It was only in 1993 that the starting age was lowered to the age of 9 and Year 4 of Primary School. There were, however, no further developments to the policy for an extended period, despite the fact that developments and European policies were promoting an even earlier start (Council of Europe, 1997; European Council, 2002).

Paving the Way for Change Two pilot projects helped bring foreign languages to the early years in Cyprus. The first one was the pilot introduction of All-day Schools (extended-day schools) in 2006, which introduced EFL from Year 1 of Primary in a selected group of schools that functioned with an enriched curriculum and extended working hours compared to other schools. The second project was PRO-CLIL, a European Commission funded project which in 2007 introduced a foreign language through CLIL from pre-primary education to the end of primary education. In order for the project to run, it had to identify teachers who were willing to try something new

16

CLIL in Cyprus Pre-primary Education

251

for which they were not trained for, as there was no relevant expertise at all available on the island. Both projects were successful (Kiely, 2010; Cyprus Pedagogical Institute, 2009) and were allowed to continue. The All-day (Extended-day Schools) continue to gain positive responses from teachers and parents, as a recent study has shown (Cyprus Pedagogical Institute, 2017), whereas PRO-CLIL has led the way for the introduction of CLIL in the new national curricula of primary (MOEC, 2010) and pre-primary education (MOECSY, 2020). Indeed, both projects offered valuable information and evidence which was taken into consideration when in 2010 the government of the Republic of Cyprus entered into a large-scale educational reform. (Discussion on issues which take place after 1974 refers only to areas under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Cyprus. Unfortunately, since 1974, a section of Cyprus remains occupied by Turkish troops and is not under the control of the government of the Republic of Cyprus.) The teaching of foreign languages was part of this reform and working groups consisting of academics and teaching practitioners proposed suggestions towards new and modern curricula, which corresponded with current research findings, educational expertise and the demands of modern society. At various points in the timeline of the reform, there were focused discussions with stakeholders, mainly parent and teacher associations. Sometimes concerns were voiced as regards the proposed suggestion to lower the starting age for foreign language learning to the first year of primary and then to pre-primary. On the other hand, there was also a strong group of supporters, which consisted mainly of academics, teachers who had positive experiences with early language learning through participation in the two aforementioned projects and forward-thinking parents. Evidence from Eurydice (2008) also helped influence the direction towards lowering the starting age for foreign languages, as it indicated that Cyprus ranked in the lowest position as regards the amount of teaching time allocated to the learning of foreign languages. This, as well as the decisions of the Barcelona European Council Resolutions (2002) that all citizens should learn two languages in addition to their mother tongue and that foreign language learning should start from a very young age, strongly influenced the decisions which were taken. The final result of the educational reform was in favour of those advocating for early language learning and in 2010 a new curriculum was adopted by the Ministry of Education and Culture which included a foreign language from pre-primary (MOEC, 2010).

CLIL in Pre-primary Education As a result of the educational reform and the national curriculum of 2010, CLIL began to be gradually introduced in all pre-primary schools. It was decided that the best possible way to introduce CLIL in pre-primary was for it to be taught by the pre-primary school teachers. As the underlying philosophy of the curriculum was to make the foreign language (FL) an integral and seamless part of the children’s school

252

S. Ioannou Georgiou

day, it was clear that pre-primary school teachers needed to be the ones implementing it. The FL would not be taught as a separate school subject but would be used to teach curriculum content and for carrying out daily routines. Pre-primary school teachers, however, did not have the training or the expertise in implementing CLIL and so it was decided there would be a grace period during which the FL would be gradually phased in pre-primary education as pre-primary teachers underwent the necessary training. As implementation was being phased in, there were further changes in pre-primary education and a new national curriculum for pre-primary was introduced in 2020 (MOECSY, 2020). This new curriculum also continued to adopt and support CLIL. Specifically, it maintains that early language learning can help develop positive attitudes towards languages and promotes intercultural awareness and understanding. The curriculum states various target areas for the children’s development and clarifies that CLIL can be used as an approach to achieve any of the curriculum’s objectives. CLIL is currently implemented in all pre-primary schools in Cyprus as the grace period is over. CLIL is implemented in English as it is the foreign language in which most teachers have linguistic competence in but also because of reasons of continuity between pre-primary and primary education, since continuity is a key success factor of early language learning programmes (Edelenbos et al., 2006; Nikolov & Mihaljevic Djigunovic, 2006). Teachers can choose one of the following three models to implement CLIL in their schools: Model 1: CLIL language showers – Teachers use the FL for teaching any thematic topic the children are working on (e.g. family, winter, traffic safety) or any subject (e.g. Music, P.E.). Language showers can be very short at the beginning of the school year (e.g. 10–15 min) but gradually increase in duration to reach up to 30 min. They take place three times a week, or more often, depending on the teacher’s planning and can be part of Maths, Science, Art, Emotional development or any other topic/subject of the curriculum. If showers are short, they can include one or two of the activities that are planned for the teaching of the specific topic or subject, while the rest of the session is taught in the school language. For example, they could include a theme-based song and game, while the rest of the session is in the school language or a story could be narrated in the FL but the discussion and other activities which follow the story, can be in the school language. When the showers increase in duration, the FL can be used for the whole teaching session. Model 2: CLIL in specific school subjects – Teachers choose a specific school subject, usually Physical Education or Music, and teach this subject systematically through CLIL for the duration of the school year. Again, the FL will initially take a small percentage of the teaching session and the percentage will gradually increase until it takes up the whole session. Model 3: CLIL showers and CLIL in specific school subjects – This model is a combination of Model 1 and Model 2. Teachers teach a specific subject through

16

CLIL in Cyprus Pre-primary Education

253

CLIL but also use CLIL language showers when teaching other topics/subjects. This model leads to an increased contact with the language and more FL opportunities for the children. It is important to note that all the three Models described above are supported by additional contact with the CLIL language through the use of routines and CLIL learning centre activities every day. CLIL routines are used throughout the day for various classroom management purposes, whereas the teachers organise CLIL activities which are related to the topic/subject and place them at the learning centres for the children to use during the ‘free or structured play’ parts of the school day (in the morning and at the end of the day). Activities placed at the learning centres are based on what the children experienced during the CLIL sessions with the teacher and can be quite varied in type. They can, for example, be a song which they can listen to again and sing along using available technology, a digital game which they can play on the computer, a picture book to go through and remember a story told by the teacher, a role-play to enact with the help of a puppet or a role-play set (kitchen, house, shop) or a game to play on their own or with friends (e.g. card or board games).

Methodological Aspects of CLIL in Cyprus Pre-primary Schools The decision to adopt CLIL for the introduction of the FL to pre-primary education was made on the basis that CLIL can allow the FL to be part of the school day and be used in everyday communication with the children, both for teaching content and for the organisational matters of their day. It was also fundamental that the methodology used would not cause anxiety or fear to the children. Indeed, the aim of the CLIL programme is to instil positive attitudes towards foreign languages and develop feelings of confidence in the children about their abilities to learn languages. Consequently, the methodology implemented is focused on making the children comfortable in a foreign language environment, happy to be interacting with a foreign language and confident in their abilities to do so. The methodology used is also congruent with the general pre-primary curriculum, which strongly advocates the use of play for learning.

Making CLIL a Seamless Part of the School Day In Cyprus pre-primary school teachers use the FL (English) for their everyday classroom routines with the children. Examples of such routines are: the starting of the day routine, the end of the day routine, clean up routines after play or snack time, standing in line routine before leaving the classroom and routines for sitting in a circle to prepare for a story. The routines can include simple instructions for the children, with or without a verbal response from them, or they can include a song or chant which the children sing while they perform a specific action (clean up,

254

S. Ioannou Georgiou

standing in line, moving to a circle, etc.). These routines are interspersed throughout the day on a regular basis. They may often be the first introduction the children have to the FL before the teacher introduces more aspects of the CLIL programme.

An Emphasis on Oral/Aural Skills The Cyprus CLIL pre-primary programme focuses on the development of oral/aural skills and does not make any effort to teach reading or writing at any point. It adopts the reasoning that children need first to acquire oral language before they are asked to decipher the written word or produce written input. In fact, it prescribes to the thinking that children need first to acquire comprehensible input before they can produce oral input (Krashen, 1985; Pinter, 2006). The CLIL programme implements this approach by offering activities which do not require the children to produce oral output but can allow children to indicate their comprehension in other ways instead. Such activities are Total Physical Response activities, which often take place during Physical Education or through action songs. Generally, most of the activities centre on the premise of listening and doing and can include moving about, pointing, drawing, placing objects, etc. The emphasis on comprehension is matched with a focus on the development of age-appropriate comprehension strategies (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990), such as the use of visuals and the use of intonation, facial expressions and gestures to support comprehension. Prominence in the area of comprehension strategies is also given to the development of affective and social strategies, for which a young age is thought to be particularly suitable, such as tolerance of ambiguity (affective strategy) and asking for help (social strategy). One could argue that once social and affective language learning strategies are developed, children can be empowered to overcome language learning related feelings of stress or anxiety. Oral output is gradually encouraged but children are never pressured and teachers can discreetly provide solutions to diffuse a situation where a child does not want to say something in the foreign language. Oral output is first supported through songs and rhymes which the children can sing along to in the safety of their group. Children can also choose not to participate in singing, if they are not ready, but they will not stand out if doing so and can still participate through dancing or doing specific actions, etc. Other ways to support oral output and build confidence are activities and games which offer opportunities for repetition in chorus. There is a range of games used for this purpose and the teacher can adapt them to include the specific language s/he aims to teach (e.g. ball games, flashcard games).

Songs, Games and Storytelling Songs, games and storytelling are the three most important tools for pre-primary CLIL in Cyprus. Songs are used throughout pre-primary but are also the first tool that the teachers use to initiate CLIL to children. They are seen to be particularly

16

CLIL in Cyprus Pre-primary Education

255

suitable for young children who are complete beginners in the FL. Some of the most valued characteristics of songs are: a) they can lower anxiety and promote the development of a safe environment, b) they promote the development of positive attitudes towards the FL through the feelings of fun and enjoyment that they create, c) they are memorable and help children learn new vocabulary and useful phrases (Dolean, 2016; Ejeng et al., 2020). Based on these characteristics, songs offer an initial way to introduce children to the FL without anxiety and without forcing them to participate or to produce output. In fact, children who are not yet ready may choose not to participate but they do not feel exposed as they are protected by the safety of the group. They may choose just to pretend they are singing or just to sway to the music but these behaviours enable the children to stay in the group and continue receiving linguistic input. Finally, it is very important for CLIL teachers that they can also create their own songs, either to their own music or by adding lyrics to the music of a known song. They can, therefore, include songs to teach new useful vocabulary for any curriculum topic they are working with. Games are also a tool that can be incorporated into any CLIL session and can be used at any point of the instructional procedure. They are authentic communicative activities that are fun and enjoyable and can, therefore, also work towards the development of positive attitudes. Additionally, they follow a structure which is usually familiar to children since they also play games at home and can, therefore, provide a familiarity that can link to the children’s home and promote feelings of safety in the CLIL classroom. Finally, they are particularly useful to a pre-primary CLIL teacher in that they can often allow for participation without linguistic production, thus providing for the ‘silent’ period which some children need (Krashen, 1985) and allow the teacher to offer valuable linguistic input without forcing output but enabling him/her to check that comprehension has been achieved though the game (e.g. BINGO, parachute games, Simon says..). They can also allow for oral production in the safety of the group through chorus work (e.g. flashcard games, ‘What’s the time Mr Wolf?). Additionally, a very useful aspect of games is the fact that they can be played repeatedly without boring the children and thus offer opportunities for useful repetition and practice within the communicative situation of a game.

The CLIL Classroom: A Bilingual Setting CLIL in Cyprus is accepted as a bilingual form of instruction. CLIL teachers are encouraged to use the school language in a principled way. That is, they need to think and prepare their CLIL teaching and be clear as to when and why the school language will be introduced at certain times. Teachers’ use of the school language mainly occurs when complicated instructions need to be given, when there is an obvious gap in understanding, which does not seem to be resolved, or when there are children’s emotional issues to be dealt with. As the percentage of the FL increases, there is usually less school language use during CLIL sessions but the school language is always available to the teacher as another tool.

256

S. Ioannou Georgiou

Children are allowed to use the school language (or their mother tongue) at any point of the teaching and learning process. The programme ascribes to the need of a possible ‘silent period’ for children (Krashen, 1985) and for the children’s need to first become familiarised with the sounds of the language and to learn some basic vocabulary and key phrases before they produce output. Furthermore, there is sensitivity towards a possible initial shyness from children. Consequently, children are always offered the chance to respond in the school language or mother tongue, if they so wish. A response in the school language indicates that the child has comprehended the question and is using his/her linguistic resources to participate in the interaction, which is a valuable achievement for pre-primary children and it is recognised and appreciated as such. Although routines are often in the FL and children spontaneously join in, it was felt that the children may need some help in distinguishing CLIL time from the rest of the day. This distinction is especially important when it is the class teacher that teaches the CLIL sessions as the lack of clear boundaries between languages might confuse the children. In these cases, the use of a puppet is very helpful. Teachers introduce a puppet at the beginning of the year through various ways (e.g. as a friend visiting from another country). They then discuss with the children how they will communicate with this puppet that does not speak the school language. Through the discussion the children conclude that when the puppet visits, they will try to speak in the CLIL language. In this way, the puppet serves as a signal which helps children switch from one language to another and justifies why their teacher is suddenly speaking in a foreign language. Stories are a tool which is usually used once the school year has progressed a bit and the children have become accustomed to their CLIL sessions and are a little familiar with the FL language. Stories have many valuable characteristics for young FL learners, which are described in Ioannou Georgiou and Ramirez-Verdugo (2011). One of the most valuable benefits for the pre-primary CLIL classroom is probably the opportunity for children to come into contact with extended authentic FL input. This is important as due to the children’s age and limited attention span, in addition to the lack of FL background, it is often difficult to offer extended linguistic input. Stories, on the other hand, can offer this opportunity as they can hold the children’s attention through the visuals and the teacher’s storytelling skills. Extended linguistic input can offer opportunities for children to listen to intonation, rhythm and sounds of the language within extended input and help them to develop a variety of learning strategies. Using visuals to understand meaning is supported through picture books, tolerance of ambiguity is supported through the storytelling routine which encourages children to remain attentive and wait to see the continuation of the story without interrupting or rejecting the speaker if they don’t understand, while gestures and intonation patterns employed by the storyteller help facilitate comprehension. In order for all the above to be achieved, the choice of the story or picture book and the way the teacher carries out the storytelling are crucial. Essential points for the selection of appropriate stories/picture books are a clear storyline, illustrations that support the comprehension of the story, an appropriate linguistic level and preferably instances of repetition in the story (Ioannou Georgiou & Ramirez-Verdugo, 2011).

16

CLIL in Cyprus Pre-primary Education

257

Teacher Training and Support In Cyprus, the generalist pre-primary school teachers are also the ones who teach CLIL. They are seen to be best placed for realising the potential of CLIL to offer the FL in an authentic way, seamlessly integrated in the school day. Pre-primary school teachers also have the benefit of being trained in child-appropriate pedagogy and can teach according to the children’s developmental level. Pre-primary teachers in Cyprus are required to have a University degree in pre-primary education but do not, as yet, receive training in the teaching of FLs during their university studies. They are, however, taught FLs at University and are expected to have a high level of competence in EFL (B2 – C1 CEFR level). As a result, the Ministry of Education decided to offer free in-service training to pre-primary school teachers before they would begin implementing CLIL. This was initiated during the phase-in period when teachers were not required to offer CLIL, unless they had participated in specialised in-service training. Initially, a non-compulsory 15-h specialised course was offered after school hours. The course focused mainly on how young learners learn a foreign language, the benefits of early language learning, the CLIL philosophy, FL teaching methodology and lesson planning for CLIL. It was offered at all the main cities of Cyprus so as to enable more teachers to attend. Furthermore, the sessions were spaced out with one or two-week intervals between sessions so that the teachers had time to try things out in their school and come back with more insight and/or questions about implementation. This course, which has received excellent reviews from the teachers, still remains available to those who are interested, whereas advanced-level courses for experienced CLIL teachers are now offered in the same way as well. In addition to these, however, the Ministry added another course, which is offered during school hours, in an effort to reach more teachers. The new course became available in 2019 and has been offered each year since. It is a 30-h course, which again has its sessions spaced out over a few months thus allowing time for the teachers to interact with the trainers and try things out in their classes. In addition to the two main types of training courses described above, pre-primary school teachers are also offered systematic support through the Cyprus CLIL Coordinating Centre (https://clil.schools.ac.cy/index.php/en/). The Centre was established by the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2015 with an aim to help promote and strengthen the implementation of CLIL in public primary and pre-primary schools. One of the Centre’s main activities is to train and support the teachers and schools implementing CLIL. This is achieved through a varied approach. The Centre organises traditional forms of training such as workshops, seminars and conferences. Moreover, it organises teacher networks where teachers communicate with each other in face-to-face meetings but also via emails and digital platforms or video conferencing sessions. The networks can be formed based on criteria such as geographical location (e.g. neighbouring schools), level of expertise (novice/experienced teachers), areas of interest (e.g. materials development) or interest in specific subjects (e.g. Music, Physical Education). The networks can get

258

S. Ioannou Georgiou

together to discuss issues and share ideas or can gather at one of the schools and observe a lesson which they later discuss and reflect on. The CLIL Centre also employs CLIL advisors, who are experienced CLIL teachers acting as mentors to other teachers. The advisors visit schools and offer on-site training and support through team-teaching, reflective discussions, materials sharing and more. Finally, through the use of European grants, such as Erasmus+, the CLIL Centre, which is an Erasmus+ accredited organisation, organises training opportunities abroad offering teachers from schools affiliated with the Centre the opportunity to participate in job shadowing activities, seminars/courses or conferences abroad.

Feedback and Outcomes of CLIL in Pre-primary Education Until now results for CLIL in Cyprus pre-primary education have been gathered through studies of teacher, parent and children perceptions that have been carried out by the CLIL Centre as well as from smaller scale studies which have been carried out by teachers at their schools or through discussions with small focus groups for the purpose of internal evaluation. The CLIL Centre also receives feedback as regards CLIL implementation through the CLIL Schools Awards scheme.

CLIL Awards Scheme The CLIL Awards Scheme, which started in 2018, has been developed by the CLIL Coordinating Centre and is offered every 2 years. It creates opportunities for the work of schools and teachers to be rewarded and celebrated while – at the same time – enables the CLIL Centre to discreetly monitor the work of the schools, with the ultimate aim always being to support their work. It is optional for schools to join the scheme and they can still be affiliated with the CLIL Centre but choose not to join the Awards Scheme. Those who do join, are evaluated against a set of criteria and can be awarded the Bronze, Silver or Gold level accordingly.

Parents’, Teachers’ and Childrens’ Perceptions All the perception studies which have been carried out until now have systematically shown high levels of satisfaction from parents, teachers and children. According to a survey by Ioannou Georgiou (2015), parents believe that the CLIL programme is beneficial for their children, they rate it very highly and want it to continue. They also report that their children are learning new vocabulary and are approaching FL learning without fear or anxiety but with confidence and positivity. Moreover, various action research projects carried out by teacher practitioners report the same findings with the parents always referring enthusiastically to the CLIL programme and the results they see in their children (Michaelidou, 2015; Sieli, 2014).

16

CLIL in Cyprus Pre-primary Education

259

Teachers, on the other hand, systematically report the challenges they initially face when they begin teaching CLIL. Some also report initial doubts as regards early FL learning. But they also overwhelmingly report the rewarding feelings they have when they see the children develop in their confidence and their FL linguistic competence or when they receive positive feedback from parents (Ioannou Georgiou, 2014). Teachers report that the children become very adept at understanding the foreign language at school and that by the end of the school year they can deliver full teaching sessions in the FL with participation from the children. Teachers also report that the children’s comprehension levels are higher than their output production levels but they state that children, after a year of CLIL, can use basic vocabulary and key phrases whereas they also have a repertoire of songs they can sing. Finally, teachers report that children use a range of comprehension and communication strategies and that they can be very creative with FL use (Ioannou Georgiou, 2014; Michaelidou, 2015; Sieli, 2014). Child-friendly methods have been used to investigate children’s perceptions as regards their CLIL experiences, as it is considered important to hear their voices about the learning process. One such study has been reported by Ioannou Georgiou (2014) with the participation of 251 children of four to five-years old who were interviewed at the beginning of the school year when they had no experience of FLs and at the end of the school year. The results showed an increase in the children’s FL awareness, the development of positive attitudes towards FLs and self-confidence as regards their own abilities to learn FLs. The perspectives from all the main stakeholders seem to be converging on how the CLIL programme is developing the children’s positive attitudes towards languages and their feelings of self-confidence. This finding is very important as, according to Young (1991), learners’ beliefs about language learning influence their behaviour, strategy use, expectations and commitment to language learning and are, therefore, a key factor to their learning success.

Concluding Remarks This chapter has provided a brief overview of CLIL in Cyprus pre-primary education. It discussed how Cyprus moved to lower the starting age for FLs to pre-primary after gaining experience through pilot projects and gaining support from stakeholder groups during a general educational reform. The chapter also described the CLIL models implemented in pre-primary and the methodological aspects that are adopted by the programme. Cyprus chose not to isolate the FL but to introduce it through CLIL as an integral part of the school day and, for this reason, it is the generalist pre-primary teachers who teach CLIL. Generalist pre-primary teachers are fully trained in child-friendly and age-appropriate pedagogy and thus ensure that the FL is offered in an age-appropriate methodology which focuses on the development of positive attitudes and creates strong foundations for children to develop a lifelong languagelearning career. Generalist teachers implementing CLIL also ensure that it is offered

260

S. Ioannou Georgiou

in line with the national curriculum, both as regards content as well as methodology. The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport and Youth has supported this decision by offering teachers free in-service training focusing on early language learning, FL methodology and CLIL as well as by employing a systematic and varied support system for the teachers, which is currently run through the Cyprus CLIL Coordinating Centre. The efforts of the Cyprus educational system seem to be in the right direction as feedback from teachers, parents and children is reportedly positive. Although the teachers recognise the challenges they face when working with CLIL, they are appreciative of the support offered by the CLIL Centre and are aware of the importance and value of what they are doing, which they find rewarding and motivating. As one of the first national pre-primary CLIL initiatives in Europe, if not globally, further research into the programme can offer more detailed insights and valuable information about its various aspects, which will be very interesting and useful for the field of early language learning.

References Council of Europe. (1997). Language learning for European citizenship. Council of Europe. Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture. (2010). Αναλυτικά Πρoγράμματα Πρoδημoτικής Δημoτικής και Meσης Εκπαίδευσης – Τóμoς Α’ [National curricula for pre-primary, primary and secondary education – Vol. I]. Cyprus Pedagogical Institute. Cyprus Ministry of Education, Culture, Sport and Youth. (2020). Αναλυτικó Πρóγραμμα Πρoσχoλικής Εκπαίδευσης. Retrieved October 15, 2022 from, https://archeia.moec.gov.cy/sd/ 270/dee_nip_proscholiki_ekpaidefsi.pdf Cyprus Pedagogical Institute. (2009). Τo Ενιαίo Ολoήμερo Σχoλείo. Unpublished report. Cyprus Pedagogical Institute. (2017). Αξιoλóγηση τoυ Θεσμoύ τoυ Ολoήμερoυ Σχoλείoυ. Retrieved October 15, 2022 from, https://www.pi.ac.cy/pi/files/keea/pdf/oloimero2017.pdf Dolean, D. D. (2016). The effects of teaching songs during foreign language classes on students’ foreign language anxiety. Language Teaching Research, 20(5), 638–653. Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., & Kubanek, A. (2006). The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners: Languages for the children of Europe: Published research, good practice & main principles. European Commission. Ejeng, I. E. A., Hashim, H., & Duan, S. S. (2020). Using songs to reduce language anxiety in speaking English in ESL classroom. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(2), 151–165. European Commission. (2006). Europeans and their languages, special eurobarometer 243. European Commission. European Council. (2002). Presidency Conclusions – Barcelona European Council 15 and 16 March 2002, SN 100/1/102 REV 1, Barcelona. Eurydice Network. (2008). Key data on teaching languages at School in Europe. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. Ioannou Georgiou, S. (2014). Early language learning in Cyprus: Voices from the classroom. In S. Mourao & L. Mourenco (Eds.), Early years second language education: International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 95–108). Routledge. Ioannou Georgiou, S. (2015). Implementing CLIL in Cyprus primary and pre-primary education. Conference presentation at: ΕφαρμoγEς της πρoσEγγισης CLIL στη Δημoτική και Πρoδημoτική Εκπαίδευση. Nicosia, Cyprus.

16

CLIL in Cyprus Pre-primary Education

261

Ioannou Georgiou, S., & Ramirez-Verdugo, D. (2011). Stories as a tool for teaching and learning in CLIL. In S. Ioannou Georgiou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education (pp. 137–155). Cyprus Pedagogical Institute. Karoulla-Vrikki, D. (2001). English or Greek language? State or ethnic identity? The case of the courts in Cyprus. Language Problems & Language Planning, 25(3), 259–288. Karoulla-Vrikki, D. (2009). Greek in Cyprus: Identity oscillations and language planning. In A. Georgakopoulou & M. Silk (Eds.), Standard languages and language standards: Greek, past and present (pp. 187–219). Ashgate Publishing Limited. Kiely, R. (2010). PROCLIL evaluation report. Unpublished report submitted to the European Commission. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman. Matsangos, M. (1990). Research findings and their implications in the teaching of EFL to GreekCypriot primary school children. Unpublished MA Dissertation, Aston University, UK. Michaelidou, D. (2015). Η εφαρμoγή της πρoσEγγισης CLIL στην πρoδημoτική εκπαίδευση. Conference presentation at: ‘ΕφαρμoγEς της πρoσEγγισης CLIL στην Δημoτική και Πρoδημoτική Εκπαίδευση’. Nicosia, Cyprus. Nikolov, M., & Mihaljevic Djigunovic, J. (2006). Recent research on age, second language acquisition, and early foreign language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 234–260. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford University Press. Sieli, M. (2014). Starting early: Foreign language introduction through the CLIL approach. Conference presentation at: ‘ΞEνες Γλω  σσες και Παιδί’. Nicosia, Cyprus. Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety research suggest? Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 426–439.

Constructing Pre-primary CLIL in Mexico. Policy Analysis and Teachers’ Perspectives

17

Natalia Martínez-Leo´n

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Mexican Scenario: Linguistic Educational Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

264 265 268 268 272 273

Abstract

The paper examines pre-primary CLIL teaching practices in Mexico. The national programme of English language instruction in the Mexican public primary schools, Programa Nacional de Inglés en Educación Básica (PNIEB) initiated in 2009, reformed 2011 (adding Secondary Education) and the recent Programa Nacional de Inglés en la Educación Básica (PRONI), 2017–18, regulate English instruction in compulsory education throughout the country. The new aspect about PRONI is the inclusion of the compulsory third year of pre-primary education (5–6 years) in this English language plan. In summary, students should receive between 1060 and 1900 hours of English classes per educational cycle, even when English language instruction is compulsory but is not part of the national curricular plan. PRONI was then extended with the Estrategia Nacional de Inglés, July 2017. A qualitative approach was followed, and data collection was executed through semi-structured interviews. We will talk about education policies’ background, implications, how ELTs policies are being implemented, and challenges of the program. Taking into account the difference of educational practices in public and private institutions, we will also discuss teachers´ perspectives on these educational practices. N. Martínez-León (*) University of Granada, Granada, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_17

263

264

N. Martínez-Leo´n

Keywords

Curriculum development · Pre-primary CLIL · Linguistic policies · Teachers´ perspectives

Introduction One of the best-known definitions of CLIL is that provided by Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010, p. 1): “. . . a dual-focused educational approach in which an additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language”. The term CLIL started in Europe in the 1990s and is usually associated with teaching through the medium of English (Dalton-Puffer, Nikula, & Smit, 2010). Although, the definition of CLIL refers to an additional language, not only to English but any language other than the first language, including foreign, second or minority languages (Eurydice, 2006; Marsh, 2002). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) allows learners to benefit from language instruction in an integrated way. It has gained importance in the education sector and more and more foreign languages are being introduced the sooner the better (at pre-primary stages) based on good results at other levels of education. These methodology, due to the effective integration of content and language within the curriculum that support benefits to learning and learners, being able to use their target language in real academic and non-academic situations and for authentic purposes, and not only to use it, but also to think in the vehicular language (Várkuti, 2010). The CLIL approach in a preschool class should provide rich linguistic experiences to children, and should aim at developing different areas of the curriculum in a foreign language, or as the European Commission, 2011, p. 9 states: “. . . language activities at the pre-primary level are not formally structured.” In addition (p. 27) “early language learning as part of pre-school activities can foster a child’s cognitive development and support further language learning, provided that appropriate conditions are met.” These educational practices should not only mean teaching foreign languages but also integrate content and language learning as a regular practice. This can be achieved via different approaches including enriched language activities, and bilingual and immersion programmes (Moate, 2014). Starting learning foreign languages in the early childhood curriculum has become a worldwide trend (Dickinson et al., 2004). In many areas of the world, parents believe that for their children to have a competitive edge, they need to learn English, in particular, at an early age, considering it an undeniable essential for global communication (Carter & Nunan, 2005; Chuang, 2001). When it comes to the introduction of the foreign language in plurilingual schools, whether as CLIL practices or EFL, Lorenzo, Trujillo and Vez (2011) highlight the fact this is not only achieved through teaching different subjects in other languages, but the objective should be for the students to acquire knowledge in different languages in order to build a unified and cohesive community.

17

Constructing Pre-primary CLIL in Mexico. Policy Analysis and Teachers’. . .

265

The Mexican Scenario: Linguistic Educational Policies Mexico, as a plurilingual and multicultural country is home to many languages, Spanish as mother tongue of more than 90% of the population, and then lenguas originarias (indigenous languages), 68 linguistic groupings and more than 364 variants being used by more than seven million and a half citizens (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, INEGI, 2015). The aim of this article is to explore to what extent CLIL practices are happening in the Mexican context and to give a comprehensive overview of the main practices in the Mexican context to implement a foreign language and in some cases, how is CLIL methodology in pre-primary education (3–6 years old) being implemented. We are dealing with pre-primary CLIL (preescolar, ages 3–6) in Mexico, compulsory education starting at 4 years old, and in which the foreign language is not naturally used outside the classroom. We must take into consideration that this scenario is nothing similar to the European, in which CLIL is widespread and has very clear linguistic policies, but a very different context in which there is no specification of policies, methodologies, curriculum or resources per se. Or, as Cortina and Andugar (2021) mention in the case of the Spanish context, teachers and schools lack specific guidelines, at a legislative and methodological level (Andúgar et al., 2020; Morris & Segura, 2003). Thus, we can initially notice that the implementation of CLIL has mainly been limited to private institutions or to local initiatives in state-run schools. In this context, private schools have some flexibility to implement their educational programs and might differ from one school to the other. There have been several types of EFL programs for Mexican public primary schools: English Enciclomedia, the National English Program in Basic Education (PNIEB), the Program for Strengthening the Quality of Basic Education (PFCEB), and the National English Program (PRONI). We will focus on the latest educational policies in terms of teaching/learning English within the national programme of English language instruction in the Mexican public primary schools, Programa Nacional de Inglés en Educación Básica (hereafter PNIEB) initiated in 2009, reformed 2011 (adding Secondary Education) and the recent Programa Nacional de Inglés en la Educación Básica (hereafter PRONI), 2017–18, that regulates English instruction in compulsory education throughout the country and very closely follows the curricular framework of PNIEB. These educational policies apply in all three levels of Basic Education (Pre-primary, Primary and Secondary education) emphasizing the acquisition of basic linguistic and cultural competences to communicate in English and promote awareness of linguistic and cultural diversity. The new aspect about PRONI is the inclusion of the compulsory third year of pre-primary education (4–5 years) in this English language plan. In summary students should receive between 1060 and 1900 h of English classes per educational cycle.

266

N. Martínez-Leo´n

Hence, PRONI has generated a myriad of practices affected by the context, the ways of carrying it out and of course COVID adaptations. Many public schools have benefited from this program of English teaching (EFL) but many more haven’t. Some have found the opportunity to engage in language teaching/learning in innovative ways and have adopted new methodologies and adapted materials, got specialists to teach English but others have not due to the infrastructure of the system. In the Mexican case, the educational law mentions that students at the end of Secondary school should have basic tools to communicate in English; the goal is not to be bilingual, but to be able to manage in English. Through PRONI, program schools are granted English teachers for pre-primary and primary levels, providing approximately 2–2.5 h of English classes per week per group. PRONI, due to being a project subject to budgetary matters, faces several challenges: • Public schools are chosen to benefit from this program, although many are left out. PRONI has reached, so far, only 18% of the population in basic education (Hernández Fernández, 2019). • Teachers’ employment status, since they are hired on temporary contracts by the government, more specifically for the project, so they are not considered regular classroom teachers. That seems to be one of the main problems as they are not timely paid, they feel underpaid and under considered. Some of these teachers are reported to resign due to the difficult labour circumstances, causing a high teacher turnover. • There is no specific official curriculum, teachers have to plan their classes based on the books and the guidelines received. • Materials are limited and not always free (Millán Librado & Basurto Santos, 2020); besides, most of all are unevenly distributed and don’t arrive on time, sometimes even at the end of the school year. • Teacher education and training, due to the lack of qualified teachers, many were hired not fully meeting the requirements and finding it difficult to carry out their teaching. PRONI was later extended with the Estrategia Nacional de Inglés, July 2017 including, not only the teaching/learning of English in compulsory education, but also including teacher training programmes (Fig. 17.1). CLIL research has paid much attention to parents’, learners’, and teachers’ perceptions of CLIL (McDougald, 2015; Pérez Cañado, 2016), professional development opportunities for CLIL with in-service teachers (Banegas, 2019), and the subjective wellbeing of CLIL teachers (Hofstadler et al., 2020). However, few studies examine CLIL teacher education within future teachers. In other words, little is known about how pre-service ELTE programmes prepare future teachers to implement CLIL in different contexts (Guo et al., 2019). The Mexican government, via different programs, plans to update and train around 10,000 English teachers

17

Constructing Pre-primary CLIL in Mexico. Policy Analysis and Teachers’. . .

267

COMPULSORY EDUCATION LEVELS Preschool 3rd

Primary school 1st

2nd

1st cycle Early stage of contact and familiarization with English language Awareness

3rd

4th

2nd cycle

5th

Junior High 6th

1st

3rd cycle

2nd

3rd

Development

Listen

1st to 6th semester

4th cycle

Basic competences and basic mastery of English language First approach

High School

5th cycle Intermediate level of managing & competences of English Consolidation

Speak Read and write Use of language for social practices

Social and academic use of language

Fig. 17.1 English language goals stated by cycles in the educational Mexican system. (Source: Secretaría de Educación Pública (hereon SEP), 2017. Spanish version: own translation) Secretaría de Educación Pública, Gobierno de México (2017)

(SEP, 2017) in service and train around 4700 more English teachers to fulfil this necessity. Updating programs may vary in duration (6–24 months) and content depending on individual needs. This reform, from the linguistic point of view, specifies guidelines for designing educational programs to develop the mother tongue (Spanish or any indigenous language) and a second language, in this case English; objectives, pedagogical approach, evaluation, attainment by level, etc. The objective for the 3rd grade of preschool through the 2nd grade of elementary school is to provide initial contact and familiarization with the language, while the rest of the years are dedicated to developing basic proficiency (SEP, 2017) (Fig. 17.2).

268

N. Martínez-Leo´n

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDENT WHEN FINISHING PRESCHOOL Language and communication Expresses emotions, likes/dislikes and ideas in their mother tongue. Uses language for relating to others. Understands some words and expressions in English.

Fig. 17.2 Preschool goals in terms of language and communication education. (Source: Mexican Government. https://www.planyprogramasdestudio.sep.gob.mx/index-edubasica-niveles2019. html. Spanish version: own translation)

The Context Due to the lack of research publications on pre-primary bilingual ed in the region, we will focus on analysing some cases within an area of Central México, Querétaro, and experiences collected from practitioners. This chapter is not empirical and will include teachers’ narratives and views to describe their situation and their awareness; this being managed together with their perspectives, all gathered from interviews with teachers (university and preschool), school directors and a coordinator of Public Education programs (May–September 2021). We will focus on teachers’ information to narrow opinions. The selection provided here represents educational practices in a determined context, so our intention is not to name it a representation of all the different circumstances and options happening in pre-primary education in Mexico, but a start to broader research. The participants’ right to privacy, confidentiality and anonymity were ensured and the data was organized and coded for qualitative narrative.

Findings and Discussion After analysing the information received about their first hand experiences when applying the CLIL approach or teaching English through their language programs at their school Integrated Curriculum, we can get a feeling of the context and we will comment on their perceptions and how bilingual or English teaching is being carried out at their institutions. School 1 is a private institution starting with maternal (2 years old) up to PREPA (18 years old). Many of their students follow all their compulsory education years in

17

Constructing Pre-primary CLIL in Mexico. Policy Analysis and Teachers’. . .

269

this school, this year five students graduated being the case they started studying at the school in pre-primary. The objective of the school in terms of language learning, is to familiarize students with the English language as soon as possible, they start pre-literacy and English from pre-K. They spend 85% of their time in English (music, maths, sciences, computing. . .) and the rest in Spanish (PE, socioemotional aspects. . .). In pre-first, a year between preschool and primary education (6–7 years old), they devote themselves to consolidation of reading and writing in English, and this year is coordinated by the pre-K team. They focus, mainly, in reading and communication. The lingua franca at school is English; students have to address adults in English in the school context to ensure English as part of their daily life, even at home. Very interestingly, translanguaging happens when they are playing or informally talking among themselves, and as the teacher reports, it’s very frequent. They use English and Spanish as an integrated communication system, finding ways for their communication to be effective as Mård-Miettinen, Palviainen, & Palojärvi (2018) also report. They have a very specialized consolidated staff, with education, psychology, educational psychology, pedagogy degrees, something that will hardly happen in the public system. Most teachers have been working at that school for years (between 8–19 years), they have specific training in English teaching and they have to certify their English level with official exams such as TOEFL, FIRST, PEARSON. . . Their approach is project based, and they practice phonological awareness using phonics. They get their materials mainly from abroad, as it’s not so easy to get them in Mexico, adapted reading materials for their reading corner are easily obtained in their area. With a plus, as teachers devote part of their workload to creating materials (manipulative). School 2 is also a private school founded 20 years ago that follows the AMCO method, Advanced Method Company (https://www.amco.me). They receive students from preschool to PREPA, many of them go through their school years at that same institution, in fact, one of their students just graduated having studied all levels at their school. Their methodology is based on exposure to English from 3 years old, they work on language skills, storytelling, pronunciation lab, pre-maths (shapes, colours, and sizes), and arts (let’s be creative) and when they are 5 they start pre-writing. They have been working with this method for 8 years and it really shows results as teachers comment and entrance to high schools and university of their students prove so. Teachers receive specific training and have support all course long, as well as parents having access to a platform to work from home. The school has 10 students in the first year, 15 in the second and 20 in the third year of preschool. They have a head teacher and an English teacher for the three groups. Obviously, these 2 years, due to Pandemic, their numbers have been reduced to 8, 5 and 15 students per preschool course. School 3 is a private school following SISTEMA UNOi (https://mx.unoi.com). They have students from preschool through Bachiller (preescolar, primaria,

270

N. Martínez-Leo´n

secundaria y bachillerato). They have a range of 60–70 children in each of the three preschool levels, and two groups for each level, totalling around 180 children (3–6 years old). Pre-schoolers receive 6 h of English class per week and they use materials provided by Sistema UNOi, based on pictures, no text and very simple vocabulary. Before following this methodology, they felt they had a stronger basis of English, therefore they have decided to use this method as reinforcing material, not as the core of their teaching and go back to previous practices: dictations, storytelling with pictures and words (flashcards), and grammar. This policy will surely benefit their students and will allow them to combine practices. In this school, English language syllabus is mapped out following Cambridge objectives. Their English classes tend to be very active and participative, based on real communicative needs and useful learning. For example: this is an apple, point at the apple, place the apple. . . Teachers feel the English level with the new method is a bit low, so they plan to increase it by using more materials and engaging the students in the use of English. Most of the students, in their daily life in and out of school, use Spanish as their only language and have 6 hours of English class a week at school a week (Fig. 17.3). School 4 is a public Jardín de niños, they have students ranging 4–6 years old, it’s a small school, four groups of maximum 25 students, so initially, they are not eligible for PRONI program that states a minimum of 35 students per group for 3rd year of preschool. There are advantages when they have a special permission to teach smaller groups (due to space limitations, max. 25 students), as it allows a closer contact with students and the teaching/learning process to be more adaptable and personalized.

Fig. 17.3 Materials used for English classes. (Source: provided by school)

17

Constructing Pre-primary CLIL in Mexico. Policy Analysis and Teachers’. . .

271

PRONI specifies that 100 h should be taught in English, but sadly, the reality is far from true, as it is difficult to carry out due to lack of specialists, and those being part of the program sometimes are not specialists but non-specialist teachers trained to follow a specific textbook. Nevertheless, this preschool was part of the program 3 years ago, Government appointed an English teacher who, in total, could teach 10 h per group in the whole school year. They received the materials from the Government to teach English. The teacher worked at different schools, took a long time to go from one to another and had a low wage and no teacher benefits, aspects that influence the lack of teachers (Official sources). The objectives of English classes were fulfilled with using the textbook, based on real everyday situations, frequent topics, songs, rhymes, Mexican flora and fauna. . . (Fig. 17.4). School 5. Public preschool in the city centre which has one group of 3 years old, 2 groups of 4 years old and 3 groups of 3 years old, 35 children per group. Their school hours are from 9 to 12 and they have been part of the PRONI program for 2 years, but unfortunately in the last year they didn’t receive any extra help with English classes not really knowing why. The first year they had a teacher doing his/her practices and the second year they had a permanent English teacher at school. During those 2 years students of the 3rd year were granted an hour of English class per group a week. The teacher was in charge of creating materials, planning the course, using materials provided (posters, lotteries, flashcards. . .), getting their stories ready and using a cd player granted by the program (not the CDs or files to go with). They feel they fall short in exposure to the language and will be more than willing to start classes earlier and have half an hour extra of English classes in the morning, even having PE or music taught in English.

Fig. 17.4 Textbook used for English classes. (Source: provided by school)

272

N. Martínez-Leo´n

Conclusions and Implications After analysing the information received about their experiences when applying the CLIL approach or language programs through their school Integrated Curriculum, English is taught between 2 and 3 h per week in public schools, and from 60% to 80% of the day at private schools. We observed that the common thread in these opinions is that most teachers agree the program is nicely designed, has clear objectives to assure English learning but the infrastructure is not motivating for teachers to remain in the program. Big efforts from the Government and the schools are being made to guarantee students will master English language at the end of their studies, trying to do as much as possible to meet the standards officially designed (B2 intermediate level for social and academic use, after a total of 1300 h of language classes). As the European Commission states, 2011, p. 27 “the choice of a second/foreign language for the development of young children can be determined by its benefits in terms of enrichment, respect and understanding rather than utilitarian considerations”. As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, the main goal of this small-scale research was to describe and raise awareness about CLIL practices and English teaching in Mexico, teachers’ perceptions on different aspects of their teaching contexts and educational policies. Teachers’ voices highlighted several aspects affecting their work: English public programs, teaching conditions, teacher training, the Mexican context and curricular flexibility in private schools. Findings emerging from this study are that CLIL is happening mostly in private schools whereas in public schools the introduction of English as an additional language is happening with many difficulties. As Na, Gregory and Téllez (2021, p.16) affirm, “Mexico might face additional barriers in implementing a CLT approach, given the large class sizes and limited resources”. Many key promises remain unfulfilled due to the context as policies have political or economic reasons, “changes in language programs or strategies have not been supported by data from evaluations of previous programs, agreed upon by the social or academic communities, nor open to their participation” (Ramírez-Romero & Sayer, 2016; Ramírez-Romero & Vargas-Gil, 2019). When it comes to recent public policies, teachers are willing to participate but, knowing the context, they were hesitant about their implementation. Therefore, and as a consequence of research findings, it is imperative that decision makers, at the federal and state level, regarding EFL programs, more towards CLIL framework, take action and run them beyond political periods and benefit a wider number of schools, defining an adequate curriculum, starting at preschool, providing adapted materials and facilitating teacher training and good teaching conditions. These programs should be consistently implemented under the CLIL framework not as EFL and prepare learners for the future. Changes are building up slowly although the road is long.

17

Constructing Pre-primary CLIL in Mexico. Policy Analysis and Teachers’. . .

273

References Andúgar, A., Cortina-Pérez, B., & Tornel, M. (2020). Análisis de las pautas para la enseñanza del inglés en Educación Infantil mediante la técnica Deplhi. RESLA – Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 33(1), 1–26. Banegas, D. L. (2019). Teacher professional development in language-driven CLIL: A case study. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 12(2), 242–264. Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2005). The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge University Press. Chuang, M. L. (2001). Teaching and learning English in kindergartens in Kaohsiung [Doctoral Dissertation]. Bielefeld University. Cortina-Pérez, B., & Andúgar, A. (2021). Teaching EFL at Spanish preschools: A comparative analysis from two different teachers’ perspectives. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 30–52. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C., Nikula, T., & Smit, U. (2010). Language use and language learning in CLIL: Current findings and contentious issues. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 279–291). John Benjamins. Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Clark-Chiarrelli, N., & Wolf, A. (2004). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness in low-income Spanish and English bilingual preschool children. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 25(3), 323–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001158 European Commission. (2011). Language learning at pre-primary school level: Making it efficient and sustainable. A policy handbook. European Strategic Framework for Education and Training (ET 2020). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/education/content/commission-staff-workingpaper-language-learning-pre-primary-level-making-it-efficient-and_en Eurydice. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Retrieved from http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/content-and-language-integrated-learning-clic-at-school-ineurope-pbNCX106001/ Guo, Q., Tao, J., & Gao, X. (2019). Language teacher education in system. System, 82(1), 132–139. Hernández Fernández, J. (2019). ¿Cuándo tendremos una verdadera política de enseñanza del idioma inglés? Retrieved from https://educacion.nexos.com.mx/cuando-tendremos-unaverdadera-politica-de-ensenanza-del-idioma-ingles/ Hofstadler, N., Babic, S., Lämmerer, A., Mercer, S., & Oberdorfer, P. (2020). The ecology of CLIL teachers in Austria -An ecological perspective on CLIL teachers’ wellbeing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 15(3), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1739050 Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2015). Anuario estadístico y geográfico de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 2015. Retrieved from: http://internet.contenidos.inegi.org.mx/ contenidos/productos//prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/nueva_estruc/aegeum/ 2015/702825077280.pdf Lorenzo, F., Trujillo, F., & Vez, J. M. (2011). Educación Bilingüe. Integración de Contenidos y Segundas Lenguas. Síntesis. Mård-Miettinen, K., Palviainen, A., & Palojärvi, A. (2018). Dynamics in interaction in bilingual team teaching: Examples from a Finnish preschool classroom. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education, multilingual education 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77228-8_6 Marsh, D. (Ed.). (2002). CLIL/EMILE: The European dimension. University of Jyväskylä. McDougald, J. (2015). Teachers’ attitudes, perceptions and experiences in CLIL: A look at content and language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 17(1), 25–41. Millán Librado, T., & Basurto Santos, N. M. (2020). Teaching English to young learners in Mexico: Teachers’ perceptions about their teaching contexts. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 22(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v22n1.82105

274

N. Martínez-Leo´n

Moate, J. (2014). A narrative account of a teacher community. Teacher Development, 18(3), 384–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2014.931294 Morris, J., & Segura, R. (2003). Materiales y recursos para la enseñanza de una lengua extranjera en Educación Infantil. In C. Huete & V. Morales (Eds.), Enseñanza-aprendizaje de las lenguas extranjeras en edades tempranas (pp. 195–216). Consejería de Educación y Cultura de la Región de Murcia. Na, L., Gregory, J. C., & Téllez, K. (2021). English language standards in California, China and Mexico: History, comparison, and analysis. Interchange, 52, 501–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10780-021-09432-6 Peltoniemi, A., Skinnari, K., Mård-Miettinen, K., & Sjöberg, S. (2018). Monella kielellä Suomen kunnissa 2017. Selvitys muun laajamittaisen ja suppeamman kaksikielisen varhaiskasvatuksen, esiopetuksen ja perusopetuksen tilanteesta (Many languages in Finnish municipalities 2017. A report of other large-scale and small-scale bilingual ECEC, preschool and basic education). University of Jyväskylä. https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/57577/978-951-397391-9.pdf?sequence¼5&isAllowed¼y Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 202–221. Ramírez-Romero, J. L., & Sayer, P. (2016). The teaching of English in public primary schools in Mexico: More heat than light? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(84), 1–22. Ramírez-Romero, J. L., & Vargas-Gil, E. (2019). Mexico’s politics, policies and practices for bilingual education and English as a foreign language in primary public schools. In B. G. G. Johannessen (Ed.), Bilingualism and bilingual education: Politics, policies and practices in a globalized society (pp. 9–37). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05496-0_2 Secretaría de Educación Pública, Gobierno de México. (2017). Estrategia Nacional de inglés. Estrategia nacional para el fortalecimiento de la enseñanza del inglés. Retrieved from https:// www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/289658/Mexico_en_Ingle_s_DIGITAL.pdf Várkuti, A. (2010). Linguistic benefits of the CLIL approach: Measuring linguistic competences. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 67–79. Retrieved from http://www.icrj.eu/13/ article7.html

Part III Methodological Issues: CLIL Pedagogy Applied to Pre-primary Education

Teaching Guidelines to Introduce CLIL in the Pre-primary Stage

18

A´ngela A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How Does CLIL Relate to the Way Pre-primary Children Learn? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching Guidelines for Successful CLIL at the Pre-primary Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of Good Practices in CLIL at the Pre-primary Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Circle Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Daily Routines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL Project- Based Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storytelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Task Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

278 279 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 289 290

Abstract

The emergence of CLIL in our schools has made teachers understand that merely prolonging contact with general English is not enough to prepare Pre-primary children for the kind of tasks and critical thinking required in Primary bilingual programs. CLIL fosters contact with the L2 as it is used as the vehicular classroom language, which results in a higher degree of proficiency amongst students if compared to traditional EFL lessons. The richness of the learning context, and the meaningfulness of the experience, favour a better development of both linguistic and cognitive functions. By integrating content and language learning, children learn to use the language at the same time they use the language to learn. This chapter tackles the importance of adapting CLIL teaching to the Pre-primary stage. Children at these ages need specific methodological and didactic techniques that foster personal autonomy, language acquisition and Á. Álvarez-Cofiño (*) University Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, Spain e-mail: aalvarezcofi[email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_18

277

278

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

knowledge of the world around them. Holistic learning, playtime, circle time and routines, are elements that should be part of CLIL programs at Pre-primary in order to enhance children’s integrated education in the second language, and which should be part of their daily classroom interaction and not just considered another subject to learn. Finally, the chapter concludes with some teaching guidelines, recommendations, advice and tips to implement CLIL at Pre-primary level, such as the need to incorporate the second language into daily classroom life, planning activities and tasks that foster communication, enhancing playtime as part of the child’s integral learning process, using different techniques to promote communication in class, and working on motivating topics for children in a holistic and integrated way, all of them products of real classroom practice. Keywords

Pre-primary · Teaching guidelines · CLIL · Integrated · Holistic approach · Good practices

Introduction The teaching of a foreign language in Pre-primary education has been traditionally considered a first contact with the language by offering children very limited sessions or “language showers” about familiar topics such as the days of the week, colours, numbers, members of the family, animals, etc. (Willis, 1985; Rixon, 1991; Reilly & Ward, 1997; Bland, 2015; Murphy & Evangelou, 2016). However, educational authorities have considered it necessary to advance the implementation of this approach during the Pre-primary period by “teaching at least two foreign languages from a very early age” (European Council, 2002, p. 19), as it is an approach that is suitable in order to adapt to early childhood education. Although at the Pre-primary Education level some areas like foreign language teaching are less frequently mentioned (Eurydice, 2019), there are several European countries that have incorporated it as part of the curricula for students under 6 years old (Eurydice, 2012). Currently, foreign language teaching at an early age is evolving due to the influence of approaches that have been successful at higher educational stages (Primary and Secondary), such as CLIL (Admiraal et al., 2006; Mewald, 2007; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008; Muñoz & Navés, 2007; Fernández, 2010; Lasagabaster & Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Várkuti, 2010; Ting, 2011; Nikula, 2017; Pavón Vázquez, 2018; Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2019a; Goris et al., 2019). Due to the positive results obtained in CLIL at Primary level, some European Countries like Portugal (Mourão, 2014; Mourão & Ferreirinha, 2016) and Spain (Navés & Muñoz, 1999; Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2005, 2006, 2009a, 2010, 2019b; Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2020; Díez Olmedo, 2020; Cortina-Pérez & Pino, 2021) started an experimental implementation by piloting CLIL work at Pre-school stages.

18

Teaching Guidelines to Introduce CLIL in the Pre-primary Stage

279

CLIL provides learners with a great amount of comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985; Gass, 1997; Van Patten, 2003; Krashen, 2011) as the language is learnt as a communication and interaction vehicle (Coyle et al., 2010). The language is learnt in a natural way as a result of the communicative exchanges required by task-based methodology (Ball et al., 2015), through appealing content presented in a playful, motivating and meaningful way, which favours communication and interaction. Language is not the target but the medium to acquire contents, so it is learnt in a contextualised way, even to the point of children not actually realizing they are acquiring language as well as contents. Moreover, the children’s linguistic knowledge of the foreign language will also improve significantly, as the kind of vocabulary and structures used in CLIL lessons are richer and more complex than those used in traditional foreign language teaching (Mehisto et al., 2008; Coyle et al., 2010). CLIL offers opportunities [. . .] to use another language naturally, in such a way that they soon forget about the language and only focus on learning the content. (Marsh, 2004, p. 6)

When learning through CLIL, where a second language is used, language-supportive resources, methods and tasks are actively used to enable learners to use language purposefully. This support is a form of scaffolding that helps learners to effectively process information, negotiate understanding and construct knowledge (Mehisto et al., 2008; Coyle et al., 2010). In pre-primary bilingual settings, “the classroom becomes a conducive context for learning language and non-language subjectmatters through the medium of an L2” (Gibbons, 2015, p. 208). All that mentioned previously is more evident and necessary at the Pre-school stage, where early learners need a great amount of visual support, active and studentcentred methodologies, and cognitively challenging tasks (Fleta, 2006a, b, 2008, 2018; Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2010; Mourão, 2014; Mourão & Lourenço, 2015; Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2020) that they should be able to solve or perform with the help and guide of CLIL teachers.

How Does CLIL Relate to the Way Pre-primary Children Learn? Although there is no conclusive agreement regarding the age factor for the introduction of a second language, some research shows that “earlier is better” and that it should be done in a natural and incidental way (Johnstone, 2001; García Mayo & García Lecumberri, 2003; Kuhl et al., 2005; Kuhl, 2011; Dolean, 2015). Moreover, Newport (1990) stated that infants’ limited cognitive capacities allow superior learning of the simplified language spoken to them. Pinter (2015) also declares that “younger learners are less anxious and less inhibited, and overall, they can spend more time devoted to the language compared with those who start later” (p. 29). All of the above makes a very favourable scenario for the introduction of CLIL at Pre-primary, because young learners will acquire the second language in a natural way, as it will be used for learning non-linguistic content in an integrated and

280

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

meaningful way, where the language will be learnt by using it intuitively in the different interactions that take place in the classroom (Marsh, 2004; Coyle & Meyer, 2020), thus following the mandate of the European Commission (2011) which states that “children should be exposed to the target language in meaningful and, if possible, authentic settings in such a way that the language is spontaneously acquired rather than consciously learnt” (p. 17). [. . .]these methods prioritize the use of real materials surrounding the child, looking for motivation for learning other languages, describing the teacher as a facilitator of learning, and targeting at the simultaneous acquisition of L1 and L2 in a relaxing and motivating atmosphere. (Pino & Rodríguez, 2006, p. 153, cited in Andúgar & Cortina-Pérez, 2018).

In short, the earlier children start learning an L2 the better, provided that they have long and quality exposure to the target language as well as plenty of opportunities for conversational interaction. In this way, “children will have longer time to learn and they will make more steady progress in comparison to those who start later” (Lightbown & Spada, 2013, p. 204). On the other hand, interest in early language learning has also been influenced by the view that children adapt well to learning languages if it is integrated into other types of learning and carried out in a “naturalistic environment” (Coyle et al., 2010). In most education systems around Europe, the Pre-primary stage is not subjectbased. Instead, teachers and children work in three main areas: communication (where the second language would be included), personal autonomy and knowledge of the world around us (UNESCO-UIS, 2012). Therefore, Pre-primary children learn in a natural, holistic and integrated way where the content and mother tongue are intertwined in all those three areas (Mourão, 2015; Brumen et al., 2018). As Bruce (2015, p. 17) states “Young children learn in an integrated way and not in neat and tidy compartments”. This makes CLIL a good methodological approach to be used with early learners, as it triggers the integration of content and second language learning in a global way (Coyle et al., 2010; Coyle & Meyer, 2020). Additionally, young children learn from their environment and through their senses. According to Reese (2011), children learn better by doing, which means when they can observe, touch, feel, manipulate and experience directly with the object of the learning. This is why, when implementing CLIL with early learners it is pivotal to plan multisensory and hands-on activities and tasks, experiments, songs, action games, etc. to give children the opportunity to use all their five senses in what is being worked on in class, for them to understand, assimilate and anchor content better (Fleta, 2006a, b, 2008, 2018; Mourão, 2014, 2015; Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010, 2019b; Agudo & Amin, 2012; Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2019, 2020; Gabillon, 2020). Multisensory activities are based on whole brain learning, which means teaching early learners by involving as many areas of the brain as possible (Wolken, 2017). Very young children also learn from observation and imitation by watching and listening to others (Rymanowicz, 2015). The model they have to observe and imitate in the CLIL classroom is the teacher. Thus, it is very important for teachers to offer

18

Teaching Guidelines to Introduce CLIL in the Pre-primary Stage

281

early learners meaningful and appealing input for them to be moved into imitating the language that the teacher provides and the way of fulfilling the content activities and tasks the teacher will guide them through (Fleta, 2008; Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2010; Mourão, 2015, 2018; Alstad & Tkachenko, 2018; Mifsud & Vella, 2018). Teachers have a significant impact as role models for oral communication, so teachers with a high degree of fluency (though not necessarily with “native-like” pronunciation characteristics) are required. (Anderson et al., 2015, p. 142)

That way, and with the teacher’s help and scaffolding, they will become more autonomous in the use of the second language and in addressing the content dealt with in class. Teachers need to build trust, continue allowing them to manipulate objects, use positive reinforcement, encourage questions, provide simple drawings and stories, and stimulate the senses (Santrock, 2005). Pre-primary children learn better when they are curious, interested and engaged, when they have a genuine reason to discover something (Spektor-Levy, 2011). Children are curious by nature, because they need to explore the environment around them in order to understand it, so they find almost everything new and interesting (Stephens, 2007). The CLIL teacher plays a fundamental role in trying to nurture that curiosity, in raising children’s interest in the content to be worked on and in providing meaningful language that helps them be engaged in the tasks and activities done in class (Marsh, 2004; Coyle et al., 2010). CLIL at the Pre-primary stage encourages increasing children’s curiosity for topics they like and also to start using a language different from their mother tongue, so teachers can offer them choices about the topics to be worked on, the time during the school year to work on them, etc. (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010). Since children will express and develop their curiosity and engagement in different ways, it will be vital to offer them many and varied ways of dealing with the content and the language in class, to cater for all those different styles (Fleta, 2008; Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2010; Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2020). In this case, it is important to make them the protagonists of their own learning process and to motivate them to continue learning outside the school context. As Thoumi (2003, cited in Andúgar & Cortina-Pérez, 2018) declares, a “good motivator is, in general, one who can communicate, deliver, model, guide or suggest something suitable for the progress of children and young people, one who facilitates, guides and directs, bringing support, not dependence on the adult” (p. 16). Moreover, children learn when they connect prior to new knowledge, namely, the construction of knowledge begins with the observation and recognition of events and objects through concepts they already comprehend (Ausubel, 1963). Young children learn by constructing a network of concepts and adding them to the ones they know. Again, CLIL appears as a suitable approach to be introduced at the Pre-primary stage because, as regards learning content in a second language, all children start from scratch, so they begin building up new content and language knowledge based on their prior knowledge and personal experiences, transferring concepts and strategies, interacting with their environment and also with the teacher and the rest of their

282

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

classmates at school, thus making sense of what they are learning (Coyle, 2000; Mehisto et al., 2008; Hüttner & Smit, 2013; Coyle & Meyer, 2020). Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences shows that children learn at different rates and in different ways, depending on how developed they have one kind of intelligence over another (Gardner, 1983). CLIL offers Pre-primary teachers the chance to carry out very varied activities and tasks in class to enable early learners to deal with the new content in the second language, thus catering for all different learning styles, paces and styles of intelligence (Fleta, 2008; Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2010; Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2020). New content and language needs to be repeated over and over again in order to be acquired and consolidated by early learners and, to do so in a motivating way, the interaction in class should be different all the time (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Changing the grouping methods regularly (from big group to small group, from pair work to independent work, etc.), as well as the kind of tasks (livelier, quieter, musical, verbal, oral, logical-mathematical, visual, kinaesthetic, etc.) will enrich the kind of CLIL work done in class, apart from making the sessions more interesting and engaging for children (Dörnyei & Malderez, 2005; Coyle et al., 2010; Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010). Children also learn better when they feel valued and safe, as they will take risks and explore. When conditions allow children to satisfy curiosity through secure, self-initiated and playful exploration, learning occurs naturally (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Roorda et al., 2011). CLIL entails risk taking when dealing with the new content using the second language, as children need to use it purposefully and with a clear target: communication (Marsh, 2004). Since they are not proficient in the new language yet, they will feel more encouraged to participate in class and to experiment with the language if the teacher praises their efforts in doing so, as their self-esteem increases and makes them feel comfortable with their performance in class (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Roorda et al., 2011). Therefore, they will learn a lot through repetition and trial and error because they feel encouraged to participate, to risk saying something they have learnt even if they make mistakes, as they know they will be praised and not constantly corrected by the teacher (Roberts, 1995; Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2010; Hoxha, 2015). Teachers should allow errors in the second language if they are not that important so as to interrupt the communicative act (Ferris, 2002; Amara, 2015) and as a part of the natural learning process (Criss, 2008). Finally, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1977), that views child development as a complex system of relationships affected by multiple levels of the surrounding environment, from immediate settings of family and school to broad cultural values, laws and customs, helps to highlight the pivotal role of the teacher in the Pre-primary stage. Pre-schoolers learn from their figures of reference, usually their parents, teachers, siblings and friends (the microsystem in Bronfenbrenner’s theory of learning ecologies), the CLIL teacher being one of them, as they will be together in school for many sessions a week (Johnston, 1981). Therefore, children need to relate to the teacher as a person who is close to them and that cares for and supports them (interest and attention), who creates a relaxed and stress-free atmosphere in class that invites participation (emotion, interest and motivation), who

18

Teaching Guidelines to Introduce CLIL in the Pre-primary Stage

283

praises their efforts (motivation) and who provides meaningful content-based and linguistic input that enables them to progress in CLIL (interest and motivation). All the aforementioned is closely linked to the theory of affective learning, defined as the learning that relates to the learner’s emotions, interests, attitudes and motivations (Aoki, 2005; Forgas, 2008; Dörnyei, 2009). Thus, the CLIL teacher will be the person to guide children through the whole content and language integrated learning process, offering them linguistic, content and emotional support all along the journey.

Teaching Guidelines for Successful CLIL at the Pre-primary Stage As has been mentioned before, the main objective in starting CLIL implementation at Pre-primary level is to increase the exposure of early learners to the second language at the same time they acquire content from the different areas of experience related to their age and cognitive level (Marsh, 2004; Mehisto et al., 2008; Coyle et al., 2010), thus providing early linguistic and thinking skills that will allow them to cope with the kind of tasks and cognition required in Primary Education bilingual programs (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2019b). Based on the early learning theories and approaches dealt with in the former point, this section of the chapter pinpoints some guidelines to help CLIL teachers carry out their lessons successfully at the Pre-primary stage: • Following the recommendations of international organizations such as the European Commission and UNESCO, teachers at this stage should focus on content work from a cross-curricular and holistic point of view, using English as the communicative vehicle and covering different aspects of issues that are attractive and relevant to students (Marsh, 2004). CLIL learning and knowledge at early ages is built up across different areas through experimental tasks and activities, because integrated learning allows children to connect elements from different domains and create networks of interdisciplinary relationships, which fosters deeper and more complex approaches to knowledge (Todd, 2010). Thus, presenting CLIL content into comprehensive, holistic and integrated lessons instead of unrelated subjects or areas enhances richer outcomes (UNESCO, 2012). • Encouraging students to be active builders of their own learning should be essential at the Pre-primary stage, where children are also laying the foundations for future learning. In this sense, CLIL is nurtured by constructivist theories, which consider that children actively construct or make their own knowledge and that reality is determined by their experiences (Elliott et al., 2000). • CLIL teachers at Pre-primary should promote meaningful learning by tapping into children’s prior knowledge about the topics worked on in class and they begin to construct new knowledge starting from what they already know and also from their personal experiences (Ausubel, 1963; Batista da Silva, 2020). • At this stage it is pivotal for teachers to respect children’s different linguistic and cognitive skills and abilities, and their different learning paces and styles, making

284

•

•

•

•

•

•

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

the learning process a memorable experience for them from the moment they are offered varied tasks and means to progress (Curtain, 2002a, b; Fleta, 2006a; Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2005, 2006, 2009b; Mourão, 2015). Additionally, CLIL teachers must plan their sessions and lessons bearing in mind the constant need to increase the level of students’ self-esteem through activities that suit their tastes, needs and abilities (Aoki, 2005; Forgas, 2008; Dörnyei, 2009). The fact that we offer early learners tasks that are engaging, motivating and that suit the skills they are stronger at, will make them feel happy and proud at being able to attain the established objectives in the CLIL lessons (Coyle, 2000). Interaction and communication should take place in a relaxed and stress-free atmosphere which helps children feel comfortable; “an attractive, interesting, welcoming and comfortable place” (Robinson et al., 2015, p. 29) which encourages them to take part in the different communicative acts that will take place in the CLIL sessions. Prioritize “the use of real materials surrounding the child, looking for motivation for learning other languages” (Pino & Rodríguez, 2006, p. 153, cited in Andúgar & Cortina-Pérez, 2018). Using realia and manipulatives to do practical and handson activities and tasks stimulates children’s curiosity and motivation towards learning (Fleta, 2006a, b, 2008, 2018; Mourão, 2014, 2015; Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010; Agudo & Amin, 2012; Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2019, 2020; Gabillon, 2020). In all school stages, but especially at Pre-primary, respect and appreciation for individual and cultural differences that exist in class must be promoted, helping children to express their personal opinions and points of view, and promoting self-respect and respect for other ideas, views and opinions (Rashid & Tikly, 2010). CLIL teachers should try to bring the world into the classroom and take the classroom out to the world by organizing exhibitions, open days, excursions and visits. This allows children to see that everything they learn through CLIL topics is practical and exists out of the school, and therefore they can take advantage of what they learn for their everyday life (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010). Finally, teachers could try to integrate CLIL project work in the school plan, thus pursuing an integrated and global learning process (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010; UNESCO, 2012). As we will see below, CLIL projects are a suitable way to work both content and language at Pre-primary in an integrated, active and motivating way.

Examples of Good Practices in CLIL at the Pre-primary Stage In the last section of the chapter, examples of good practices tested in Pre-primary classrooms are presented to enlighten those teachers who are looking for effective ideas and resources to carry out their CLIL lessons. Some of them come from foreign language teaching contexts, but they can be easily adapted to CLIL lessons development.

18

Teaching Guidelines to Introduce CLIL in the Pre-primary Stage

285

Circle Time Circle time (some Pre-primary teachers also call it “assembly time”) is a moment, usually at the beginning of the session, in which both children and the teacher sit in a circle in a specific area of the classroom. There are no chairs or desks around and, usually, children sit on a carpet or on the floor. Sitting in a circle makes it easier for children to see each other and the teacher, keeping face-to-face contact at every moment and making the learning moment more “casual” and less “academic” (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010), in the sense that there is less formality in the way the teacher and the children address each other. Everybody sits at the same level, so there are no predominant positions, and this facilitates informal conversation and helps children consequently feel more motivated for participating and interacting with their peers and teacher. In the words of Mourão (2015) “Circle time forms an essential part of a pre-primary schedule as it supports the development of the whole child, for through these different activities children’s personal and social skills are developed alongside other competences like maths, language and literacy, and gross and fine motor skills” (p. 59). During circle time children interact with the teacher and with their peers in a natural way, they learn to respect everybody’s turn to speak and to be patient to wait for theirs; they also learn to listen to others and respect and value their opinions; they develop listening, speaking and thinking skills when working on different topics such as phonics, stories, calendar, weather, class register, etc. (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010; Mourão, 2014, 2015, 2018a, b). Circle time favours teachers using different techniques to promote communication and interaction, making both language and content accessible to young learners (Fleta, 2006a, 2018): • modelling: the teacher provides children with the correct models for speech and/or language through regular conversation (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010, 2019a) • repetition: children need to hear words and utterances many times before incorporating them into their new language corpus (Schwab & Lew-Williams, 2016) • recasting: repeating in the foreign language what children say in their mother tongue (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010, 2019a) • explicit correction, especially when errors prevent communication • questioning, and prioritizing creative questioning where children have to develop critical thinking for answering and to encourage children to come up with more than one solution or answer (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2010, 2019a) • language mixing, which should be allowed in a bilingual approach such as CLIL (Marsh, 2004; Coyle et al., 2010), especially the younger the students • codeswitching, especially at the Pre-primary stage, when children are not proficient enough in the foreign language and they need to do this (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2010, 2019a) • giving feedback • expansion, to offer children more quality input

286

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

• clarification requests • elicitation: it enables the teacher to get learners to provide information rather than giving it to them, and it is especially important to build on meaningful learning by being aware of children’s prior knowledge (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010, 2019a) • formulaic speech: as Fleta (2018) points out “formulaic expressions provide children with the basic tools to participate in class from day one. Children rotelearn the formulas and these formulaic expressions allow them to become productive in English during conversational interactions” (p. 305). Gibbons (2015) states that one of the most important tasks young learners must carry out in the classroom is to understand the language: “language development involves continuing a process of meaning making” (p. 9). Therefore, CLIL teachers need to use the aforementioned techniques to present the language in a meaningful and comprehensible way that aids children in incorporating those linguistic elements that will enable them to start using more widely and more confidently the new language they are acquiring. Circle time is, therefore, the best scenario for carrying out speaking and listening activities in class; for working daily routines such as the calendar, weather, season, class register; for daily phonics work; for storytelling; for big group demonstrations or tasks; for introducing songs, chants and rhymes. In short, for all those tasks that involve interaction with the teacher and peers.

Daily Routines Routines play a determining role at the Pre-primary stage, as they are repetitive and predictable, so at every moment children know what to expect, what they will be asked to do, and this promotes a feeling of confidence and of a certain autonomy in children, too (Mourão, 2015; Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010). Bruner (1993, p. 45, as cited by Mourão, 2015, p. 60) refers to daily routines as a classroom interaction mode for “systematic use of language with an adult” that will help children acquire the foreign language. Within daily routines, we can include (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010): • greeting and farewell songs: hello, good morning, good afternoon, bye-bye, see you tomorrow. . . • the sitting mode: circle time, flexible sitting, go to your seats • the date: calendar, days (to practice ordinal numbers), month, weather, season • class register, to practice counting and numerals (Mourão, 2015) • nursery rhyme of the week: every week a new nursery rhyme is presented, so children practice new vocabulary and structures, rhyme, rhythm and beat • phonics practice: playing with sounds, phonemic and phonological awareness through songs, gestures, key words and manipulative games (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2019c)

18

Teaching Guidelines to Introduce CLIL in the Pre-primary Stage

287

• storytelling: doing it on a weekly basis we could enhance children’s acquisition of new vocabulary and structures in a fun and motivating way (Wright, 1995; Ellis & Brewster, 2002) • chants, limericks, tongue twisters, riddles, trivia questions.

CLIL Project- Based Work Agudo and Amin (2012) stated that topics provide an opportunity for children to develop their knowledge and understanding of the world and to understand new concepts in a meaningful context. Topics also helps children to develop socially, emotionally, physically and cognitively through the integrated teaching of all curricular areas, and to acquire language in a natural way by using a crosscurricular approach where all subjects can be worked on within a given topic. Therefore, project work through topics appears as the ideal approach to be implemented in Pre-primary to integrate the second language and the contents dealt with in the three areas at this stage: communication, personal autonomy and knowledge of the world around us (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010; Díez Olmedo, 2020). CLIL Project work has proved to be very motivating and positive (ÁlvarezCofiño Martínez, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010; Pastor Adrián, 2018; Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011; Riera Toló, 2017; Díez Olmedo, 2020), as it respects the differences in capabilities amongst children, as each one imposes his or her own pace of work. Paramount to project-based work is to contribute to the class project in some way or another, so that children feel motivated to be part of the development of a common project and thus, become the real protagonists of their own learning (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010, 2019b; Riera Toló, 2017; Díez Olmedo, 2020). Therefore, respecting students’ learning paces, skills and abilities is a key issue in this approach. CLIL Project work at the Pre-primary stage involves working on relevant, motivating and engaging topics in class where the contents of different areas are presented in an integrated and holistic way (so children can make connections among them). It should be also an organized and flexible process guided by the teacher and where the children’s participation is vital in giving answers or solving problems by using in a meaningful way all the knowledge acquired (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010; Pastor Adrián, 2018; Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011; Riera Toló, 2017; Díez Olmedo, 2020). To conclude, CLIL Project work involves children taking part in the design and planning of the whole learning process, in decision making and in the research processes carried out in class, giving them the opportunity to work in an autonomous way most of the time (Jones et al., 1997). That autonomy Jones et al. (1997) claim will be acquired step by step and over time, as early learners will need more guidance and support on the side of the teacher at the beginning, especially when working with content in a different language from their mother tongue.

288

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

Storytelling An optimal start to introduce CLIL topics to very young learners at this stage is storytelling (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010; Riera Toló, 2017; Díez Olmedo, 2020). Stories are universally recognised by children, they are visually stimulating and fun, they convey emotions and are full of associations, they have a context and they guarantee enthusiastic participation by children (Wright, 1995; Reilly & Ward, 1997). Some successful CLIL Project works at this stage start from a storybook that has strong connections with the topic to be worked on in class (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010; Riera Toló, 2017): • The Solar System: “There’s No Place Like Space” (Dr. Seuss), “Daddy on the Moon” (Cressida Cowell). • Plants: “The Tiny Seed” (Eric Carle), “Meg’s Veg” (Helen Nicoll and Jan Pienkowsky), “Jack and the Beanstalk”. • Africa, animals of the savannah, tropical fruits: “Handa’s Surprise” (Ellen Browne). • Animals: “Dear Zoo” (Rod Campbell), “Brown Bear, Brown Bear” (Eric Carle), “The Mixed Up Chameleon” (Eric Carle), “Cock-a-doodle-doo” (Steve Lavis). • Life cycles: “The Very Hungry Caterpillar” (Eric Carle), “Oscar and the Frog” (Geoff Waring). • We’re the same, we’re different: “Elmer” (David McKee). • Primary and Secondary Colours: “Mouse Paint” (Ellen Stoll Walsh). • Dinosaurs (time in the past): “Caveman Dave” (Nick Sharrat), “Dinosaurs Galore” (Giles Andreae and David Wojtowycz), “Meg, Mog and Og” (Helen Nicoll and Jan Pienkowsky). • Processes: “The Little Red Hen”, “Milk: From cow to carton” (Aliki), “Beans on Toast” (Paul Dowling). • Transport: “Bumper to Bumper” (Jakki Wood). • Physical features: “The Gruffalo” (Julia Donaldson). • Animals and their babies: “Monkey Puzzle” (Julia Donaldson). • Autumn: “The Gruffalo” (Julia Donaldson), “Apple Trouble” (Ragnhild Scamell and Michael Terry), “The Leaves on the Trees” (Thom Wiley). • Food, healthy eating: “The Tiger who Came to Tea” (Judith Kerr), “I will Never, Ever Eat a Tomato” (Lauren Child). • Feelings: “Colour Me Happy” (Shen Roddie and Ben Cort), “Lost and Found” (Oliver Jeffers). • Post and Letters: “The Jolly Postman” (Alan and Janet Ahlberg), “Polly the Potty Postlady” (Roone Randall), “Postman Pat” (BBC Books). • Teeth: “Smile, Crocodile, Smile” (An Vrombaout), “Brush your Teeth, Please” (Leslie McGuire), “I Want my Tooth” (Tony Ross). Through storytelling we can help children tune into the CLIL topic to be worked on in class in a fun and motivating way, and it should never be forgotten to also include non-fiction books in our CLIL lessons (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2009, 2010).

18

Teaching Guidelines to Introduce CLIL in the Pre-primary Stage

289

Task Boxes Task boxes work consists of preparing a set of manipulative activities and tasks to be done by children autonomously, either individually or in pairs. Tasks boxes are mainly used with specific education needs children (especially those with autism spectrum disorder) to enhance communication and language acquisition in a visual and manipulative way (Rain, 2020; Autism Classroom News and Resources, 2021), but teachers can take advantage of them to help young children consolidate content and language in their CLIL lessons. Task boxes work improves attention, as children must concentrate on solving the problem/task presented using the resources in the box in a logical way. Task boxes contain all the resources required for a specific activity. The child can open them, do the corresponding activity, and then put the things back into the box. The activities are usually simple and structured and they are aimed at achieving some specific objectives (linguistic, mathematical, fine motor skills, etc.). Task boxes can be reused as many times as children need them to consolidate the content and the language being worked on in each of them (Rain, 2020). Task boxes are based on Nunan’s Task-Based Approach (2004), who defines pedagogical tasks as “a piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language [. . .]. The task should have a sense of completeness being able to stand alone as a communicative act in its own right with a beginning, a middle and an end” (p. 4). During task boxes work children do not only manipulate and do hands-on activities, but they must also verbalize all they are doing: steps to carry out the task, different elements and objects they see in the box, colours and sizes of the objects in the box, etc., thus using the language in a purposeful way. Task boxes work include, for example, patterning, sequencing, sorting, labelling, matching, building, lacing. . . and the kind of manipulative resources to include in the boxes range from pompoms, tiles, counters, three-part cards, laces, beads to wooden balls, Lego bricks or bottle tops, that make the content and language learning experience more meaningful and memorable for children.

Conclusions In light of what has been presented throughout this chapter, we can conclude that CLIL seems to be an adequate approach to be implemented in preschool classrooms, due to the great benefits it brings to the teaching-learning process at these early ages. With this approach teachers have to constantly support the students and use different techniques that cater for affective, linguistic and learning needs which promote meaningful and active learning. Moreover, teachers should facilitate students with as much input as possible: the more input they get, the better, as they will be able to assimilate concepts and start making hypotheses (unconsciously) about the way things work in a language (word formation, sentence pattern, etc.). On the other hand, though not at the very beginning, young children will retain that input on

290

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

their minds and, when the right time comes, they will transform it into an output that will be richer if the amount of input they had previously received was large. Secondly, it is very important in the Pre-primary stage to create a familiar and friendly atmosphere in the classroom to boost learning. This way, children will feel more comfortable and ready to learn, they will perceive both the place and the lessons as something pleasant and will be eager to interact with their teacher and classmates. The teacher needs to be someone close to them, trustworthy and caring and, consequently, children will be more receptive and predisposed to interact with them and with their classmates, too. Then, we must remember that in CLIL at this early stage every task or activity must be focused and contextualised within a framework. Contextualising is very important at these ages, because context transmits meaning. We can try to do non-related activities which will be a lot of fun for children and which they will probably enjoy immensely, but they may be totally empty of meaning. When something is not meaningful, it is not comprehensible, and therefore, practically impossible to be assimilated. A song, a story, a task, a lesson, a project can be very productive if presented to students within a context. As regards focusing on learning, it is necessary to know exactly what we are going to do in our sessions, although we must give a chance for improvisation as well. That is why planning is very important in the teaching task. Teachers must plan CLIL lessons beforehand to know exactly what they want to teach and what they expect children to learn. To conclude, working through CLIL with early learners is a challenging task, as we are just laying the foundations for a more thorough learning that will continue in later stages of their academic training. Their future knowledge of different kinds of content and the second language will depend, to a great extent, on the foundations we start building at this stage.

References Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in The Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 75–93. Agudo, M., & Amin, A. (2012). Spanish/English pre-primary integrated curriculum. National Centre for Educative Innovation and Research (CNIIE). Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports. Alstad, G., & Tkachenko, E. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in creating multilingual spaces: The case of English teaching in Norwegian early childhood education. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education. Springer. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2005). Introducción temprana del Inglés como Segunda Lengua en Clases Multinivel de Educación Infantil en un Colegio Rural Agrupado: Proyecto Curricular. In Premios Nacionales de Innovación Educativa 2003 (pp. 83–100). CIDE. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2006). Introducción Temprana al Inglés. Revista del CPR NalónCaudal “El Busgosu”, 5, 46–49. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2009a). CLIL project work at early ages: A case study. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. J. Frigols, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice:

18

Teaching Guidelines to Introduce CLIL in the Pre-primary Stage

291

Perspectives from the field (pp. 62–67). CCN-University of Jyväskylä. http://icpj.eu/? id¼contents Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2009b). The 6 F’s in teaching English to very young learners. The Teacher. English Language Teaching, 4(68), 16–17. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2010). CLIL through collaborative projects at Infant stages. In Lend, lingua e nuova didattica (Vol. 2, pp. 32–43). Mediaprint. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2019a). El Enfoque Metodológico CLIL en la Enseñanza Primaria. Estudio Comparativo de la Implementación de CLIL en un Colegio Bilingüe y en un Colegio con Sección Bilingüe. Editorial Académica Española. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2019b). My little CLIL world teacher’s guide. Oxford University Press. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2019c). Archie’s world phonics. Teacher’s guides starter, level A and level B. Oxford University Press. Amara, N. (2015). Errors correction in foreign language teaching. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 5(3), 58–67. Anderson, C., Mcdougald, G., & Cuesta, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C. Giannikas, L. McLaughlin, J. Fanning, & N. Muller (Eds.), Children learning English: From research to practice (pp. 137–151). Garnet Education. Andúgar, A., & Cortina-Pérez, B. (2018). EFL teachers’ reflections on their teaching practice in Spanish preschools: A focus on motivation. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education. Springer. Aoki, N. (2005). Affect and the role of teachers in the development of learner autonomy. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning. Cambridge University Press. August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50–57. Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. Grune & Stratton. Autism Classroom News and Resources. (2021). Simple task boxes for special education: Easy to make and use. https://autismclassroomresources.com/simple-task-boxes-for-special-education Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press. Batista da Silva, J. (2020). David Ausubel’s theory of meaningful Learningan analysis of the necessary conditions. Research, Society and Development, 9(4). https://dialnet.unirioja.es/ servlet/articulo?codigo¼7423145 Bland, J. (2015). Teaching English to young learners. In Critical issues in language teaching with 3–12 year olds. Bloomsbury Academic. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. Bruce, T. (2015). Early childhood education. Hodder Education. Brumen, M., Fras Berro, F., & Cagran, B. (2018). Preschool foreign language teaching and learning – A network innovation project in Slovenia. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(6), 904–917. Bruner, J. (1993). Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. Norton. Calabrese, I., & Rrampone, S. (2005). Cross-curricular projects per la Scuola Primaria. Loescher. Cenoz, J. (2003). The influence of age on the acquisition of English: General proficiency, attitudes and code mixing. In M. P. García Mayo & M. L. García Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language. Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. (Ed.). (2003). The effects of the second language on the first. Multilingual Matters. Cortina-Pérez, B., & Andúgar, A. (2019). Didáctica de la lengua extranjera en Educación Infantil. Inglés. Pirámide. Cortina-Pérez, B., & Andúgar, A. (2020). Aprendiendo inglés en Educación Infantil. Un relato de prácticas innovadores. Revista de Estudios Socioeducativos, 8, 217–234. Cortina-Pérez, B., & Pino, A. M. (2021). Analysing CLIL teacher competences in pre-service preschool education. A case study at the University of Granada. European Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1890021

292

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

Coyle, D. (2000). Meeting the challenge: Developing the 3Cs curriculum. In S. Green (Ed.), New perspectives on teaching and learning modern languages. Multilingual Matters. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2020). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL, content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Criss, E. (2008). The natural learning process. Music Educators Journal, 95(2), 42–46. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. Curtain, H. (2002a). Accountability to the child: Key concepts for success in early language learning. In Adquisición de Lenguas Extranjeras en Edades Tempranas. Actas del Congreso Internacional, Oviedo, September 2001 (pp. 39–44). Spanish Ministry of Education. Curtain, H. (2002b). Constructing meaning in another language: The child’s perspective. In Adquisición de Lenguas Extranjeras en Edades Tempranas. Actas del Congreso Internacional, Oviedo, September 2001 (pp. 15–24). Spanish Ministry of Education. Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C. A. (2004). Languages and children – Making the match: New languages for young learners, grades K-8. Allyn and Bacon. Díez Olmedo, M. (2020). Implementing PBL and CLIL in an early childhood classroom in the United States. Final Masters Dissertation. UNIR. https://reunir.unir.net/bitstream/handle/ 123456789/9993/Diez%20Olmedo,%20María.pdf?isAllowed¼y&sequence¼1 Dolean, D. (2015). How early can we efficiently start teaching a foreign language? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(5), 1–14. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., & Malderez, A. (2005). The role of group dynamics in foreign language learning and teaching. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning. Cambridge University Press. Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., Littlefield Cook, J., & Travers, J. (2000). Educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill College. Ellis, G., & Brewster, J. (2002). Tell it again! The new storytelling handbook for primary teachers. Penguin English. Enever, J., Moon, J., & Raman, U. (Eds.). (2009). Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives. Garnet Education/IATEFL. European Commission. (2011). Language learning at pre-primary school level: Making it efficient and sustainable. A policy handbook. European Commission. European Commission. (2019). Early childhood education and Care in Europe. Eurydice report. Publications Office of the European Union. European Council. (2002). Presidency conclusions. http://ec.europa.eu/invest-inresearch/pdf/ download en/barcelona european council.pdf Eurydice. (2012). Key data on teaching languages at School in Europe. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. Eurydice. (2019). Eurydice Brief: Key Data in on Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe. Educastion, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. Fernández, A. (2010). First steps of CLIL in a Spanish monolingual community: The case of La Rioja. In R. de Zarobe & Lasagabaster (Eds.), CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results and teacher training. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press. Fleta, T. (2006a). Aprendizaje y técnicas de enseñanza del inglés en la escuela. Encuentro, 16, 51–62. Fleta, T. (2006b). Stepping stones for teaching “English L” in the early years. In MitchellShuitevoerder & S. Mourao (Eds.), Teachers and young learners. Research in our classrooms (pp. 43–50). IATEFL. Fleta, T. (2008). The role of interaction in the young learners’ classroom. Encuentro, 17, 6–14.

18

Teaching Guidelines to Introduce CLIL in the Pre-primary Stage

293

Fleta, T. (2014). Enhancing oracy in the pre-primary English classroom. Encuentro, 23, 38–46. Fleta, T. (2018). Scaffolding discourse skills in pre-primary L2 classrooms. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Pre-school bilingual education. Springer. Flores, C., & Corcoll, C. (2008). Learning a foreign language in infant education: A challenge for the school. CIREL (Centre de Support a la Innovació i Recerca Educativa en Llengües, Departament d’Educació, Generalitat de Catalunya. http://srvcnpbs.xtec.cat/cirel/cirel/docs/ pdf/challenge.pdf Forgas, J. P. (2008). Affect and cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 94–101. Gabillon, Z. (2020). Revisiting CLIL: Background, pedagogy, and theoretical underpinnings. In Contextes et didactiques [En ligne], 15. http://journals.openedition.org/ced/1836. https://doi. org/10.4000/ced.1836 García Mayo, M. P., & García Lecumberri, M. L. (Eds.). (2003). Age and the Acquisition of English as as Foreign Language. Multilingual Matters. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input and interaction and the second language learner. Erlbaum. Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Heinemann. Goris, J. (2019). Effects of content and language integrated learning in Europe: A systematic review of longitudinal experimental studies. European Educational Research Journal, 18(6), 675–698. Goris, J., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. The Language Learning Journal, 47(2), 246–256. Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949–967. Hoxha, E. K. (2015). Errors in the foreign language learning process. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research and Development, 2(1), 97–100. Huete, C., & Pérez, P. (2003). La Introducción Temprana de una Lengua Extranjera: Aportaciones para Emprender un Fascinante Camino. In Enseñanza-Aprendizaje de las Lenguas Extranjeras en Edades Tempranas. Consejería de Educación y Cultura. Hüttner, J., & Smit, U. (2013). CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): The bigger picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why . . . and why not. System, 41, 587–597. Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2011). Transition into CLIL: Guidelines for the beginning stages of CLIL. In S. Ioannou-Georgiou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education (pp. 34–54). European Commission. Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education. PROCLIL, Socrates Comenius. Johnston, T. (1981). An ecological approach to a theory of learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4(01), 162–173. Johnstone, R. (2001). Addressing “the age factor”: Some implications for language policy. Council of Europe. Jones, N. F., Rassmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. American Psychological Association. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. Issues and implications. Longman. Krashen, S. (2011). The compelling (not just interesting) input hypothesis. The English Connection, 15(3), 1. Krashen, S., Long, M., & Scarcella, R. (1979). Age, rate and eventual attainment in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13(4), 573–582. Kuhl, P. (2011). Early language learning and literacy: Neuroscience implications for education. Mind, Brain and Education, 5(3), 128–142. Kuhl, P., Conboy, B., Paden, D., & Nelson, T. (2005). Early speech perception and later language development: Implications for the “critical period”. Language Learning and Development, 1(3–4), 237–264.

294

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

Lasagabaster, D., & Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2010). The emergence of CLIL in Spain: An educational challenge. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & D. Lasagabaster (Eds.), CLIL in Spain. Implementation, results and teacher training (pp. 162–187). Cambridge Scholars. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Marsh, D. (2004). Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. University of Jyväskylä. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Macmillan. Mewald, C. (2007). A comparison of oral language performance of learners in CLIL and in mainstream classes at lower secondary level in Lower Austria. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 139–177). Peter Lang. Mifsud, C., & Vella, L. (2018). To mix languages or not? Preschool bilingual education in Malta. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education. Springer. Mourão, S. (2014). Taking play seriously in the pre-primary English classroom. ELT Journal, 68(3), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu018 Mourão, S. (2015). English in pre-primary: The challenge of getting it right. In J. Bland (Ed.), Teaching English to young learners. Critical issues in language teaching with 3–12 year olds. Bloomsbury. Mourão, S. (2018a). Play and peer interaction in a low-exposure foreign language-learning programme. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education. Springer. Mourão, S. (2018b). Playing in English: The emerging voices of pre-primary children in a foreign language context. In F. Copland & S. Garton (Eds.), Voices from the TESOL classroom: Participant inquiries in young learner classes (pp. 67–76). TESOL. Mourão, S., & Ellis, G. (2020). Teaching English to pre-primary children. Delta Publishing. Mourão, S., & Ferreirinha, S. (2016). Early language learning in pre-primary education in Portugal. Informe de la Asociación Portuguesa de Profesores de Inglés. Recuperado de http:// www.appi.pt/activeapp/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Pre-primary-survey-report-July-FINALrev.pdf Mourão, S., & Lourenço, M. (2015). Early years second language acquisition. Routledge. Mourão, S., & Robinson, P. (2016). Facilitating the learning of English through collaborative practice. In V. Murphy & M. Evangelou (Eds.), Early childhood education in English for speakers of other languages. British Council. Muñoz, C., & Navés, T. (2007). Windows on CLIL in Spain. In A. Maljers, D. Marsh, & D. Wolff (Eds.), Windows on CLIL (pp. 160–165). European Centre for Modern Languages. Murphy, L. (2016). Lisa Murphy on play: The foundation of children’s learning. Redleaf Press. Murphy, V., & Evangelou, M. (2016). Early childhood education in English for speakers of other languages. British Council. Navarro Romero, B. (2010). Adquisición de la primera y segunda lengua en aprendices en edad infantil y adulta. Philologica Urcitana, 2, 115–128. Navés, T., & Muñoz, C. (1999). CLIL experiences in Spain. In D. Marsh & G. Langé (Eds.), Implementing content and language integrated learning. University of Jyväskyla. Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11–28. Nikula, T. (2017). CLIL: A European approach to bilingual education. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & S. May (Eds.), Second and foreign language education. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02246-8_10 Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Pastor Adrián, L. (2018). CLIL in pre-school education. Publicaciones Didácticas.com. https://core. ac.uk/download/pdf/235850967.pdf Pavón Vázquez, V. (2018). Learning outcomes in CLIL programmes: A comparison of results between urban and rural environments. Porta Linguarum, 29, 9–28. Pino, M., & Rodríguez, B. (2006). Análisis de los principios metodológicos que fundamentan la enseñanza del inglés como segunda lengua en Educación Infantil. Enseñanza, 24, 131–155. Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford University Press. Pinter, A. (2011). Children learning second languages. Palgrave Macmillan.

18

Teaching Guidelines to Introduce CLIL in the Pre-primary Stage

295

Pinter, A. (2015). Reflections on teaching young learners. In Modern English Teacher, 24(1), 4–6. Rain, E. (2020). Task boxes for Autistic children. https://autism.lovetoknow.com/autism-children/ task-boxes-autistic-children Rashid, N., & Tikly, L. (2010). Guidelines for inclusion and diversity in schools. British Council. Reese, H. W. (2011). The learning-by-doing principle. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 17(1), 1–19. Reilly, V., & Ward, S. (1997). Very young learners. Oxford University Press. Riera Toló, M. R. (2017). CLIL in preschool: An interdisciplinary approach. Departament d’Educació de la Generalitat de Catalunya. http://www.xtec.cat/sgfp/llicencies/200809/ memories/2017m.pdf Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of child language acquisition. Academic. Rixon, S. (1991). The role of fun and games activities in teaching young learners. In C. Brumfit, J. Moont, & R. Tongue (Eds.), Teaching English to children. Collins ETL. Roberts, M., 1995. Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. In Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 163–182). Newbury House. Robinson, P., Mourao, S., & Kang, N. J. (2015). English learning areas in pre-primary classrooms: And investigation of their effectiveness. British Council. Roorda, D., Koomen, H., Split, J., & Oort, F. (2011). The influence of affective teacher–Student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2008). CLIL and foreign language learning: A longitudinal study in the Basque Country. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(1), 60–74. Rymanowicz, K. (2015). Monkey see, monkey do: Model behaviour in early childhood. Michigan State University Extension. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/monkey_see_monkey_do_model_ behavior_in_early_childhood Santrock, J. W. (2005). Children (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Schwab, J., & Lew-Williams, C. (2016). Repetition across successive sentences facilitates young children’s word learning. Developmental Psychology, 52(6), 879–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/ dev0000125 Skinner, E., & Belmont, M. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 571–581. Spektor-Levy, O. (2011). Science and scientific curiosity in pre-school: The teacher’s point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 35(13), 1–28. Stephens, K. (2007). Curiosity and wonder: Cue into children’s inborn motivation to learn. In Exchange. https://www.easternflorida.edu/community-resources/child-development-centers/par ent-resource-library/documents/curiosity-and-wonder Ting, Y. L. T. (2011). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, Results and Teacher Training. In ELT Journal, 65, 495–498. Todd, R. J. (2010). Curriculum integration. Learning in a changing world. McPerson’s Printing Group. UNESCO-UIS. (2012). International standard classification of education ISCED 2011. UNESCO Institute for statistics. Van Patten, B. (2003). From input to output. A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. McGraw-Hill. Várkuti, A. (2010). Linguistic benefits of the CLIL approach: Measuring linguistic competences. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 67–79. Willis, J. (1985). Teaching English through English. Longman. Wolken, A. S. (2017). Brain-based learning and Whole Brain Teaching methods (Master’s thesis, Northwestern College, Orange City, IA). http://nwcommons.nwciowa.edu/education_masters/43/ Wright, A. (1995). Storytelling with children. Oxford University Press.

Language and Content Learning Through Oracy at Pre-primary Education and in CLIL-Based Contexts

19

M. Teresa Fleta

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Issues and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L2 Instruction and Learners from Three to Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L2 Instruction and Learners After Age Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oracy Pedagogy, Pre-primary Education and CLIL-Based Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oracy Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-primary Learning Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLIL Learning Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Listening and Speaking with Learners Aged Three to Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Listening and Speaking with Learners After Age Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

298 299 299 301 302 302 303 305 306 308 310 311

Abstract

This chapter raises awareness of the importance of teaching oracy (listening and speaking skills) at pre-primary education and in CLIL-based contexts for language and content learning. Academic progress in settings where instruction is taught through an L2 is dependent on language and content development in different areas of the curriculum. This implies reconsidering the traditional methodologies of L2 teaching with instructional enhancements that support oracy. To teach concepts and the language that relates to them, pre-primary educators and CLIL practitioners need to be knowledgeable of how learners approach an L2 in instructional contexts. Moreover, to enhance the communication skills of listening and speaking and to improve learners’ language and content knowledge, they also need to be skilled in effective age-appropriate pedagogical practices. Grounded in empirically based understanding of L2 learning, the paper delves into oracy pedagogy as a key pillar for language and content M. T. Fleta (*) Complutense University, Madrid, Spain e-mail: mfl[email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_19

297

298

M. T. Fleta

learning. More particularly, the chapter highlights a clear-cut distinction between promoting oracy with learners aged 3–6 years at pre-primary education, from learners after age six in CLIL-based contexts. Keywords

Oracy · Listening · Speaking · Comprehending · Pre-primary · CLIL-based contexts

Introduction The theme of this chapter resolves around oracy, more precisely around the Communication Competence in another language than the mother tongue (L1). (The term L1 refers to “language or languages that learners first acquired at home” (Lightbown, 2014, p. 11.) L2 acquisition applies to language or languages learnt additionally.) As stated in the European Commission guidelines (2011) for early language learning, additional languages (L2) should be integrated into meaningful contexts and the target language should be used as a communication tool in different activities and not promoted as a specific subject-matter. However, traditionally, the focus of attention in education has laid on the literacy skills of reading and writing at all educational levels. Yet, the communication skills of oracy (listening and speaking) have received little attention, even though, these two skills are an essential foundation for constructing meaning, for building the grammar of languages, especially in the initial stages of language learning, and for supporting other skills, such as the social and literacy skills (Garman et al., 2014). Directly related to this, Scholar Robin Alexander (2017), who has written extensively about dialogic teaching, argues that although literacy (reading and writing), and numeracy (maths) are considered to be fundamental skills in the teaching programmes, the true cornerstone for learning language and concepts is talk: “Reading, writing and number may be the acknowledged curriculum ‘basics’ but talk is arguably the true foundation of learning.” (p. 5). Alexander also stresses that oracy is not a subject-matter in itself, but rather a condition for learning concepts and language in different disciplines. Given that, it follows that the ability to communicate effectively, and the skills developed through oracy are a condition for learning in different academic subject-matters (Gaunt & Stott, 2019). Children in pre-primary education and older students in Content and Language Integrated Learning contexts (CLIL) need to learn to listen, pay attention, and talk because all these skills are the cornerstone that enables them to learn language and concepts in an L2. Notwithstanding, academic instruction through an L2 is very demanding for teachers and for learners since it requires quite a different approach to the curriculum to that in which the focus is only on learning the target language (Lightbown & Spada, 2020). Moreover, L2 pedagogies demand from teachers understanding of learners’ capacities, likes and needs as well as awareness of teaching strategies “to suit more implicit and naturalistic foreign language learning”

19

Language and Content Learning Through Oracy at Pre-primary Education. . .

299

(Kersten & Rohde, 2013, p. 113). However, learning content through an L2 is arduous for students at all academic levels, and teachers might need to change the demands when teaching content through an L2 (Genesee, 2016; Tedick & Lyster, 2020). Adding to that, “the degree to which learners are literate in L1 and have acquired strong cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) in L1” (Ball et al., 2015, p. 6) might have a significant impact on L2 learning success. This chapter delves into the nature of issues concerning the development of oracy for language and content learning. It starts with a theoretical consideration of oracy teaching in settings where curricular content is taught in the bilingual modality (Coyle et al., 2010), with a particular stress on recent research into early L2 acquisition. Then, it frames the topic against the broader backdrop of CLIL pedagogy. From a practical sphere, the paper explores methodological variations for teaching oracy. The paper concludes with a reflection on potential points of convergence between teaching oracy to learners from three to six in pre-primary and to learners after age six in CLIL-based contexts.

Current Issues and Research L2 Instruction and Learners from Three to Six It is undeniable that pre-primary education is the most influential stage to educate children, and particularly, to instruct them for language and concepts learning (Cameron, 2001; Kuhl, 2010). The knowledge and skills that children acquire in the early school years will allow them to go more deeply into different disciplines later in their schooling. The age of onset is the time when children start to learn an L2 and a critical factor that determines the way in which individuals approach language learning and their eventual success of that learning. Regarding the learners’ age at the time of onset, there seem to be fundamental similarities between acquiring one’s mother tongue at home and learning an L2 at pre-primary settings; for children at an early age learn languages implicitly, in a natural and subconscious manner, and relaying on the mechanisms and principles that are available to them from L1 acquisition (Conkbayir, 2021; Ferjan Ramírez & Kuhl, 2020; VanPatten et al., 2020). Young learners acquire languages during social interaction with a wide range of people (Neaum, 2017). Furthermore, the characteristics of children from 3 to 6 years of age and the manner in which they learn, specially language, need to be taken into consideration in classroom settings. (Piaget, 1952). Table 19.1 shows different characteristics of pre-primary children from two to seven suggested by Piaget (1952). The language making capacity that humans possess from birth together with the aural and oral skills aid young children to be best at acquiring L2s through incidental processes without formal instruction of the grammar rules (Lightbown, 2014; Goswami, 2015). Studies on L2 learning outcomes indicate that the best possible achieving results emerge if exposure to an L2 occurs during the first 5 years of life (Conkbayir, 2021; Meisel, 2011, 2019). For building an L2 in pre-primary settings,

300

M. T. Fleta

Table 19.1 Characteristics of pre-primary children from two to seven Stage Preoperational (Preschooler)

Age range 2–7

Description • Egocentric; thinking is literal and concrete; precausal thinking. • Linguistically: Consolidate knowledge of the grammatical system. By age seven, acquisition of target grammatical system almost complete. • Cognitive: Animistic thinking; limited sense.

children need to hear, comprehend, and use that language as much as possible, sooner rather than later, in a variety of modes, and in a wide range of situations (Keaveney & Lundberg, 2014; Neaum, 2017). During this early stage, the prime focus of the learning process is on the development of the oral communication skills of listening and speaking. Against this backdrop, Conboy et al. (2015) have demonstrated that infants absorb a huge amount of information and improve their metalinguistic awareness during the social interaction process which takes place in different discourse contexts. In addition to that, once the language faculty is activated for the L1, it remains available indefinitely for learning additional languages. During childhood, the learning mechanisms that apply to the acquisition of the L1 are the same mechanisms as those that apply to the learning of an L2 (Cameron, 2001; Meisel, 2011, 2019). In Meisel’s words (2011): “The suspicion thus is that whatever enables the child to acquire the mother tongue might not be lost forever, rather that it could be hidden somewhere among or underneath our other cognitive faculties” (p. 1). This entails that young pre-primary children apply the L1 learning skills they possess to the L2 learning situation (Cameron, 2001; Johnstone, 2002; Meisel, 2011, 2019). Thus, the learner’s age is obviously a key factor that affects L2 learning. Furthermore, authors like DeKeyser (2012), Lightbown and Spada (2021), Pfenninger and Singleton (2019), or Genesee (2016) argue that age-related social, psychological, and contextual factors along with maturational factors make very young learners different from adult learners. Although children learning an L2 around the age range of 3–6 years have already developed the foundations of their L1; yet, they have little experience in formal instruction and limited knowledge of the world. From the linguistic perspective, they know many words and how to build basic grammatical structures in their L1. They are at a pre-literate stage, where the development of the literacy skills of reading and writing requires instruction and practice. (Fountas & Pinnell, 2018). By way of illustration, studies that compare the language learning progress of child L1 speakers and child L2 learners of English in naturalistic and in formal contexts show that children at an early age learn languages following developmental stages and that these stages are similar for all learners (Haznedar, 2015; Fleta, 2019). Figure 19.1 shows that child L2 learners make gradual progress through a series of developmental stages comparable to the stages found in English L1 acquisition. Evidence from child L2 acquisition studies indicate that language learning is driven by the child’s growing familiarity with the language and with understanding of the messages (Brown, 1973;

19

Language and Content Learning Through Oracy at Pre-primary Education. . .

301

Fig. 19.1 Early L2 language learning process

Radford, 1990; Meisel, 2011, 2019). Children construct the target L2 in a piecemeal fashion – step by step, comparable with English 1 developmental stages. During the L2 learning process, children first try to make meaning of the language around them, and either enter a silence stage, or use their mother tongue, mixing the codes to communicate. Then, they produce rote learnt chunks of language (formulaic language) to make social contact during daily routines (Wray, 2002). Overtime, children enter a productive stage and acquire the ability to use one, two- or threeword utterances, and subsequently, simple and complex sentences in context (Haznedar, 2015; Fleta, 2019). Indeed, progress is greatly influenced by quality of teaching and by the number of hours allotted for multisensory language learning (Keaveney & Lundberg, 2014). In brief, L2 grammar and content knowledge construction at pre-primary education is a content and language-driven process ignited by oral communication, especially supported by educators’ discourse, by audio-visual media, and by recordings (Keaveney & Lundberg, 2014). In view of this, to take advantage of the ability that children possess to learn language intuitively, the teaching approaches in pre-primary should aim to provide large amounts of language input in, output, and plenty opportunities in extensive oral communicative interaction amongst teachers and children (Lightbown & Spada, 2020). As Mackey (2007) explains, at the beginning of the L2 learning process, there is a need to build a strong oral foundation where the listening, understanding, and speaking skills become the support of the literacy skills of reading and writing thereafter. Furthermore, to facilitate learning in instructional settings, where the conversational discourse between teachers and children is pedagogically oriented, both the language and the conceptual knowledge should be integrated and balanced (Lyster, 2007).

L2 Instruction and Learners After Age Six Unlike pre-primary child L2 learners, when students over 6 years enter education in CLIL-based contexts, they have already experienced formal tuition, they have more extensive knowledge of the world, and generally, they are proficient at reading and writing. Consequently, the teaching strategies and tasks targeted for this group of students are held in accordance with the students’ age, and their linguistic and cognitive developmental abilities (Lightbown, 2014). As Coyle et al. (2009) stress, CLIL educational approach is “. . . inclusive and flexible. It encompasses a variety of teaching and curriculum models and can be adapted to the age, ability, needs and

302

M. T. Fleta

interests of the learners. . .” (p. 6). Adding to that, students over six use decontextualized language more often to “learn cognitively complex material presented in academic language” (Lightbown, 2014, p. 76). In this sense, to achieve oral and written academic tasks successfully, and to progress in their grades, student’s L2 language proficiency must adapt accordingly. Unlike pre-primary children, older L2 learners make use of intentional learning processes to learn language and content. These processes are dependent on maturity skills and on previously acquired knowledge (Lightbown, 2014). In this respect, Ball et al. (2015) note that in CLIL-based contexts where “there is an intimate relationship between content and language” (p. 63), students are not only expected to develop the skills related to the academic subject, but also to produce something with that knowledge using the target language. In such a case, students’ success relies not only on being able to listen and speak in the L2, but also, on being able to read, write and show understanding of academic subject-matters (Lightbown & Spada, 2020). In sum, in trying to understand meaning and in trying to produce sentences in an L2, children in pre-primary education and older learners in CLIL-based contexts initially move from semantic processing to syntactic processing (Weitz et al., 2010). In both backgrounds, the oracy skills of listening and speaking seem to be inextricably associated with language and content learning (Lyster, 2007). Indeed, learners’ cognitive maturity skills come into play too (Lightbown & Spada, 2020). Next section presents a scheme with the constructs of oracy assumed to contribute to language and content learning with younger learners in pre-primary classes and with older learners in CLIL-based contexts.

Oracy Pedagogy, Pre-primary Education and CLIL-Based Contexts Oracy Pedagogy The term oracy was originally coined by Wilkinson (1965) as “the ability to use the communication skills of speaking and listening” (p. 13), considering also that instruction in these two skills should be incorporated into the curriculum as one “condition of learning”. In view of this, to make language and content learning accessible to L2 learners, the teaching of listening and speaking skills should receive special attention as both skills play a key role for building language and for understanding concepts (Garman et al., 2014). Educators agree that effective learning relies on the correlation of listening, speaking, and doing (Cowley, 2016; Conkbayir, 2021). Thus, attention should be paid on how to promote oracy to the maximum extent possible. For fuller understanding of the role of listening and speaking for language and content learning, it is helpful to turn to the contextualization of oracy. Table 19.2 puts forwards an overview of some constructs of oracy at pre-primary education and in CLIL-based contexts. Such constructs are developed under the assumption that: “In some respects, CLIL and immersion programs are similar insofar as both aim to integrate

19

Language and Content Learning Through Oracy at Pre-primary Education. . .

303

Table 19.2 Constructs of oracy addressed to pre-primary child learners and to learners after age six in CLIL-Based contexts. (Adapted from Fountas & Pinnell, 2018; Bentley, 2012; Ball et al., 2015)

content and language” (Lyster & Ballinger, 2011, p. 281). The sections which follow consider contextual and age-dependent differences that dovetail younger and older learners crucial for learning through an L2. These dissimilarities lie on the learning environments, and the strategies that ignite the listening and speaking skills.

Pre-primary Learning Environment In addition to age, the learning environment of school, the amount of exposure, highquality and -quantity of input in, and opportunities for learner’s output (children’s ‘talk back’) during face-to-face communicative social interaction may have a positive influence in undergoing L2 learning successfully (Lightbown & Spada, 2020; Pfenninger & Singleton, 2019; VanPatten et al., 2020). The acquisition of an L2 in pre-primary bilingual environments means that children are immersed in the L2 every day for a certain amount of time (Tedick & Lyster, 2020). During this timeframe, educators speak to children mostly in the L2; and most times, the target language becomes evident as well in the environment with posters, picturebooks, games, songs, and rhymes in the L2. As a result of the amount of exposure time, and of the quality of teacher-child communicative interaction, the emerging child L2 grammars might vary greatly.

304

M. T. Fleta

Adding to that, as the classroom setting might be most of the time the only physical space for children to access L2 learning, conducive environments should be rich in language and aim to promote interaction opportunities to create the conditions that support oracy (Cameron, 2001; Fountas & Pinnell, 2018; Machado & Zimbalist, 2022; Mourão & Ellis, 2020). As Goswami (2015) explained, in pre-primary settings, “learning depends on neural networks distributed across multiple brain regions: visual, auditory and kinaesthetic” (p. 5). Thus, the main goal in pre-primary environments should be to promote multi-sensory learning with plenty of opportunities to integrate language and content by using the auditory, visual, kinaesthetic, and tactile channels (Call, 2010). Currently, many educators are using different methodologies that contemplate the fact that individuals have different learning styles and possess several intelligences which should be developed (Gardner, 1993). To Gardner, each individual is thought to possess a combination of intelligences (Linguistic, Mathematical, Spatial, Musical; Kinaesthetic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, and Naturalistic), and educators might contribute to the development of children’s learning channels by presenting content using different modes and by offering a variety of activities in class. This Multiple Intelligences theory aligns with what we know about how children grow, learn, develop, and about how children approach languages holistically at an early age of childhood. It is also worth noting that there exist important age-dependent differences among L2 pre-primary beginners. This age gap in childhood education requires that the activities need to be tailored and adapted by educators to meet children’s individual needs (Bruce, 2015). For instance, discourse addressed to L2 three-year-old beginner learners, who might only enact three-word sentences in their L1, should contain less complex grammatical structures in the L2 than discourse addressed to learners over six, who most probably will be able to respond to open-ended questions (Lynch, 2019). Moreover, the physical structure of space is crucial for instruction in pre-primary. Classrooms are usually divided into areas of learning. This helps young children to orientate in space and provides them predictability (Fountas & Pinnell, 2018). The areas of learning and development are equipped with different authentic materials to shape activities and experiences that promote children’s learning and development (Fountas & Pinnell, 2018; Machado & Zimbalist, 2022). These spaces (home, dramatic play, learning and block areas) may change throughout the year in accordance with the curricular planning and in them, children may engage to work, play or be creative independently (Fountas & Pinnell, 2018). Of particular interest for building the communication skills of listening, speaking, and attending and for using higher-order critical thinking skills with beginner learners is teacher-class interaction sessions during collective group work time in Circle Time (Fountas & Pinnell, 2018; Machado & Zimbalist, 2022). At an early age, children feel more secure if they know what to expect and collective group interaction during Circle Time supports them in getting acquainted with one another (Fountas & Pinnell, 2018; Machado & Zimbalist, 2022). Collective group work and turn-taking interactions on carpeted areas during Circle Time are designed to

19

Language and Content Learning Through Oracy at Pre-primary Education. . .

305

foster confidence and help children to get familiar with classroom routines. Likewise, repetitive routines and rituals which make the classroom a predictable place, provide countless opportunities for communicative and social interaction (Goswami, 2015). In Mosley’s (2015) words, Circle Time “facilitates language development, confidence building and the five vital skills of looking, listening, speaking, thinking, and concentrating”. (p. vii). One of the aims of Circle Time is to nurture social, linguistic, and cognitive growth (Machado & Zimbalist, 2022). This way children learn rules for group behaviour such as turn taking. The duration of sessions in this area may vary from 10 to 20 min once or twice a day and instruction may include low-risk forms of language performance such as daily routines, shared book reading, singing, reciting, and playing games. Teachers should aim at creating rich language and content learning environments by modelling and describing experiences to children (Mosley, 2015). Hence, communicative interaction activities during Circle Time such as gathering, calendar, birthdays, helpers, weather, show and tell, storytelling, singing, reciting, choral speaking, puppets/mascot, or dismissal scheduled in the instructional framework might help children to get acquainted with daily routines and familiarized with the language and content that go with them (Fountas & Pinnell, 2018; Machado & Zimbalist, 2022). At this point, it is worth mentioning the English language area (ELA), a learning space for developing the oral communication skills. ELA provides opportunities for social interaction with peers during child-initiated play. This learning area provides children with opportunities to create imaginary situations during pretend play as well as to develop their confidence in expressing themselves in L2 while conducting free play activities (Robinson et al., 2015). This area is set up with L2 supporting resources and materials like games, picturebooks, flash cards, puppets, toys, posters, realia, most of which have already been introduced in class during teacher-led activities. Here, children are encouraged to explore books and other materials, and to get involved in free spontaneous talk in the L2 during collaborative pretend play.

CLIL Learning Environment Unlike in pre-primary settings where the presence of teachers during collective group-work communicative interactions is essential (Pastrana, 2019), students in CLIL-based contexts have the chance to learn language and construct meaning while interacting with each other during collaborative pair/group work, very often in the course of non-teacher-led activities (Gibbons, 2015). The educator’s role in CLIL environments with students after age six is much less overt. Peer-to-peer talk in pairs or in groups generates opportunities to enhance students’ own and each other’s language and concepts learning (Johnson et al., 1991; Kagan, 1994). The underlying belief is that working in groups has a wide range of benefits as it favours students’ participation, increases language-focused learning and meaning-focused output, lowers students’ level of inhibition, and engages them in face-to-face communication for problem solving activities (Johnson et al., 1991; Kagan, 1994; Lightbown, 2014). While working in groups in the absence of the

306

M. T. Fleta

teacher, students themselves get involved in high levels of interaction to develop language and content. (Lightbown, 2014). For the co-construction of meaning, students share ideas, collectively brainstorm, play with words, and discuss curricular topics through predicting, hypnotizing, and making deductions strategies (Bentley, 2012). The teachers’ role with students over 6 years in CLIL-based contexts is as mediator. They facilitate language and explain concepts by giving examples, adding information, and sources (Bentley, 2012). As is happening with pre-primary pedagogies, CLIL interactive methodology also includes an understanding of students’ learning styles and the need of multimodal and interactive multimedia input through charts, graphs, or videoclips (Bentley, 2012).

Listening and Speaking with Learners Aged Three to Six An essential part of the L2 learning process is to help learners, both younger and older than six, to activate the many kinds of knowledge, experiences, and language that they already possess for their L1, and to use them to build the target L2. In the case of children aged three to six, the strategies to build working memory skills should be addressed to encourage their curiosity and invite further exploration (Garman et al., 2014). Call (2010) proposes a set path of strategies that reduces distractions, supports children’s working memory and helps them to internalize information: • • • •

getting children’s attention. pre-teaching vocabulary. using repetition. breaking up information into short ‘chunks’ since this takes up less working memory.

Furthermore, to tap on children’s different learning styles (Machado & Zimbalist, 2022), information should be provided: • using multimodal resources such as visual cues (pictures, miming, colours, realia, flash cards, film clips). • fostering auditory input (songs, rhymes, storytelling). • encouraging speaking (repetition, rote memorization). • providing paralinguistic cues (attention getters, games, gesture, pointing, movement). Due to age, children can be easily distracted and may struggle to stay on task as their attention and working memory are still developing (Nilsen, 2017). Some children need considerable help to learn how to sit and listen; thus, experiences to draw children’s attention should be short, varied, and create the desire to listen (Machado

19

Language and Content Learning Through Oracy at Pre-primary Education. . .

307

& Zimbalist, 2022). Besides, it should be noted that despite children’s language learning predisposition, and even though L2 listening relies on the same architecture as L1 listening, it is harder to listen and understand in L2 than in L1 (Cutler, 2012; Lightbown & Spada, 2020). Moreover, other comprehension hindrances such as background knowledge, lexical understanding, content familiarity or teachers’ speech rate can make listening in pre-primary a difficult task (Flowerdew & Miller, 2005). When planning listening lessons, teachers should take into consideration not only the children’s age, their language development, and their knowledge of the world, but also the demands of the learning tasks (Goswami, 2015). Table 19.3 presents a set of practices to foster children’s listening skills (Fleta, 2015): Along the same lines, there are countless speaking practices to supersede the shortcomings of input and output data that children may encounter in instructed pre-primary L2 learning settings. Indeed, when new languages are introduced orally to young beginner learners, what, in principle, seems appropriate for young monolingual children may be suitable for young L2 learners (Peregoy & Boyle, 2016). In this regard, many practices showcase oral language use and promote language and content learning in pre-primary; particularly worth mentioning is the language for routine instructional events which maintains the same pattern daily and provides children with formulaic language at register time, snack, lunch, or circle time. One of the challenges faced in pre-primary is the introduction and teaching of vocabulary and grammatical structures. As teachers dealing with young learners know, children learn words easily; yet they forget them just as easily. To help children memorize language, teaching strategies should be addressed to using cognates and words and structures in meaningful contexts several times before they become part of children’s personal repertoire (Fountas & Pinnell, 2018). Since imaginative language play provides children with opportunities to actively practice the vocabulary and structures of the new language, games which involve playing with language help children to set the foundations before proceeding to more spontaneous speaking games (Mourão & Ellis, 2020; Neaum, 2017). Practices such as storytelling and dialogic picturebook reading have been recognized to bring multiple gains to pre-primary pedagogy. Stories are said to develop oracy, literacy, and many other areas of learning (Ellis & Brewster, 2014). By listening to picturebooks read aloud, children gain conceptual knowledge, citizenship, diversity, and intercultural awareness (Peregoy & Boyle, 2016; Ellis, 2019). Table 19.3 Awareness-raising practices to teach listening in pre-primary Listen and discriminate between environmental sounds, homemade instruments. Listen and act: action songs, action games, Total Physical Response, follow the leader. Listen and do: listen and colour, listen and draw, dot to dot, odd one out. Listen and react: listen and respond, listen and show, listen and perform. Listen and understand: Simon says, What’s the time Mr Wolf. Listen for speech sounds: syllable clapping, sounds the same, differentiating between sounds. Listen for words: bingo.

308

M. T. Fleta

Table 19.4 Practices to develop classroom talk in pre-primary For beginning speaking: easy-to-remember songs, poem, chants, repetition of words and phrases in chorus. For gaining confidence in speaking: show and tell, choral speaking, personal presentation, act out day to day situations. For engaging children in conversations: collective group work during circle time, picturebook read alouds, dialogues with puppets and with persona dolls.

Moreover, the strategy of reading picturebooks aloud with children and letting them predict and discuss the story via mediation reinforces the listening and speaking skills (Lambert, 2015; Pollard-Durodola et al., 2015). More creative activities that encourage children to develop conversational fluency, speak spontaneously, and grow in confidence during public speaking are those that encourage children to talk in front of others. As stated by Cummins (2008), these are basic interpersonal communicative skills (BICS). Aside from routine instructional events, it is generally agreed that poems, songs, rhymes, chants, stories, and drama are popular and successful activities to teach children how to talk in an amusing and non-intimidating way (Fountas & Pinnell, 2018; Machado & Zimbalist, 2022; Peregoy & Boyle, 2016). Table 19.4 presents practices that encourage childinitiated speaking and questions asking. It is also worth noting that over the past few decades the social and contextual changes have affected the way in which languages are learnt and used. Nowadays, children live in a society dependent on technology in which they are stimulated by visually appealing materials that beckon and entice them (Donohue, 2015). In this regard, the proliferation of consumer-friendly technology and digital media with popular tools for teaching children offer new means to approach languages and content together. Thus, the use of resources of digital media might help to develop innovative lessons and to mediate the development of oracy.

Listening and Speaking with Learners After Age Six The role of oracy across the CLIL-based curriculum is to help students “to express and interpret facts, data, thoughts and feelings both in writing as well as orally” (Bentley, 2012, p. 16). Prior to using speech and oral work across the curriculum, students in CLIL-based contexts need to learn to listen, to pay attention and to talk in the L2 like in pre-primary settings. As well as in pre-primary, the listening competence in CLIL-based contexts becomes fundamental for building the basis for language and content learning. And therefore, authentic content-related listening materials such as videos, documentaries, podcasts, and films adapted to the learners’ level of proficiency along with teachers’ talk provide students with conducive aural input. Some listening activities of the ‘listen and do’ type which reduce the complexity of the listening task in real time (Bentley, 2012; Ball et al., 2015) comprise:

19

• • • • • •

Language and Content Learning Through Oracy at Pre-primary Education. . .

309

listen and label. listen and fill in a table. listen and make notes. listen and reorder information. listen and identify. listen and fill in the gaps.

Learning strategies that encourage L2 learners in CLIL-based contexts to focus on talk as part of the learning process include debates, presentations, interviews, surveys, role-play, reporting, discussions, collaborative tasks. Furthermore, a growing number of CLIL teachers now use interactive multimedia resources (computer labs, digital cameras, tablets, mobile phones, interactive whiteboards, etc.) to involve students in learning and to help them construct meaning and understand new concepts (Bentley, 2012). The key idea behind using these multimodal resources is to help students to use the target language in class, rather than to learn vocabulary words in isolation. Figure 19.2 presents two teachable skills of oracy that are essential for learning. On one hand, learning to talk to get the required skills and knowledge to undertake language and content learning, and, on the other, learning through talk to negotiate and develop subject knowledge (Gaunt & Stott, 2019). To help develop listening and speaking, students in CLIL-based contexts need to be able to identify the functions used to communicate the knowledge of the curricular subjects (Ball et al., 2015; Bentley, 2012). As stressed by Tedick and Lyster (2020): “content learning must go hand in hand with language learning” (p. 28). At such a level, that content and language learning rely heavily on a variety of resources provided through several different channels (visual, auditory, or written), and through hands-on experiences. Reason being that visuals, such as diagrams, pictures, maps, graphs, charts, recordings, videos, and concrete experience help to make multimodal input comprehensible (Bentley, 2012). With these pedagogies, students can relate the language they hear or read to its referents, matching meaning with experience (Dale et al., 2011). Likewise, the construction of meaning during group project work and subsequent presentations about themes studied in different

Fig. 19.2 Two aspects of oracy (Gaunt & Stott, 2019, p. 9)

310

M. T. Fleta

academic disciplines encourage students to discuss complex ideas and thereby to participate orally in class (Ball et al., 2015; Bentley, 2012). Coyle et al. (2010) explain that one of the key aspects of CLIL methodology is “its planned pedagogic integration of contextualized content, cognition, communication and culture into teaching and learning practice” (p. 6). Other essential entities underpinning CLIL methodology are the 4C’s framework (content, communication, cognition and culture), together with the language Triptych and the CLIL Matrix, adapted by Coyle (2002) from Cummins’ work (1984). Within this pedagogical proposal, the language used for communication is categorized by Coyle, Hood & Marsh (2010, p. 36) from three different perspectives: language of/for/through learning. Following from this, when planning lessons for L2 learners after age six within CLIL methodology, teachers must be aware of the content they want to teach first, since the nature of the discipline determines the language which goes with it (Bentley, 2012).

Conclusion This chapter focused on raising awareness of the importance of teaching oracy to learners aged three to six at pre-primary education, and to learners after age six in CLIL-based contexts. The proposal showed that the skills of listening, paying attention, understanding, and speaking are of utmost importance for learning content and language through an L2 at all educational levels. The rigorous analysis of oracy pedagogy through an L2 allows some important conclusions to be drawn. As a first conclusion, it appears evident that there is a clear-cut distinction between the instruction of oracy through an L2 at pre-primary education and in CLIL-based contexts. This contrast is mostly age and maturity dependent. Child learners’ early age, lack of background knowledge, and underdeveloped metacognitive, linguistic and executive skills demand from teachers pedagogies that balance children’s academic, social, emotional, physical, cognitive, creative and developmental skills. In pre-primary environments language and content learning is constructed with rich language modelled and employed by educators and children during oral communicative interactions. At the initial stages of education, L2 language and content learning not only requires large amounts of time, but also high quality teaching which, in turn, entails greater or lesser opportunities for communicative interaction. As a second conclusion, the L2 learning rate in pre-primary environments can be accelerated with child-centred methodologies, collective group work and one-to-one communicative interaction. Even though at the beginning children may not necessarily understand the L2 grammatical structures, they still are skilled enough to attach meaning to daily routine expressions, realia, games, puppets, illustrations in books, gestures, movements, digital media, and the like in a similar manner as L1 children do. These communicatively oriented teaching practices and multisensory experiences involve children holistically and enable them to learn through their senses by playing and enjoying themselves. Likewise, since play takes an essential

19

Language and Content Learning Through Oracy at Pre-primary Education. . .

311

role in young children’s learning, creating opportunities for learning around authentic play-based situations may foster children’s working memory, comprehension, classroom talk and conceptual knowledge. A further issue pertaining to oracy pedagogies emerges from the type of input in and opportunities for output in the new language. One fundamental matter lies in the difference between child learners being non-literate and older students being literate. Children aged three to six learn an L2 intuitively through hearing the language and using it, while after age six, L2 learning in CLIL-based contexts is intentional and to learn academic disciplines relies as well on reading and writing. Indeed, the skills and competences for children from three to six are of a different nature than those addressed to learners in CLIL-based contexts. In pre-primary, educators’ mediation and one-to-one shared activities during collective group work are essential to optimize L2 language and content learning. During this learning stage, teacher dominated-talk and teacher-child communicative interaction together with gestures and multimodal resources are crucial for meaningful exchanges and for developmental changes to occur. These conversational adult-child turn-taking interactions provide a bridge between comprehension and production and may have important repercussions on children’s further development. All in all, both pre-primary and CLIL-based contexts methodologies dovetail the ability to use the basic communication skills of listening and speaking. At pre-primary education, the target L2 is integrated into meaningful learning areas and used as a communication tool in different activities along the school day. However, CLIL approach heavily emphasizes the role of academic language proficiency to learn the concepts of the disciplines taught in L2. Moreover, the social peer-to-peer interactions play a pivotal role to co-construct content and language learning in CLIL-based contexts. To conclude, listening and speaking are both prime skills to build language and content learning in both pre-primary education and in CLIL-based contexts. But in the light of the foregoing, due to the young learners’ idiosyncrasies and their manner of learning, it appears difficult to apply standard forms of sound oracy practices from CLIL-based contexts into pre-primary environments. By contrast, patterns from pre-primary oracy pedagogies may be tailored and adapted to students’ age and academic level in CLIL-based contexts. In a nutshell, be it to practice listening or to foster speaking at pre-primary education or in CLIL-based contexts, teaching oracy plays a major role in the development of language and content knowledge learning.

References Alexander, R. J. (2017). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (5th ed.). Dialogos. Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press. Bentley, K. (2012). TKT course CLIL module (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Harvard University Press. Bruce, T. (2015). Early childhood education (5th ed.). Hodder Education. Call, N. (2010). The thinking child: Brain-based learning for the foundation stage (2nd ed.). MPG Books Ltd..

312

M. T. Fleta

Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge University Press. Conboy, B. T., Brooks, R., Meltzoff, A. N., & Kuhl, P. K. (2015). Social interaction in infants’ learning of second-language phonetics: An exploration of brain-behavior relations. Developmental Neuropsychology, 40, 216–229. Conkbayir, M. (2021). Early childhood and neuroscience: Theory, research and implications for practice. (2nd ed.) Bloomsbury Academic. Cowley, S. (2016). Developing oracy in the early years through sustained shared thinking. In Speaking frankly: The case for oracy in the curriculum. English-Speaking Union. Coyle, D. (2002). Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission’s language learning objectives. In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLIL/EMILE European dimension: actions, trends and foresight potential. European Commission. Coyle, D., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum – CLIL national statement and guidelines. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085878 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Cutler, A. (2012). Native listening: language experience and the recognition of spoken words. Cambridge University Press. Dale, L., van der Es, W., & Tanner, R. (2011). CLIL Skills. European Platform. DeKeyser, R. M. (2012). Age effects in second language learning. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 442–460). Routledge. Donohue, C. (2015). Technology and digital media in the early years: Tools for teaching and learning. Routledge. Ellis, G. (2019). Social model thinking about disability through picturebooks in Primary English. CLELE Journal, 7(2), 61–78. Ellis, G., & Brewster, J. (2014). Tell it again! The storytelling handbook for primary teachers (3rd ed.). British Council. Retrieved from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/tell-it-againstorytelling-handbookprimaryenglish-language-teacher Ferjan Ramírez, N., & Kuhl, P. K. (2020). Early second language learning through SparkLing: Scaling up a language intervention in infant education centers. International Mind, Brain, and Education Society and Wiley Periodicals LLC, 14(2), 9–103. Fleta, M. T. (2015). Active listening for second language learning in the early years. In S. Mourão & M. Lourenço (Eds.), Early years second language education: International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 137–149). Routledge. Fleta, M. T. (2019). Picturebooks: An effective tool to encourage children’s English L2 oral production. TEANGA the Journal of the Irish Association for Applied Linguistics, 10(Special issue), 243–261. Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2005). Second language listening: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. (2018). In 2nd ed (Ed.), Literacy beginnings. A prekindergarten handbook. Heinemann Educ Books. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. Basic Books. Garman, C., Garman, F., & Brown, W. K. (2014). Teaching young children effective listening skills: A guide for parents & teachers. William Gladden Foundation Press. Gaunt, A., & Stott, A. (2019). Transform teaching and learning through talk. The Oracy imperative. Rowman & Littlefield. Genesee, F. (2016). Rethinking early childhood education for English language learners: The role of language. In V. Murphy & M. Evangelou (Eds.), Early childhood education in English for speakers of other languages (pp. 21–42). British Council. Gibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching English language learners in the mainstream classroom (2nd ed.). Heinemann. Goswami, U. (2015). Children’s cognitive development and learning. Cambridge Primary Review Trust.

19

Language and Content Learning Through Oracy at Pre-primary Education. . .

313

Haznedar, B. (2015). Cognitive and linguistic aspects of learning a second language in the early years. In S. Mourão & M. Lourenço (Eds.), Early years second language education: International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 15–28). Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development. Johnstone, R. (2002). Addressing the age factor: Some implications for language policy. Council of Europe. Language Policy division. Kagan, S. (Ed.). (1994). Cooperative learning. Kagan Cooperative Learning. Keaveney, S., & Lundberg, G. (2014). Early language learning and teaching: A1–A2. Studentlitteratur AB. Kersten, K., & Rohde, A. (2013). On the road to nowhere? The transition problem of bilingual teaching programmes. In D. Elsner & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Bilingual learning and CLIL in primary school. Narr. Kirkgöz, Y. (2019). Fostering young learners’ listening and speaking skills. In S. Garton & F. M. Copland (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of teaching English to young learners (pp. 171–187). Routledge. Kuhl, P. (2010). Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition. Neuron, 67(5), 713–727. Lambert, M. D. (2015). Reading picture books with children: How to shake up storytime and get kids talking about what they see. Charlesbridge. Lightbown, P. (2014). Focus on content-based language teaching. Oxford University Press. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2021). How languages are learned (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2020). Teaching and learning L2 in the classroom: It’s about time. In Language teaching (Vol. 53, pp. 422–432). Cambridge University Press. Lynch, J. (2019). Child psychology. ED-Tech Press. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content. A counter balanced approach. John Benjamins. Lyster, R., & Ballinger, S. (2011). Content-based language teaching: Convergent concerns across divergent contexts. Language Teaching Research, 15(3), 279–288. Machado, J. M., & Zimbalist, A. (2022). Early childhood experiences in language arts (12th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing. Mackey, A. (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies. Oxford University Press. Meisel, J. (2011). First and second language acquisition: Parallels and differences. Cambridge University Press. Meisel, J. (2019). Bilingual children: a guide for parents. Cambridge University Press. Mosley, J. (2015). Circle time with children. Routledge. Mourão, S., & Ellis, G. (2020). Teaching English to pre-primary children. Educating very young children. Delta Publishing. Neaum, S. (2017). What comes before phonics? Sage. Nilsen, B. (2017). Week by week: Plans for documenting children’s development (7th ed.). Cengage Learning. Pastrana, A. (2019). Co-construction of knowledge in primary CLIL group work activities. In K. Tsuchiya & M. M. Pérez (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts. Palgrave Macmillan. Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2016). Reading, writing and learning in ESL (7th ed.). Pearson. Pfenninger, S. E., & Singleton, D. (2019). Making the most of an early L2 starting age. Journal of Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(2), 111–138. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. W.W. Norton. Pollard-Durodola, S., Simmons, D., Gonzalez, J., & Simmons, L. (2015). Accelerating language skills and content knowledge through shared book reading. Brookes Publishing. Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax. Blackwell.

314

M. T. Fleta

Robinson, P., Mourão, S., & Kang, N. J. (2015). English learning areas in pre-primary classrooms: An investigation of their effectiveness. British Council. Tedick, D. J., & Lyster, R. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge. VanPatten, B., Smith, M., & Benati, A. (2020). Key questions in second language acquisition: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. Weitz, M., Svenja, A., & Buyl, A. (2010). The input quality observation scheme (IQOS): The nature of L2 input and its influence on L2 development in Bilingual Preschools. In K. Kersten, A. Rohde, Ch. Schelletter & A. Steinlen (Eds.), Bilingual Preschools, Volume I. Learning and Development. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Wilkinson, A. (1965). The concept of oracy. In Spoken English. Edited by Wilkinson, A. Davies, A and D. Atkinson. Birmingham: Educational Review Occasional Publications, 17(4), 11–15. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.

Early Literacy Development and Pre-primary CLIL

20

A´ngela A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is Literacy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early or Emergent Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Why Literacy at Early Ages? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literacy Work at Early Ages/Pre-primary Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom Ideas for Teaching Literacy to Early Learners of a Second Language . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

316 316 318 319 320 321 326 326

Abstract

The development of literacy is vital in multilingual contexts, where children are exposed to different languages that they will have to use at all levels (productive and receptive). As regards the teaching of foreign languages in Spain, the different curricula have focused on linguistic aspects that are not related to literacy itself, but based on grammatical and notional aspects, vocabulary and structures, leaving aside relevant questions such as approaching comprehensive reading, creative and independent writing, and the cultural dimensions of the language. And this is even more notorious at the Pre-primary stage. Literacy instruction entails a holistic approach that a) builds solidly on students’ oral language and ensures its continued development, b) teaches both text processing and production strategies, c) develops decoding and encoding skills, and d) creates a print-rich environment. The starting point of literacy development in Pre-primary children learning English is the acquisition of phonological and phonemic awareness, which are considered the primary factors determining success in the future development of reading for a child. Phonological and phonemic awareness are a substantial part of the teaching of phonics, thanks to Á. Álvarez-Cofiño (*) University Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, Spain e-mail: acofi[email protected]; aalvarezcofi[email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_20

315

316

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

which very young learners learn how to decode and encode words by mapping sounds onto their corresponding graphemes or segmenting them into separate units in order to transcribe them into written text. Keywords

Pre-primary · Literacy · Phonics · Reading · Decoding

Introduction In the last decades, the emergence of CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) in many schools all around Europe meant a change in the perception and methodologies that teachers had and used in teaching additional languages up to that moment. The implementation of CLIL involved dealing with non-linguistic content from curricular subjects like Maths, Science, Social Studies, Art, Music, History, etc., which should be taught through the medium of a language different from that of the students’ mother tongue (Coyle et al., 2010). CLIL made that teachers and learners had to face new challenges in the acquisition process of both the non-linguistic content and the second language used as the communication vehicle in the classrooms. And, it also meant that students would have to face non-linguistic content resources and materials written completely in that second language, something really difficult to do, since in the majority of European countries second languages were being taught without paying much attention to something essential: literacy. Literacy has been the great forgotten aspect of second language learning, as most methodologies focus on the teaching of vocabulary, grammar, notions and functions (Larsen-Freeman, 1986; Richards & Rodgers, 2001), but they leave aside the importance of proper reading and writing acquisition that, especially in CLIL, will be of great importance for our bilingual programs students nowadays. In this chapter we will analyse what literacy is, how emergent/early literacy starts, why it is advisable to start working on literacy at early ages and, finally, how teachers can help literacy development at the Pre-primary stage in school. Furthermore, we will see how early literacy acquisition plays a crucial role in enabling learning experiences that are linked with academic achievement in CLIL contexts, since “language teaching will also have to play a supporting role for content teaching in preparing the linguistic ground on which content teaching is to be built” (Lyster, 2007, p. 29, cited in Halbach, 2018).

What Is Literacy? Literacy usually refers to reading and writing skills. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the Programme for International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIACC) emphasise the constructivist processes of reading, by means of

20

Early Literacy Development and Pre-primary CLIL

317

which readers actively construct meaning from text. They recognise the importance of literacy in empowering the individual to develop reflection, critique and empathy, leading to a sense of self-efficacy, identity and full participation in society (Kennedy et al., 2012). In words of Kern (2000), the definition of literacy stands for a broader scope than the terms ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ and thus, permits a more unified discussion of relationships between readers, writers, texts, culture, and language learning. A focus on literacy, by considering reading and writing in their social contexts of use, frames reading and writing as complementary dimensions of written communication, rather than as utterly distinct linguistic and cognitive processes. (Kern, 2000, p. 8).

In a new attempt to define literacy, The National Strategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy Among Children and Young People 2011–2020 (DES, 2011), notes that: [. . .] literacy includes the capacity to read, understand and critically appreciate various forms of communication including spoken language, printed text, broadcast media, and digital media. (DES, 2011, p. 8).

What is evident is that the various definitions of literacy include references to different modes (reading, writing, communication, oral language, print or digital formats) and different representations. Since this book is entirely devoted to early years, we must focus on early or emergent literacy. Early literacy skills can start developing in the primary childhood years. Some early literacy skills include letter knowledge, print awareness, phonological awareness, and emergent writing skills. Early literacy skills that are developed during the early years of a child’s life can help them become successful later on in school, and this is something we should bear in mind when talking about CLIL. Our CLIL students need to deal with reading and writing in a second language from early stages (Year 1 of Primary Education), as, at a certain point of Primary Education, they will need to reach the level required for success in those non-linguistic areas of the curriculum being taught through the medium of the second language. This level, Called Cognitive Academic Language proficiency or CALP by Cummins (1994, 2000), is different from, and takes longer to develop than, Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (or BICS), which were the most commonly ones taught in second language learning contexts. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a qualitative literacy program in schools that offer bilingual education, thanks to which students can be enabled to read and write properly and comprehensively. And this should be done before children have to face written texts. Teachers should promote the development of literacy skills along the Pre-primary stage, so as to help children get ready to cope with quality reading and writing in Primary Education, thus enabling them in the future “[. . .] to deal with different text-types, both oral and written, in both understanding and production as a preparation for the work they will have to do in the content subjects” (Halbach, 2018, pp. 210–211). A strong start in early literacy will be critical for the later development of this essential aspect of the second language acquisition process.

318

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

To conclude, in CLIL contexts, literacy helps learners become better meaningmakers, who can draw on content knowledge to communicate successfully across languages and non-linguistic disciplines.

Early or Emergent Literacy A definition of literacy for young children must be one that encompasses the various modes of representation including play and drawing (Kennedy et al., 2012), as all aspects of the child’s development (physical, social, emotional, cognitive, linguistic) are intertwined and depend on each other. Through play and game children start developing all the aforementioned aspects, so teachers should take this into account when planning and suggesting literacy activities and tasks for early learners of a second language. In early literacy lessons, children, through games, manipulatives and hands-on experiences, see and interact with print as they build an awareness of its functions and conventions. Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998, p. 849) define emergent literacy as “the skills, knowledge and attitudes that are presumed to be developmental precursors to conventional forms of reading and writing, and the environments that support that development”, that is to say, a series of processes and procedures to help students settle down the foundations for future reading and writing. Regarding early or emergent literacy, there are some specific skills that second language teachers must bear in mind (Strickland & Shanahan, 2004), and which we will deal with further in this chapter: • Oral language: listening comprehension, oral language vocabulary. • Alphabetic code: alphabet knowledge, phonological and phonemic awareness, invented spelling. • Print concepts: environmental print (the one the child sees around in their neighbourhood, at home, at school) and concepts about print (capital letters, lowercase letters, different fonts, different lettering). In order to ensure quality reading and writing in Primary Education, Pre-primary teachers should devote the majority of their lessons to oracy, as children need to be exposed to a great amount of oral input before going into reading and writing. And also, apart from the fact that their fine motor skills need time to be fully worked and consolidated at this stage. When second language learners frequently encounter specific linguistic features in the input they receive, they establish stronger connections between these features and the various contexts in which they occur. This style of associative learning develops effortless, fast and intuitive processing of the second language as formulaic units in response to relevant situational and linguistic cues (Ellis, 2012). Therefore, the more we expose our children to oral input, the greater that associative learning will be, as that input acquired by children will be later on a cornerstone in the development of their proper reading and writing skills. Oral language is the foundation for literacy development, as it provides children with a sense of words and sentences, and builds sensitivity to the sound system so

20

Early Literacy Development and Pre-primary CLIL

319

that children can acquire phonological awareness and phonics. Through their own speech children demonstrate their understanding of the meanings of words (Strickland & Riley-Ayers, 2006). This is a reason why some teachers skip working on written skills of the second language with early learners (either reading or writing) at the same time as on oral ones, as at these ages children will not be able to identify the written code of the new language (they even might not be familiar with the written code of their mother tongue) or to transfer the oral code into the written one. This is something that should be done step by step in the literacy sessions by implementing synthetic phonics programs, as we will see later on. Thus, oral skills are the ones to be worked on more deeply and on a daily basis with early learners, given the future benefits that they will bring to children acquiring the second language.

Why Literacy at Early Ages? Numerous studies have shown that early childhood is the optimal period for second language learning and even some researchers talk about this stage as the critical period (Bialystok, 1996; Hakuta, 2001; Hakuta et al., 2003; Cenoz, 2003; Singleton, 2005; Larson-Hall, 2008; Drew, 2009). Likewise, some researchers have focused on the benefits of early language acquisition for better pronunciation (Pfenninger & Singleton, 2017). Back in 1986 Klein noted: In general, it is reasonable to assume that little progress is made after the age of puberty due to the loss of plasticity in the brain, which presents the acquisition of linguistic structures in an innate way. (1986, p. 9)

Therefore, there is a period in human development in which the brain is predisposed to successfully acquire languages, but the changes that take place in the brain after that moment do negatively affect the nature of language acquisition (Lightbown and Spada, 2006) (Fig. 20.1). Even though early learners have a great potential to acquire a second language, this will only be meaningful if they are immersed in experiences where they are highly exposed to the second language in use and one of them is through literacy, as they will listen to stories, sing songs, recite poems and rhymes, and experiment with the sounds of the new language. Through literacy children will receive a great amount of rich input and will make their own productions in a natural way by using the language with a purpose. This requires a meaningful interaction in the language, that is to say, a natural communication in which the speakers must not focus on the form of the expressions, but on the messages they want to transmit and on what they need to understand (Krashen, 1981; Ritchie & Bhatia, 1999). However, children will need time to adjust and get familiar with the environment where they are going to acquire the second language, and if it is the school, they will need to feel comfortable, in a safe environment that favours language acquisition, and have confidence on the teacher who will help them on their second language

320

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

Fig. 20.1 The Critical Period Stage. (Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0896627310006811)

learning process: “[. . .] the learning environment plays an important role in teaching a second language because it determines the amount of linguistic data children have access to” (Fleta, 2006, p. 48). Moreover, making literacy an enjoyable experience for early learners depends very much on how teachers plan their lessons and incorporate aspects such as playing with sounds, vocabulary and structures; thus, experimenting with the second language (impossible to pronounce words, crazy sentences, etc.) in a playful way.

Literacy Work at Early Ages/Pre-primary Stage Children are effective communicators and their communication and self-expression takes many forms. This includes the development of language and literacy skills which are interrelated and take place in everyday experiences. Children show understanding of literacy in their home and community by taking turns exploring sounds, text and patterns, singing songs, reading stories, drawing and producing approximations of writing, playing games and recording their thoughts and ideas. (FUSE, 2021)

In light of the above quote, at this point we will deal with specific literacy work that can be carried out with early learners of a second language, mainly based on research recommendations and on the author’s personal experience as a Pre-primary teacher of English as a Second Language (ESL). As stated in the last paragraph of the latter section, oral language is the foundation for literacy development and that is why it is very necessary to focus, firstly, on oral skills with early learners of a second language, in order to provide them with the richer language possible. As well as being exposed to a rich language, the child’s

20

Early Literacy Development and Pre-primary CLIL

321

personal experience with the world will play a substantial role in literacy development, as children bring with them prior knowledge of both their mother tongue and their perception of the world, that will influence later on the way they interpret a text when reading, or the way they write down their ideas, opinions and thoughts. Literacy development starts from the earliest years and everything that adults do to support children’s language and literacy is critical, as what children learn from listening and talking contributes to their ability to read and write and vice versa (Strickland & Riley-Ayers, 2006). Thus, the teacher’s role is crucial, as she will be the provider of the second language conventions to her early learners and everything she will do in class to promote communication exchanges will be highly beneficial for her students’ literacy development. For most children, learning to read and write is a developmental stage not very different to learning to walk and talk; they have an innate ability to interpret signs and symbols, the essence of literacy. At the age of 3, many children will encounter phonics in their second language lessons for the first time, but long before this, they will have been developing the skills necessary to enjoy reading. These early learners will have learnt to listen to environmental sounds, instrumental sounds and the sounds of their own body. They will be familiar with the sounds of speech, rhythm, rhyme and alliteration, and enjoy listening to their favourite stories over and over again (Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, 2019b). In order to help children develop early literacy skills, they should be encouraged to listen attentively, enlarge their vocabulary, speak confidently, be aware of a wide range of sounds and where they come from, experience a wide range of printed material, be creative with sounds, music and language, discriminate phonemes in speech and orally segment spoken words into their sounds and blend sounds into spoken words. For this to happen, early learners of a second language need plenty of experience with pictures and objects – how they can use words to talk about them; letters and words – how they look and sound, and what they are called; sounds – how words can rhyme, begin and end with the same letters, or be broken up into syllables, or be formed by blending different sounds.

Classroom Ideas for Teaching Literacy to Early Learners of a Second Language As it has been mentioned before, the importance of literacy in CLIL contexts lies in the fact that “it helps pupils to understand, respond to texts and to reflect on them” (Ramsden & Shaw, 2014, p. 20). Therefore, it is important to start working on literacy at the Pre-primary stage, before children have to face written texts, in order to enable them to approach those content-based texts successfully in the future. Literacy work at the Pre-primary stage should focus mainly on oral skills, triggering for comprehension in a playful and enjoyable way, in order to make learning memorable for children and to set up the foundations for further progression in the second language acquisition process.

322

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

Daily Routines at Circle Time Classroom daily routines develop memory and concentration, crucial skills for becoming literate. Also, daily routines carried out in Circle Time give early learners a sense of safety and comfort, since there is a lot of repetition on the kind of vocabulary and structures that are used at this moment of the lesson (Mourão, 2014, 2015). Then, the fact that at Circle Time everybody in class, the teacher included, sits at the same level (without the physical barriers of tables between the teacher and students or among students themselves), favours communication and eye contact in a relaxed atmosphere (Álvarez-Cofiño, 2009b, 2010). The ideal moment of the lesson for working on daily routines is the beginning, as a kind of introduction to everything that will come afterwards, creating the adequate scenario for children to experiment with the second language in a less formal context (the assembly). Among the daily routines we could recommend working on the date, day of the week, month, year, weather, season, class attendance (a perfect moment to practice counting, adding, subtracting. . .), word/sentence of the day, choosing a class helper, Total Physical Response (TPR) game, etc. The possibilities are varied and all of them have in common repetition and simplicity in the vocabulary and structures used for this moment of the lesson, encouraging both verbal and non-verbal answers (remember that early learners are not proficient yet in the second language to answer verbally to all questions they are asked). It is also at this moment of the lesson where teachers will play an essential role in delivering language to their students, as because of their age, almost all of them will use their mother tongue the majority of time, so it is the teacher who, through recasting, modelling, repeating, paraphrasing and scaffolding, will help early learners start acquiring some basic vocabulary and structures of the new language (Fleta, 2006, 2018). Nursery Rhymes, Songs and Chants Nursery Rhymes, songs and chants share some common features that favour language acquisition: musicality, rhythm, rhyme and repetition. Music and rhythm make it much easier to imitate and remember language than words which are “just spoken” (Phillips, 1993). Rhymes help children to learn to play with words. They tune their ears to all the sounds in the word and by hearing different sounds they learn how sounds combine and blend together to form a word. If they can learn the sounds and hear the different sounds that make up a word, then they can learn how to play with them, how to change them and most importantly, they can learn to recognise what sounds can be paired with other sounds. Thanks to songs and rhymes children learn new words, they can also develop their non-verbal communication skills, learn early maths skills (e.g. counting forwards and backwards), start to understand how words are formed, copy actions, boast language communication and literacy skills, help develop children’s social skills, learn about different beats and rhythms, provide the opportunity for children to value language and become confident learners, and create a close relationship with the teacher and their peers.

20

Early Literacy Development and Pre-primary CLIL

323

Stories Stories help literacy development and they can also be linked to other areas of learning. Stories rely so much on words and they offer a major and constant source of language experience for children. Stories are motivating and rich in language experience (Wright, 1995). Reading or telling stories to children from early ages helps them develop a solid foundation for literacy skills: • • • • • •

shows them that books can give both pleasure and information helps them learn the sounds of letters in spoken language helps them understand how the printed word works helps them develop a larger vocabulary improves their thinking and problem-solving skills can get children thinking and talking about a new concept, an event or something that interests them • helps them learn about the world.

Tips for Using Stories with Early Learners of a Second Language As teachers of early learners of a second language, sometimes we find it difficult to use stories in class despite how interesting and beneficial they are for our students, and due to our insecurities about whether or not they will understand, if they will be able to follow a story being told or read in a new language, etc. We can use stories successfully in class by: • Choosing lift-the flap books, touch-and-feel books or books with rhyming or repeating words. • Starting reading the book by covering the title and asking children to make hypotheses about the theme or topic of the story from the picture on the cover. Read the author’s name, too. • Pointing out with your finger the words as you read them. This teaches children about print and shows them about reading direction, which could be different depending on the language. • Pointing to pictures and talking about the ones children show interest in. • Using different pitches of voices, changing voices for the different characters, using onomatopoeias. All in all, making storytelling or reading fun for children. • Asking your child open-ended questions about the story to check comprehension and to join them in the storytelling experience. • Creating a classroom library with different kinds of picture books children can access easily.

Synthetic Phonics As opposed to analytic phonics, where the emphasis is put on the letters and their most common corresponding sounds, the synthetic phonics approach focuses on the sounds and, from there, it moves on to the different ways in which the sounds can be

324

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

represented. Moreover, the fact that English has a non-transparent alphabetic code (e.g. a single sound can be represented in many different ways, like “a, ai, ay, eigh, a_e” for /eɪ/), makes synthetic phonics the most suitable approach to start literacy work at the Pre-primary stage, as children acquire the sounds at the same time they learn how to map them onto the corresponding graphemes that represent them. This facilitates proper pronunciation and blending of sounds into longer units (words). Synthetic phonics is a way of teaching reading and writing that focuses on developing a child’s ability to hear, identify and use the individual sounds that make up the language, rather than teaching whole words, and this results as a very efficient approach in languages, like English, that do not have a transparent alphabetic code. Research indicates that children who learn phonics at early stages do better in all aspects of literacy – word identification, comprehension, fluency, spelling – than those who are not exposed to this explicit and systematic instruction (Rose, 2006; Torgerson et al., 2006; Grant, 2012; Blevins, 2017). Since the implementation of phonics has proved very effective, more and more teachers around Europe have started implementing them in their second language lessons with early learners (e.g. very extended in Spain nowadays). Before learners can be expected to read words written in an alphabetic script, they need to be sensitive to the sounds of the language in which the words are written, developing phonological awareness, which is a sensitivity to sounds, including syllables and onset and rhyme in words. Sensitivity to onset and rhyme means that a learner can hear both the initial consonant “c” and the sounds after that consonant, “at”, in the word “cat”, for example. In order to learn to read with phonics, learners also need to develop phonemic awareness, which is a sensitivity specifically to individual phonemes (sounds) within words. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez (2019b) states that starting phonics work at early years allows children to enjoy a varied and multisensory approach where movement, music and pictures interact to make the whole phonics acquisition process more meaningful and playful at the same time. In order to become skilled and fluent readers in the second language, early learners need to have knowledge of sound-letter relationships, which involves developing phonological and phonemic awareness and then, systematic phonics instruction. Hence, this will be a cornerstone in future CLIL work, as synthetic phonics work will enable children to read and pronounce academic words, sentences and texts correctly, which will be part of the content subjects they will have to delve into in Primary and Secondary Education. The main purpose of phonics work is to help early learners of a second language to develop the appropriate skills to map sounds onto their corresponding graphemes in order to encode longer units (words and sentences) or to decode what they see printed. These are the two main actions in phonics: blending (for reading) and segmenting (for writing), and they are essential for succeeding in all the curricular subjects that students at bilingual schools/programs will have to face all along the Primary and Secondary Education stages in the second language.

20

Early Literacy Development and Pre-primary CLIL

325

Tips for Implementing Phonics with Early Learners of a Second Language Teaching phonics to early learners of a second language should be based on experimenting, playing and having fun with sounds. From the author’s personal experience, here is a compilation of tips that could be helpful for teachers to use in their phonics sessions: • Do phonics work during Circle Time as part of the daily routines. That way children will expect phonics every day and will feel confident about them. • Although phonics sessions do not last more than 10 min, extend some sessions from time to time to play games to consolidate already worked sounds. • Practice phonics at other lesson moments, for example, when reading a story and pointing to the sound you worked on that day, when listening to a song where that day’s sound is repeated a lot, etc. • Sit face-to-face to children so they can see your mouth and lips clearly as you say the sounds, as this will help them imitate movements better. • Practice mirror writing, as you will need it when showing children how the graphemes are formed when doing air writing to introduce them. • When presenting a sound for the first time, exaggerate your mouth and lips movements so children can see them well. It is very important that they see the position of the lips and the tongue when producing a sound. • Use a multisensory approach to phonics using images, gestures and songs associated with each sound, in order to make it easier for your students to remember the sounds and the correspondence with the graphemes. The more multi-sensory, the more memorable. • Introduce a new sound in every phonics session, and revisit all the previous ones that you have already worked on. Synthetic phonics is a cumulative approach which must be carried out systematically and following the logical presentation sequence that each phonics program offers. • Use phonics fans, letter-sound cards, linking cubes, magnetic letters and other manipulatives on a daily basis to review already seen sounds and to practice blending and segmenting. • You can start blending sounds with your students really soon and the most advisable to start with is CVC words (consonant-vowel-consonant), as they are always transparent. Then, go on making things more complex and increasing the difficulty of words. • Introduce “tricky words” (the ones that do not follow the sounds patterns) from time to time, which will let you start working on sentence level. • Once children master the individual sounds, you can start working on alternative spellings, special features of sounds, syllabication, identification of the position of the sounds in words, etc. • Use “decodable” books where all the words and sentences that appear include some of the basic sounds, or tricky words or alternative spellings that have already been worked on in class. This is the only possible way in which an early learner could read books independently.

326

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

Conclusions As we have seen in this chapter, the rising of bilingual programs in schools around the world meant a change in the way a second language was taught up to the moment, since working with non-linguistic content in a language different from the mother tongue involves cognitive skills beyond the four linguistic ones, and the development of others, like fluent reading and writing, that will be very necessary to succeed in non-linguistic subjects. Therefore, literacy development is very important for the early learner of a second language, as it is the foundation for doing well at the rest of school subjects taught in the new language, as well as for socialising with peers in the second language class, for developing problem-solving, making decisions and becoming more and more independent. Storytelling, singing, playing sound and word games, reading, writing and drawing with students are great ways to lay a good literacy foundation that second language teachers should take into account if they wish to help early learners develop and improve their literacy skills. To conclude, phonics also plays an important role in the acquisition of literacy skills, as through phonemic and phonological awareness early learners will experiment with the sounds of the second language and will start acquiring reading and writing skills that will be vital for dealing with content subjects in the new language.

References Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2005). Introducción temprana del Inglés como Segunda Lengua en Clases Multinivel de Educación Infantil en un Colegio Rural Agrupado: Proyecto Curricular. En Premios Nacionales de Innovación Educativa 2003 (pp. 83–100). CIDE. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2006). Introducción Temprana al Inglés. In Revista del CPR NalónCaudal “El Busgosu” (Vol. 5, pp. 46–49). CPR Nalón-Caudal. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2009a). CLIL project work at early ages: A case study. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. J. Frigols, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 62–67). CCN-University of Jyväskylä, Finland. E-book en http://icpj.eu/?id¼contents Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2009b). The 6 F’s in teaching English to very young learners. In The Teacher. English language teaching (Vol. 4, No. 68, pp. 16–17). Polonia. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2010). CLIL through collaborative projects at Infant stages. In Lend, lingua e nuova didattica (Vol. 2, pp. 32–43). Mediaprint. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2019a). El Enfoque Metodológico CLIL en la Enseñanza Primaria. Estudio Comparativo de la Implementación de CLIL en un Colegio Bilingüe y en un Colegio con Sección Bilingüe. Editorial Académica Española. Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2019b). Archie’s world phonics teacher’s guide. Oxford University Press. August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 50–57. Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2011). Bilingual Siblings. Multilingual Matters. Bialystok, E. (1996). Preparing to read: The foundations of literacy. In H. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behaviour. Academic.

20

Early Literacy Development and Pre-primary CLIL

327

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Blevins, W. (2017). A fresh look at phonics. Common causes of failure and 7 ingredients for success. Corwin Literacy. Carroll, S. (2000). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. John Benjamins. Cenoz, J. (2003). The influence of age on the acquisition of English: General proficiency, attitudes and code mixing. In M. P. García Mayo & M. L. García Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign language. Multilingual Matters. Cloud, N., Genesee, F., & Hamayan, E. (2000). Dual language instruction: A handbook for enriched education. Heinle & Heinle. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL, content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (1994). Knowledge, power and identity in teaching English as a second language. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters. Curtain, H. (2002a). Accountability to the child: Key concepts for success in early language learning. In Adquisición de Lenguas Extranjeras en Edades Tempranas. Actas del Congreso Internacional, Oviedo, Septiembre 2001 (pp. 39–44). MEC. Curtain, H. (2002b). Constructing meaning in another language: The child’s perspective. In Adquisición de Lenguas Extranjeras en Edades Tempranas. Actas del Congreso Internacional, Oviedo, Septiembre 2001 (pp. 15–24). MEC. Curtain, H., & Dahlberg, C. A. (2004). Languages and children – Making the match: New languages for young learners, grades K-8. Allyn and Bacon. Department of Education and Skills (DES). (2011). Literacy and numeracy for learning and life: The national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy among children and young people 2011–2020. Government Publications. Drew, I. (2009). Using the early years literacy programme in primary EFL Norwegian classrooms: Factors influencing young learners’ vocabulary acquisition. In M. Nikolov (Ed.), Early learning of foreign modern languages: Processes and outcomes. Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Wiley-Blackwell. Enever, J., Moon, J., & Raman, U. (Eds.). (2009). Young learner English language policy and implementation: International perspectives. Garnet Education/IATEFL. Fleta, T. (2006). Aprendizaje y técnicas de enseñanza del inglés en la escuela. Encuentro, 16, 51–62. Fleta, T. (2006b). Stepping stones for teaching “English L” in the early years. In MitchellShuitevoerder & Mourao, S. (eds.). Teachers and young learners. Research in our classrooms. IATEFL. Fleta, T. (2018). Scaffolding discourse skills in pre-primary L2 classrooms. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Pre-school bilingual education. Springer. FUSE. (2021). Victoria Education Government. Education and training website. Retrieved from http://fuse.education.vic.gov.au/EarlyChildhood Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Routledge. Grant, M. (2012). The effects of a systematic synthetic phonics programme on reading and spelling. Retrieved from https://syntheticphonics.net/pdf/2012-Report.pdf Hakuta, K. (2001). A critical period for second language acquisition? In D. Bailey, J. Bruer, F. Symons, & J. Lichtman (Eds.), Critical thinking about critical periods. Paul H. Brookes. Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical evidence: A test of the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14, 31–38. Halbach, A. (2018). A literacy approach to language teaching: A proposal for FL teaching in CLIL contexts. Pulso, 41, 205–223.

328

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

Huete, C., & Pérez, P. (2003). La Introducción Temprana de una Lengua Extranjera: Aportaciones para Emprender un Fascinante Camino. In Enseñanza-Aprendizaje de las Lenguas Extranjeras en Edades Tempranas. Consejería de Educación y Cultura. Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. Routledge. Johnston, R. S., & Watson, J. E. (2004). Accelerating the development of reading, spelling and phonemic awareness skills in initial readers. Reading and Writing, 17, 327–357. Kennedy, E., Dunphy, E., Dwyer, B., Hayes, G., McPhilips, T., Marsh, J., O’Connor, M., & Shiel, G. (2012). Literacy in early childhood and primary education (3–8 years). National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford University Press. Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University Press. Larson-Hall, J. (2008). Weighing the benefits of studying a foreign language at a younger starting age in a minimal input situation. Second Language Research, 24(1), 35–63. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalance approach. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Mihaljevic, J. (2010). Starting age and L1 and L2 interaction. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14(3), 303–314. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. Hodder Arnold. Mourão, S. (2014). Taking play seriously in the pre-primary English classroom. ELT Journal, 68(3), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu018 Mourão, S. (2015). English in pre-primary: The challenge of getting it right. In J. Bland (Ed.), Teaching English to young learners. Critical issues in language teaching with 3–12 year olds. Bloomsbury. Nation, I. S. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. Navarro Romero, B. (2010). Adquisición de la primera y segunda lengua en aprendices en edad infantil y adulta. Philologica Urcitana, 2, 115–128. Pfenninger, E., & Singleton, D. (2017). Beyond age effects in instructional L2 learning. Multilingual Matters. Phillips, S. (1993). Young learners. Oxford University Press. Ramsden, J., & Shaw, D. (2014). High five 4 (teacher’s book). Macmillan Publishers. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, T. K. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of child language acquisition. Academic. Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading. DfES Publications. Singleton, D. (2005). The critical period hypothesis: A coat of many colours. IRAL, 43(4), 259–268. Strickland, D. S., & Riley-Ayers, S. (2006). Early literacy: Policy and practice in preschool years. In Preschool policy brief (No. 10). National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). Strickland, D. S., & Shanahan, T. (2004). Laying the groundwork for literacy. Educational Leadership, 61, 74–77. Torgerson, C. J., Brooks, G., & Hall, J. (2006). A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling. Department for Education and Skills (DfES). Whitehurst, G., & Lonigan, C. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872. Whittaker, R. (2018). Reading to learn in CLIL subjects: Working with content-language. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 1(1), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.4 Wright, A. (1995). Storytelling with children. Oxford University Press.

The Role of L1 in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

21

M. A´ngeles Jime´nez-Jime´nez and Ana M. Rico-Martín

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translanguaging as a Strategy of the Bilingual Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching Practices in Translanguaging for Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

330 331 335 337 338

Abstract

Every educational context is a reflection of the society in which it takes place. Being multilingualism, one of the traits that best defines today’s communities, schools and classrooms can be described, therefore, as multilingual. Thus, the multilingual classroom is understood as a flexible space, where languages interact, giving rise to the creation of the plurilingual repertoire of each individual. This interaction can be easily traced in teaching-learning scenarios where CLIL is put into practice. Indeed, from its inception, CLIL has been identified with a set of pedagogical practices such as curriculum integration, literacy development and translanguaging (San Isidro, Rev Nebrija 13(27):8–13, 2019). Understood as dynamic bilingualism (García and Wei, Translanguaging: language, bilingualism, and education. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), translanguaging can be considered as a natural resource for the teaching and learning of languages in CLIL contexts, and especially in relation to CLIL projects developed in very young learners’ classrooms, since it has been proven that translanguaging has a positive effect on learning, well-being and identity building (Kirsch, System 92: 102271, 2020), being these key aspects for the development of pre-primary learners. As a result, young learners’ mother tongues should be considered valid resources in multicultural contexts and CLIL classrooms in pre-primary M. Ángeles Jiménez-Jiménez (*) · A. M. Rico-Martín Universidad de Granada, Melilla, Spain e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_21

329

330

M. A´ngeles Jime´nez-Jime´nez and A. M. Rico-Martín

stages. (In this chapter, mother tongue and first language (L1) are used equally since both refer to a person’s native language.) However, this may be a controversial issue that needs further research and greater elucidation in order to promote efficient classroom implementation strategies. Keywords

Translanguaging · Mother tongue · CLIL · Pre-primary classroom · Plurilingualism

Introduction Since world globalization over the last decades has resulted in a patently clear flow of people from different countries and different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, it has become a priority for national language policies to be geared towards ensuring that their citizens are able to use any language in addition to their mother tongue. Therefore, countries have promoted actions that favour multilingual learning and plurilingualism. As a result, different bilingual programmes have been developed, with different characteristics according to the context where they are implemented and their specific objectives (Cummins, 2013). In this line of methodological evolution and renewal, García and Flores (2012) distinguish four types of education: foreign language education (taught as additional languages); second language education (one of the dominant languages in the country); bilingual education (teaching academic content in different languages); and, to complement the last model in today’s classrooms, multilingual education, which is based on what can be a hugely important learning resource, that is the diversity of languages that learners know. In order to develop plurilingualism at European level, the Commission of the European Communities (1995) proposed the general objective of achieving proficiency in three Community languages, and emphasised the importance of starting to learn an additional language at pre-primary stage and continuing with a second additional language at secondary level. The same document recommends the use of the methodology applied in European international schools, where the first additional language is used for the teaching of some subjects in secondary education, in order to ease deficits in traditional foreign language teaching. Likewise, as a descendant of Canadian immersion programmes and American bilingual educational models, CLIL approach emerged as an innovative pedagogy that, only a few years later, has been implemented in many educational systems in the stages of Primary and Secondary Education all over the world. Results show that these learners, especially those from the last years of Primary Education onwards, get higher levels of proficiency in the additional language (mainly in receptive skills, listening and reading) than those who follow a conventional language teaching methodology (Cummins, 2013; Pérez Cañado, 2012, 2018). Such results are more evident when the CLIL approach remains stable over many years, as Hughes (2010) also points out.

21

The Role of L1 in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

331

Following with the development of plurilingualism, and the multiplicity of resources (a symbiosis of image, sound, and oral and written language) that plurilingual individuals are capable of employing in different communicative acts, the new conception of dynamic bilingualism appears (García, 2009), more open to the various linguistic practices that arise in today’s multiple contexts, than the classical, and obsolete, academic conceptions of individual bilingualism (García & Lin, 2016). These practices, incidentally, enhance the cognitive and cultural wealth that these multilingual environments can provide us with. According to Cenoz and Gorter (2015), plurilingual competence is not comparable to that of native speakers of each language but simply different. This is reflected in a richer, more efficient and creative use than any native’s, since multilingual speakers can call upon more linguistic elements. In addition, they possess a superior cognitive flexibility that is made evident in thinking skills, and in the analysis, synthesis and transfer of strategies and knowledge (Ardila, 2012; Pelham & Abrams, 2014). Although Bialystok and Barac (2012) specify that, in the case of immersion programmes, executive control and metalinguistic awareness are determined mainly by the length of time in a bilingual education environment and by the level of language proficiency. Educational agents can take advantage of linguistic diversity in contemporary environments, so that more than one language, besides the first language (L1), can be used to foster learners’ plurilingual capacities, as well as their metalinguistic and metacognitive abilities (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015). Indeed, as mentioned above, the European Union has resolved that this kind of teaching should begin at the pre-primary stage with a first additional language. With this aim in mind and with the intention to link plurilingualism, translanguaging and CLIL to the early introduction of additional languages in pre-primary education, we present this chapter.

Translanguaging as a Strategy of the Bilingual Individual Although the origin of translanguaging as a didactic resource goes back to the 1980s, when English and Welsh were employed interchangeably in the same lesson (Lewis et al., 2012), this practice has spread out and today arouses a great deal of interest in the multilingual education field. One of the best known examples of its implementation are dual-language programmes in the United States, targeted at learners who come from social minority groups where half of them speak only their mother tongue (Spanish) at home and the other half the language of school (English), with the aim that they all become bilingual and bi-literate in both languages (García & Sánchez, 2018). The term translanguaging is still being developed, and this is the reason why it is possible to find different definitions and interpretations of new concepts, which will imply practical implications in educational and sociological studies (Pino et al., 2019). Along with other authors, Wei (2018) considers translanguaging to be an experiential theory of language, through which bilingual speakers use their linguistic

332

M. A´ngeles Jime´nez-Jime´nez and A. M. Rico-Martín

and communicative elements (the semiotic repertoire, according to Canagarajah [2013]), whatever their origin, in order to perform a communicative act. This fact reflects the aforementioned flexible and integrating use that speakers make of the languages they know, according to the different neural, corporal, situational, social and cultural processes that are activated and interact during the communicative act (Thibault, 2017). Such is the complexity of features and processes involved in the linguistic use that it is not difficult to understand that the theory and practices of translanguaging are based on the internal perspective and the idiolect of the bilingual individual. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that this concept is not the same than code switching (Otheguy et al., 2015) since the latter implies an external and separated perception of the languages known by the bilingual individual, while the former concerns the interactive use of different elements in a single linguistic repertoire; that is, the free and natural interconnection of languages that has provided speakers with their own linguistic features. Actually, Blackledge and Creese (2017), in their research on multilingualism, point out the speakers’ flexibility when using their linguistic resources in a communicative situation, highlighting that the social context and the needs of the moment are two aspects that determine this use. One of the ideas underlying the concept of dynamic bilingualism is that individuals possess a linguistic repertoire in which the languages they know are not used separately, as it was traditionally thought, but, on the contrary, their elements interact in increasing development, giving rise to new ones as learning progresses (Canagarajah, 2013; García et al., 2017). Thus, the distinction between first language and second language no longer makes sense, as such distinction does not exist in the bilingual’s linguistic system (Blackledge & Creese, 2017; García & Sánchez, 2018; Otheguy et al., 2015). (And for many other reasons, depending on different contexts, as argued by García and Lin (2016).) Nevertheless, in this chapter we refer to the L1 from a perspective external to the individual, in order to study how it is introduced as part of the plurilingual competence of pre-primary learners when undertaking CLIL teaching in the classroom. In doing so, we pretend to overcome the tendency, which still remains today, of keeping the two languages separately in the syllabus, as Cenoz (2015) states. Taking this into account, and from the perspective of the plurilingual individual, the concept of “languages” is naturally replaced by the term “linguistic repertoires”, that are constantly being updated according to the requirements of the communicative context, through the phenomenon of translanguaging. Following these premises, it is inconceivable to think about translanguaging without alluding to the dynamic bilingualism or to consider it outside the multilingual education of today’s classrooms (García & Wei, 2014). Although idiolect is personal, and no two are alike, this does not affect the viability of the communicative act, because each individual makes use of it by adapting it to the context. Thus, a speaker who knows two or more languages can use all of them, provided that the interlocutors share this same knowledge. In the event that a plurilingual speaker interacts with a monolingual in one of the languages in their repertoire, the former will know how to adapt to that specific situation and

21

The Role of L1 in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

333

communication will be in the common language. Hence, translanguaging is a sociolinguistic practice, just as interaction between monolinguals is; each one making use of their own linguistic repertoire, as Otheguy et al. (2015) clearly argue. Yet, these authors also point out that monolinguals, when compared with plurilinguals, will also have the assistance of their translanguaging, understood as the plural linguistic repertoire that constitutes their idiolect, because it will be permitted in most social contexts, including the educational one. Meanwhile, bilinguals will only be able to do so when the situation allows it; this is, just when the use of the different languages they know is accepted, and they can thus freely deploy all the possibilities that their linguistic repertoire allows them to do so. These observations made by the authors make sense in the framework of monolingual education in a majority language, as they clearly point out on several occasions (García, 2017; García & Lin, 2016; García & Otheguy, 2015; García & Wei, 2014), although they also insist that these reflections mainly concern language in its general use and as a social construct. Nevertheless, in this chapter, this linguistic practice is considered in the context of additional languages teaching, overcoming the double pairing of social minority/majority students, and minority/majority languages, used in the context of the United States by the aforementioned authors. García and Sánchez (2018) carried out a study with emergent bilinguals (SpanishEnglish) with a below-average academic performance, who came from social minority groups in two schools in New York. They found that through translanguaging practices learners acquired a higher capacity for expression and linguistic creativity, the acquisition of new academic concepts was enhanced, and, in addition, their motivation and self-esteem increased as they felt their home language, and simultaneously their culture, enhanced. But translanguaging can be carried out in any context where two or more languages are spoken, taking advantage of the individual linguistic strategies that learners naturally perform (Lin & He, 2017). For example, Cummins (2013) states that in bilingual programmes in general, and in CLIL in particular, a transfer of learning strategies and linguistic elements between the languages involved has been verified. This is a process which favours the acquisition of the additional language without diminishing the continuous learning of the mother tongue or knowledge of curricular contents. However, teachers must be aware of this interdependence so as not to keep the two languages totally separated, and to promote finding these interconnections between them. Recently, the concept of translanguaging has attracted a wide range of attention, depending on the intentions behind its use. In this chapter, the main interest is on its use as a didactic strategy for language learning using young learners’ linguistic repertoires in CLIL contexts. Moreover, being such young learners, these strategies will be based on the spontaneous use of their plurilingual competence, in which their mother tongue is a keystone. Authors such as Widdowson (1978), Stern (1992) and Cook (1995, 2001) were among the first ones to support the importance of the use that learners make of their mother tongue in order to acquire other languages. More recently, other researchers have studied the use of this L1 in CLIL lessons as a cognitive resource for the learning of an additional language (Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; Hall & Cook, 2012;

334

M. A´ngeles Jime´nez-Jime´nez and A. M. Rico-Martín

Levine, 2011; Lin & He, 2017; Luk & Lin, 2015; Swain & Lapkin, 2013). This is particularly useful when languages are related in a phylogenetic way, as this link provides similarities in the lexis, spelling, grammatical and discourse structures and even pragmatic elements. This fact leads learners to build bridges between their languages, starting from the mother tongue as the basic element in this process. Thus, knowledge about one language reinforces further knowledge about an additional one, achieving the development of the metalinguistic awareness, and consequently, the linguistic and intercultural sensibility. Concerning this relation between languages, Cummins (2013) resumed his linguistic interdependence hypothesis and the theory of the Common Underlying Language Proficiency (CULP) of the bilingual (Cummins, 1979, 1984) and explains that “this common underlying proficiency makes possible the transfer of concepts, literacy skills, and learning strategies from one language to another” (2013, p. 9), although there are language skills, such as pronunciation or fluency in speech, which are kept separate in both languages. In this way, the author justifies that the use of the additional language in CLIL does not interfere with the development of the L1, even though the two are very different. Regarding the relationship of interdependence and the transfers established between languages, Ó Duibhir and Cummins (2012, p. 12) identify the following types: • Transfer of conceptual knowledge, irrespective of the similarity of the learner’s languages. • Transfer of specific linguistic elements, for example, the meaning of a prefix in different words. • Transfer of phonological awareness. This is the case of the identification of sounds in words, which facilitates the decoding process in reading. • Transfer of metacognitive and metalinguistic strategies. An example of this are the micro-skills involved in literacy development. Although Goodrich and Lonigan (2017) insist that much research is needed in this regard, they evaluate the theory of CULP and linguistic interdependence through a study with pre-primary learners developing Spanish and English early literacy skills, and claimed the existence of this common underlying proficiency for children’s code-related skills (phonological awareness and knowledge of printed letters among similar alphabetical systems), but there is no such common underlying proficiency in oral language skills (i.e., expressive vocabulary), which is language-related. Nevertheless, these authors point out that other factors, such as common language-learning environments for L1 and additional languages can sometimes justify cross-language transfers. The fact that learners focus on their language as an object of thought by spontaneously and continuously comparing languages of their own linguistic repertoire may actually encourage the development of metalinguistic awareness. In case a third language is considered, learners will first use the abilities that they already possess from their two previous languages, by means of phonetic matching strategies, structures and vocabulary. This will make them more aware of the

21

The Role of L1 in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

335

functioning of the languages, although, as it was previously mentioned, it is extremely difficult to discern the elements taken from each language separately, due to the dynamism, flexibility and interaction that characterize these multilingual practices. The fact of using several languages in the same communicative act, and the benefits that this entails, has turned translanguaging into a pedagogical tool. The strategic use of the mother tongue in the classroom involves sharing meanings through translations of unknown words or expressions, explaining grammatical structures, organizing the classroom or interacting with students, especially when they hesitate and a communication gap occurs when using the new language (Hall & Cook, 2012; Zhou et al., 2020). In the field of pedagogical translanguaging, there exists the conviction that teachers need to become aware that the benefits of transferring skills and strategies from the L1 to additional languages will always outweigh the risks of interference that may occur, as they strengthen learners’ plurilingual identity (Cummins, 2013). Hence, it is very important to work on the similarities and differences between learners’ languages in the classroom, and to reinforce coordinating learning strategies. If multilingual learners do this by themselves, why should the school not take advantage of it? As it is recommended by García and Lin (2016), practices carried out by children with the languages they know must be included in the design of multilingual education programmes in the light of the previously described advantages.

Teaching Practices in Translanguaging for Pre-primary Education As a pedagogical tool, translanguaging is a teaching strategy that, as Di Virgilio (2020) states, helps teachers make a more flexible usage of the languages spoken in class, with the aim of fostering the learning of additional languages. Moreover, in line with the recommendations of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001, 2018), it is necessary to enable early learners with a limited language proficiency in the target language to use the different linguistic resources they possess to communicate and convey meaning. In this way, learners will feel that they are in a safe environment and, as a result, will develop their self-esteem. There are few studies on translanguaging in pre-primary education (Kirsch, 2017, 2020), but these may suggest that this strategy is often put into practice unintentionally and unconsciously. It is also used as a way of encouraging student participation and fostering learning through communication and meaning-making (Nussbaum, 2014; Portolés & Martí, 2017), as well as a tool to improve socioemotional development and to help learners develop a multilingual identity (Kirsch & Seele, 2020). Although most education systems divide languages into separate areas or subjects, pre-primary education is an ideal stage for promoting translanguaging because both teachers and students cross over these boundaries in a completely natural way

336

M. A´ngeles Jime´nez-Jime´nez and A. M. Rico-Martín

in their daily communication. They make use of the different languages they know in a flexible, creative and dynamic way in order to facilitate understanding and communication between them. Furthermore, in this educational stage, many contents are taught in a more globalised manner through a modular and thematic methodology, which favours holistic learning and contributes to the development of transversal competences, essential aspects in CLIL approach. The use of translanguaging as a educational tool is of particular importance in pre-primary CLIL as it helps bridging gaps of knowledge in both languages, as well as it enables children to actively participate in CLIL activities overcoming the target language barrier. According to García et al. (2011), this type of practice is intensified when learners engage in freer activities with their classmates, without the teacher’s control, such as drawing, colouring, cutting out, playing with blocks, and so on. Thus, languages are learned in an integrated, playful and empirical way, while fulfilling their real purpose, “to shape everyone’s experiences and knowledge” (García, 2017, p. 257). Learners will also develop a series of competences that promote meaningful learning and their personal and individual autonomy, which are considered essential in pre-primary education. In addition, if the methodology used in class to teach an additional language is CLIL, learners’ needs and attitudes will be very different, as they are exposed to a much richer language, for a longer time and with an instrumental motif, which will encourage their learning (Halbach, 2018). However, they will also need more resources to cope with new knowledge through an additional language, being translanguaging one of the main tools to facilitate such learning. In fact, according to San Isidro (2019), the development of literacy, translanguaging and curricular integration are recognized as pedagogical practices related to CLIL, since they help the development of learners’ pluriliteracies in different linguistic contexts and, therefore, help meaning-making. Focusing on pedagogical practice, it is important to emphasise that for translanguaging to work appropriately, it is necessary to make strategic use of it and to have a well-planned educational design that is adapted to the educational context, since not all students have the same needs, and not all communities have the same linguistic situation. In a similar way, translanguaging needs to be exploited according to specific aims, depending on whether we make use of a language for academic purposes, or for improving communication and social interaction. García (2017, p. 261) identifies five main objectives that are fulfilled with the practice of translanguaging: 1. Translanguaging to assist and motivate learning, and deepen meaning, understandings and knowledge. 2. Translanguaging for greater metalinguistic awareness and linguistic awareness, including critical sociolinguistic awareness. 3. Translanguaging to affirm bilingual identities. 4. Translanguaging for greater social interaction and communication, including home-school cooperation. 5. Translanguaging for empowerment.

21

The Role of L1 in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

337

These translanguaging practices, when used in groups of students with different language levels, become a supportive scaffolding technique for low-level learners, enhancing their ability to understand and their motivation to learn. In this sense, Kirsch (2017) states that while learners and teachers are translanguaging, the former make a special effort to understand each other, but the use of visual and aural clues, such as gestures, mime or intonation, translations, paraphrase and clarification requests can help them to understand meaning. At the same time, teachers must help learners activate their background knowledge and encourage them to ask questions, express their own ideas, and talk about their experiences. Collaborative learning becomes a very suitable approach because students may be grouped and work together in activities or small tasks that promote dialogue and problem-solving in a multilingual situation. Hence, using different languages usually involves comparing sounds, words or expressions and structures, which promotes metalinguistic awareness. Learning languages also goes hand in hand with learning different cultures and helps build the very identity of the learner. The use of different languages, including minority languages, which are mostly used in the family environment, also favours social interaction and communication between members of the school community and the family. In order to promote those different cultures in the classrooms, teachers may invite parents to tell stories in their home language, assisted by the teacher, and using the different strategies previously mentioned (Kirsch, 2017; Palmer et al., 2000). Finally, these practices contribute to the empowerment of those low-level learners who may fall behind their classmates, and thus, reducing the risk of school failure and dropping out of CLIL programmes. At this early stage, it is important to support learners and their families to develop the best of them in order to achieve their goals in a respectful and multicultural society. In order to achieve this goal, it is important to pay attention to both learners and their parents, letting them express their ideas and feelings, giving them opportunities to solve problems with others, and, in general, allowing them to develop their self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Conclusion The importance of language knowledge has led to the development of language policies in most countries in order for their citizens to become multilingual speakers. These policies include new models of language teaching that incorporate the different practices that arise in multicultural contexts, reflecting our societies and today’s classrooms. Translanguaging, as one of the most innovative practices, does not conceive of any division of languages into hermetic compartments or separate entities; instead, it supports that all the languages present in the classroom can and must be considered essential in order to promote plurilingualism, fostering, at the same time, the development of minority languages, as well as learners’ metalinguistic competence and metacognitive awareness.

338

M. A´ngeles Jime´nez-Jime´nez and A. M. Rico-Martín

Translanguaging, as a didactic practice, is considered a suitable tool for pre-primary stage because, due to its specific methodology, based on a holistic approach to wide areas of knowledge and experience, helps learning in a globalized and integrated way; in this sense, different languages such as mother tongues, others that students are fluent in or those that learners must learn as part of the syllabus, can be used in the classroom, all supporting each other and thus facilitating their acquisition and learning. Translanguaging in target language learning programmes, such as CLIL, encourages content understanding as learners increase their linguistic repertoires. Moreover, due to the age of these children, their linguistic system is still in development, therefore they have great linguistic flexibility and brain plasticity. This favours the use of different linguistic repertoires of speakers, which are unique to each of them according to their previous learning experiences, individual context and, skills and communicative needs. In addition, as García and Sánchez (2018) state, through the practice of translanguaging, learners not only acquire greater capacity for linguistic expression and creativity, but also the acquisition of new concepts, while motivation and self-esteem increase. This will result in multilingual speakers who are, at the same time, more sensitive towards linguistic and cultural diversity. Finally, the learning of an additional language is enhanced when learners use the knowledge, skills and abilities they have already acquired in previous learning, whether during their mother tongue literacy period or during the learning of other languages. For all these reasons, language policies need to consider the benefits of using the mother tongue and other languages during additional language learning process, just as teachers and families need to be aware that the risks of interferences that may exist in the early stages of language acquisition and learning can be overcome, and outweighed by the positive effects they cause. We should bear in mind that resorting to elements of their linguistic repertoire, no matter the language, is the natural way of communicating for many people, especially for very young learners. Thus, schools could make the most of this strategy in order to create truly plurilingual citizens. From teachers’ perspective, translanguaging is an unavoidable challenge, since today’s classrooms have become multilingual with increasing immigration and social globalization, giving rise to a greater number of home languages in the classroom. However, in the absence of curriculum proposals that suit this variety of classroom contexts, educators have begun to develop new sensibilities, putting into practice different types of multilingual pedagogies, showing respect and interest towards all languages and their speakers, including their learners and their families in the teaching-learning process, and keeping in mind the balance needed between the curricular languages learned through CLIL and the home languages.

References Ardila, A. (2012). Ventajas y desventajas del bilingüismo [Advantages and disadvantages of bilingualism]. Forma y Función, 25(2), 99–114. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/219/ 21928398005.pdf Bialystok, E., & Barac, R. (2012). Emerging bilingualism: Dissociating advantages for metalinguistic awareness and executive control. Cognition, 122(1), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cognition.2011.08.003

21

The Role of L1 in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

339

Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2017). Language education and multilingualism. In T. L. McCarty & S. May (Eds.), Language policy and political issues in education, encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 73–84). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31902344-1_6 Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge. Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 07908318.2014.1000922 Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2015). Translanguaging as a pedagogical tool in multilingual education. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, & S. May (Eds.), Language awareness and multilingualism. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed., pp. 1–14). Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-02325-0_20-1 Commission of the European Communities. (1995). White paper on education and training. Teaching and learning towards the learning society. https://op.europa.eu/en/publicationdetail/-/publication/d0a8aa7a-5311-4eee-904c-98fa541108d8/language-en Cook, V. (1995). Multi-competence and learning of many languages. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(2), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908319509525193 Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402 Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe Publishing. Cummins, J. (1979). La interdependencia lingüística y el desarrollo educativo de los niños bilingües [Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children]. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222 Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. Cummins, J. (2013). Bilingual education and content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Research and its classroom implications. Padres y Maestros, 349, 6–10. https://revistas. comillas.edu/index.php/padresymaestros/article/view/6-10/803 Di Virgilio, A. (2020). Translenguaje: Derribando barreras en el aula de lenguas extranjeras [Translanguaging. Breaking down barriers in the EFL classroom]. Revista Digital de Políticas Lingüísticas (RDPL), 13, 6–33. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Wiley-Blackwell. García, O. (2017). Translanguaging in schools: Subiendo y bajando [Going up and down], Bajando y Subiendo [Going down and up] as afterword. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1329657 García, O., & Flores, N. (2012). Multilingual pedagogies. In M. A. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 232–246). Routledge. García, O., & Lin, A. (2016). Extending understandings of bilingual and multilingual education. In O. García, A. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education, encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 1–20). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-02324-3_1-1 García, O., & Otheguy, R. (2015). Spanish and Hispanic bilingualism. In M. Lacorte (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Hispanic applied linguistics (pp. 639–658). Routledge. García, O., & Sánchez, M. (2018). Transformando la educación de bilingües emergentes en el estado de Nueva York. [Transforming the education of emergent bilinguals in New York State]. Language Education and Multilingualism, 1, 138–156. https://doi.org/10.18452/19032 García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. Palgrave Macmillan. García, O., Makar, C., Starcevic, M., & Terry, A. (2011). The translanguaging of latino kindergarteners. In K. Potowski & J. Rothman (Eds.), Bilingual youth: Spanish in English-speaking society (pp. 33–55). Benjamins.

340

M. A´ngeles Jime´nez-Jime´nez and A. M. Rico-Martín

García, O., Johnson, S., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom. Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon. Goodrich, J. M., & Lonigan, C. J. (2017). Language-independent and language-specific aspects of early literacy: An evaluation of the common underlying proficiency model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(6), 782–793. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000179 Halbach, A. (2018). A literacy approach to language teaching: A proposal for FL teaching in CLIL contexts. Pulso, 41, 205–223. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning: State of the art. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000067 Hughes, S. (2010). The effectiveness of bilingual education: A case study [Paper presentation]. 25th GRETA convention: Celebrating 25 years of teacher inspiration. Granada. Kirsch, C. (2017). Translanguaging practices during storytelling with the app iTEO in preschools. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 3(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10. 1075/ttmc.3.2.01kir Kirsch, C. (2020). Opening minds to translanguaging pedagogies. System, 92, 102271. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102271 Kirsch, C., & Seele, C. (2020). Translanguaging in early childhood education in Luxembourg: From practice to pedagogy. In J. A. Panagiotopoulou, L. Rosen, & J. Strzykala (Eds.), Inclusion, education and Translanguaging. Inklusion und Bildung in Migrationsgesellschaften (pp. 63–81). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28128-1_5 Levine, G. S. (2011). Code choice in the language classroom. Multilingual Matters. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641–654. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13803611.2012.718488 Lin, A. M. Y., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 228–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458. 2017.1328283 Luk, G. N. Y., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2015). L1 as a pedagogical resource in building students’ L2 academic literacy: Pedagogical innovation in a science classroom in a Hong Kong school. In J. Cenoz & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual education: Between language learning and translanguaging (pp. 16–34). Cambridge University Press. Nussbaum, L. (2014). Una didàctica del plurilingüísme [A didactics of plurilingualism]. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 7(3), 1–13. Ó Duibhir, P., & Cummins, J. (2012). Towards an integrated language curriculum in early childhood and primary education (3–12 years). National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. Otheguy, R., García, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281–307. https:// doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014 Palmer, B. C., Leiste, S. M., James, K. D., & Ellis, S. M. (2000). The role of storytelling in effective family literacy programs. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 41(2). https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol41/iss2/2 Pelham, S. D., & Abrams, L. (2014). Cognitive advantages and disadvantages in early and late bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035224 Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2012). CLIL research in Europe: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13670050.2011.630064 Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). CLIL and educational level: A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on language outcomes. Porta Linguarum, 29, 51–70. https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug. 54022 Pino Rodríguez, A. M., Trujillo Sáez, F., & González Vázquez, A. (2019). Translingüismo: revisión de la literatura y aplicación didáctica para la enseñanza de ELE y ELE2. [Translanguaging:

21

The Role of L1 in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

341

literature review and didactic uses in teaching Spanish as a foreign and second language]. Revista Foro de Profesores de E/LE, 15, 287–296. https://doi.org/10.7203/foroele.15.15881 Portolés, L., & Martí, O. (2017). Translanguaging as a teaching resource in early language learning of English as an additional language (EAL). Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 10(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3 San Isidro, X. (2019). La transición de AICLE: del aprendizaje a través de lenguas adicionales a escenarios de aprendizaje de lenguaje enriquecido [The CLIL crossover: From learning through additional languages to language aware learning scenarios]. Revista Nebrija, 13(27), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.26378/rnlael1327344 Stern, H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford University Press. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 101–129. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.05swa Thibault, P. J. (2017). The reflexivity of human languaging and Nigel Love’s two orders of language. Language Sciences, 61, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.09.014 Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039 Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press. Zhou, X. E., Huang, X., & He, J. (2020). Translanguaging in L3 Spanish classrooms: Practices and attitudes. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a La Comunicación, 84, 65–75. https://doi.org/10. 5209/clac.71996

Language-Conducive Strategies to Enhance Communication in the CLIL Pre-primary Classroom

22

Mila Schwartz

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language-Conducive Strategies in CLIL Programs: From Theory into Practice . . . . . . . . . . Didactic Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classroom Management Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

344 344 346 346 350 352 352

Abstract

When CLIL concerns young learners, additional language might be used as a vehicle to teach part of the curriculum that pre-school would address in any case. Consequently, children are encouraged to use this language productively. However, to progress towards a productive language use, children go through several stages when learning L2 (e.g., English, German); in early ages they experience a silent period, using L1 in response to the teacher’s reference to them in English or use either telegraphic or formulaic language. In many cases the productive stage remains out of reach, especially in programs offering relatively low and limited exposure to additional language. Another issue affecting productive English use is discontinuity between L2 input at pre-school and home, the child’s close linguistic environment. To address these issues, CLIL teachers must create language-conducive contexts that will allow learners to experience the new language, to use and speak it in diverse interactions. This chapter aims to discuss what kind of teacher strategies may create language-conducive contexts within present and future CLIL early childhood education. The chapter will (1) present the theoretical underpinning for language-conducive strategies as “intentional classroom teaching acts aimed to conduce novel language production” (Schwartz, M. Schwartz (*) Oranim Academic College of Education, Haifa, Israel e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_22

343

344

M. Schwartz

Language-conducive strategies in early language education: a conceptual framework. In: Schwartz M (ed) Handbook of early language education. Series Springer international handbooks of education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 194–217, 2020, p. 5) and (2) illustrate how these strategies can be implemented within the CLIL approach in preschool education. Keywords

Language-conducive strategies · CLIL · Preschool · Didactic strategies · Management strategies

Introduction Language-conducive contexts (hereafter LCSs) have been defined “as contexts rich in multisensory activities with a wide array of semiotic resources and diverse teacher–child and peer interactions, encouraging the child’s engagement in the novel language learning” (Schwartz, 2018, p. 6). This concept has been elaborated on the basis of available research in early language education. In addition, these strategies have been derived from my observations of many language teachers engaged in a novel language teaching in preschool classrooms, whom I had the honor to meet during the last 10 years. In this chapter a novel language is defined as a language that is neither acquired nor maintained at home and is nondominant in the child’s close environment such as English as a foreign language in the CLIL programs. This concept pertains to developmental perspectives on early language learning and puts younger children’s needs for learning in a climate that provides a joyful, safe, and supportive classroom atmosphere at the center.

Theoretical Background Learning a foreign language (hereafter FL) at preschool age seems to be facile and effortless, as expressed in the widespread belief that ‘children are like sponges.’ This idea is prevalent among teachers and policy makers who view this process by preschoolers as less problematic than by school age children and adults. Indeed, a brief overview of the European Union’s focus on early language learning, supports this “common refrain” (Bernstein, 2020, p. 3). The idea ‘younger is better,’ namely that early exposure to the FL per se will result in quick language grasp is also pervasive among parents who have unrealistic expectations about children’s progress towards productive English use (e.g., Mair, 2018; Prošić-Santovac & Radović, 2018). For example, from my correspondence with parents throughout the year, I have learnt that they may expect that after 1 year of exposure to the FL, children may already start communicating with native speakers of the target language during family vacations abroad.

22

Language-Conducive Strategies to Enhance Communication in the. . .

345

In reality, there is a growing body of data about implications of soft CLIL in preschools in Europe, showing that after 2 years of exposure to English (albeit not full immersion but partial daily content learning in English), many children do not make the progress expected of them toward productive English use (Mair, 2018, 2021; Prtljaga & Gojkov Rajić, 2017). In many cases this early experience with FL results in children’s ability to sing several songs and repeat certain rhymes in the FL after a year or two of instruction (e.g., Prošić-Santovac & Radović, 2018). What these children show is a fixation of receptive bilingual skills, namely they demonstrate their understanding by nonverbal communication (gestures, body language, vocal variations, and smiling), but rarely initiate verbal interaction in English. As Prošić-Santovac and Savić (2021) assert “learning a foreign language can become very demotivating if children do not achieve fluency that enables them to participate in spontaneous meaningful communication, i. e. if they are not able to proceed beyond songs, chants, rhymes, and basic vocabulary” (pp. 18–19). Thus, recent studies evidence that talking in English is not a certain and facile stage in the child’s development even in a CLIL program with daily partial immersion in the language. This relatively slow progress in English as a FL could be attributed to the fact that this language is not a language of a child’s close environment and interactions. In particular, the child does not need it to play with peers in the playground or to receive attention of caregivers and respond to his or her essential needs. In this case, what conduces the child’s willingness to communicate in a FL is an enjoyable context making an encounter with this language accessible by diverse developmentally appropriate strategies. This context has been defined as a learning environment which is “rich in multisensory activities with a wide array of semiotic resources and diverse teacher–child and peer interactions, encouraging the child’s engagement in the novel language learning” (Schwartz, 2018, p. 6). To create a language-conducive context in preschool classrooms, it is essential to establish an affective relationship between child and teacher. This closeness is essential to activate the acquisition of FL in the child, which will eventually have a positive impact on the acquisition of content-related areas as in the CLIL approach. As Taeschner et al. (2013) state, “the child, liking the adult, will like and learn the language that the adult is speaking with him” (p. 225). In this case, it is essential that in preschool CLIL programs, content in English is taught by preschool teachers, and not by the FL specialists who lack of professional preparation in early childhood education, for creating a language-conducive context. That is because, on the one hand, general classroom teachers know about preschool children, i.e., their developmental features in general; on the other hand, they know the children in their classroom, with their individual needs, and differences in learning style (Prtljaga & Gojkov Rajić, 2017). Importantly, in comparison to invited FL teachers, early childhood education practitioners are familiar with the appropriate teaching approaches at this age that will be addressed in this chapter, such as learning through play, imitation, imagination, and movement. These assumptions have been supported by Mair (2018) who found that Italian preschool teachers reported on their effectiveness in a CLIL program due to both appropriate professional preparation and deeper emotional ties with children in the classroom.

346

M. Schwartz

In addition, as van Lier asserted, merely spending time in the target language environment is insufficient for learning the language, “for language learning to occur we need access to the information in the environment” (2004, p. 104). Two interrelated conditions are necessary to increase accessibility of language learning: Active participation of children in the process and assistance of teachers who can engage them in the process by building language-conducive contexts. Schwartz (2018) defines these contexts “as contexts rich in multisensory activities with a wide array of semiotic resources and diverse teacher–child and peer interactions, encouraging the child’s engagement in the novel language learning” (p. 6). These contexts help youngsters to experience a FL not only as a senseless group of sounds, but as a part of events children experience through active engagement in interaction with others and objects around them. Teachers need to be intentional, that is, to “act with specific outcomes or goals in mind for children’s development and learning” (Epstein, 2007, p. 1) in order to create a language-conducive context in their classroom. The chapter presents a theoretical-practical concept of language-conducive strategies (hereafter LCSs) that are aimed at creating contexts allowing young children to experience a FL in a developmentally appropriate way and to be willing to communicate in it meaningfully Since there is no one ideal strategy, a teacher should be familiar with a range of LCSs to pick those most applicable for teaching a particular content to a particular group of learners.

Language-Conducive Strategies in CLIL Programs: From Theory into Practice In this section, a classification of the LCSs will be presented followed by illustrations of how these strategies are implemented or might be implemented within the CLIL approach in preschool education. Based on a two-fold schema for categorizing teachers’ LCSs elaborated by Schwartz et al. (2020), the following sub-division will be presented: (1) didactic strategies, and (2) management strategies. The following sections will briefly define each category and its respective strategies. The studies cited below have been selected as they appear to be representative of the target strategy.

Didactic Strategies This group of strategies includes didactic strategies intentionally aimed at conducing L2 production during various classroom activities and focuses on how to engage children in the language-learning process itself by making the FL accessible to them. The following didactic strategies will be presented: Ritual repetitions, elicitation, associative mediators, gestures and body enactment, and teacher-mediated sociodramatic play.

22

Language-Conducive Strategies to Enhance Communication in the. . .

347

Ritual Repetitions Ritual repetition can be defined as a relatively constant sequence of words, frequently built on formulaic chunks, and repeatedly used by teachers and children in regular daily activities in the preschool classroom, such as good morning, good afternoon, here you are, thank you, thanks, thanks a lot, goodbye (Clarke, 1996; Wong Fillmore, 1976). These routine phrases create stability of context and give children a chance to know what should be said in a certain routine communication event (Lo Bianco et al., 2019). Moreover, integrating English vocabulary learning with routine age-appropriate themes such as the weather and the four seasons, permits acquiring more complex and specific phrases such as “What a sunny summer day!”, “It is rainy today.” These formulas can be viewed as so-called ‘slot-and-frame’ constructions encouraging productive language use (Lo Bianco et al., 2019; Schwartz & Deeb, 2021). They consist of two parts: The first part, the frame, contains a chunk with fixed grammar and content, e.g., “What’s a . . . summer day!” “It is . . . today.” The second part, the slot, usually includes one or two words embedded within the frame, that can be exchanged, e.g., “What’s a sunny (lively, beautiful, warm, hot) summer day!”, “It is rainy (sunny, windy, chilly) today”. Children can be encouraged to provide their fillers for slots (Schwartz & Deeb, 2021). In the next step, a later introduction of the season content might be elaborated by incorporating more complex syntactic structures and vocabulary (e.g., features of the seasons, their cyclic progression, seasonal food, nature). Elicitation Elicitation is a strategy that encourages children’s language production and usage of its correct forms during natural conversational interaction with teachers (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). The teacher uses the child’s word and then develops verbal constructions to expand and extend his or her English production. In addition, teachers often use multimodal stimuli (e.g., pictures/photography, picture books, digital images, video) to conduct the target words or utterances. Multimodal instruction is a strategy shown to enhance deeper understanding of FL vocabulary, its retention and productive use among preschoolers. Non-verbal cues such as visual aids, props, and cues creating artistic modality can supplement verbal explanations and provide additional semantic contexts in which children can establish new word associations (e.g., Lo Bianco et al., 2019; Taeschner et al., 2013). To illustrate the use of elicitation, Taeschner (2005) elaborated a didactic approach towards FL teaching in preschools, entitled the Narrative Format. In this approach, teachers draw on artistic modality, and together with the children perform a mini musical by dramatizing a well-known story of the two Dinocrocs, Hocus and Lotus. During this performance, the teachers invite children not just to repeat the story phrase by phrase after them, but to imitate their mysterious fairy-tale intonation and gestures. Drawing on artistic modality makes English learning experience enjoyable and emotional; this in turn raises children’s willingness to be engaged in communication in this language.

348

M. Schwartz

Associative Mediators Symbolic objects can play the role of cues for communication in a FL in CLIL programs. These objects are entitled associative mediators, their use by teachers and peers signal switching into the target language (Schwartz et al., 2020). In addition, the role of associative mediators is to raise positive emotions and fuel the child’s motivation to use the language. For example, in the above Narrative Format approach, Taeschner et al. (2013) report on putting on teachers and children a magic T-shirt with printed images of the two Dinocrocs, Hocus and Lotus. This symbolic T-shirt invites children to enter a magic world of these imagined creatures, to mimic their movement, to repeat after them, as well as communicate with them in English. Another example is presented by Alstad and Tkachenko (2018) who focused on teachers’ strategies in low exposure preschool CLIL programs in Norway. Within a framework of the teachers’ training workshops for teaching English, practitioners have received teaching materials for a start-up, such as a package Learning English with Teddy (Monsen, 2008), including a Teddy bear, an English-speaking character, and several picture books about Teddy. The teachers reported using the Teddy bear character as an associative mediator who symbolized English for the children. The presence of this English-speaking character in different locations in the classroom and during various activities provided many occasions for the children to use English productively. The following excerpt from a teacher’s narrative illustrates how Eva, the pedagogical leader, uses Teddy as an associative mediator; the children’s weekly tour to the forest created a context for conducting spontaneous language use: In the Mountain kindergarten, we have been working with English for a while and the children were introduced to Teddy. . . Eva, the pedagogical leader, is sitting in the dressing room and is holding Teddy on her lap. “Who wants to have Teddy in the bag today?” she asks the children in Norwegian. Almost everybody raises their hands. Eva decides to use children’s playground rhyme to choose who is going to have Teddy in their bag – it will be a five-year-old boy, Tor. He looks happy and says in English: “Hello, Teddy!”. ..“Can I take Teddy over there to find some cones?” Tor asks the teacher. “Yes, of course, you can. Take Teddy with you and let him play in the forest as well,” says Eva. After some time, Tor approaches the teacher again and asks what the cones are called in English. Eva gives him the word in English and asks why he is so curious about this. “It’s because Teddy wants to know what those are.” (Alstad & Tkachenko, 2018, p. 259)

Gestures and Body Enactment It was suggested that teachers use non-linguistic strategies such as spontaneous hand and arm gestures together with body enactment to foster a novel language understanding among children during classroom instruction (e.g., Zukow-Goldring et al., 1994). Researchers have found that gestures may improve a novel language recall and enhance the learning process (Church et al., 2004; Tellier, 2008). This finding is consistent with theories on multimodal storage in memory. When reproduced,

22

Language-Conducive Strategies to Enhance Communication in the. . .

349

gestures not only act as a visual modality but also as a motor modality and thus leave a richer trace in memory. Asher (1969) elaborated Total Physical Response (TPR) as a method that uses body enactment such as simple physical movement to teach adults a novel language. The students listen to verbal input while physical movement minimizes the anxiety they experienced when using English (L2) through psychomotor actions. Later, this strategy was successfully applied for conducing FL production also among young language learners (e.g., Rodas Reinbach, 2011). Children are physically very active; for this reason, TPR as a LCS is useful to young language learners who learn through direct body activation. This activation improves their self-control, the level of attention and concentration, and aids memory as well as new vocabulary retention (Ma, 2008). As far as preschool CLIL programs are concerned, TPR is one of the LCSs that is widely used (e.g., Mair, 2018; Pynnönen, 2013). Mair (2018) illustrated how this technique enriched by multimodal possibilities has been used in Italian preschools in different age groups of 3–5 years old. Drawing on seasons as a content, the teachers used a collection of relevant poems to perform. Children imitated the teachers’ movements of the tree’s growth cycle from seed to nut by repeating words and phrases after them. Concerning children’s perspectives on early FL learning, Brumen (2011) reported that TPR has been perceived as engaging by young children between 4 and 6. In this study, the researcher asked essential questions about children’s perceptions of FL learning and about their most preferable activities in this language. The children (n ¼ 120) were engaged in learning two FLs (English, German) by the CLIL approach implemented in several preschools in Slovenia. After the end of one year of intensive exposure to the FL, the teachers conducted semi-structured individual interviews with the children. It has been found that 92.5% responded that they enjoyed activities involving body enactment, dancing, and singing during novel language learning. In their reflections, the children admitted for example, that “It was fun when we moved like snails,” “I like crawling like a caterpillar and dancing” (p. 726). Still, a few children did not like the combination of movement and talking in the FL at the same time. These findings highlight that in LCSs, as in teaching general, ‘one size does not fit all’; thus, teachers’ task is to listen to each child’s voice to avoid his or her resistance to FL learning.

Teacher Mediated Socio-Dramatic Play It is conclusive that children learn through playing. Teaching a FL in early ages imposes diverse demands on the teacher including individual creativity. Teacher mediated socio-dramatic play is a LCS aiming to create an accessible context that facilitates children’s engagement in a novel language learning. In this type of play, playing the leading role, the teacher directs children through enactment of a routine script as a visit to doctor (Alstad & Kulbrandstad, 2017) or using a fantasy script as in the Narrative Format approach (Taeschner, 2005). Through acting out the characters, the teacher incorporates target vocabulary in the play script as naturally as possible. In this context, it has been highlighted that the

350

M. Schwartz

teacher engages children in lexical units learning by drawing on an imagined fantasy script that creates “unexpected and therefore memorable scenarios” (Protassova, 2018, p. 150). Moreover, using elements of surprise (e.g., meeting with an unexpected character represented by a toy hare, squirrel, fox; speaking with mysterious intonation) and ‘magic’ props (e.g., putting on a magic T-shirt with the image of the two Dinocrocs, Hocus and Lotus as in the Narrative Format approach) builds up children’s excitement and emotional responses, making their participation in the play full of joy (Schwartz & Minkov, 2022; Taeschner et al., 2013). (Props can be defined as tangible accessories and specific words relating to the script (Schank & Abelson, 1977).) Children’s emotional engagement results in willingness to repeat after the teacher through the acting out, improves memorization of novel formulaic chunks and paves the way towards children’s productive language use (e.g., Schwartz & Minkov, 2022; Taeschner, 2005). This emotional engagement in the socio-dramatic play through such stories as Hocus and Lotus opens doors for promoting content learning when FL is a medium since these stories are rooted in children’s real life. Thus, there are plenty of content activities that children who are inspired by meeting with Hocus and Lotus, can suggest such as “guessing games, learning to count and make pancakes, making own dictionaries, bird houses and masks, crafts, painting, colouring and cutting out activities” (Taeschner et al., 2013, p. 231).

Classroom Management Strategies This section discusses how teachers’ classroom management strategies might support children’s engagement in FL learning within the CLIL approach. Classroom management relates to teachers’ ability to establish and maintain order in a classroom, by engaging children and eliciting their cooperation (Emmer & Stough, 2001). This chapter suggests implementing the following classroom-management strategies in CLIL preschool programs: Supporting peer language learning and encouraging parental engagement. Drawing on the significant role of parents and peers’ interaction in the ecology of young children’s development, I assume that teachers’ implementation of these strategies will fuel children’s engagement in learning a FL as long as contents, contributing to the holistic development of the child.

Supporting Peer Language Learning During early childhood years, young children can learn a great deal of a novel language through playful peer interactions (e.g., Blum-Kulka & Snow, 2004; Erdemir & Brutt-Griffler, 2020; Schwartz, 2018; Schwartz & Gorbatt, 2016). Recent research in early language education highlights the role of ‘language experts’ who can be defined as children who are more advanced in the FL, and therefore can mediate FL learning of their peers by playing the role of language ‘teachers.’ For example, Mourão (2018) presented data on peer learning and support as expressed during play in the English learning area in a preschool classroom in Portugal. In this

22

Language-Conducive Strategies to Enhance Communication in the. . .

351

preschool, exposure to English was through play during 30 min per week. The study showed that even in the context of low exposure to FL learning, children imitate the teaching strategies of their English language teacher through child-initiated play in the English language area. Thus, while being engaged in a teacher and pupil role play, one girl who was characterized as “participative and [one who] easily picked up language” played the role of teacher and scaffolded novel words in English to her peers (p. 333). In classroom management, teachers’ task is to promote interactions between ‘language experts’ of the target FL and their less advanced peers. As a first step, it is recommended that CLIL teachers identify potential ‘language experts.’ Then, teachers can provide explicit instruction to ‘experts’ of how to mediate language and content learning by drawing on such LCSs as using multimodal stimuli (e.g., pictures, gestures, body enactment) through shared engagement in a play. In parallel, teachers need to continue providing explicit modelling of LCSs and invite ‘experts’ to imitate them. Importantly, teachers should pair ‘experts’ with their peers in a sensitive manner, in awareness of children’s individual needs to build optimal conditions for successful cooperation (Alanís, 2013).

Encouraging Parental Engagement Family–preschool interactions are considered particularly critical for young children to provide safe and healthy care environments for them. Within these relationships “two main microsystems in which a child is developing and learning – namely, at home and in preschool – work together to bridge the contexts, create coherence in children’s learning and caregiving environment, and build on each other’s resources” (Norheim & Moser, 2020, p. 2). At home, parents and children spend quality time together engaging in a variety of family language and literacy practices (e.g., joint book reading and teaching letter names) using devices (e.g., storybooks, experiential and paper-pencil games, computer games, and TV programs) which create the intimate culture of child’s home development (Serpell et al., 2005). Regarding parental engagement in FL activities at home, parents do not usually have the specific skills to promote children’s competence in a FL and it is plausible that they might not have a high level of competence in the target language as well. Notwithstanding these conditions, this engagement may result in parental support of teachers’ efforts to encourage willingness to use the FL among young children at home in communication with parents. This can be done by playing the role of enthusiastic students who wish to learn that language, listening to songs in that language with children, and watching educational programs together in the FL. In addition, as Rokita-Jaśkow (2019) suggests, parents can create “opportunities for meeting foreigners where at least rudimentary exchanges in a FL could be made” (p. 3). These parent-child joint activities conducted in an atmosphere of intimacy might provide consistency in the child’s exposure to the FL and in its continuity. Hence, teachers’ commission is to initiate parental engagement and to manage it (Rokita-Jaśkow, 2019).

352

M. Schwartz

Conclusions In general, learning and teaching a FL within the CLIL approach in preschool settings have remained an under researched field (Mair, 2021). Specifically, today there are not many contributions focusing on pedagogical grounds in CLIL and evaluation of their effectiveness is insufficient. To address this void, this chapter aimed to explain the relevance of LCSs for implementation in CLIL programs for young children. At the theoretical level, the chapter highlights the link between a child’s willingness to be engaged in constructing content knowledge in a FL and the teacher’s efforts to make this language accessible for him or her by creating enjoyable language and content conducive contexts. The chapter draws on a two-fold schema for LCSs categorization: (1) didactic strategies, and (2) classroom-management strategies. At the practical level, one clear message is that no LCS stands alone; rather, the interplay and conjoint implementation of strategies has a higher chance of making an impact as has been observed in the Narrative Format approach (Taeschner et al., 2013). In addition, it seems that teachers’ motivation and commitment are necessary for the promotion of children’s willingness to use a language that is not perceived by them as essential for communication in their immediate environment (Mihaljević Djigunović & Nikolov, 2019). Finally, the presented concept of LCSs is an open category that leaves space for the teacher’s creativity. Thus, this chapter invites teachers to share their personal practical knowledge and expand the list of these strategies, drawing on lessons that have been learnt and their inspiration for creating language-conducive contexts in preschool classrooms.

References Alanís, I. (2013). Where’s your partner? Pairing bilingual learners in preschool and primary grade dual language classrooms. Young Children: The Journal of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, 68(1), 42–47. Alstad, G. T., & Kulbrandstad, L. I. (2017). Linguistic diversity and literacy practices in early childhood education in Norway. In C. McLachlan & A. Arrow (Eds.), Literacy in the early years: Reflections on international research and practice (pp. 43–62). Springer. Alstad, G. T., & Tkachenko, E. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in creating multilingual spaces: The case of English teaching in Norwegian early childhood education. In Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education: Agency in interactions between children, teachers, and parent (Series multilingual education). Springer. Asher, J. J. (1969). The Total physical response approach to second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 53(1), 3–17. Bernstein, K. A. (2020). (Re)defining success in language learning. Multilingual Matters. Blum-Kulka, S., & Snow, K. (2004). Introduction: The potential of peer talk. Thematic Issue of Discourse Studies: Peer Talk and Pragmatic Development, 6(3), 291–306. Brumen, M. (2011). The perception of and motivation for foreign language learning in pre-school. Early Child Development and Care, 181(6), 717–732. Church, B., Ayman-Nolley, S., & Mahootian, S. (2004). The role of gesture in bilingual education: Does gesture enhance learning? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(4), 303–319.

22

Language-Conducive Strategies to Enhance Communication in the. . .

353

Clarke, P. (1996). Investigating second language acquisition in preschools: A longitudinal study of four Vietnamese speaking children’s acquisition of English in a bilingual preschool (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, La Trobe University). Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36, 103–112. Epstein, A. S. (2007). The intentional teacher: Choosing the best strategies for young children’s learning. National Association for the Education of Young Children. Erdemir, E., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (2020). Vocabulary development through peer interactions in early childhood: A case study of an emergent bilingual child in preschool. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1722058 Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Lo Bianco, J., Nicolas, E., & Hannan, S. (2019). Bilingual education and second language acquisition in early childhood education: Synthesis of best evidence from research and practice. Commissioned by the Department of Education and Training, unpublished. Ma, Q. (2008). Beneficial effects of moderate voluntary physical exercise and its biological mechanisms on brain health. Neuroscience Bulletin, 24(4), 265–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12264-008-0402-1 Mair, O. (2018). Four seasons of CLIL at two Italian pre-schools. In F. Costa, C. Cucchi, O. Mair, & A. Murphy (Eds.), English for young learners from pre-school to lower secondary: A CLIL teacher training project in Italian Schools. Universitas Studiorum. Mair, O. (2021). Content and language integrated learning in European preschools. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Handbook of early language education (Series springer international handbooks of education) (pp. 1–35). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47073-9_14-1 Mihaljević Djigunović, J., & Nikolov, M. (2019). Motivation of young language learners. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry, & S. Ryan (Eds.), Palgrave Macmillan handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 515–534). Palgrave Macmillan. Monsen, J. (2008). Learning English with teddy: Begynneropplæring i engelsk med langsom progresjon. Skauge Forlag. Mourão, S. (2018). Peer and play interaction in a low-exposure foreign language-learning programme. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education: Agency in interactions between children, teachers, and parents (pp. 313–342). Springer. Norheim, H., & Moser, T. (2020). Barriers and facilitators for partnerships between parents with immigrant backgrounds and professionals in ECEC: A review based on empirical research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(6), 789–805. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1350293X.2020.1836582 Prošić-Santovac, D., & Radović, D. (2018). Children’s vs. teachers’ and parents’ agency: A case of a Serbian-English bilingual preschool model. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 31(3), 289–302. Prošić-Santovac, D., & Savic, V. (2021). English as a Foreign Language in early language education. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Handbook of early language education (Series Springer International handbooks of education). Springer. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10. 1007/978-3-030-47073-9_13-1.pdf Protassova, E. (2018). Longing for quality: Experiences of Finnish-Russian bilingual kindergarten in Finland. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education: Agency in Interactions between children, teachers, and parents (Series multilingual education) (pp. 135–162). Springer. Prtljaga, J., & Gojkov Rajić, A. (2017). Foreign language preschool teachers education. In Conference proceedings from the international scientific conference The education at the crossroads – Conditions, challenges, solutions and perspectives (pp. 193–199). Macedonian Science Society – Bitola, Republic of Macedonia. ISBN 978-608-4616-89-4. Pynnönen, J. (2013). Finnish preschool children’s experiences of an English language shower (Unpublished Pro Gradu thesis). https://www.finna.fi/Record/jykdok.1257143. Accessed 17 Apr 2017.

354

M. Schwartz

Rodas Reinbach, D. L. (2011). Total Physical Response (TPR) storytelling as a strategy for teaching English as a foreign language to pre-school children (ages 4 to 5) (Master’s thesis, Universidad de Cuenca, Ecuador). Rokita-Jaśkow, J. (2019). Parental involvement in very early FL education. In J. Rokita-Jaśkow & M. Ellis (Eds.), Early instructed second language acquisition. Pathways to competence (pp. 191–205). Multilingual Matters. Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum. Schwartz, M. (2018). Preschool bilingual education: Agency in interactions between children, teachers, and parents. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education: Agency in interactions between children, teachers, and parents (Series multilingual education) (pp. 1–24). Springer. Schwartz M., & Gorbatt, N. (2016). Why do we know Hebrew and they do not know Arabic? Children’s meta-linguistic talk in bilingual preschool. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(6), 668–688. Schwartz, M., & Minkov, M. (2022). Making heritage language accessible through “a trip to the enchanted wood”. Heritage Language Journal. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.22001.sch Schwartz, M., & Deeb, I. (2021). Toward a better understanding of the language conducive context: An ecological perspective on children’s progress in the second language in bilingual preschool. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(4), 481–499. Schwartz, M., Deeb, I., & Dubiner, D. (2020). “When they act, they speak more”: Strategies that encourage language production in a bilingual preschool. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25, 800–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1719029 Serpell, R., Baker, L., & Sonnenschein, S. (2005). Becoming literate in the city: The Baltimore early childhood project. Cambridge University Press. Taeschner, T. (2005). The magic teacher. CILT. Taeschner, T., Gheorghiu, I., & Colibaba, A. (2013). The narrative format for learning and teaching languages to children and adults. Synergy, 9(2), 223–235. Tellier, M. (2008). The effect of gestures on second language memorisation by young children. Gesture, 8, 219–235. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Kluwer Academic. Wong Fillmore, L. (1976). The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition (Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University). Zukow-Goldring, P., Romo, L., & Duncan. (1994). Gestures speak louder than words: Achieving consensus in Latino classrooms. In A. Alvares & P. del Rio (Eds.), Education as cultural construction: Exploration in socio-cultural studies (pp. 227–238). Fundacio Infancia Y Aprendizage.

From Tasks in Project-Based Learning Towards a Phenomenon-Based Learning in Pre-primary CLIL Classrooms

23

Silvia Corral-Robles and Ana María Pino-Rodríguez

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Very Young Learners in a Pre-primary CLIL Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementing Tasks in Pre-primary CLIL Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-primary CLIL Tasks Within PBL Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implementing Phenomenon-based Learning in Pre-primary CLIL Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

356 357 358 360 362 364 365

Abstract

This chapter aims to explore the movement from tasks in Project-based learning towards a Phenomenon-Based Learning approach in Pre-primary CLIL classrooms. The Phenomenon-based approach is a movement towards multidisciplinary learning modules. The impact of globalization and the challenges for a sustainable future are increasing. Within this new context, new skills for building a better future are required, and thus the content of teaching and learning and how it should be approached needs to be renewed accordingly. In this chapter, firstly we discuss the core principles of Pre-primary Education, the learners’ psychological characteristics and their pedagogical demands in a CLIL context, where additional languages are being fostered by means of bilingual education programmes. Secondly, we also explore how the three approaches are integrated into the curriculum, its theoretical grounding and its connections to Pre-primary CLIL classrooms, including some inspirational practices for educators. This chapter concludes that the Phenomenon-based approach invites us to break the boundaries and limits that entail the implementation of tasks at early stages. S. Corral-Robles (*) Universidad de Granda, Granada, Spain e-mail: [email protected] A. M. Pino-Rodríguez University of Granada, Granada, Spain © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_23

355

356

S. Corral-Robles and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

Educators must be prepared to guide students from this perspective more adequate to their learning process and this challenging world. Keywords

Pre-primary education · Content and language integrated learning · Project-based learning · Phenomenon-based learning

Introduction The world is changing around the school and traditional learning methods seem to be obsolete for today’s world (Mattila & Silander, 2014), as more collaborative, experienced and productive professionals are required. The concept that school education prepared us to find lifetime employment which applied for a few decades, no longer exists as our competences quickly become obsolete in the workplace. The world’s growing complexity and diversity pose a challenge to the individuals. Therefore, empowering them with the relevant skills for future contexts is a key aspect to enabling them to fully participate as social active agents (OECD, 2018). This need to build up competent human capital in the twenty-first century skills has transformed general political aims into particular education plans which underlie creative thinking, problem-solving skills, or intercultural and communicative skills. Thus, the necessary shift in educational focus towards these transversal abilities has brought about the rethinking of the traditional pedagogical practices used in schools (Goullier et al., 2020). This change in pedagogical practice is transitioning from the teaching of separate subjects to a multidisciplinary approach (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016). In this vein, educational systems across Europe have gone through changes related to the teaching and learning of languages which have flourished as bilingual programmes in all stages, including pre-primary classrooms (Andúgar et al., 2019) and also as innovative teaching practices rooted in teaching-learning foreign languages (Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar-Soto, 2020; Edelenbos et al., 2006). The Content and Language Integrated Learning approach (CLIL henceforth), as it is described in greater detail in previous chapters, entails the learning of content and the learning of the language occurring in a simultaneous way (Coyle et al., 2010; García, 2009; Marsh, 2002). This approach has emerged as a major milestone in the field of education with a quite recent interest in the stage of Pre-primary education, as “ELL activities in Pre-primary settings can be an enriching experience and bring considerable benefits” (European Commission, 2011, p. 4). And within this context, communicative tasks, as well as Project-based Learning and the Phenomenon-based Learning approaches, become a desirable proposal for teaching content and language in an integrated way (Silander, 2015a). However, it might be wondered whether tasks exploited within PBL are adequate assets for CLIL lessons in pre-primary stages. So as to address these concerns, we will first identify the core principles of pre-primary education, the learners’ psychological characteristics and their pedagogical demands in a CLIL

23

From Tasks in Project-Based Learning Towards a Phenomenon-Based. . .

357

context, where additional languages are being fostered. Then, the implementation of communicative tasks, the Project-based learning and the Phenomenon-based learning approaches will follow, outlining its main characteristics and considering their connections to pre-primary CLIL classrooms, including some inspirational practices for educators.

Very Young Learners in a Pre-primary CLIL Context Very young learners’ (VYLs, henceforth) developmental features demand a distinct pedagogical approach, different to those implemented in later education stages (Mourão, 2021). In fact, promoting knowledge development on both language and content among VYLs in a successful way demands “supportive contexts, opportunities to practice, motivation and the quality of formal instruction” (Pinter, 2015, p. 49) and also requires contextualization and language use through routines and topics that facilitate comprehension (Kersten, 2015). This understanding must be connected mainly to oral language and is to be built by children upon the gist grasped from meaningful repetitive messages conveyed through verbal and non-verbal means (images, colours, music, body language and gestures, etc.). This recommendation is largely sustained on research, which concludes in favour of fostering linguistic competences on the ground of brain benefits such as cognitive reserve and the retarding of cognitive impairment (Bialystok et al., 2012; at CortinaPérez & Andúgar-Soto, 2020); plus, the promotion of intercultural competences (European Commision, 2011; Kersten, 2015; Mezzi, 2012; Rico-Martín & Jiménez, 2013; Unesco, 2010), which lay at the core of communicative competences. VYLs learn through experience playing an active role by resorting to creativity, syncretic thinking and globalization given individualization, personalization and standardization. Taking these ideas into consideration, pre-primary teachers must build up their CLIL practice on a more sensorimotor teaching process. This approach is referred to as ‘weak or soft’ CLIL, as VYLs need to learn holistically and through experience, through play and active participation. They have a great potential to acquire and learn languages naturally, provided continuous and repetitive meaningful exposure to them, as well as interaction in emotionally safe settings, and self-expression in different ways and through different means (Edelenbos et al., 2006; Anderson et al., 2015). Pre-primary classes should also rely on a holistic approach to the teachinglearning process via diverse motivating resources and meaningful activities. Among the later ones, we may include routines and games, storytelling and TPR activities, which provide enough room for different developmental rhythms in relation to motor, social, emotional, communicative and cognitive skills, fostering individual engagement and group interaction. This array of assets can materialize through tasks which are developed within the context provided by Project-based learning. Nonetheless, due to the recent introduction of the Phenomenon-based approach in core curriculum for pre-primary classrooms and basic instruction in education systems such as the Finnish one (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016), which moves away from traditional subject teaching and toward multidisciplinary learning

358

S. Corral-Robles and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

modules, this chapter is aimed to look into communicative tasks within Projectbased learning and its movement towards a Phenomenon-based Learning (PhBL) approach in Pre-primary CLIL classrooms.

Implementing Tasks in Pre-primary CLIL Classrooms The term ‘task’ is complex and there are numerous definitions that can be applied to it. According to a definition by Nunan (2004), a task is a: Piece of classroom work that involves learners in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while their attention is focused on mobilizing their grammatical knowledge in order to express meaning, and in which the intention is to convey meaning rather than to manipulate form (Nunan, 2004, p. 4).

Even though research has focused mainly on tasks developed by adult learners, tasks can be used on those terms as planning units in pre-primary stages. In fact, the communicative potential of tasks and the importance they place on “meaning, genuine communication and real-life-like experiences in the classroom” (Pinter, 2015, p.114) may turn them into options to be regarded for CLIL in pre-primary contexts. In any case, some considerations to take into account in relation to tasks in pre-primary contexts are the following ones: 1. VYLs acquire and learn languages holistically. Their developmental characteristics prevent them from reflecting upon grammatical structures and they do not need to understand every bit of sentences. Communicative tasks allow them to get the gist of messages and convey meaning with the means available in the languages they are familiar with, and through all the resources at their disposal. That may require rapid mediation and the right provision of translanguaging from teachers (García, 2009; García-Esteban, 2015; Pino-Rodríguez et al., 2019). 2. These communicative tasks will help children to become engaged in understanding global messages related to routines, classroom language and topics such as bees (how they look like, where they live, what kind of things they produce, how their houses look like, etc.) or plants (where they come from, parts of plants, types of plants, some properties and uses of plants, types of seeds, sowing seeds, how to take care of a plant, etc.). 3. These tasks will be approached through a holistic perspective, so that children may set up connections between real life and areas of knowledge and experience. To make that possible, teachers will use repetitively linguistic resources such as songs, poems, stories, linguistic games or verbal instructions, and non-linguistic resources such as body language, images, and music. Based on that repetitive oral input (Monfort & Juárez, 2018), these resources will allow for revisitation of both, content and language, and will also give VYLs the chance to be exposed to them, affording time to become familiar with both.

23

From Tasks in Project-Based Learning Towards a Phenomenon-Based. . .

359

Nunan (2011) also establishes certain distinctive features related to tasks which may become relevant in Pre-primary Education in case they are applied according to the principles ruling this stage. These considerations may lead us to the following ideas: • Selecting contents coherently with our learners’ needs, as this action would promote syncretic and meaningful learning, as well as individual and personalized learning, and facilitate a wider knowledge of the close environment and a wider natural and social context. • Communicating through interaction in the target language promotes the principle of activity and the idea of learning by doing, as well as socialization, as these communicative exchanges would involve collaboration and cooperation among learners in class. This may happen when teachers and learners are working on the calendar routines during circle time, or when they are using a psychomotor story, along which VYLs will perform the actions narrated. • Introducing authentic texts in our lessons, which should be selected in relation to the centres of interest or thematic areas exploited in class –facilitating a holistic approach to the syllabus– and bearing in mind the learners’ age and cognitive, emotional, and linguistic development. In that way, nursery rhymes, songs, simple poems, fairy tales and contemporary stories could serve our purposes and respond to children’s interests and needs. • Opportunities to focus on the language and the learning process, by introducing routines, activities and verbal games that allow for the assimilation of the language as a whole (phonological, lexical, syntactic and pragmatic items). When language is used for classroom management purposes and in relation to topics and tasks, it allows children for natural exposure and for systematic work, with chances either for having access to meaning through communicative situations or for fixing, reviewing and recycling diverse linguistic items, especially vocabulary. • Connecting to our learners’ personal experiences, by using them either as the starting point of content selection and/or as a way of assessing their knowledge in relation to the topics to be exploited in class. These actions promote Meaningful Learning and place children at the centre of the teaching learning process. Besides, this may promote Personalized, Socialized and Individualized Learning. • Linking classroom language to language used outside the classroom, either by bringing experiences and topics from outside school into our classroom and/or by searching for alternative experiences in the surrounding context, giving a free rein to improvisation for the sake of a flexible lesson planning. For instance, finding a lizard outdoors during breaktime, could derive in describing this animal, drawing it, singing a song on a lizard and could even result in school trips to interesting places (farms, museums, etc.), participation of experts in our lessons (just to do a storytelling activity, a cooking demonstration, or any workshop) or in virtual tours to any place relevant to the newly topic in progress. From this perspective, pre-primary CLIL tasks can be described as pieces of classroom work that aim at VYLs global development by engaging them in

360

S. Corral-Robles and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

Table 23.1 CLIL tasks in Pre-primary lessons. Some proposals Project topic Houses

Autumn

Going to the beach

CLIL tasks Retelling in group drawing our dream house individually and describing it to the whole group. Decorating a house model made with recycled materials in group. Making a video to show it to the community and to explain how it was made. Using it as a toy in one of the class learning corners. Reciting the poem Once I found a cherry stone in a group performance. Individually, developing an observation notebook in which changes reflecting the transformation of a seed into a plant are collected through drawings and simple language (single words or brief sentences). Making up a cardboard tree on the classroom door and decorating it with different types of leaves collected or done by children and/or their families. Making up in group a wall-display with real sand, finger-paint and different drawings of sea creatures and people. Contributing to the wall-display with hand-made paper dolls and different outfits for them. Creating in group a rainbow fish made with a balloon and scraps of paper of different colours and textures simulating the shiny scales of the fish.

Source: Elaborated by authors

comprehending and manipulating content through interacting in the target language and/or in their mother tongue and other non-verbal resources by natural exposure to all of them. This can be done through repetitive activities which facilitate the acquisition of both language and content related to different areas, as well as the mastery of different skills (motor, emotional, cognitive, linguistic, and social), in safe and fun environments while conveying meaning built upon general comprehension and participation. Some examples of these tasks are included in the following table (Table 23.1):

Pre-primary CLIL Tasks Within PBL Settings Project-based Learning is known as a methodology which stems from constructivist ideas, is student-centred and tries to keep up motivation and engagement so that learners build up their own learning (Kokotsaki et al., 2016). That is why PBL turns out so adequate for pre-primary stages, where there are no specific subjects like in later stages. Instead, there is generally a topic presented and different areas, such as language, social studies, art, maths, physical education, or social-emotional values, are related to this topic (Diez Olmedo, 2020). Project topics are usually selected by learners, although they can also be listed by teachers in the languages needed. They can be chosen at the beginning of the school year, or they may be born through a reading which gained lots of attention in class, or through a special event children become thrilled about (a tooth came off, mummy is pregnant, the light went off after a huge thunder, a lizard was found in the playground, a volcanic eruption is on the news, etc.). Thus, projects have been defined as

23

From Tasks in Project-Based Learning Towards a Phenomenon-Based. . .

361

“intensive experiences that engage students in activities that are interesting to them and important to the course(s) of study” (Fleming, 2000, p. 9). This way, VYLs participation and engagement, active listening and systematic observation by teachers, collaboration with families, teachers’ cooperation and teamwork, flexibility in lesson planning, sound management of available resources and creativity are some of the things required to build up a project that promotes learners’ holistic development. In pre-primary groups, the project selection usually starts out at the beginning of the school year and can result from a brainstorming or an election-poll to eventually result in a list which will allow lesson planning organization. Nonetheless, students at this age are too young to decide the topic, they need their teacher to guide them and scaffold the topics (Diez Olmedo, 2020). Teachers working with VYLs usually set up a wall-display in which they place their children’s answers to questions such as: • What do we know about this topic? • What do we want to know about it? These queries will guide the project development, determining the activities to do, as well as other elements in lesson planning. They will require a search of information, either by using digital or analogical means, by resorting to our learners’ families or to an expert. The information gathered may be handwritten or printed (a poem, the lyrics of a song, a story book), can be written in paper (encyclopaedias, recipe books, atlases), reflected on images (posters, pictures, drawings, illustrations), can be realia (toys, pieces of clothes or fancy dressed, kitchen utensils) or come from nature (a piece of a beehive, leaves, rocks), etc. All these elements can be displayed in a special area in class devoted to all those things related to the project in course. Pre-Primary projects can run along a 2 to 8 week period. Such a span of time leaves room for assimilation and accommodation, individual growth and global development among VYLs. Also, for continuous and formative assessment and the introduction of changes that afford for adjustments to the group’s needs and priorities. When developing a project in the pre-primary level, five criteria need to be considered: centrality, scaffolding, participation, autonomy, realism (Thomas, 2000). Regarding the first aspect, centrality, projects need to be focused on the current curriculum for pre-primary students. The second aspect, scaffolding is one of the most important ones as teachers need to meet the needs of the students helping them to understand the concepts by providing the necessary input (visual support, key words, questions, rephrasing, etc.) to prompt their thinking. Participation and autonomy are two criteria that students need to accomplish when carrying out a project. Also, realism needs to be highlighted as any project should be close to the daily lives of the students for them to be able to explore these contents at school, home or any other environment and to relate them to their experiences in their L1. Bearing the previous information in mind, some authors, such as Ruiz de Pascual & Isábal (2018) consider that PBL and CLIL build on the same principles, in relation to which in pre-primary stages the 4 C’s should be understood as follows:

362

S. Corral-Robles and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

• Cognition: when creating new knowledge for pre-primary students, the Bloom’s Taxonomy comes into play as teachers need to establish the objectives according to the needs and cognitive characteristics of the students at these ages, thus, employing most of lower order thinking skills. • Communication: as it has been stated before, students at this age are not expected to answer in the second or foreign language, but teachers need to support their learning by using verbal and non-verbal communication, as well as by even making use of translanguaging so that they understand what teachers are asking from them. • Content: different areas are dealt with and taken into consideration when developing a project at this stage. • Culture: as the themes or centre of interests chosen need to be close to the life of the students, culture is an aspect that is easy to be dealt with in these projects. Thus, CLIL can be developed in pre-primary stages throughout Project-based Learning, or any of the alternative methodologies stemming from PBL. One of these would be Phenomenon-based learning (or PhBL), which is drawing greater attention across Europe after its integration in the Finnish education system in 2016. Since then, it has gained momentum as a methodology which is able to promote independent and discovery learning, and opportunities for real-life experiences (Freeman et al., 2010).

Implementing Phenomenon-based Learning in Pre-primary CLIL Classrooms According to Silander (2015a), PhBL can be defined as “an approach that supports learning in accordance with inquiry learning, problem-based learning and project and portfolio learning in educational institutions as well as their practical implementation” (p. 19). Thus, it could be stated that PhBL is connected to problem-solving learning experiences, fostering an experiential approach. As long as it is connected to practical situations and phenomena, it is a learner-centred approach where the teacher is the facilitator of the learning tasks. The teacher is not just the person in charge of transmitting facts, but also of guiding students to solve the problem identified by the students (Silander, 2015b; Valanne et al., 2017). As a result, learners are more focused on how to apply the knowledge to new problems or ideas, rather than on the memorization of facts. As a result, it can be said that Phenomenon-based Learning provides a more meaningful learning experience by actively engaging learners in a real context (Kivelo, 2015). The following definition gives us a more detailed idea of what this methodology can represent for the future: Students learn to set goals and to solve problems both independently and together with others. Learning is an inseparable part of an individual’s growth as a human being and the building of a decent life for the community. Language, physical elements and the use of

23

From Tasks in Project-Based Learning Towards a Phenomenon-Based. . .

363

different senses are essential for thinking and learning. While acquiring new knowledge and skills, the pupils learn to reflect on their learning, experiences and emotions. Positive emotional experiences, the joy of learning and creative activities promote learning and inspire the pupils to develop their competence (Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE), 2004, section 2.3).

According to Tissington (2019), there are relevant learning principles driven by Phenomenon-based Learning which are closely linked to CLIL and the stage of pre-primary education, being underlined the following ones: holistic approach, enquiry question approach, interdisciplinary planning, prior knowledge, scaffolding and authenticity. In PhBL, the holistic approach is one of the most important elements as the introduction of holistic real-world phenomena is the starting point for learning. These phenomena are observed and studied as complete entities by crossing the boundaries between areas or subjects. Here, interdisciplinary planning plays a key role as an aspect that really fits into the way the pre-primary curriculum is presented (Wakil et al., 2019). The topics integrate different areas and themes, and their observation is not limited to one single perspective, as it avoids decontextualization. The curiosity and intrinsic motivation of the VYL drive the guidance of the teacher to study the genuine real-world phenomena in the learning community. Examples of different phenomena that can be observed in a pre-primary classroom include weather, changing seasons, patterns of stars, water boiling and freezing, soda fizzing, fruit ripening, and life cycles of plants and animals, just to name a few. These topics can also take place in CLIL classes, as the target language can be promoted. These phenomena “play a central role in the development of transversal competences as they link different fields of knowledge and skills and can in turn be applied to real-world situations” (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016, p.12). Regarding the aspect of enquiry question approach is at the main core of PhBL. This pedagogy is considered appropriate for VYL in the early years and primary level as it builds on children’s innate tendency to question the world around them, wanting to learn how nature works. Inquiry thus serves to feed children with learning experiences when they are still in their ‘curiosity golden age’ (Rocard et al., 2007). Inquiry thus involves teachers and students identifying any kind of phenomena and then investigating it in a collaborative way. They need to find the solution by searching for information. This principle is shared with the PBL methodology as it has been mentioned before. Nonetheless, in PBL the teacher takes on the role model of an inquirer, meanwhile in PhBL the introduction of the phenomena does not start by posing questions but by identifying an anchor phenomenon (something that can be seen, felt, tasted, measured, etc.). Posing questions without knowing about the topic as it happens in PBL can be challenging for VYLs as they usually have little knowledge about the topic presented. Thus, first teachers guide them to explore the anchor phenomenon and let them identify related phenomena already studied. This way of dealing with new topics allows them to use prior knowledge and cross-curricular exploration. Activating prior knowledge serves as a foundation

364

S. Corral-Robles and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

where children can relate previous facts, ideas and concepts to the new information they are receiving to solve the problems. Receiving new and old information helps teachers to keep students engaged. It is also useful for revising old vocabulary while introducing new one. This is also very beneficial for VYLs as it encourages them to use the target language and the vocabulary they already know, thanks to the CLIL context in which they are involved. The presentation of the phenomenon can be done by showing pictures, through drama or storytelling among many other options. Storytelling is one of the most common ways of introducing the phenomena in pre-primary classes as it creates a natural and meaningful way through which to develop and foster foreign language learning (Ellis & Brewster, 2014). Activating prior knowledge can be used as a scaffolding strategy for language learning. The scaffolding strategy provides learners with enough strategies and resources to meet their needs. It is part of the approach of PhBL since the teacher acts as the facilitator of the knowledge, guiding them in every step of the research. In a Pre-primary CLIL context, this is more than necessary as children need the support and guidance in their learning process to acquire a foreign language. At this stage, one of the most common actions to help learners is to use demonstration and model solutions which can be imitated (Stålbrandt & Hössjer, 2007). All the above principles drive the methodology, PhBL. Nonetheless, the last one authenticity is one of the most relevant ones in PhBL, also closely linked to the learning by doing principle of CLIL and the stage of Pre-primary Education. Moreover, this aspect can be one of the most differentiating elements from PBL. Even though realism is one of the objectives to be achieved in PBL, the proposals are constrained by the decontextualization of the tasks given to the students. On the contrary, PhBL explicitly demonstrates children a phenomenon from which to work on. Then, the following table (Table 23.2) shows some examples that can be done through the methodology of PhBL in a Pre-primary CLIL classroom:

Conclusions This chapter aimed to explore the implementation of tasks in CLIL pre-primary contexts in relation to Project-based Learning and Phenomenon-based Learning methodologies. To do that, we have discussed the core principles of Pre-primary Education, the learners’ psychological characteristics and their pedagogical demands in a CLIL context. It has also been attempted to elaborate a definition of CLIL task for PBL settings which complies with the specific methodological requirements ruling pre-primary classrooms. In addition to that, some inspirational practices for educators have been presented. In the light of the different characteristics, it could be seen that the Phenomenonbased approach invites us to break the boundaries and limits that entail the implementation of individual tasks at early stages. Phenomena are to be used to engage students in three-dimensional instruction by crossing the boundaries between areas

23

From Tasks in Project-Based Learning Towards a Phenomenon-Based. . .

365

Table 23.2 PhBL-CLIL Tasks in Pre-primary lessons. Some proposals PhBL project topic Houses

Autumn

Going to the beach

CLIL tasks In groups, testing different materials to describe them according to simple descriptions such as: it is strong/weak, it is heavy/it is light, it is malleable/ it is non-malleable, so that they can be considered adequate or not for making new bowls, chairs and beds for the three bears’ house in Goldilocks’ story, as well as for other things. Using an ant-bed to observe the way ants live in them. With families’ help, building up different nests with different materials, so that they can be placed in different places of the school (playground, classroom windows, etc.). Through observation, it will be seen whether they have been occupied or not and by which type of animals. Elaborating in groups, watering some plants in different proportions to check what happens, describing the results. Modifying the list in case it is necessary, developing adequate instructions to be followed by children in charge of taking care of the classroom plants on Mondays and Thursdays. Using Autumn leaves, different recipes and proportions of water to check what happens to them along the days to come. Describing these changes by drawing pictures and appropriate colours. Testing whether different objects (wood, paper, pencils, ping-pong balls. . .) sink or float by using a wash basin. Explain why this happens, discussing the properties of the materials. Bringing magnets and a metal detector to the beach, to check whether different kinds of materials can be spotted by using these tools or not. Back in class, putting different rusty materials collected at the beach in different types of solutions to check whether the rust comes off or not in every case.

Elaborated by authors.

or subjects and helping them develop competences essential to their lives. This is an essential characteristic for the pre-primary curriculum. This is what students need as the world is changing around them, and the way education is offered needs to change as well. Educators must be prepared to guide learners from this perspective which is more adequate to their learning process and this challenging world.

References Anderson, C. E., Mcdougald, J. S., & Cuesta, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C. N. Giannikas, L. McLaughlin, G. Fanning, & N. D. Muller (Eds.), Children learning English: From research to practice (pp. 137–151). Garnet Education. Andúgar, A., Cortina-Pérez, B., & Tornel, A. (2019). Tratamiento de la lengua extranjera en Educación Infantil en las distintas comunidades autónomas españolas/Foreign language treatment in Pre-primary Education in the different autonomous regions in Spain. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 23(1), 467–487. Bialystok, E., Craik, F., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001 Cortina-Pérez, B., & Andúgar-Soto, A. (2020). Aprendiendo inglés en Educación Infantil. Un relato de prácticas innovadoras. ReSED. Revista De Estudios Socioeducativos, 8, 229–247. https:// revistas.uca.es/index.php/ReSed/article/view/5607

366

S. Corral-Robles and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. De Pascual, R., & Isábal, I. (2018). Implementing CLIL and PBL in pre-primary education: The Celts in the Iberian Peninsula. Educación y futuro digital, 16, 5–24. Diez Olmedo, M. (2020). Implementing PBL and CLIL in an early childhood classroom in the United States [Trabajo fin de Máster]. Universidad Internacional de la Rioja. Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., & Kubanek, A. (2006). The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners. European Commission. Ellis, G., & Brewster, J. (2014). Tell it again! The new storytelling handbook for primary teachers. Pearson. European Commission. (2011). Language learning at pre-primary school level: Making it efficient and sustainable. A policy handbook. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/ languages/policy/language-policy/documents/early-language-learning-handbook_en.pdf Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE). (2004). National core curriculum for basic education. Finnish National Board of Education. Fleming, D. S. (2000). A teacher’s guide to project-based learning. Office of Educational Research and Improvement of Washington D. C. Freeman, J., Raffan, J., & Warwick, I. (2010). Worldwide provision to develop gifts and talents. CfBT. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century. . García-Esteban, S. (2015). Soft CLIL in infant education bilingual contexts in Spain. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 30–36. Goullier, F., Carré-Karlinger, C., Orlova, N., & Roussi, M. (2020). Portafolio Europeo para maestros de Educación Infantil. Las dimensiones plurilingüe e intercultural. Pepelino. European Centre for Modern Languages, Council of Europe. Kersten, K. (2015). Bilingual pre-primary schools: Language acquisition, intercultural encounters and environmental learning. In S. Mourão & M. Lourenço (Eds.), Early years second language education (pp. 29–45). Routledge. Kivelo, A. (2015). Phenomenon-based learning as a tool for promoting activity and participation among youth. [Master’s thesis]. HUMAK University of Applied Sciences. Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. Marsh, D. (Ed.). (2002). CLIL/EMILE—The European dimension: Actions, trends and foresight potential. Public Services Contract DG EAC. European Commission. Mattila, P., & Silander, P. (Eds.). (2014). How to create the school of the future: Revolutionary thinking and design from Finland. University of Oulu, Center for Internet Excellence. Mezzi, T. (2012). Being young, being adult: The age factor issue for vocabulary in foreign language education. In M. González Davies & A. Taronna (Eds.), New trends in early foreign language learning (pp. 12–23). Cambridge Scholars. Monfort, M., & Juárez, A. (2018). El niño que habla. El lenguaje oral en Preescolar. Cepe. Mourão, S. (2021). English as a foreign language in ECE: Itinerant teachers of English and collaborative practices for an integrated approach. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.1928726 Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language learning. Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (2011). Teaching English to young learners. Anaheim University Press. OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD. Pino-Rodríguez, A. M., Trujillo Sáez, F., & González, A. (2019). Translingüismo: revisión de la literatura y aplicación didáctica para la enseñanza de ELE y ELE2. Foro de Profesores de E/LE, 15, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.7203/foroele.15.15881 Pinter, A. (2015). Task-based learning with children. In J. Bland (Ed.), Teaching English to young learners. Critical issues in language teaching with 3–12 years old (pp. 113–128). Bloomsbury.

23

From Tasks in Project-Based Learning Towards a Phenomenon-Based. . .

367

Rico-Martín, A. M., & Jiménez, M. A. (2013). Desarrollo de la competencia plurilingüe en el aula: Una aproximación a la metodología de AICLE. In J. L. Belmonte (Ed.), Diversidad Cultural y Educación Intercultural (pp. 183–200). SATE-STEs. Rocard, M., Csermely, P., Jorde, D., Lenzen, D., Walberg-Henriksson, H., & Hemmo, V. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Commission. Silander, P. (2015a). Digital pedagogy. In P. Mattila & P. Silander (Eds.), How to create the school of the future: Revolutionary thinking and design from Finland (pp. 9–26). University of Oulu, Centre for Internet Excellence. Silander, P. (2015b). Rubric for Phenomenon-based learning. Retrieved October 5, 2021, from http://www.phenomenaleducation.info/phenomenon-based-learning Stålbrandt, E., & Hössjer, A. (2007). Scaffolding and interventions between students and teachers in a learning design sequence teachers’ scaffolding and interventions. Revista Semestral da Associação Brasileira de Psicologia Escolar e Educacional (ABRAPEE), 11, 37–48. Symeonidis, V., & Schwarz, J. F. (2016). Phenomenon-based teaching and learning through the pedagogical lenses of phenomenology: The recent curriculum reform in Finland. Forum Oświatowe, 28(2), 31–47. Retrieved from http://forumoswiatowe.pl/index.php/czasopismo/ article/view/458 Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Supported by The Autodesk Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf Tissington, S. (2019). Learning with and through phenomena: An explainer on phenomenon-based learning. In Paper presented at the Association of Learning Developers in Higher Education Northern Symposium, Middlesbrough. UNESCO. (2010). Invertir en la diversidad cultural y el diálogo intercultural. https://cutt.ly/ eoQCCY7 Valanne, E. A., Al Dhaheri, R. M., Kylmalahti, R., & Sandholm-Rangell, H. (2017). Phenomenon based learning implemented in Abu Dhabi school model. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(3), 1–17. Wakil, K., Rahman, R., Hasan, D., Mahmood, P., & Jalal, T. (2019). Phenomenon-based learning for teaching ict subject through other subjects in primary schools. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 7(13), 205–212.

Pre-primary CLIL and STEAM: Science in the Early Years

24

David Shepherd and Ana María Pino-Rodríguez

Contents Supporting Young Learners’ Scientific Potentials from Pre-primary Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fostering Scientific Vocations from Early Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . From STEM to STEAM and Scientific Literacy at Early Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steam-Based Approach at Pre-primary CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approaching STEAM Contents from CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approaching CLIL Communication Through STEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approaching Cognitive Skills Through STEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approaching Culture Through Arts in STEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

370 372 373 376 377 378 379 380 381 381

Abstract

This chapter opens with a reference to important characteristics related to Pre-primary children and the way they learn. One of those characteristics has to do with the fact that very young learners are said to be natural born scientists. Given that scientific knowledge and skills have become increasingly important in today’s societies, fostering an interest in pure science and developing scientific literacy in these learners can make a difference in specialized workers of tomorrow. STEM Education and STEAM (sustained on Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths, plus Arts), prove to fit that aim. That is why the chapter focuses on STEAM as a methodological approach that promotes active learning by exploiting contents from the areas in the acronym in combination with the resolution of everyday problems through experiments and other meaningful

D. Shepherd (*) The British School of Milan, Milan, Italy A. M. Pino-Rodríguez University of Granada, Granada, Spain © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_24

369

370

D. Shepherd and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

activities. Its own characteristics prove its suitability for Pre-primary stages, where it can be put into practice in CLIL lessons. Ways of doing that are proposed by resorting to scientific contents related to simple experiments and the exchange of questions and answers, descriptions, or predictions within settings that facilitate interaction with the social and natural environment and foster cognitive development and scientific skills among very young learners. Keywords

Science · STEAM · CLIL · Pre-primary education · Methodological approach

Supporting Young Learners’ Scientific Potentials from Pre-primary Stages Even though children in Pre-primary stages are wrongly regarded as incapable of “giving meaning of experience, predicting, hypothesizing and analyzing” (Katz, 2010, at Aktürk & Demircan, 2017, p. 758), they are natural born scientists with a great sense of wonder, curiosity and creativity (DeJearnette, 2018). They are actually continuously asking questions, testing materials and procedures, solving problems and exploring possible new paths or alternative ways of doing things (Sharapan, 2012). They also tend to repeat actions until they achieve mastery, showing persistence and determination when building their own designs, or fixing things which do not work as it was initially intended (ibid., p. 2). Indeed, young learners join in trial and error processes without failure, which help them learn through their bodies about their own abilities and also about other creatures, materials and actions. Their attention span is usually brief and there are times when they are likely to buzz around a number of activities aimlessly and then suddenly become fully engaged with something that interests them. Then, while they are engaged in building up their identity in close relation to the environment (Feliu et al., 2015), they certainly “wonder, reason and generate ideas about how the physical, social and biological world around them works” (National Research Council, 2012) learning through play, experience and joyful repetition and establishing connections all at once between their senses, body movement and direct contact with the social and physical environment. From this perspective, Fernández and Bravo (2015) highlight Pre-primary education as a stage which can contribute significantly to a critical understanding and scientific vision among very young learners. But in order to achieve this purpose, for teachers arriving in early years there is a series of guiding lines to bear in mind (Fig. 24.1). These derive straight from the singular characteristics and needs determined by the developmental process followed by very young children, who are moving from accommodation to assimilation stages as they cross Piaget’s stage of concrete operations. Thus, Pre-primary teachers build up their practice on very young learners’ ability to learn through observation and manipulation in relation

24

Pre-primary CLIL and STEAM: Science in the Early Years

371

PRE-PRIMARY TEACHERS FOSTER ACTIVE AND CREATIVE LEARNING...

THROUGH DISCOVERY, EXPERIENCE, AND PLAY...

FROM A HOLISTIC APPROACH THAT ALLOWS FOR...

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE,

WHAT LEAVES ROOM FOR DIVERSE LEARNING STYLES AND RHYTHMS...

IN AN EMOTIONALLY SAFE ENVIRONMENT

Fig. 24.1 Some methodological tips to bear in mind in Pre-primary stages. (Own source)

with their context, and so classroom activities tend to be sensorial and experienceoriented (Aranda Hernando, 2016). In this context, Pre-primary teachers’ on-going observation and interaction turns out to be a key aspect so that the child can be placed at the centre of planning and formative assessment. Without the knowledge of what a child can and cannot do on their own, teachers will be unable to support them to the next level. Accordingly, practitioners can then begin offering rich and stimulating experiences around both routines and unexpected circumstances that arise in class or come from the close environment, making use of both indoor and outdoor resources interchangeably to offer imaginative, relevant and enjoyable experiences. Educators can also offer a language-rich environment, providing the group with opportunities for conversation. Questioning is used to develop curiosity and to establish multiple connections between the surrounding context through the use of diverse linguistic structures and vocabulary related to everyday language, songs, poems, stories or TPR instructions. This way, the early years’ teacher can be seen as a facilitator for the child to lead their own investigations and explore the surroundings and resources at hand. In fact, daily experience and thorough observation provide teachers with a practical understanding of how children interact with the world around them. Intercepting these occasions as learning opportunities is the building block for implementing appropriate activities related to any topic, as everyday situations such as rainy days, a dead insect or a rotten apple in a school bag, the birth of a baby brother or sister or the death of a pet, can spark children’s curiosity towards scientific explanations (Salguero, 2011). And as long as the Pre-primary areas of content to go through are flexible (Table 24.1), the educator is also a planner who can organize activities, resources and contents appropriately according to the needs of children, ensuring that they have time to explore and develop their knowledge without a rigid timeframe.

372

D. Shepherd and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

Table 24.1 Areas and educational goals to be achieved by young learners in some European countries Areas Communication, language and literacy. Literacy. Knowledge of oneself and others. Life in community. Personal, social and emotional development. Knowledge and understanding of the world and environment. Space and time references. Mathematics. Physical development. Body movement and body language as a means of expression. Sensory and artistic development. Expressive arts and design.

Aims Gaining autonomy and independence, creativity, initiative, and joy in selfachievement. Becoming aware of own skills. Gathering knowledge of the environment, environmental education and life through experience. Developing well-structured and comprehensible oral language and communicative skills. Acquiring skills related to reading, writing, and numeracy. Experiencing a balanced development of emotional, motor, mental, communicative and linguistic skills.

Based upon Llorent (2013). Own source

OCDE, 1998

“The capacity to use scientific knowledge, to identify questions and to draw evidence-based conclusions in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human activity”

OCDE, 2007

Scientific concepts, processes and situations necessary to identify, understand and explain certain phenomena related to the natural world, life and health, Planet Earth and the environment, and technology.

UNESCO, 1993, p. 15

“The capability to function with understanding and confidence, and at appropriate levels, in ways that bring about empowerment in the made world and in the world of scientific and technological ideas”.

Fig. 24.2 Some definitions of scientific literacy. (Elaborated by the authors, based on Holbrook & Rannikmae, 2009, pp. 280–281)

Fostering Scientific Vocations from Early Years From a different perspective, science can also be described as an essential key in social and economic progress, especially in today’s modern societies, immersed in increasing rates of digitalization and emergent technologies and “characterized by a new explosion of scientific knowledge” (Murray, 2019). Indeed, science is a key aspect in people’s knowledge and relation with the physical environment (Fernández & Bravo, 2015), which constitutes per se an outstanding reason to promote scientific literacy (Fig. 24.2) along with the following rationales (COSCE, 2011): • Being surrounded by scientific procedures and technological gadgets, just for the sake of practical reasons we should know better about them in order to understand and explain the world around us.

24

Pre-primary CLIL and STEAM: Science in the Early Years

373

• Going through teaching-learning processes related to scientific contents since early years can set up the basis for more complex future learning and can enable future citizens to handle the challenges to come. • Acquiring a wider and deeper knowledge on scientific concepts, techniques and instruments will help us get a better understanding of the world around us and more finely tuned thinking skills. In this vein, the promotion of science and scientific vocations from educational instances becomes an especially relevant objective, as schools are predominantly socializing institutions suitable for that kind of purpose. Indeed, fostering an interest in this domain among children can be easily related to the need of systematically exposing them from an early age to positive experiences in the field of sciences (Aronin & Floyd, 2013). Besides, science very much lends itself to the principles of the Pre-primary classroom, as it may facilitate a holistic approach to contents and foster active learning by discovering, doing and playing. At the same time, it can also boost curiosity, creativity, motivation and self-esteem in scenes which cater for both autonomous work and social interaction, improvisation and systematic work. However, bringing science into classrooms is expected to result not just in an increasing interest in science among young learners living today, but also in skilled workers in the field of science, technology, engineering or math in the forthcoming future (Gómez & Albrecht, 2013; Nugent et al., 2010). In spite of that, it has been rendered that formal education on science is not being developed properly in general, not even in countries with advanced economies (Moser et al., 2017). The didactic exploitation of science based on inquiry goes back in time to constructivist ideas oriented towards the acquisition and development of scientific knowledge, abilities and tools with which learners are expected to understand and solve daily life problems (Reyes-Cárdenas & Padilla, 2012). Reaching this theoretical proposal can materialize in different ways. Yet, STEAM seems to be an outstanding option in the teaching-learning of science at XXI century schools, as it has gained relevance in the field of education and the working world during the last decades (English, 2016).

From STEM to STEAM and Scientific Literacy at Early Years According to Ocaña, Romero, Gil et al. (2015), STEM is an acronym whose letters stand for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, all “objective, repeatable, logical and analytical” (Aktürk & Demircan, 2017, p. 759) complementary disciplines. It was introduced in the United States in the 1990s as the result of an educational reform which tried to respond to social transformations (English, 2016; at Aktürk & Demircan, 2017), but it has over time spread also to countries such as China, Korea, Japan, and Germany (MoNE, 2016). Bahrum et al. (2017) define it as

374

D. Shepherd and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

the pedagogical applications which allow for the simultaneous teaching of contents and practice in science, mathematics, engineering and technology. Out from STEM comes STEM Education, which stands out as a methodology which fosters among learners a simultaneous and integrated learning of concepts related to the disciplines contained in the acronym by means of problem-solving processes in connection to real life situations. Thus, STEAM builds upon constructivist principles (Bruning et al., 2004), focusing on both, learner and content, and being implemented in class with the purpose of fostering meaningful learning, creative thinking, social interaction (Bransford et al., 2000) and, as a result, communicative exchanges and linguistic and non-linguistic performance, engagement and interaction. By doing so, STEM Education has been regarded by research as a more effective and functional educational asset than other approaches to science teaching and learning (Hartzler, 2000; Fisher et al., 2005; Wai et al., 2010; at Ocaña et al., 2015). Adding to STEM an A for Arts, it becomes STEAM –that is, Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (García-Carmona, 2020) –. Spector defines STEAM as “the inclusion of liberal arts and humanities in STEM education” (2015, p. 5). Apparently, Arts seem to stand just the opposite side from the rest of disciplines in STEAM, as A-disciplines –that is, Literature, Drama, Music, Dance, and Visual Arts– are considered to be “subjective, intuitive, unique and related to feelings” (Aktürk & Demircan, 2017, p. 759). However, artistic areas can promote curiosity, creativity and innovation (Radziwill et al., 2015), they may be necessary to approach real life events (Bybee, 2013), and can clearly induce the sensorial approach to different materials, tools and techniques required by Pre-primary learners, prompting manipulation and testing through motor skills and visual spatial thinking abilities (Newcombe, 2010), among others. In this light, scientific and artistic domains can be considered as complementary rather than contraries within the field of education, within which cross-disciplinary activities are gaining relevance in all educational stages (Alsina, 2020). And no matter their relationship, the Arts stand out as important components of pre-primary groups, as young learners enjoy expressing themselves in verbal and non-verbal ways, just by singing, dancing, mimicking, role-playing, drawing, or moulding, individually or in group, or listening to music, observing and commenting upon pictures, watching plays or visiting museums. Pre-primary teachers rely on literary texts, image-books, songs and poems, dancing and body language, pictures, paintings, illustrations or posters, to develop different activities and have learners exposed to artistic works and engaged in the production of a diversity of products which can be appreciated as art pieces, be commented upon in class, displayed and used in everyday lessons (self-portraits, wall-displays, individual or group image-books, poems and stories, simple choreographies and songs, puppets, a puppet theatre, dioramas, etc.). Any of them can serve the purpose of collecting data (with a weather chart), describing a process (with a story or a poem about the metamorphosis of a caterpillar), explaining a cause-consequence connection (with a landscape walldisplay) or showing differences between related elements (with an exhibition of moulded and decorated pieces). This way, A for Arts can be regarded as a natural and meaningful connector between the scientific areas in pre-primary STEAM lessons.

24

Pre-primary CLIL and STEAM: Science in the Early Years

375

STEAM may facilitate not just a holistic approach to different content areas. It can also trigger observation, exploration and experimentation skills, problem solving, prediction, critical thinking, decision making and discussion, as well as selfawareness, self-confidence, motivation or self-autonomy. Yet, it is built upon six basic scientific essential abilities (Comley, 2009; Olson & Loucks-Horsley, 2000), related to the: • Recognition of questions and concepts guiding scientific enquiry. • Implementation of scientific research useful for answering those questions. • Improvement of scientific research and results dissemination by means of technological and mathematical tools. • Elaboration of scientific models and explanations on evidence. • Identification and analysis of alternative solutions and scientific models. • And ability to defend scientific arguments. Adding an E for Environmental Education to STEAM, we can move from STEM towards E-STEAM (NAAEE, 2016; Pitt, 2009; Sochacka et al., 2016). Yet, no matter the acronym, STEM, STEAM or E-STEAM are focused on providing children with empowering experiences aiming at becoming “highly salient for economic, socio-emotional, health and environmental well-being, not only for them as individuals, but for everyone” (OECD, 2018). And as long as their disciplines are interrelated, they can support learning in any of them (Aktürk & Demircan, 2017, p. 768). Thus, provided that the methodological guidelines of pre-primary education are observed and that STEAM is approached holistically, the foundations of scientific knowledge, abilities and attitudes can be promoted from early childhood years. Beyond its benefits, certain difficulties come along with STEAM, some related to teachers’ lack of specific theoretical knowledge on this methodology and weakness in the quantity and quality of resources related to classroom practice (Fig. 24.3). However, educators should bear in mind that STEAM “may have great value as a feature of early years education” (Murray, 2019). That is the reason why it has found

PROS

BENEFITS OF STEM

Transference of knowledge and skills into daily life problems. Motivation raising. Long-time learning achievement. Content connections.

CONS

STEM CHALLENGES

Teachers' additional preparation time. Specific resources. Syllabus design and content integration. Teachers' attitude towards

Fig. 24.3 Benefits and challenges of STEM Education. (Elaborated by the authors based on García-Carmona, 2020)

376

D. Shepherd and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

its rightful place is in the field of the Didactics of Science (ibid.), within which it needs further implementation and more extensive analysis and improvement.

Steam-Based Approach at Pre-primary CLIL STEAM may tightly anchor on the theoretical and methodological foundations of CLIL, which can be implemented according to a broad variety of strategies and resources sustained upon the 4 C’s Framework of CLIL (Coyle, 2005). How to encompass these C-elements in a CLIL Pre-primary lesson based on STEAM requires some careful thinking. Regarding previous information, it can be understood that sciences may constitute an appropriate field to nurture in the Pre-primary classroom, as sciences, as well as arts, can provide teachers and learners with ample chances to interact with the natural and social environment by: raising questions related to varied topics; making connections between different themes; looking for the link between cause and result; and, finding creative solutions to daily life problems inside and outside the classroom. Thus, STEAM makes way for individual and personalized learning by means of an array of resources and procedures which facilitate different working and maturation rhythms, giving the pre-primary CLIL teacher a central role in guiding and enabling meaningful teaching and offering learning experiences on science and arts through active methodologies suitable for young learners (Hornáčková et al., 2014). Thus, it may be reasonable to initiate CLIL lessons on a STEAM approach from early years. In order to do that, CLIL teachers might focus on the aims established for this educational stage, as well as on the areas of content and experience around which Pre-primary education is laid. They should be approached from a holistic perspective which can take the shape of activities focused on Oral Communication and Literacy, Science, Technology and Mathematics, or Expressive Arts, Design and Engineering, combined in multiple forms which may help learners understand the world in a meaningful way (Laboy-Rush, 2011). To facilitate that purpose it is important to bring familiar topics such as those in the diagram below into the classroom (Department of Education, 2012, 2017; RD 1630) (Fig. 24.4). From a child’s perspective, this involves learning about where we live, about other people and living creatures and non-living things, the technology that surrounds us, or the environment. For CLIL teachers, it requires a deep knowledge of appropriate methodologies addressed to very young learners and specifically within CLIL, a deep knowledge in the pre-primary syllabus, a firm understanding of STEAM contents which can be exploited in class in a child-friendly way, and a sound understanding of the children’s existing knowledge. This way, CLIL teachers in Pre-primary stages may need to relate language and content through meaningful communication and language which makes it possible to meet the needs of a group of young learners with fragmentary knowledge of reality, little knowledge of English, and concrete operational thinking skills, while trying to foster comprehension and production through repetition and routines, games and other engaging activities and resources related to the 4 C’s of CLIL.

24

Pre-primary CLIL and STEAM: Science in the Early Years

377

SEASONS AND THE WEATHER. LANDSCAPES. TYPES OF HOUSES. FABRICS. MACHINES. MEANS OF TRANSPORT. ELECTRICITY. LIGHT. SOUND. FORCES.

HUMANS AND OTHER CREATURES. LIFE CYCLE OF LIVING THINGS.HEALTHY HABITS. DISEASE.

NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL MATERIALS. CHARACTERISTICS AND CHANGES.

PLANET EARTH. THE UNIVERSE. THE WATER CYCLE. AIR. ROCKS

Fig. 24.4 Scientific topics in Pre-primary lessons. (Own source)

Approaching STEAM Contents from CLIL As has been already mentioned, in Pre-primary lessons it is important to address contents from a holistic perspective which allows for meaningful learning based on rich input. Scientific topics can be displayed as the core ideas around which other topics are connected or in relation to a major theme and taking a second place, within thematic units which offer learners lots of opportunities and time to acquire scientific knowledge and develop scientific thinking. In this way, a global approach related to knowledge areas can sustain classroom practice. For instance, teachers who are familiar with Decroly’s centres of interest and with project-based learning will have had experience in planning numeracy or literacy activities around traditional early years themes such as superheroes, minibeasts or dinosaurs. In the same way, children will explore scientific topics connected to these same themes. They all offer easy segues into science, whether this be a continuous provision enhancement or a teacher-led activity. In a Superheroes project or unit we might want to explore all the amazing things about our “super” bodies. Here children can explore fingerprints with magnifying glasses, or try to guess different materials with their feet or for older children, maybe delve into the marvellous world inside our bodies such as our bones and vital organs. Similarly, in a Dinosaurs theme, we might want to classify living and non-living things, dig out some fake bones in the school garden, compare the size of bones from different animals using different measuring units and utensils or observe a chicken feather through a magnifying glass or a microscope. Whatever that theme may be, educators will always bear in mind that CLIL takes time in the early years and Science activities are not a one-off activity but rather a progression of multiple activities and opportunities.

378

D. Shepherd and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

Thematic planning may challenge teachers to look for STEAM opportunities within fact or story books, and other linguistic resources such as poems or songs. Indeed, all of them can be primary motivators for STEAM based activities, so a careful selection of texts can be the basis for our unit or project planning. The non-verbal elements displayed when using them (intonation and projection of our voice, rhythm and pitch, body language and gestures, music, images, space, etc.) will call for young learners’ attention and engagement, so the staging of it all may certainly have a huge impact on language acquisition. As a result, core texts may be selected and exploited in relation to our main theme on a regular basis, so that children have enough opportunities to become familiar through repetition with vocabulary, structures, pronunciation and intonation patterns, and also with concepts, procedures and attitudes. For instance, Elmer the elephant is a pleasant story by itself, but the main character’s design is so eye-catching, that it can give rise to activities related to identifying, classifying and producing geometric designs and shapes, circles and lines; mixing basic colours to produce secondary ones, using warm and cold colours and associating them with different feelings and emotions; counting, comparing, measuring length and surface, etc.

Approaching CLIL Communication Through STEAM When considering CLIL lessons, young learners need to be exposed to rich oral input on a daily basis, or as far as possible, so that they can assimilate and integrate the new language in a natural way and within a meaningful context. In order to do so, much of the science carried out in the early years’ classroom may be integrated into daily routines, with no need to set time apart to engage our little scientists. That gives all children the opportunity to gain linguistic and content knowledge related to STEAM at their own pace throughout the school year by means of repetitive and formulaic language, classroom language and instructions which will cater for comprehension and production. A quite simple example of that is related to weather and weather words in questions and answers, songs and poems; observation and description of climatic events through simple sentences supported by pictures and usage of the tools integrated in a weather station (a thermometer, a rain gauge and a wind vane). As part of early circle time or breakfast time, healthy eating habits can be recorded on classroom posters on a daily basis. Here children can learn names of fruit, vegetables, and other types of food, as they learn to record information asking and answering questions, using tally marks and developing skills in interpreting the data. Teachers may propose recording how many healthy and unhealthy snacks are brought from home or may ask to make a display of seasonal fruit and vegetables. In the same line, a herbarium can be elaborated by using all the leaves and flowers collected by children and their families during the weekend, and a cardboard tree can be displayed in class or on the classroom door with these natural materials. If plants are being grown inside the classroom or in the school garden, observation and description can be complemented by drawings and supported or prompted by simple

24

Pre-primary CLIL and STEAM: Science in the Early Years

379

stories, poems and songs. Learning journals can be used if we want to build up and document over time the observations we make on those seeds and plants being grown at school, at home or in the world around us. Meaningful connections between language and STEAM contents can be traced back to stories which are used as the starting points of simple experiments (Aston, 2017). These stories can also be introduced just because they serve the purpose of developing scientific contents working at the centre of units or projects. Their plot can stem from traditional fairy tales such as The Three Little Pigs, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Jack and the Beanstalk or Tom Thumb, or from contemporary stories like Handa’s Surprise, by Eileen Brown, Blue Hat, Green Hat, by Sandra Boynton, Me Myself, by Mikiko Nakamoto and Hideko Kakegawa, Excuse Me!, by Karen Katz, Is it Dark? Is it Light?, by Mary D. Lankford, Our Sweet Home, by Mikiko Nakamoto, Ten Seeds, by Ruth Brown, or The Grumpy Ladybird and The Grouchy Ladybug, by Eric Carle. In relation to these, the physical properties of different materials can be tested, they can be organized according to their size, shape or hardness and described according to their taste; natural events and human and animal actions can be related to different time slots. Feely bags can be used so that learners guess the name of the items being touched, tasted, smelled or heard without actually seeing them. Pets can be taken to the classroom for a show-and-tell activity and plants, worms, ants or beetles can live in there, provided that proper houses and caretaking are afforded.

Approaching Cognitive Skills Through STEAM It has been already said that children are curious scientists so an exceptional early years provision can offer them a multitude of opportunities to explore and investigate. However, all of this alone does not guarantee that children will be able to access the target language and make progress in the acquisition of all types of thinking skills, which is something that is going to be tightly linked to sensorial, motor, emotional, communicative, and social skills, and, as a result, to different types of activities and thinking skills. In fact, Meyer (2013) underlines that “effective teaching means creating environments in which students are engaged, challenged, and saturated with various types of thinking” (pp. 305–306). Thus, STEAM on CLIL in pre-primary classes requires direct observation, manipulation of different materials, straight-away procedures implementation, interpretation of verbal information and simple charts and tables, safe experience and taking risks in indoor and outdoor settings. That means that the activities planned must be simple and practical, so that learners can engage in their development by using their body, their mind, their emotions, and communicative tools through daily opportunities and in relation to various themes, given a caring environment within which a sense of achievement, joy and freedom is fundamental for our future problem solvers. Learning corners can be especially suitable places for achieving these purposes, as in small groups learners have greater chances of interacting with each other and with their teachers and of manipulating tools and materials.

380

D. Shepherd and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

Routine tasks such as reporting orally on the weather, and non-routine tasks such as mimicking the way a seed turns into a plant or classifying healthy and unhealthy food, comes from remembering the information displayed in class by using different verbal and non-verbal resources; from understanding this input in order to answer questions, choose the right option or perform an action from a given instruction; and from applying knowledge so that the same item (either linguistic, conceptual, procedural or attitudinal) can be transferred and used in another context. Any elements such as shapes, plants, animals or machines can be classified, put in order or identified as the odd-one-out through analysis. The selection of the most suitable food when designing a healthy menu or choosing the correct instructions to take care of a pet or a plant requires analysis, too. Evaluation can take place when handmade paper boats and gyroplanes or some specific ingredients in a recipe or watercolour in a solution is tested, so that it can be demonstrated respectively whether they float or sink, fly or fall down, or result in a mixture which is sour, bitter, salty or sweet, brown, orange, or green. Creation happens continuously in class, even though it may be the result of teacher-led group work with plenty of oral input, guidance, mediations and translation of their learners’ contributions since children may not be fluent enough to produce those messages in the target language. For instance, during circle time rules for taking care of living things at home and school can be set up; a story or a verse can be developed from scratch or by using another familiar one, and then we may produce The Very Hungry Tadpole or Once I Found a Melon Pip –instead of The Very Hungry Caterpillar, by Eric Carle, or Once I Found a Cherry Stone (popular). Or different uses can be given to a common object so that it gets recycled and reused, once body language, oral language, and images have been used in conversation or games to explore, suggest, or guess all those possibilities.

Approaching Culture Through Arts in STEAM Meyer (2013) points out that the main and ultimate goal of teaching is to foster intercultural communicative competences. These competences will allow learners to acquire factual knowledge of other countries, people and their habits, festivals, and traditions; but also useful skills on self-perception and emotional regulation, verbal and non-verbal communicative styles, or group work. A for Arts in STEAM may be the bridge that facilitates connections between pure scientific areas, intercultural competences and communicative skills. The intercultural dimension of a STEAMbased approach to CLIL Pre-primary lessons can be linked to the need for gaining knowledge of oneself and others, and of different cultures and countries, as well as of one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions. This also includes ways of approaching and reacting to daily life, facilitating and fostering self-expression through diverse means (oral language, music, dancing or drawing), as well as interaction, cooperation, empathy and tolerance. Festivals can offer learners and CLIL teachers the perfect framework for developing these skills and values, which can also be approached when working on contents such as landscapes, climate and

24

Pre-primary CLIL and STEAM: Science in the Early Years

381

types of houses or clothes, in combination with weather conditions, animals and plants, building materials and dwelling styles, variety of rooms and pieces of furniture, human activities carried out in those contexts and festivals, proverbs, songs and poems attached to them. Some stories can prompt activities in relation to all those contents and skills. For instance, pictures, portraits, musical instruments, toys, dioramas, jewellery or decoration can be produced for the classroom out of new materials, recycled materials (like plastic bottles, rubber stoppers, elastic bands, etc.) or natural ones (such as nutshells, seeds, stones, shells, flowers or leaves).

Conclusion Children are naturally curious and being a scientific spirit involves curiosity, ability of observation, wondering and analysing of the environment, as well as personal and joint endeavour to interact with it. Whether it be a steamed-up window on which to draw, reacting to a fly buzzing around the classroom or adjusting the way we walk or run on a rainy day, CLIL teachers in Pre-primary stages can take advantage of what fascinates learners in order to arouse questions, develop an understanding of cause and effect and stimulate experimentation in relation to scientific topics. Thus, development of a sound understanding of science through STEAM in the Pre-Primary CLIL classrooms needs to be done using a wide range of situations and resources in relation to scientific contents and the exchange of questions, predictions, descriptions, answers and reasons within cultural settings that foster cognitive development and scientific skills such as observation, exploration, experimentation, problem solving, prediction, critical thinking, decision making and discussion. Children need access to a diverse assortment of learning opportunities to develop these skills and knowledge while establishing meaningful connections between language and context, content areas and daily life, facts and experience through individual work and social interaction, repetition and innovation, security and surprise. Being able to provide all that in Pre-primary CLIL classrooms is a worthwhile challenge that lawmakers, educators, learners and families can face together with scientific spirit. They can also provide researchers with useful data that may eventually result in suitable teaching-learning CLIL practices in early years.

References Aktürk, A. A., & Demircan, O. (2017). A review of studies on STEM and STEAM education in early childhood. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 18(2), 757–776. Alsina. (2020). Conexiones matemáticas a través de actividades STEAM en Educación Infantil. Unión, Revista Iberoamericana de Educación Matemática, 58, 168–190. ISSN: 1815-0640. Aranda Hernando, A. M. (2016). Didáctica de las ciencias sociales en educación infantil. Síntesis. Aronin, S., & Floyd, K. K. (2013). Using an iPad in inclusive preschool classrooms to introduce STEM concepts. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 004005991304500404

382

D. Shepherd and A. M. Pino-Rodríguez

Aston, T. A. (2017). Experimentamos con la ciencia: 100 experimentos interesantes prácticos sobre la vida diaria. Narcea. Bahrum, S., Wahid, N., & Ibrahim, N. (2017). Integration of STEM education in Malaysia and why to STEAM. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(6), 645–655. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/V7-I6/3027 Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press. Bruning, R. H., Schraw, J. G., Norby, M. M., & Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Pearson. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. NSTA Press. Comley, M. (2009). The inquiry-based science pedagogy debate. Learning Landscapes, 2(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.36510/learnland.v2i2.301 COSCE (Confederación de Sociedades Científicas de España). (2011). Parte 1. La educación científica en edades tempranas en España: estado de la cuestión. En Informe Enciende. Enseñanza de las Ciencias en la Didáctica Escolar para edades tempranas en España (pp. 19–52). Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. Rubens Editorial. Coyle, D. (2005). Planning tools for teachers. University of Nottingham. DeJearnette, N. K. (2018). Implementing STEAM in the early childhood classroom. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(33), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3878 Department for Education. (2012). Development matters in the early years foundation stage (EYFS) [Ebook] (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://www.foundationyears.org.uk/files/2012/03/Develop ment-Matters-FINAL-PRINT-AMENDED.pdf Department for Education. (2017). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework-2 English, L. D. (2016). STEM education K-12: Perspectives on integration. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0036-1 Feliu, M., Jiménez, L., Arbonés, G., Bardavio, A., & Calabuig, S. (2015). Ciencias sociales y educación infantil (3–6): cuando despertó el mundo estaba allí. Graó. Fernández, R., & Bravo, M. (2015). Las ciencias de la naturaleza en la Educación Infantil. El ensayo, la sorpresa y los experimentos se asoman a las aulas. Manual. Pirámide. Fisher, P., Zeligman, D., & Fairweather, J. (2005). Self-assessed student learning outcomes in an engineering service course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21, 446–456. García-Carmona, A. (2020). STEAM, ¿una nueva distracción para la enseñanza de la ciencia? Ápice. Revista de Educación Científica, 4(2), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.17979/arec.2020.4. 2.6533 Gómez, A., & Albrecht, B. (2013). True STEM education. Technology & Engineering Teacher, 73(4), 8–16. Hartzler, D. S. (2000). A meta-analysis of studies conducted on integrated curriculum programs and their effects on student achievement (Doctoral Thesis). Indiana University. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288. ISSN 1306–3065. Hornáčková, V., Kyralováa, V., Placháa, G., & Jiroutováa, L. (2014). Projecting and methods of active learning in primary and pre-primary education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 806–812. Katz, L. G. (2010). STEM in the early years. Early childhood research & practice. ECRP. Laboy-Rush, D. (2011). Integrated STEM education through project-based learning. Learning.com. http://www.learning.com/stem/whitepaper Llorent, V. (2013). La educación infantil en Alemania, España, Francia e Inglaterra. Estudio comparado. Pre-primary education in Germany, Spain, France and England. Comparative study. Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 21, 29–58. ISSN: 1137-8654. Meyer, O. (2013). Introducing the CLIL-pyramid: Key strategies and principles for CLIL planning and teaching. In Basic issues in EFL teaching (pp. 295–313). Universitätsverlag Winter GmbH Heidelberg.

24

Pre-primary CLIL and STEAM: Science in the Early Years

383

Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2016). STEM education report. http://yegitek.meb.gov.tr/ STEM_Education_Report.pdf Moser, M., Aparecido de Oliveira, M., & Bueno, R. L. P. (2017). Comparison between Brazil and the 30 most innovative countries in the world. EMAJ: Emerging Markets Journal, 7(2), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.5195/emaj.2017.141 Murray, J. (2019). Routes to STEM: Nurturing science, technology, engineering and mathematics in early years education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(3), 219–221. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2019.1653508 NAAEE (North American Association for Environmental Education). (2016). Guidelines for excellence: Early childhood environmental education programs. NAAEE. National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and education. National Academies Press. Newcombe, N. S. (2010). Picture this: Increasing math and science learning by improving spatial thinking. American Educator, 34(2), 29–35. Nugent, G., Kunz, G., Rilett, L., & Jones, E. (2010). Extending engineering education to K-12. Technology Teacher, 69(7), 14–19. Ocaña, G., Romero, I. M., Gil, F., & Codina, A. (2015). Implantación de la nueva asignatura “Robótica” en Enseñanza Secundaria y Bachillerato. Investigación en la Escuela, 87, 65–79. OECD (Organization for Education Co-operation and Development). (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030: The future we want (Working paper). OECD. Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. National Academy Press. Pitt, J. (2009). Blurring the boundaries – STEM education and education for sustainable development. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 14(1), 37–48. Radziwill, N. M., Benton, M. C., & Moellers, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Reframing what it means to learn. The STEAM Journal, 2(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5642/steam.20150201.3 Real Decreto 1630/2006, de 29 de diciembre, por el que se establecen las enseñanzas mínimas del segundo ciclo de Educación infantil. Ministry of Education and Science. BOE, 4, January 4 2007. BOE-A-2007-185. Reyes-Cárdenas, F., & Padilla, K. (2012). La indagación y la enseñanza de las ciencias. Educación Química, 23(4), 415–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(17)30129-5. https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0187893X17301295 Salguero, M. J. C. (2011). Ciencia en educación infantil: La importancia de un “rincón de observación y experimentación” o “de los experimentos” en nuestras aulas. Pedagogía magna, 10, 58–63. Sharapan, H. (2012). From STEM to STEAM: How early childhood educators can apply Fred Roger’s approach. Young Children, 67(1), 36–30. ISSN-1538-6619. Sochacka, N. W., Guyotte, K. G., & Walthera, J. (2016). Learning together: A collaborative autoethnographic exploration of STEAM (STEM1 the Arts) education. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(1), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20112 Spector, J. (2015). Education, training, competencies, curricula and technology. In X. Ge, D. Ifenthaler, & J. Spector (Eds.), Emerging technologies for STEAM education. Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations (pp. 3–14). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-02573-5_1 Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860–871.

Proposing CLIL Music Teaching Approaches in Pre-primary Education: Rationale, Experiences, and Implications for Educators

25

Berta Torras-Vila

Contents Introduction and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature: Music and Language Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Songs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Music Teaching Practices That Go Beyond Singing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Aspects That Boost FLL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MOVIC: Movement and Music in English. A CLIL Music Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Teachers, Educators and Policymakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

386 387 388 390 391 393 396 397

Abstract

The present chapter outlines the main theoretical foundations on the connections between Foreign Language Learning (FLL) and music, while it encourages teachers and educators to implement CLIL Music approaches that reinforce holistic and creative learning in the Pre-Primary Education stage. While it theoretically supports the use of songs and lyrics in the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classroom, a common practice found in many EFL contexts, the paper calls for the need to use further Music activities, such as the ability to keep the beat, dancing or playing instruments. Similarly, it theoretically discusses how other aspects directly related to English learning can be boosted through musical activities (e.g. classroom atmosphere, students’ anxiety, emotions, creativity or a sense of community). The paper presents the pedagogical possibilities behind the use of music and it contextualizes the role of English in Europe. It also provides a sample CLIL Music activity to illustrate how hands-on music-related content

B. Torras-Vila (*) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_25

385

386

B. Torras-Vila

other than listening to songs’ lyrics or singing can create meaningful opportunities for both EFL and Music teaching and learning. Finally, it discusses key pedagogical implications for teachers, educators and policymakers. Keywords

Music · CLIL; innovation · Pre-primary education

Introduction and Context English as a foreign language (EFL) in European pre-primary and primary schools is considered one of the most relevant subjects in the curriculum due to the importance that this language has gained for professional and personal development (Torras-Vila, 2016). In spite of this, and taking the Spanish context as an example, the Education First English Proficiency Index report places Spain 33rd in the world, among one hundred non-English speaking countries who took the test (EF EPI, 2021). In the Pre-Primary Education stage, the European Commission (2019) outlines that only 32% of European countries start teaching a foreign language from the age of three. Multilingualism is considered one of the fundamental postulates of the European Union (European Commission, 2019). That is the reason why Content and Language Integrated Language (CLIL) has become a widespread teaching approach all over Europe (Escobar Urmeneta, 2019) and, very significantly, in Spain. Taking into account the low command of English among Spanish learners, CLIL became a popular pedagogical approach which was expected to improve this situation (Somers & Evnitskaya, 2014). Institutions and policymakers endeavour to contextualize language within meaningful content-based learning opportunities that help English learners see this language as a communication tool to provide them with the demanded skills to live in a multilingual Europe. Numerous research deals with the connections between Music and languages (Casals & Viladot, 2011; Ćirkovic Miladinović & Milić, 2012; Lee, 2009; Viladot & Casals, 2018). Using hands-on musical activities as the basis for planning second language (L2) objectives (e.g., acquiring specific structures, specific vocabulary or contextualized phrases) might boost the quality of interactions which Escobar Urmeneta (2012) refers to when describing Content-Rich Language Learning (CRLL) contexts, the type of contexts CLIL programs offer. Accordingly, some studies specifically focus on the combination of CLIL and Music, seeing them as two powerful approaches which, when put together, lead to powerful pedagogical benefits (Ćirkovic Miladinović & Milić, 2012; Willis, 2013). Bearing this reality in mind, the aim of the present article is twofold. On the one hand, it aims to provide a theoretical framework that supports the use of Music for the purpose of teaching foreign languages and, on the other hand, calls for the need to develop and implement CLIL Music approaches in the Pre-Primary education stage. It also unveils the benefits behind the use of Music for CLIL purposes, while it

25

Proposing CLIL Music Teaching Approaches in Pre-primary Education:. . .

387

broadly presents a specific CLIL Music program and the SLA approaches that shape it. Finally, it also discusses some implications for teachers and educators.

Literature: Music and Language Learning There seem to be strong neurological connections between language and music. Positive effects of music training on brain and cognitive development have been found in children between 3 to 5 years old (Neville et al., 2008). Research suggests that music enhances learning processes and that it is associated with our brain’s capacities (Lee, 2009). In fact, the neuroscientist Stefan Koelsch stated that: Music and speech are intimately connected in early life, that musical elements pave the way to linguistic capacities earlier than phonetic elements and that melodic aspects of adult speech to infants represent the infants’ earliest associations between sound patterns and meaning, and between sound patterns and syntactic structure. (Koelsch, 2005, p. 211)

music as a background resource appears to boost children’s imaginative capacities (Brewer, 1995). Consequently, even the simplest music activity can be beneficial and can boost students’ learning capacities (e.g., activities through free movement, drawing or writing with background music. . .). As regards to language and music, they share powerful connections, since they are both used for communication, are orally transmitted and have a rhythmic nature (Griffee, 1995). García and Juan (2015, pp. 88–89) classify the benefits of music in the EFL classroom as linguistic, affective and physical. According to these authors, linguistic benefits include auditory discrimination, pronunciation, listening and speaking skills, vocabulary learning or language functions, among others. Similarly, these authors also state that songs encompass affective benefits in the form of fun activities that engage students and create a lively and stress-free atmosphere in the classroom. Finally, using music and songs for the purpose of foreign language learning also appears to be favourable to improve learners’ coordination when combining singing and movement, or to breathe and control one’s voice. In line with the proposals of the “European Music Portfolio project: A Creative Way into Languages (EMP-L)”, language learning can be developed through music-related activities, which include a wide range of possibilities that go beyond the mere act of singing, a widely spread EFL teaching practice, especially in the Pre-Primary education stage (Viladot & Casals, 2010). In the following sections, some empirical studies that underpin the use of music in foreign language contexts are presented. First, section “Songs” aims to introduce the relation between singing and listening to songs with lyrics and FLL. Section “Music Teaching Practices That Go Beyond Singing” is devoted to the benefits of using musical resources and activities other than songs. Finally, section “Additional Aspects That Boost FLL” outlines other factors that facilitate FLL when music comes into play: affective factors and holistic and human aspects such as creativity and community.

388

B. Torras-Vila

Songs Language learning and singing (or listening to songs) can complement each other. The use of songs, whether through listening or singing, is a widely popular resource among foreign language and Pre-Primary education teachers. When we sing, not only are we practicing the lyrics, we are also acquiring music skills such as tone, pitch, stress, volume, pauses, and rhythm. In the same vein, singing and listening to songs in a foreign language boosts students’ linguistic capacities through “enchanting melodies, varying rhythm and image-evoking lyrics, which appeal to multidimensional development of human intelligence” (Shen, 2009, p. 90). Casals and Viladot (2011) argue that songs are often used by Pre-Primary teachers, while they emphasize that the benefits that such resources encompass do not lose effectiveness at more advanced educational stages. The reasons to support the use of songs for foreign language purposes are many. Songs can help learners to work on language structures (Ludke, 2009), while they provide opportunities for repetition without boredom (García & Juan, 2015). In this regard, Gatbonton and Segalowitz (1988) argue that songs contribute to automatizing language development processes. These authors refer to “automaticity” as “a component of language fluency which involves both knowing what to say and producing language rapidly without pauses” (Gatbonton & Segalowitz, 1988, p. 473). The effect of songs on the acquisition of new intonation patterns and sounds have been widely researched, just like memory reinforcement and the acquisition of vocabulary. These two aspects that come hand in hand with the use of foreign language songs are presented in the following sections.

New Sounds and Intonation Patterns Research on the impact of songs in the acquisition of L2 pronunciation has been carried out with different age ranges. However, regardless of the students’ age, the issue raised in this chapter remains the same: “there is probably not a better nor quicker way to teach phonetics than with songs” (Leith, 1979, p. 540). When listening to (or singing) songs, children acquire different rhythms and intonation patterns that cultivate their listening skills (Millington, 2011), and which can be effective in improving phonetic skills in a variety of ways (Ludke, 2009). Songs seem to be an important resource to help them discern new sounds and intonation patterns in foreign language contexts. Saffran, Loman and Robertson (2000), as cited in Lee (2009, p. 30), carried out a study that found that “infants possess learning and memory abilities for music parallel to those they possess for language.” Spicher and Sweeney (2007, p. 39) stated that “research into the connection between music and long-term memory provides an interesting and valuable basis for establishing a musical pedagogy that addresses pronunciation”. Similarly, Staum (1987), as cited in Spicher and Sweeney (2007, p. 40), found that “musical stimulus creates a desired effect on a speaker’s intonation pattern” and emphasized the importance of applying his results to L2 teaching in order to work on duration and stress.

25

Proposing CLIL Music Teaching Approaches in Pre-primary Education:. . .

389

Moreover, the interconnections between general musical knowledge and the learning of L2 pronunciation have also been addressed by researchers. Musical aptitude seems to facilitate the development of listening and auditory discrimination skills as well as the capacity to imitate new sounds or melodies, prominent skills for both learning fields (Peynircioglu et al., 2002). In fact, several studies seem to indicate that learners with musical aptitude pronounce better in a foreign language (Milovanov et al., 2004, 2010; Peynircioglu et al., 2002; Spicher & Sweeney, 2007). Milovanov et al. (2004, p. 718) showed that “the pupils with specialization in music were found to pronounce English better than pupils who did not specialize in music education”, arguing that “music and linguistic abilities may share neural resources”. In another study, Milovanov et al. (2010) found that L2 production and discrimination skills were correlated with musical aptitude: “the role of musical aptitude seemed to occupy an important position in explaining the individual differences in varying phonemic production skills” (p. 59). Finally, in a study carried out by Peynircioglu et al. (2002), children in the high musical aptitude group did much better in phoneme deletion tasks than those in the low musical aptitude group. The researchers concluded that the participants’ ability to manipulate linguistic sounds could be connected to awareness of different musical sounds (they referred to the participants’ first language, but results might be expanded to second language learning). Therefore, it is paramount to take these studies into account in order to value the music-related objectives in CLIL Music classrooms. As it has been presented in this section, such objectives may contribute to the development of our learners’ music skills which, in turn, might help them to naturally acquire English phonemes, sounds, intonation patterns and prosody.

Memory: Facilitating Vocabulary Acquisition Melodies seem to make it easier to remember songs’ lyrics (Wallace, 1994). Listening to songs and singing appear to contribute to memorizing information and acquiring vocabulary (Kuśnierek, 2016; Ludke, 2009). In fact, Schön et al. (2008) showed that listening to a continuous stream of nonsense words which were sung considerably improved word boundary learning, as opposed to when heard in a monotone speech. Thus, using songs to work on tuning or on the ability to keep the beat, for instance, can encompass numerous advantages with regard to language learning. When discussing children’s language learning processes, Moya et al. (2003, p. 75) argue that music and rhythm are part of such processes, as “they make it much easier to imitate and remember language than words which are ‘just spoken’”. McElhinney and Annett (1996), as cited in Rainey and Larsen (2002, p. 175) argued that “the integration of melody, rhythm, and text provided by the musical presentation may enhance recall by promoting better organization of the information.” Such a relationship between music and memory has been addressed in numerous studies. Kuśnierek’s (2016) study with primary school students supports the use of songs in language teaching as they seem to foster lexicon memorization. Similarly, Lee (2009, p. 30) focused on call and response songs, reporting that they “help to

390

B. Torras-Vila

improve memory, encourage the social skill of taking turns, reduce anxiety and increase confidence”. Focusing on EFL classrooms, Medina (1990) strongly supports the use of songs in such contexts while he shares compelling reasons for using them to enhance FLL: his results showed that songs could increase vocabulary acquisition. Finally, and taking into account the fact that songs are usually combined with action in pre-primary education, Murphey (1987) also argues that younger children might find it easier to retain more and better when songs and actions are combined, that is, when songs are accompanied by gestures and movements (Forster, 2006).

Music Teaching Practices That Go Beyond Singing A wide range of musical resources that go beyond songs can also serve as contexts for FL teaching and learning. Pre-primary teachers and English teachers frequently make use of songs in their EFL classes, but these are often the only musical resource employed (Casals & Viladot, 2011). Dancing and moving, reading music, listening to music, playing instruments, conducting music, rhythmic vocalization, improvising and composing, and exploring sounds are other types of musical activities that open up limitless learning opportunities (Viladot & Casals, 2018). As exposed in the introduction, CLIL Music approaches that bolster musical aspects and abilities might benefit from expanding the scope of potentialities to combine these two fields and to promote innovative CLIL Music teaching practices. By way of example, a series of CLIL Music activities were presented by Willis (2013), providing arguments why these can also contribute to EFL and Music teaching. Apart from performing and learning songs and rhymes, these activities focus on musical aspects such as creating musical patterns, composing and performing class music (story-based music or musical pictures), or listening and experimenting with sounds. Likewise, Ćirkovic Miladinović and Milić (2012) reflect on the role of motivation, emotions and learners’ mood, seeing them as crucial determinants to consider in CLIL Music approaches. The authors share an activity in which a specific music composition, The Carnival of the Animals, is used in an EFL class. This musical suite, composed of fourteen movements and composed by Camille Saint-Saens, becomes the music-content focus of an EFL class. In a similar vein, highlighting the opportunities behind the combination of handson music content and foreign languages, a Comenius multilateral project titled the “European Music Portfolio: A Creative Way into Languages” was a compelling endeavour to provide insight into the interrelationship between these two fields (Akhtar et al., 2013). Its main focus was to blend these two fields in the classroom and to advocate against the disciplinary compartmentalization of knowledge. It was an attempt to inspire teachers to use language and music as two powerful learning tools that, when combined, could lead to communicative, creative, and cultural activities that had mighty wide-ranging pedagogical prospects (Viladot & Casals, 2018). In a similar vein, Viladot and Casals (2010), Casals and Viladot (2011),

25

Proposing CLIL Music Teaching Approaches in Pre-primary Education:. . .

391

Viladot and Cslovjecsek (2014) propose various pedagogical projects approaching CLIL Music within the context of the European Music Portfolio. Thus, numerous musical activities that go beyond singing can improve and enrich FL learning contexts, turning them into more innovative and holistic learning environments. Such activities can go from playing instruments, performing rhythmic games, combining music and movement, acquiring the ability to keep the beat through listening to melodies or moving, performing or dancing.

Additional Aspects That Boost FLL Negative emotions, fear of losing face and insecurities are usually associated with FLL contexts (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012). Music seems to downsize some of the negative aspects that are usually present in the FL classroom, such as high levels of anxiety or low levels of motivation. The next subsections go beyond the linguistic factors that musical activities enhance and intend to review how music also benefits further educational aspects that may be relevant in any CLIL Music context.

Affective Factors Students might find it easier to use language more naturally in the classroom when focusing on the musical aspects of a song or its meaning. Thus, anxiety levels, which are usually present in L2 classrooms, might eventually fade away. MacIntyre and Gregersen (2012, p. 103) foreground the role of emotions and language anxiety in the L2 classrooms, while they describe language anxiety as “the feelings of worry and negative, fear-related emotions associated with learning or using a language that is not an individual’s mother tongue”. As seen in section “Literature: Music and Language Learning,” García and Juan (2015) mention affective and physical factors when discussing how music can contribute to a better classroom atmosphere. Moving around the classroom, singing, having a good time and being relaxed while using the TL might reassure learners to feel more self-confident and less disturbed using their L2. Numerous studies have addressed these factors in EFL contexts. Using the TL to work on musical knowledge appears to be a helpful strategy to provide relaxation, reduce anxiety in the L2 classroom, and, thus, improve language learning (Griffee, 1995; Lo & Li, 1998; Shen, 2009). In Saber and Fahandejaadi’s words (2016, p. 82), “music lowers affective barriers and assists in making students more relaxed, thereby more receptive to language learning”. Moreover, music appears to have therapeutic functions as it increases self-esteem, whether it is through self-satisfaction (Gaston, 1968) or group work (Abril & Gault, 2008). Children seem to be easily captivated when music comes into play. That is why numerous empirical studies have shown how music improves learners’ motivation in FL contexts. Millington (2011, p. 136) discusses learners’ enthusiasm in music (and songs in particular) since it brings “variety to the everyday classroom routine,” and it is this variety that “stimulates interest and attention”. Hence, music seems to impact learners’ motivation (Hallam et al., 2015; Hinshaw et al., 2015), although it is the

392

B. Torras-Vila

notion of investment rather than motivation that might better satisfy the teaching and learning approach this article advocates for. Built around the idea of “community”, and inspired by Bourdieu’s (1991) work, Norton developed the construct of investment (Norton, 1997), arguing that it better illustrates and represents the complexity of motives for feeling comfortable around a TL. Such an identity approach explores SLA as a sociocultural practice and, as a consequence, motivation is studied as something related to social relations and individuals’ synergies and life practices. Lastly, music seems to affect our emotions (Griffee, 1995; Ćirkovic Miladinović & Milić, 2012). In fact, an empirical study by Baumgartner et al. (2006) revealed the extent to which these can be stirred through. In this respect, having a good time in the English classroom through performing, singing, dancing, or listening to music might contribute to changing the viewpoint and feelings that many young L2 learners have towards learning foreign languages.

Educational Values and Future Generations Finally, yet importantly, this article aspires to raise awareness towards the value of music education among future generations of world citizens, as it is, without a doubt, essential for our future society. Building communities with individuals educated through values such as self-knowledge, self-esteem, empathy, and respect towards oneself and others seems to be a complicated matter. Thus, the focus on personal values and individuals’ interpersonal relations should be thoroughly addressed within all educational institutions. Viewed in this way, “the connections music makes between thinking, learning and emotions” (Davies, 2000, as cited in Lee, 2009, p. 30) might play a significant role in such a task. Furthermore, being aware of such connections should encourage all teachers to include music in their school projects, lesson plans, and community service projects. When it comes to culture, music seems to be a vehicle to comprehend better one’s own (Campbell et al., 2007). Similarly, in a globalized world, listening activities and songs from various cultural backgrounds can benefit the students’ development of a sense of otherness, sensitivity, and open-mindedness towards foreign cultures (García & Juan, 2015; Gillespie et al., 2014). Music is a tool that strengthens personal connections as children play, dance, sing, or listen to music together. In this sense, a positive classroom environment is also achieved when strong personal bonds are built and when a feeling of community is constructed. This sense of community is what shapes societies. The need to educate children holistically by equipping them with the necessary competencies to make decisions, manage emotions, and reflect on personal practices is another concern that should not be unaccounted for when discussing education. Music seems to be a powerful tool to promote a cheery atmosphere in the classroom and provide a sense of interconnectedness and rootedness among young children and, therefore, among future citizens (Jorgensen, 1995). As outlined in section “Affective Factors,” music favours a positive classroom atmosphere. Singing together, dancing together, or making music are deeply social practices that create a sense of community. In fact, empirical studies examining the role of music in specific communities advocate for the idea that music intensifies

25

Proposing CLIL Music Teaching Approaches in Pre-primary Education:. . .

393

communities’ sense of belonging (Boyd & Duffy, 2018). Similarly, Marsh (2012) asserts that music education provides a feeling of being part of a group and a sense of community. Eerola and Eerola (2014) and Marsh’s (2012) studies argue that music education fosters harmony and satisfaction within schools. As mentioned in section “Affective Factors,” taking into account the identity approach to SLA (e.g., Norton, 1997), creating a classroom community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) in which English as a foreign language is used to engage in music activities might make it easier for young learners to feel legitimate users of this communication tool and might empower them to normalize the use of the L2 in the long term. To sum up, the values, priorities, and competencies that the twenty-first century schools should foster have been addressed by many researchers and educational experts. For instance, while examining what it means to be educated in our current globalized world, Robinson and Aronica (2016) place creativity at the core of the discussion. These authors claim that critical thinking and creativity encompass what helps individuals find new ways of doing things and reflect on personal decisions. Bringing music to schools and the values it encompasses through CLIL programmes might be a source of unlimited opportunities to boost artistic creation (Viladot & Casals, 2018).

MOVIC: Movement and Music in English. A CLIL Music Example In this section, an innovative approach to the teaching of EFL through Music is presented. Such a CLIL Music programme was developed by the author of this chapter and it is directed at students in the Pre-Primary and Primary education stage. This approach is called MOVIC (MOVement & MusIC through English). By bringing together foreign language teaching and music, the suggested integrative didactic approach is in line with the Recommendation of the Parliament and of the Council on Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning (Commission of the European Communities, 2006) and with Casals and Viladot’s (2011) call for the spread of good teaching resources that expand on the music-English binomial. Thus, MOVIC was designed by Doctor Berta Torras Vila with the certainty that there is a wide range of musical possibilities beyond the widespread practice of using songs in the EFL classroom (Viladot & Casals, 2018). In this respect, the MOVIC program stands on the belief that language educators use “only a small part of the whole range of possibilities offered by music” (Viladot & Casals, 2010, p. 4). Bearing in mind the theoretical framework presented so far, MOVIC uses a wide range of musical activities with clear music-related objectives that serve as meaningful contexts in which foreign language teaching objectives are set in the Pre-primary educational stage. Some of these activities encompass the practice of rhythmic skills, the ability to keep the beat, singing, listening, creative and artistic expression through music and performances, or the association between music, selfawareness, otherness and emotional intelligence, body expression, and dancing. All music activities in this program are contextualized within foreign language teaching practices that focus on meaning rather than form.

394

B. Torras-Vila

As previously presented, the use of music in foreign language classrooms seems to set up a natural, stress-free and meaningful environment that appears to boost L2 acquisition (Willis, 2013). Following this idea, the goal of MOVIC attends Stephen Krashen’s distinction between learning and acquiring a language. It can be argued that Krashen’s (1987) Input Hypothesis advocates for the use of music in L2 learning contexts when music turns into a tool to help learners acquire the language as opposed to learning it. MOVIC activities include EFL teaching techniques and strategies such as language support, the use of corrective feedback, interactional language scaffolding, provision of abundant comprehensible input for students, and encouragement of output production (Escobar Urmeneta, 2019). Thus, the main EFL teaching and learning approaches and the theoretical pillars that constitute MOVIC as a CLIL Music program are the following: Communicative Language Teaching (Littlewood, 1981) (the aim behind each activity is to communicate with peers and the teacher); Task-based language learning (Willis, 1996) (each task has clear objectives which are prepared in advance and revised after the task); Total Physical Response (Richards & Rodgers, 1986) (language and movement are usually combined); Content-Rich Language Learning (Escobar Urmeneta, 2012) (the content being taught is significant and meaningful to students); Game-based learning (Plass et al., 2015) (musical games are often the task itself); and Storytelling (Cortina-Pérez & Andúgar, 2018) (musical stories and stories that set a mood or a context are a common resource used). Needless to say, such approaches are embedded within the musical content that is taught at all times. Following, a sample activity illustrating the dual teaching focus proposed by MOVIC is outlined. This activity can be adapted to different age levels, but the objectives presented here (see Table 25.1) are directed at learners in the second cycle of Pre-Primary Education. This activity aims at interiorizing the beat subdivision (quavers, crotchets and minims). It helps students to feel part of a group, have fun and release energy when they need to move around. In order to implement these activities, the following order is suggested. Table 25.1 Sample MOVIC Activity objectives: Musical figures and beat subdivision through animals. (Author: Berta Torras Vila) Focus on: Language To acquire specific vocabulary: fast, slow, elephants, monkeys, birds, big, small, steps, body parts, verbs such as “walk”, “run”. . . To acquire specific structures and knowledge of language: who walks ____?; Can you walk like a ____? Can you walk fast, slowly, normally?; Can you describe the elephant/monkey/bird?; What does it look like? How many monkeys are there in the classroom?; comparatives; etc. (Adaptable to different ages and levels).

Music objectives To learn musical figures: quavers, crotchets and minims. To keep, subdivide and interiorize the beat. To express oneself through music

Other areas To develop psychomotor skills To develop creativity To raise environmental awareness

25

Proposing CLIL Music Teaching Approaches in Pre-primary Education:. . .

395

Pre-task. Introduction. A teacher introduces the elephant, the monkey and the bird with flashcards, (an opportunity to practice descriptions through a text or through visual flashcards). This could be done after having read a story about one or several of these animals or after having listened to the movement dedicated to Elephants in the suite “the Carnival of the Animals”, composed by Camille SaintSaens in 1886. While looking at the flashcards, what they look like, who is big or who is small can be discussed. Similarly, comparatives or body-related vocabulary can be revised. The teacher tells students that they will dance to the music while walking like these animals. Pre-task. Concepts. Before starting, the teacher makes sure students understand the concepts “fast” and “slow”, and asks questions such as “who walks slowly?” or “who walks fast?”. The teacher can encourage students to produce an entire phrase such as “the elephant walks very slowly”. Main Task. Elephants, monkeys and birds. When the music plays, the teacher shows one character at a time (each character’s flashcard includes the corresponding musical figure) and shows students how they are supposed to walk by being a model for the young learners (see Fig. 25.1). The teacher could also show the speed at which students are supposed to walk by playing the drums, without showing the flashcards. The teacher’s meaningful input along this activity is key: “look at all these beautiful elephants walking slowly”, “look at these little birds walking so fast!”, “monkeys walk normally, they don’t walk fast, they don’t walk slowly, they walk just like us”. The same activity can be carried out with percussion instruments. Post-task. Follow-up discussion. After doing this activity, the teacher can ask questions such as “who walks at a normal speed?” “Who walks slowly?” “who walks very fast?” and engage in a discussion to describe the characters and revise key vocabulary and structures. The activity presented frames music-related content within specific language objectives that turn a task into a significant activity with clear communicative objectives (see Table 25.1). Similar activities can be carried out using the same

Fig. 25.1 Suggested flashcards including illustrations and musical figures

396

B. Torras-Vila

music objectives while adjusting the language objectives to different themes, areas or ages. After having outlined the main musical skills that are worked on in MOVIC and after having reviewed the main EFL approaches that frame it, a sample MOVIC activity has been presented. Following, relevant pedagogical implications for teachers and policymakers are discussed.

Implications for Teachers, Educators and Policymakers To sum up, the interdependence between music and foreign language teaching sets the rationale for taking CLIL approaches. Music content in CLIL contexts not only can address music theory (e.g., learning about a composer’s biography), but it can also promote hands-on music teaching activities that focus on fundamental musical aspects (e.g., sound qualities, instrumentation, the ability to keep the beat, rhythmic patterns, or sensitivity) that develop musical skills. The main goal of this paper was to state a case for developing CLIL Music teaching practices that integrate music as a language learning tool. It has been inspired by the objectives behind the European Music Portfolio, in that pre-primary teachers are highly encouraged to “(re)discover the ability to motivate, develop and enhance language learning through music, in the broadest sense” and to “obtain the training and tools needed to expand the musical activities that are already carried out on a regular basis” (Viladot & Casals, 2010, p. 5). Contextualized English learning through musical activities and skills seems to contribute positively to the acquisition of structures, vocabulary and pronunciation in the TL. As shown, several factors warrant the value of using CLIL Music. As they work on musical aspects, foreign language learners seem to develop other skills that help them acquire the L2 more efficiently. Moreover, the present paper aimed at supporting innovative teaching practices and programs such as MOVIC, with the firm conviction that foreign language teaching practices should go beyond singing and should incorporate other music-related practices. As Viladot and Casals (2010, p. 5) state: there is “a lack of good materials that go deeper into this partnership [of music and EFL], and a lack of training in relation to music resources”. There is a wide amount of research presenting CLIL approaches. Nevertheless, only a few contemplate hands-on music activities which focus on music skills (e.g., tuning songs or keeping the beat), creativity, sensitivity, performance or sensitivity. Hence, the present chapter aimed at reminding the education community, and especially pre-primary teachers, of the multiple links between language and music. Such links point to the need to promote integrated teaching and learning approaches that give the same importance to both English learning and Music learning. Meaningful activities that engage young learners are much needed in today’s society, as the compartmentalization of curriculum competencies denies holistic learning opportunities to future generations of world citizens who will eventually use English as a “lingua franca” (Caine, 2008) to live experiences in different cultural backgrounds, participate in intercultural exchanges and grow as open-minded, tolerant

25

Proposing CLIL Music Teaching Approaches in Pre-primary Education:. . .

397

and respectful human beings. CLIL Music approaches, as seen in this chapter, provide learning opportunities that seem to facilitate such needs in the pre-primary educational stage.

References Abril, C. R., & Gault, B. M. (2008). The state of music in secondary schools. The principal’s perspective. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022429408317516 Akhtar, G., Ludke, K., & Moran, N. (2013). Integrated Music and language learning: The European Music Portfolio – A creative way into languages. NAME Magazine, Spring 2013. Baumgartner, T., Esslen, M., & Jancke, L. (2006). From emotion perception to emotion experience: Emotions evoked by pictures and classical music. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 60(1), 34–43. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press. Boyd, C. & Duffy, M. (2018). Evaluation of a rural music project designed to foster a sense of community belonging. New Community, 16(1), 48–50. Brewer, C. (1995). Music and learning: Integrating music in the classroom. LifeSounds. Caine, T. M. (2008). Do you speak global?: The spread of English and the implications for English language teaching. Canadian Journal for New Schools in Education, 1(1), 1–11. Campbell, P., Connell, C., & Beegle, A. (2007). Adolescents’ expressed meanings of music in and out of school. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(3), 220–236. Casals, A., & Viladot, L. (2011). La música com a recurs per a ensenyar llengua (estrangera): Una proposta europea (Music as a resource to teach languages (foreign languages): A European proposal). Guix, 374, 45–48. Ćirkovic Miladinović, I. R., & Milić, I. M. (2012). Young learners and CLIL: Developing language skills in ELT classroom integrated with the contents of musical education. In S. Divlyan (coord.), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in teaching English to young learners. Conference proceeding no. 11. City Press. Commission of the European Communities. (2006). Recommendation of the Parliament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF Cortina-Pérez, B., & Andúgar, A. (2018). Didáctica de la lengua extranjera en la Educación Infantil. Inglés (Foreign Language didactics in Pre-Primary Education). Pirámide. Eerola, P. S., & Eerola, T. (2014). Extended music education enhances the quality of school life. Music Education Research, 16(1), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2013.829428 EF English Proficiency Index. (2021). Índice EF de nivel de inglés. Retrieved from https://www.ef. com.es/assetscdn/WIBIwq6RdJvcD9bc8RMd/cefcom-epi-site/reports/2021/ef-epi-2021spanish.pdf Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2012). Content-rich language learning in context-rich classrooms. APAC, 74, 39–47. Escobar Urmeneta, C. (2019). An introduction to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) for teachers and teacher educators. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.21 European Commission. (2019). About multilingualism policy. Education and Training – European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/multilingualism/about-multilingualismpolicy_en Forster, E. (2006). The value of songs and chants for young learners. Encuentro, 16, 63–68. García, I. M., & Juan, A. D. (2015). The use of rhymes and songs in the Teaching of English in Primary Education. Docencia e investigación, 25(2), 83–101. Gaston, E. T. (1968). Music in therapy. The Macmillan Company.

398

B. Torras-Vila

Gatbonton, E., & Segalowitz, N. (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for promoting fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 473–492. Gillespie, R., Russell, J. A., & Hamann, D. L. (2014). String music educators’ perceptions of the impact of new string programs on student outcomes, school music programs, and communities. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022429414531987 Griffee, D. T. (1995). Songs in action. International Book Distribution Ltd. Hallam, S., Creech, A., & McQueen, H. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of the impact on students of the Musical Futures approach. Music Education Research, 19(3), 263–275. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14613808.2015.1108299 Hinshaw, T., Clift, S., Hulbert, S., & Camic, P. M. (2015). Group singing and young people’s psychological well-being. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 17(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623730.2014.999454 INEE. (2012). Estudio Europeo de Competencia Lingüística EECL Vol I. Informe Español. Secretaría General Técnica del Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. Jorgensen, E. (1995). Music education as community. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 29(3), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333542 Koelsch, S. (2005). Neural substrates of processing syntax and semantics in music. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2005.03.005 Krashen, S. (1987). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman. Kuśnierek, A. (2016). The role of music and songs in teaching English vocabulary to students. World Scientific News, 43(1), 1–55. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Learning in doing (Vol. 95). Cambridge University Press. Lee, L. (2009). An empirical study on teaching urban young children music and English by contrastive elements of music and songs. Education Review, 6(3), 28–39. Leith, W. D. (1979). Advanced French conversation through popular music. The French Review, 52, 537–551. Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. An introduction. Cambridge University Press. Lo, R., & Li, H. C. (1998). Songs enhance learner involvement. English Teaching Forum, 36, 8–11. Ludke, K. M. (2009). Teaching foreign language through songs. University of Edinburgh. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Affect: The role of language anxiety and other emotions in language learning. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Language learning psychology: Research, theory and pedagogy (pp. 103–118). Palgrave. Marsh, K. (2012). “The beat will make you be courage”: The role of a secondary school music program in supporting young refugees and newly arrived immigrants in Australia. Research Studies in Music Education, 34(2), 93–111. Medina, S. L. (1990). The effect of music on second language vocabulary acquisition. National Network for Early Language Learning, 6(3), 1–26. Millington, N. T. (2011). Using songs effectively to teach English to young learners. Language Education in Asia, 2(1), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.5746/LEIA/11/V2/I1/A11/MILLINGTON Milovanov, R., Pietila, P., Tervaniemi, M., & Marita, G. (2004). The impact of musical aptitude in foreign language acquisition. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Music Perception & Cognition (ICMPC8). Evanston, IL, 2004. Milovanov, R., Pietila, P., Tervaniemi, M., & Esquef Paulo, A. A. (2010). Foreign language pronunciation skills and musical aptitude: A study of Finnish adults with higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(1), 56–60. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.003 Moya, A., Albentosa, J. I., Harris, C., Llorente, P., & Torres, G. I. (2003). La enseñanza de la lengua extranjera en la educación infantil (The teaching of foreign languages in pre-primary education). Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

25

Proposing CLIL Music Teaching Approaches in Pre-primary Education:. . .

399

Murphey, T. (1987). English through Music: Singing TPR, walking labs & Music matter. In Annual meeting of the international association of teachers of English as a foreign language. Westende, Belgium. Neville, H., Andersson, A., Bagdade, O., Bell, T., Currin, J., Fanning, J., Klein, S., Lauinger, B., Pakulak, E., Paulsen, D., Sabourin, L., Stevens, C., Sundborg, S., & Yamada, Y. (2008). Effects of music training on brain and cognitive development in under-privileged 3- to 5-year-old children: Preliminary results. In B. Rich & C. Asbury (Eds.), Learning, arts, and the brain: The Dana consortium report on arts and cognition (pp. 105–106). Dana Press. Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587831 Peynircioglu, Z. F., Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Öney-Küsefoglu, B. (2002). Phonological awareness and musical aptitude. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 68–80. https://www.researchgate.net/ deref/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00159 Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 258–283. Rainey, D., & Larsen, J. D. (2002). The effect of familiar melodies on initial learning and long-term memory for unconnected text. Music Perception, 20(2), 173–186. https://www.researchgate.net/ deref/http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/mp.2002.20.2.173 Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2016). Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. Penguin Books. Saber, M., & Fahandejaadi, R. (2016). Music and language learning. Shiraz University. Schön, D., Boyer, M., Moreno, S., Besson, M., Peretz, I., & Kolinsky, R. (2008). Songs as an aid for language acquisition. Cognition: A Journal for Foreign Language Educators, 106(2), 975–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.005 Shen, C. (2009). Using English songs: An enjoyable and effective approach to ELT. English Language Teaching, CCSE, 2(1), 88–94. Somers, T., & Evnitskaya, N. (2014). CLIL opens doors, but who opens the doors to CLIL? XXXII AESLA international conference: Applied linguistics: Language industries and social change. Universidad Pablo de Olavide. Sevilla (Spain), April 3–5, 2014. Spicher, L., & Sweeney, F. (2007). Folk Music in the L2 classroom. Development of native-like pronunciation through prosodic engagement strategies. Connect, 1, 35–48. Torras-Vila, B. (2016). Studying primary education in English: Factors that influenced the students’ decision. E-AESLA, 2, 235–243. Retrieved from https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/eaesla/pdf/02/ 24.pdf Viladot, L., & Casals, A. (2010). Do you speak music? The Catalan approach. NAME, 29, 2–5. Viladot, L., & Casals, A. (2018). Rhyming the rhythm and measuring the metre: Pooling music and language in the classroom. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 1(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.6 Viladot, L., & Cslovjecsek, M. (2014). Do you speak. . . music? Facing the challenges of training teachers on integration. Hellenic Journal of Music, Education, and Culture, 5(1), 2–16. Retrieved from http://hejmec.eu/journal/index.php/HeJMEC/article/view/52/45 Wallace, W. T. (1994). Memory for music: Effect of melody on recall of text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1471–1485. Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Longman. Willis, J. (2013). English through music: Designing CLIL materials for young learners. Padres y Maestros, 349, 29–32.

Part IV Resources and Materials

Planning for Effective Co-teaching with a Foreign Language Assistant in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

26

Lyndsay R. Buckingham

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Who Are the Language Assistants? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Effective Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Co-teaching Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed Activities for Working with Language Assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Circle Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Story Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exploration Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Play Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supporting Language Assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Awareness of Cultural Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clarifying the Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Observe, Then Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Planning and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

404 404 405 406 408 409 410 411 412 413 413 413 414 415 416 417 418 418

Abstract

Foreign language assistants play a key role in the CLIL classroom as they provide motivation to communicate in the foreign language, an authentic linguistic model, and an intercultural perspective. However, in order to make the most of this valuable human resource, teachers need to know how to prepare language assistants for their role and guide them throughout the year. Basing this partnership on co-teaching classroom roles from which both adults can support students by modelling linguistic and intercultural mediation, this chapter suggests specific ways in which to employ language assistants in the pre-primary CLIL classroom. L. R. Buckingham (*) Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_26

403

404

L. R. Buckingham

Proposed activities and techniques create a useful role for the language assistant from which to motivate learners, support their first steps in communicating in a foreign language, and gradually develop learners’ intercultural competence. Finally, the chapter offers practical advice regarding the preparation and support of language assistants by teachers and administrators to ensure an effective working relationship, including initial orientation practices, ongoing guidance and systematic feedback. Keywords

Foreign language assistant · Pre-primary education · Intercultural competence · Co-teaching

Introduction The presence of language assistants has become quite common in CLIL and foreign language programmes around the world, yet there is still a limited amount of literature that describes best practices for their employment in the classroom, particularly in pre-primary education. In this chapter the role of the language assistant is explored as an opportunity to support learners’ foreign language learning, develop their intercultural competence, and look after their general developmental needs. First, there is a description of the figure of the language assistant in order to define expectations and limitations of the role. The cooperation between a language assistant and teacher (whether generalist or foreign language specialist) is examined as a powerful partnership to encourage linguistic and intercultural mediation, and suggestions are made regarding the co-teaching roles they may fulfil. Next, there is a detailed list of activities and ways in which the language assistant may be employed in each moment of the pre-primary class: Circle time, Story time, Exploration time and Play time. Finally, there are recommendations regarding the support that ought to be offered to language assistants so as to prepare them for working with very young learners and make the most of their role in the classroom. It is hoped that this chapter will serve as a resource for teachers who work, currently in the future, with language assistants as well as programme administrators who plan for the implementation of language assistants in foreign language and CLIL pre-primary classrooms.

Who Are the Language Assistants? Language assistants are utilized in many parts of the world for support of foreign or second language learning, mainly in primary and secondary schools, though sometimes at university level or in state-run adult language schools. Some countries have developed their own programmes, such as the well-known JET programme (The Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme) through which thousands of language

26

Planning for Effective Co-teaching with a Foreign Language Assistant. . .

405

assistants from 57 countries around the world work to support the learning of Chinese, English, French, German and Korean in Japan (Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, 2019). In the European context, there are many bilateral agreements between countries which allow for the exchange of language assistants. For example, Spain exchanges language assistants with 34 countries around the world to support the learning of the Spanish language in those countries, and the learning of Chinese, English, French, German and Italian in Spain (Spain, Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional, 2021). The British Council sends about 2500 language assistants each year to 14 countries to support English language teaching (British Council, n.d.). These agreements stem from an initial proposal from the French government to the English Board of Education in 1904 to arrange for the exchange of young part-time teachers to teach reading and conversation lessons while continuing their language studies in the foreign country. Since that time, the use of language assistants has grown exponentially and has become a pillar in many CLIL and language teaching programmes around the world. The main goal of the language assistant (hereinafter, LA) is to support the teaching of a foreign language, mainly focusing on oral skills, under the supervision of a fully qualified teacher. They are also meant to share their own culture with learners in order to bring the language alive for them and add context to what otherwise might be an isolated learning experience (British Council, n.d.). At the same time, this cultural exposure, and the intercultural mediation that naturally occurs, contributes to the development of learners’ (and indeed assistants’ and teachers’) intercultural competence. In return, LAs are able to learn and perfect the language of their host country, gaining professional experience and the lifelong skills that come along with living abroad. Typically, LAs are young people who are studying at university or who have just finished their university studies, and they are necessarily proficient in the language they intend to support. They may or may not have studied education, as this depends on the requirements of each country, and generally, they are not fully qualified teachers. Therefore, they are not meant to be responsible for any group of learners or their assessment and are only allowed to support the teacher with whom they are working (British Council, n.d.). Because they tend to be young, they are closer in age to the learners with whom they work, and this can be a motivating factor as learners feel more inclined to speak with them. They are, in fact, a novelty in the classroom which intrigues children and stimulates their curiosity, encouraging intercultural communication and supporting affective and cognitive development.

An Effective Partnership There is a long tradition of debate as to whether a native speaker teacher or a non-native speaker teacher is preferable for teaching English as a foreign language, as both have many virtues as well as some drawbacks (see Medgyes, 1992; Mahboob, 2010). This debate has also been criticized for being too simplistic and out-dated (Moussu & Llurda, 2008), and there is much emphasis on avoiding

406

L. R. Buckingham

identifying the “ideal native speaker” model as the objective of foreign language learning (see Waddington, 2021). Indeed, in the pre-primary classroom, the developmental focus should not only lie on the linguistic competence but also on the cognitive, physical and affective competences (Taylor, 2005 in Waddington, 2021), and the partnership created between a language assistant and teacher can be very effective in these goals. The presence of two caring adults in the classroom will necessarily increase the quantity of individualized attention to learners. There are several studies that point to successful partnerships between teachers and teacher candidates (see, for example, Bacharach et al., 2008; Baeten et al., 2018) and between content and foreign or second language teachers (see Dove & Honigsfeld, 2010). Although the LA is not a trained teacher nor a teacher trainee, they do offer learners a real reason to speak English: to communicate with someone who does not share their mother tongue. When learning a foreign language, it is essential that very young learners enjoy the experience and therefore gain confidence in order to prepare themselves for a positive lifelong learning experience (Cortina-Pérez & Andújar Soto, 2018). To this end, the pressure may be taken off the language learning process if learners are enabled to communicate more freely through translanguaging practices in which they are allowed to make use of all the language resources they have (Kirsch & Seele, 2020). Through the presence of both the language assistant and teacher, an inclusive atmosphere can be achieved in which students are permitted to make use of their mother tongue when necessary and encouraged to make use of the foreign language whenever possible. If the teacher is a foreign language specialist, they will be using the foreign language but accepting of mother tongue use, and if the teacher is a pre-primary education generalist, they will be making use of the local language as well as the foreign language. In effect, the classroom becomes a space for intercultural and linguistic mediation in which learners “build connections between [their] existing and new language and cultural frameworks, and in doing so, develop their own capability to act as intercultural mediators” (Kohler, 2015, p. 7). With the support provided by the teacher, learners can achieve effective communication with the LA and gain the necessary confidence and motivation to continue learning the foreign language and eventually gain communicative autonomy. If the LA and teacher learn to work together and create this inclusive and motivating environment, a powerful partnership will be formed, creating an ideal learning environment for young children. There are many different ways for this to happen as it depends on personalities, teaching styles and more. However, a brief introduction to the concept of co-teaching may shed some light on functional partnership practices.

Co-teaching Models Co-teaching is a practice which is carried out in some countries between specialist teachers and generalist teachers, often to support special needs children in inclusive approaches (see Schwab et al., 2015 for an example). It is a practice in which two

26

Planning for Effective Co-teaching with a Foreign Language Assistant. . .

407

teachers enjoy close collaboration and share responsibilities for a group of children and their learning. While the LA is not a teacher and cannot be given responsibilities as such, with support, she may be able to gradually fulfil certain duties in the classroom. The idea of co-teaching is that learners benefit from two professionals with different strengths as well as the presence of multiple perspectives, encouraging critical thinking. In this context, each professional represents a particular culture (and in the case of a generalist teacher, a language), and students will benefit from witnessing, and participating in, the interaction between them. Research shows that co-taught classrooms lead to more democratic, collaborative working spaces, providing an effective model for children to imitate (Scruggs et al., 2007). Specifically in the pre-primary classroom, a recent study suggests that the close collaboration between a generalist and a specialist, along with administrative support, will result in developmentally appropriate classroom practices and will likely lead to favourable learning outcomes (Mourão, 2021). This is because the two professionals will present different teaching styles and goals, which will necessarily be negotiated in a collaborative setting, attending to all the learners’ needs. The presence of two teachers and their distinct strengths and styles will appeal to the diverse groups of learners in any classroom (Scruggs et al., 2007). Finally, due to the lower teacher-student ratio, learners will enjoy more individual attention, which is beneficial on more emotional and affective levels (especially in the youngest learners) and for more academic differentiation purposes (Friend, 2016). There are several ways to approach co-teaching in the classroom. As seen in Fig. 26.1, some models allow the second teacher to be a more supportive figure,

One teach, one drift

Alternative teaching

One teach, one observe

Station teaching

Parallel teaching

Team teaching

Fig. 26.1 Co-teaching models as described by Friend (2016). (Author’s creation)

408

L. R. Buckingham

which is most appropriate when working with a LA. In the model, One teach, one drift, the LA can walk around the classroom, supporting individual learners as necessary while the teacher leads the lesson. In that of Alternative teaching, the LA may take a small group of two to four learners to a table at the back of the classroom to support a specific skill or strategy, perhaps playing a game or reciting a poem, while the teacher leads the lesson for the rest of the group. These two models are especially effective in offering additional support to children who may need it at any given time, or for encouraging more able learners to go further. The model, One teach, one observe, will be most effective at the beginning of a LA’s placement at the school, allowing them to become acquainted with learners and the teaching style (see section “Observe, Then Act”). Station teaching, when done in one classroom, involves creating learning stations between which children can roam or change at certain intervals. The LA and teacher may each supervise one of the stations that requires some assistance, or both may rotate among the stations, supporting learners as necessary. Finally, Parallel teaching and Team teaching require a more experienced LA (perhaps in a LA’s second year) and closer collaboration between teacher and LA. Parallel teaching involves splitting the student group in two and allowing the LA to lead half the group in a supervised location (in the same classroom or an adjacent classroom visible through a window, if available). Team teaching allows both the teacher and the LA to lead the class, both intervening and contributing actively. This last model certainly requires a respectful and equal partnership between teacher and LA as well as extremely effective collaboration between them, but it may be the most powerful in terms of age-appropriate pedagogy (Mourão, 2021) and cultural and linguistic mediation.

Proposed Activities for Working with Language Assistants When considering how best to utilize the LA, there are a few aspects to consider. First, LAs are an extremely diverse group of people with varying degrees of teaching experience and diverse interests and abilities. Therefore, it is essential to get to know the LA – their strengths, interests and motivations – before deciding on the best way to make the most of this valuable human resource. Second, no matter what a teacher asks of the LA, it will be important to create an active role for the LA and to make them feel they are an essential part of the classroom. If the LA has ownership of a certain routine or type of activity, they can learn it well, plan for it and perform it well. This can be more efficient than asking the LA to take part in many different activities which will require daily explanations and planning time for both the teacher and LA. Since pre-primary education tends to be based on many routines, it is advisable to assign a daily or weekly routine to the LA and allow them to personalize it to some extent, as seen below in Circle time. Lastly, teachers should remember that they will need to actively support the LA so that they may do their best work. This may include, but is not limited to, first modelling the activities that the LA is to later lead, helping manage the group of learners while the

26

Planning for Effective Co-teaching with a Foreign Language Assistant. . .

409

LA is leading an activity, giving very clear and specific instructions regarding what is expected of the LA, and guiding the LA toward using age-appropriate topics, resources and language. This is more thoroughly discussed in section “Observe, Then Act”. What follows is a series of possible activities and approaches that teachers may take with their LAs. Many of the listed activities are useful for gradually developing learners’ intercultural competence. As seen in ▶ Chap. 28, intercultural competence is made up of several different aspects which can be categorized into knowledge (of other cultures and one’s own), skills and behaviour (related to interpreting experiences and acquiring new knowledge), and attitudes and traits (relative to positive disposition toward self, others and learning) (Secru et al., 2005). At the pre-primary stage, this means developing curiosity, noticing, empathy, open-minded attitudes and interest (Read, n.d.). While most teachers are willing to work toward developing intercultural competence in learners, many do not actively plan for activities that do so, or they focus mainly on acquiring knowledge of foreign cultures (Secru et al., 2005). The LA can be a valuable resource when working toward these other aspects (Buckingham, 2019). The activities are presented in four classroom moments: Circle time, Story time, Exploration time, and Play time. Some of the proposals can be made into a routine, as suggested above, and the reader is encouraged to take them as a starting point which can be modified to fit the immediate needs of the learners, LA and teacher.

Circle Time Circle time is an essential moment in the pre-primary classroom in which learners are made to feel comfortable, usually by sitting in a circle on the floor and sharing their feelings and experiences with their classmates. It is a great time to incorporate routines in the foreign language, such as saying hello, talking about the weather, naming the day of the week and the season of the year, describing their feelings, counting aloud, etc. The teacher may choose to alternate between conducting Circle time routines in the mother tongue and the target language but maintain the basic structure in order to encourage comparison between the languages. When done in the target language, there are many ways in which the LA can support the teacher by participating in these routines and eventually leading some part of the circle time, several of which are listed here. • Show and tell. For learners to gradually gain awareness and knowledge of foreign cultures, the LA may expose them to their home culture by bringing photos of their family, home, hometown, local sports teams, local monuments, etc., or simple artefacts such as currency or a national flag. The LA can name the items and describe them in very simple terms, allowing children to ask questions. The teacher should support explanations in learners’ mother tongue when necessary and guide the LA toward the topics that learners will understand, considering their limited awareness of the world.

410

L. R. Buckingham

Learners can also bring items from home, including their favourite toys or stuffed animals, photos or mementos from weekend trips or activities, and tell the class about them. They can be encouraged to further explain their own festivities, customs and daily life to LAs, even if this involves some use of their mother tongue and interpretation from the teacher. Children will gradually become aware that their customs are different from those of others, and that it is useful to be able to describe them. • Hands or hugs? LAs can show learners how people in their country greet each other, both verbally and non-verbally (especially if it is different than in the host country) and encourage them to try it. This exploration will gradually develop children’s awareness that culture affects language and communication, and the willingness to try new forms of communication will promote positive attitudes toward foreign customs and develop their intercultural competence. • A is for apple. If a teacher works with a phonics approach, the LA can be invited to take part in the routine. The LA may be able to model the sounds, read the corresponding story, help learners match phonemes with graphemes, or play phonics-based games.

Story Time One of the main goals for foreign language teachers in pre-primary education is to strengthen learners’ oral skills to pave the way for developing literacy in their primary years (Fleta Guillén, 2019, p. 84). Telling stories is an excellent way to expose learners to texts before they can read them for themselves and strengthen language in a meaningful context. The LA can help in a number of ways, some of which are listed below. • Once upon a time. . . Stories are ideal for presenting language in a contextualized and natural way, and LAs can help the teacher by reading and telling stories to the class. Some may need guidance in storytelling techniques, such as ways to engage learners in the process, but their enthusiasm will bring stories alive for children. Stories can be presented to the whole group by both adults or through a Parallel teaching model while the teacher works with lexis in a different way with half the students. • Roses are red. . . The LA can also teach and practice short poems with learners to stimulate their memory. As learners recite the poem, the LA can support the teacher by helping individual children with pronunciation in an Alternative teaching model. These poems can also be practiced along with hand-clap games with a partner (see Play time below). • Doe, a deer. . . LAs are a wonderful source for songs and rhymes that can fit the teacher’s needs. When asked they will be able to recommend or search for songs and rhymes that use the target vocabulary and/or structures. And more creative

26

Planning for Effective Co-teaching with a Foreign Language Assistant. . .

411

LAs can even be encouraged to make up their own simple song or rhyme by setting any target language to a well-known melody or rhythm. • Famous people. The LA can be asked to tell a story, or prepare a short and simple presentation, about an accomplished person from their home country (i.e., scientists, artists, musicians and sports figures). Learners can then recreate an artistic technique, play a song or musical instrument, recreate a simple experiment or play the sport of that person. In this way, the story or presentation will become more meaningful to learners.

Exploration Time As pre-primary education is often done in a globalized way, language learning can and should occur through experiential learning. See ▶ Chap. 24 for further explanation on the inclusion of CLIL and STEAM in pre-primary education and reflect on where LAs could contribute. Given the complexity and material-rich nature of these activities, they lend themselves to the Team teaching model. • I wonder. . . LAs are likely to enjoy doing demonstrations and experiments with learners to show them the wonders of nature and science. With careful planning to support the necessary language, the classroom can become a laboratory in which children explore the world around them. What happens when light shines through different objects? Which objects will float, and which will sink? How long is a blue whale, and would it fit in our hallway? Teachers can allow the LA to ask a question each day, and the whole class can work together to discover the answer. (See Smuin, 2016 for more Science-related activities.) • Little artists. Art is another wonderful way to involve the LA in a practical way. The LA will be able to help the teacher by distributing materials and supporting groups of children as they work. Teachers can encourage the LA to ask learners about their work as they are developing it to encourage language use. They can ask about colours, size, textures and the name of what is being drawn, painted, sculpted, etc. • Do, re, mi. . . Musically-inclined LAs will be able to contribute to the classroom with musical or rhythm instruments to motivate children. They can encourage learners to experiment and react to different types of music or sounds. Some ICT tools help learners visualize pitch and sound quality (see Chrome music lab as an example), and LAs can engage children as they experiment with sound. • Extra support. As children learn new vocabulary or simple structures, the LA could be asked to create short videos or audio recordings to support learning. The LA can narrate a simple visual presentation, tell a short story with pictures, or model a simple interview with questions and answers. These digital resources can be shared with parents for reviewing language at home or even in the summer.

412

L. R. Buckingham

Play Time Much of what occurs in the pre-primary classroom is based on play in order to motivate learners and make learning meaningful, and if there are opportunities for learner-initiated play, language learning can happen naturally and spontaneously (Mourão, 2015). Play-based activities are a wonderful time to actively involve the LA and expose learners to language and culture. The LA should be encouraged to approach learners in a playful way and guided toward providing them with rich linguistic input. • Let’s play! LAs and teachers can teach students to play simple games or sports from the LA’s home country, which will combine language with movement and/or numeracy objectives. Often there are similar games and songs in the learners’ country and fun comparisons can be made. For example, the game, “Ring around the Rosie,” often has equivalents in other languages. LAs could even teach a simplified version of a sport like baseball or rounders, which may be less common in the host country. Learners will be delighted to see that children around the world play similar games, though in a different language, and may develop a positive attitude toward other cultures. Some games naturally employ simple language and can be played to also support basic structures or lexical families that have been seen in class. TPR games, such as Simon Says or Mother, may I?, can be used to revise target lexis. A ball game like Spud can be used to spell simple words. The game, Chinese Whispers, is great for practicing any grammatical structure. Questions can be practiced by playing “Who’s got the button?”. Many games can be adapted with additional rules (as in Four Square) or by changing the setting (i.e., Freeze tag and its many versions). LAs may need some guidance to keep the explanation simple, and these games may be played as a class group or through station teaching. • Your turn! Board games are an excellent resource that provides a context for language learning in the classroom. LAs will be able to recommend games from their childhood and can be encouraged to create or adapt a simple board game to the target language. All the natural language and engagement that comes with taking turns, rolling the dice or spinning a spinner can be modelled and supported by the LA. Using games such as Chutes and ladders or Candy Land add a cultural element, exposing learners to typical children’s games from other countries. • Rhymes and songs. The LA can teach learners simple rhymes and songs that are well-known to children in their country and encourage them to join in. For example, the LA and learners can teach each other rhymes for jumping rope or hand clapping games, which are also great ways to develop motor skills. The LA may be able to suggest songs and rhymes from their childhood for whatever topic teachers are planning to cover in the classroom, adding a cultural layer to the lesson. The teacher and LA may choose to present this together through Team teaching. • Tell me more! Teachers should encourage LAs to engage learners in informal conversation (in the target language, or in combination with their mother tongue

26

Planning for Effective Co-teaching with a Foreign Language Assistant. . .

413

as necessary) as much as possible, perhaps in the hallways or in the playground, in transitional times between activities, or while children are drawing or taking part in independent activities. If teachers see that the LA is hesitant, they might suggest simple questions (i.e., Do you have any brothers or sisters?; What do you like to play?).

Supporting Language Assistants Considering the personal profile of most LAs, it is essential to provide them with a supportive environment so that they can most effectively carry out their duties. As mentioned above, LAs are generally young, and many travel far from their homes to their host country, this possibly being the first time they are so far away for a long period of time. There are often considerable cultural differences between their home and host countries, many of which they will not be aware of or expecting. Many have not studied education, and in some cases they do not receive substantial training in order to carry out their duties. In fact, many LAs may not have much experience dealing with very young children. Therefore, they will likely feel nervous and unsure, at least at the beginning of their post. Whatever programme leaders, school administrators and teachers can do to make the transition smooth will be in benefit of a good professional relationship between the LA and those at the school.

Mentoring Some programmes have adopted the practice of providing LAs with a mentor, whether a teacher in their school or a more experienced LA (see, for example, British Council, 2019). This practice can be very effective, and it offers the inexperienced LA significant support. The mentor can help the LA with everything, from practical advice regarding finding a place to live or a nearby supermarket, to offering advice about how to relate to learners in school, to finding a solution to any difficulties they may face at school or in the community. The mentor can often help ease the LA’s transition to living and working in a foreign country.

Awareness of Cultural Differences It would be impossible to list all the cultural differences that may exist between teachers and the LAs they work with, but upon reflection, we can all think of a few. It is quite easy to identify more superficial differences, such as the time at which we eat meals, what we eat, how we dress and how we celebrate festivities. However, we must be aware that these customs that lie on the surface in fact stem from more deeply seated points of view, beliefs and values. Edward T. Hall (1976) famously depicted culture as an iceberg, with the visible aspects above the surface (food, dress, festivities, behaviour) and the underlying aspects below the surface (core values,

414

L. R. Buckingham

attitudes, beliefs about child rearing, importance of space and time, concepts of fairness, etc.). The visible part of an iceberg is only about 10% of its entire mass, and the same is true for culture. As we spend more time immersed in and interacting with a culture, we are able to discover more complex attitudes and beliefs, but this takes a considerable amount of time and effort. As the LA spends time in the host country, they will discover its culture and slowly come to understand the values and beliefs behind the more visible differences. However, it is essential that, from the start, both teachers and LAs demonstrate a positive attitude toward differences, recognizing that they do exist, and respecting each other’s point of view. This mutual respect will serve as a valuable model for learners because it will be transparent to them. Moreover, it is precisely the different perspective that LAs bring that makes them such a valuable human resource in the classroom. The process of recognizing, exploring, comparing cultural aspects develops our intercultural competence, as we have seen in section “Proposed Activities for Working with Language Assistants.” LAs will likely have varying degrees of experience with young children and the teaching and learning process, beliefs about discipline, tolerance for ambiguity, ideas about what is acceptable in the classroom, etc. Some will find it easier to live immersed in a different culture than others, who may experience frustration and misunderstandings. Teachers and LA mentors can do a lot to help them negotiate those feelings by naming those differences as they surface and pointing out the reasons behind them. Generally, LAs will appreciate clearly set expectations and detailed explanations regarding their role and what they are meant to do in the school and classroom. Assumptions should be avoided because what is obvious to one party may not be to the other and will likely lead to miscommunication.

Clarifying the Role As mentioned above, setting clear expectations will allow us to avoid misunderstandings relating to prior assumptions. This should be done at three different levels. First, LA programme administrators should define the role and limitations of the LA, as they generally do through a handbook and an orientation session. This will serve the purpose of ensuring that LAs have a clear idea of their general role as cultural ambassadors and linguistic models in the classroom and the limits to their role. Second, each school can more specifically define what is expected of the LA given its own educational programme (methodologies and approaches, specific reading or cultural programmes, any school-wide festivals that are carried out, etc.). This will introduce the LA to the particularities of the school and further define expectations regarding their participation at the school level. Finally, each teacher with whom the LA will work should discuss the LA’s participation in their classes and agree upon specific activities, routines and rules for the LA’s interventions. Whenever possible, teachers should agree among themselves about the types of duties that the LA will be asked to perform so as to concentrate their efforts on preparing them for that role. At the programme level, administrators should define the goals of the LA programme as well as the general role that LAs should carry out. This is often

26

Planning for Effective Co-teaching with a Foreign Language Assistant. . .

415

done briefly in the description of the programme to which LAs apply, and more specifically in the form of a handbook upon arrival to the host country. The same documents should also define the limitations of the role, including what LAs are not permitted to do, such as having sole responsibility for a group of children or assessing learners. These descriptions should be available both in the language of the host country and in the LAs’ native language, given that many LAs are not completely proficient in the host country’s language. It is advisable that schools also provide more specific documentation regarding the role of the LAs in their institution. Each school tends to have its own preferred methodologies and programmes with specific focuses that make it unique. This is valuable information for the LA, and it may give them insight into the individual culture of the school and how they might fit into it. It also gives them something to ask about when meeting teachers at the school and a way to learn more about educational practices. It is recommended that LAs are given a practical information packet with a description of the developmental characteristics of very young learners, a map of the school, a list of teachers with whom they will be working, contact information for emergencies, a procedure for communicating illness, a school calendar, etc., as well as more detailed information about any festivals and programmes in which the LA may take part. If it is possible to send the packet before the LA leaves their home country, it might also contain a list of suggested materials to bring (authentic materials such as tourist brochures from their hometown, publicity fliers from local stores, cinema or theatre ticket stubs, etc.). Lastly, the school should provide the LA with a written list of rules that they are expected to comply with as well as the consequences they will face if they do not. Though this may appear harsh or too direct in some cultures, clear communication is always preferable to mismatched assumptions. Finally, teachers who will work with the LA are encouraged to meet frequently to agree upon the types of activities in which the LA will be asked to participate. If LAs are asked to perform similar duties in each classroom, they will be able to better prepare themselves and do it more effectively. At the same time, each teacher should have an initial meeting with the LA in order to discuss the LA’s role in the classroom. This meeting should have the goal of identifying the strengths, interests and motivations of the LA in order to match them with the needs of the teacher and learners. From this conversation, a working document can be started that includes a provisional list of responsibilities and duties for the LA in the classroom, which may be modified in future meetings. In this initial meeting, the teacher may also present the feedback form that will be used to guide the LA’s work (see section “Planning and Feedback”), as a way of clarifying expectations. This initial meeting can set the tone for a year-long working relationship, so it is essential to plan it well and be completely honest and forthright.

Observe, Then Act Observation is a powerful tool, and when done properly, it can provide a wealth of information to the observer. It is highly recommendable that LAs be encouraged to

416

L. R. Buckingham

What [target language] can learners spontaneously use? Are learners allowed to use their mother tongue in the foreign language class? In what way(s)? How does the teacher make use of students’ mother tongue as well as [the target language] when speaking to learners? What sort of feedback does the teacher usually offer to learners? How does the foreign language class usually begin? end? Are there any learners who need special attention? Who and what sort? What kind of teaching materials are used in the classroom? How do learners address the teacher? What rules are learners expected to follow? What does the teacher do while learners are working independently or in small groups?

Fig. 26.2 Observation form questions

observe the classes they are going to work with for a week or two before participating actively. Schools might even provide the LAs with an observation form that will guide their observations toward educational practices and student characteristics. Figure 26.2 presents a list of questions that can serve as inspiration in creating such a form. LAs will likely be able to somewhat modify their behaviour, speech and participation according to what they have witnessed, especially after joint reflection on the completed form with their mentor or lead teacher. In the same vein, teachers are encouraged to first model any activity that a LA will be expected to lead before asking the LA to lead it. If time permits, there can be a short conversation about how the activity works, the instructions that are given, what is expected of learners, and what feedback might be useful. After this brief reflection, the LA may be ready to try to lead the activity with the teacher close by to assist. Once the LA has led the activity a few times successfully, the teacher will be free to provide individual attention to learners or prepare the next activity while the LA takes the lead.

Planning and Feedback Time is always short, and it is difficult to find enough hours in the day for everything. However, priority should be given to regular planning meetings between LAs and the teachers with whom they work, as in any co-teaching scenario. Specifically in CLIL programmes, coordination between all teachers involved is essential to the success of the program (Pavón Vázquez, 2014), and LAs should not be left out of these meetings. Of course, individual teacher-LA meetings will also be very productive and efficient. These should be more frequent at the beginning of the year when everything is new to the LA but may taper off in frequency once routines become set and mutual understanding is established. Online planning documents may also help to reduce the need for frequent meetings, as well as to coordinate the LA’s efforts between several classes. For example, a simple timetable on a shared online document will be extremely effective in helping LAs organize themselves and plan ahead. Details about the lesson content and tasks can be shared, and the LA can be asked to prepare materials and resources for lessons. Teachers can peruse the plans set by other teachers to be aware of how the LA is being utilized in other classes, enhancing coordination. The LA will also have time to prepare anything asked of her, including a pre-visualization of the

26

Planning for Effective Co-teaching with a Foreign Language Assistant. . . Yes/No/ Sometimes

417

Comments

Arrives on time. Behaves appropriately at school. Engages learners in conversation. Treats learners appropriately according to their age and stage of development. Is able to recast learners’ speech in order to support target language use. Participates actively in class. Gives clear instructions to learners. Offers effective individual support to learners. Maintains learners’ attention. Prepares what is asked of him/her. Is proactive in suggesting materials or activities. Is creative and resourceful when planning or carrying out activities/lessons.

Fig. 26.3 Sample feedback checklist

teaching materials to be used. School programme coordinators can thus be kept informed of how the LAs are being utilized, in order to make any necessary suggestions or adjustments. While planning for future lessons is essential, so is reflecting on past lessons so as to identify areas of improvement or best practices. Each LA and teacher pair should make time to regularly reflect on the lessons they have shared and offer mutual feedback. In order to guide this reflection, they might use a checklist like the one in Fig. 26.3, though the conversation should be open-ended so that each party may comment on anything that they found positive or negative. The teacher will be able to guide the LA with valuable advice about the support she offers in the classroom and the activities she has led, as well as the LA’s interactions with learners. The teacher, if a foreign language specialist, may also benefit from constructive linguistic corrections regarding pronunciation or usage. In fact, the teacher may like to ask the LA to note down any mispronunciation or language misuse (such as uncommon collocations) during classes so that they can later review them, to aid the teacher in continuous language development. Occasionally, it may be beneficial to hold a more formal meeting with the school programme coordinator to check on the LA’s progress. If any difficulties arise, the programme coordinator or the LA’s mentor will be a helpful mediator to resolve differences before they become important or disrupt the working relationship between teacher and LA.

Resources As seen in section “Proposed Activities for Working with Language Assistants,” the LA is a wonderful source of authentic materials and other resources that may be useful. Teachers may find that LAs bring songs, games, stories and other resources to the classroom, and may even work with teachers to adapt them or create activities to accompany those resources. Therefore, there should be an effort to preserve

418

L. R. Buckingham

whatever resources and lesson plans that are created so that they may be shared among teachers and used in the future. They may be saved on the school’s server, or in the case of physical materials, in a central place to which teachers have access. If these items are properly catalogued and tagged in some way, even in a simple spreadsheet, they will be more accessible in the future.

Conclusion Language assistants are an invaluable resource in the CLIL and foreign language classrooms, as they provide rich linguistic input, motivation to communicate in the foreign language and an opportunity to develop learners’ intercultural competence through linguistic and intercultural mediation. They are a widely diverse group, and it takes patience and creativity to discover the best way to employ each of them in the classroom, as well as time and effort to support them in their roles. However, with careful planning and some flexibility, all parties will benefit from their presence and the culture-rich environment that is created.

References Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2008). Co-teaching in higher education. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 5(3), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v5i3.1298 Baeten, M., Simons, M., Schelfhout, W., & Pinxten, R. (2018). Team teaching during field experiences in teacher education: Exploring the assistant teaching model. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2018.1448780 British Council. (2019). Modern language assistants 2019–20: Information booklet for language assistants and host institutions. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/modernlanguage-assistants-booklet-2019-20.pdf British Council. (n.d.). Teach abroad as an English Language Assistant. https://www. britishcouncil.org/study-work-abroad/outside-uk/english-language-assistants Buckingham, L. R. (2019). Foreign language assistants: An opportunity to develop our students’ intercultural competence. Padres y Maestros, 378, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.14422/pym.i378. y2019.003 Cortina-Pérez, B., & Andúgar Soto, A. (2018). Didáctica de la lengua extranjera en educación infantil: Inglés. Pirámide. https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.v0i31.13835 Council of Local Authorities for International Relations. (2019, 2 August). Participating countries. The Japan Exchange and Teaching Programmeme. http://jetprogrammeme.org/en/countries/ Dove, M., & Honigsfeld, A. (2010). ESL coteaching and collaboration: Opportunities to develop teacher leadership and enhance student learning. TESOL Journal, 1, 3–22. https://doi.org/10. 5054/tj.2010.214879 Fleta Guillén, M. T. (2019). Practices to scaffold CLIL at transition to primary. In K. Tsuchiya & M. D. P. Murillo (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning in Spanish and Japanese contexts (pp. 59–90). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27443-6_4 Friend, M. (2016). Welcome to co-teaching 2.0. Educational Leadership, 73(4), 16–22. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor. Kirsch, C., & Seele, C. (2020). Translanguaging in early childhood education in Luxembourg: From practice to pedagogy. In J. Panagiotopoulou, L. Rosen, & J. Strzykala (Eds.), Inclusion,

26

Planning for Effective Co-teaching with a Foreign Language Assistant. . .

419

education and translanguaging. Inklusion und Bildung in Migrationsgesellschaften. Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28128-1_5 Kohler, M. (2015). Teachers as mediators in the foreign language classroom. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783093076 Mahboob, A. (2010). The NNEST lens. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNEST lens: Non native English speakers in TESOL (pp. 1–17). https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311200023X Medgyes, P. (1992). Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? English Language Teaching Journal, 46(4), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/46.4.340 Mourão, S. (2015). The challenges of getting it right. In J. Bland (Ed.), Teaching English to young learners: Critical issues in language teaching with 3–12 year olds (pp. 51–69). Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3159.1044 Mourão, S. (2021). English as a foreign language in ECE: Itinerant teachers of English and collaborative practices for an integrated approach. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 29(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2021.1928726 Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41(3), 315–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444808005028 Pavón Vázquez, V. (2014). Enhancing the quality of CLIL: Making the best of the collaboration between language teachers and content teachers. Encuentro: revista de investigación e innovación en la clase de idiomas, 23, 115–127. http://hdl.handle.net/10017/21615 Read, C. (n.d.) Developing intercultural competence with children. https://www.carolread.com/ developing-intercultural-competence-with-children/ Schwab, S., Holzinger, A., Krammer, M., Gebhardt, M., & Hessels, M. G. P. (2015). Teaching practices and beliefs about inclusion of general and special needs teachers in Austria. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 13(2), 237–254. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392–416. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/001440290707300401 Sercu, L., Bandura, E., Castro, P., Davcheva, L., Laskaridou, C., Lundgren, U., . . ., & Ryan P. (2005). Foreign language teachers and intercultural competence. An international investigation. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.151.0.2015220. Smuin, B. (2016). Actividades para la clase de ciencias (en inglés): Programmea de Auxiliares de Conversación en España. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. https://www. educacionyfp.gob.es/dam/jcr:4da1801b-8610-43f7-94cb-3a05c08ab71c/actividadesciencias.pdf Spain, Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. (2021). Extract of the Resolution of 18 December 2020, from the Secretary of State of Education, by which open positions are listed for foreign language assistants for the school year 2021–2022. | Extracto de la Resolución de 18 de diciembre de 2020, de la Secretaría de Estado de Educación, por la que se convocan plazas para auxiliares de conversación extranjeros para el curso académico 2021–2022. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 5 January 2021, 4, 666. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2021/01/05/pdfs/BOE-B-2021503.pdf Waddington, J. (2021). Rethinking the ‘ideal native speaker’ teacher in early childhood education. Language, Culture and Curriculum. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2021.1898630

Criteria for Selecting Materials and Resources for the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

27

Michele C. Guerrini

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L1 Learning Centres as References for CLIL Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection Criteria Drawn from CLIL Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criteria Based on the 4 Cs: Looking Deeper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selecting Multi-Modal Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selecting Resources and Materials from a Language Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selecting Resources and Materials to Develop Thinking Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing Cultural Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selecting Materials and Resources to Develop Cultural Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Focus on Digital Resources, Non-fiction Texts and Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selecting Digital Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exploring Non-fiction Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Criteria for Selecting Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

422 423 425 426 426 426 427 429 430 432 432 433 433 434 434

Abstract

Selecting materials and resources for pre-primary CLIL environments can be challenging. Research on learning material (Mehisto 2012; Maley 2013; IoannouGeorgiou S & Pavlou 2011) offers helpful insights, but the focus is often more on print materials and digital resources whereas pre-primary materials encompass elements such as sand, water, musical instruments and plants. The four Cs of CLIL – content, communication, cognition and culture (Coyle D et al. 2010) – need re-interpreting for learners who are usually pre-literate. The content and communication objectives specified in educational laws often include explicit references to materials or resources, however, pre-primary CLIL curricula may not exist. Fortunately, native language (L1) curricula provide alternative avenues of M. C. Guerrini (*) Universidad de Alcalá, Alcala de Henares, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_27

421

422

M. C. Guerrini

exploration. Similarly, L1 guidelines for setting up pre-primary environments, the use of multi-modal materials, fiction and non-fiction texts and digital resources all provide insights for CLIL contexts which can be further clarified by research on foreign language learning in pre-primary contexts. Research into interculturality for pre-primary learners in their L1 also offers insights. The selection of cultural materials can be further supported by reference to the three Ps – Product, Practice and Perspective (Dema A, Moeller AJ, Touch the world: selected papers from the 2012 central states conference on the teaching of foreign languages. Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education, 2012). Finally, the holistic approach often adopted for pre-primary learners integrates academic, emotional, social and ethical needs, so versatile materials and resources are desirable. Appropriate pre-primary resources and materials must take into account many factors. The diverse perspectives adopted in this chapter aim to identify these factors, supporting teachers as they define their own criteria. Keywords

CLIL · Pre-primary · Resources · Materials · Criteria

Introduction As pre-school education becomes more widely available, interest in the range of resources and materials used in these contexts has grown. Researchers have observed links between a CLIL approach and pre-primary learning in the native language (L1), and that they share many forms of good practice (Anderson et al., (2015) citing Coyle et al. (2010) and Edelenbos et al., 2006). Regarding curriculum, Beacco et al. (2015) observe that the L1 curriculum may include topics relevant for CLIL. For example, Coyle et al. (2009, p. 14) and Steiert & Massler (2011) point out that an official curriculum reflects content and language, both of which facilitate the dual CLIL focus. In some countries, especially those with a pre-primary curriculum, governmentproduced guides for L1 pre-primary learning centres are developed and field-tested to support educational quality (Knopf & Welsh, 2010; Early childhood Ireland, n.d.; Early Learning and Child Care Program, n.d.; The State of South Australia, Department of Education and Children’s Services, 2004). These guides reflect the belief that selecting resources and materials forms part of curriculum planning and delivery (The State of South Australia, Department of Education and Children’s Services, 2004; Knopf & Welsh, 2010). For these reasons, L1 guides may provide insights into content areas, materials and resources for pre-primary CLIL. Selecting materials can be based on a variety of criteria. For Tomlinson (2013), the purpose of selection criteria or evaluation is to measure and evaluate the real or potential value of the materials for the user. To carry out this process, he observes that evaluators take into account theories of learning and teaching, second language acquisition research and their beliefs about these theories.

27

Criteria for Selecting Materials and Resources for the Pre-primary. . .

423

Materials are evaluated at three different moments (Tomlinson, 2013): before use when the evaluator estimates the potential value of the material; during use when the evaluator observes and measures its value; and after use when impact on learning is evaluated. Pre-primary learners also impact on materials. For this reason, Knopf & Welsh (2010) recommend periodic after use evaluations to determine the condition of the materials: like new, good or needs repair. This chapter explores criteria for selecting resources and materials for pre-primary learning areas from three perspectives: (1) L1 guidelines for pre-primary learning centres; (2) the pillars of the CLIL approach
content, communication, cognition and culture adapted to the characteristics of very young learners; (3) the features of digital resources, information texts and textbooks. Each perspective is analysed separately, but the holistic approach typical of pre-primary education and the integration characteristic of CLIL make it advisable for practitioners to consider several perspectives simultaneously. This multi-perspective exploration is intended as a reference for pre-primary CLIL teachers as they develop criteria consistent with their beliefs, experience and contexts.

L1 Learning Centres as References for CLIL Environments Factors that impact on L1 environments, such as classroom size, number of children, learner interests, special needs (Knopf & Welsh, 2010) and children’s developmental level, impact on the selection of materials for learning centres. As a result, learning centre configurations vary. Some are relatively limited, others are broader. Zeller & McFarland (1981) propose materials for children aged 0–3 based on developmental areas, learner age and the following five areas: physical, intellectual/mental, language, social/emotional, play behaviour. Sub-groups in each area represent 5–7month intervals which facilitates selection of age-appropriate materials. Chukwbikem (2013) proposes materials for several types of play, whereas Sandseter et al. (2021) focus on one: outdoor ‘risky play’. The North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) (2016) have guidelines for one topic: environmental education. The Aistear Síolta Practice Guide: Using open-ended materials (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2020) encourages creativity and problem-solving supported by a collection of more than 50 items (balls, bamboo, bark. . .) and teacher’s questions: What could we use for a birthday party? Learning centres with a broad focus usually include content areas such as literacy, art, maths and science typically associated with CLIL approaches. Table 27.1 summarises ten learning centre topics and materials drawing on guides produced by Knopf & Welsh (2010), Early Childhood Ireland (n.d.) and Early Learning and Child Care Program (n.d.). These agencies operate at a national or regional level in the United States, Ireland and Canada respectively. Rating scales for L1 pre-primary environments such as the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R) (Clifford & Reszka, 2010) and ECERS
3 (Harms et al., 2015) are used by schools and government agencies to evaluate programs. Environments are rated on a scale of 1 to 7: 1 ¼ inadequate, 3 ¼ minimal,

424

M. C. Guerrini

Table 27.1 L1 Learning centres with examples of sub-categories and materials Learning centre Arts and crafts Block/Construction Dramatic play/ Prop boxes Fine motor/ Manipulatives Gross motor/ Outdoor play Language and literacy Discover/Science

Maths/Number

Music and movement Technology

Examples of materials Easels, tempera paints, brushes, clay, crayons. Collage materials: glue, paper scraps. Wood-working: safety goggles, rags, bottle caps Unit blocks, large hollow blocks, ramps, boards, homemade blocks. Accessories: cars, trucks, toy people, animals, traffic signs Home: child-sized appliances, utensils. Clothes that reflect seasonal, gender and cultural diversity. Props for scenarios such as local shops (cash register, money) Interlocking blocks, puzzles with and without knobs, jigsaw puzzles, beads, string, pegs and pegboards, ring construction set, lacing shapes, locks and latches Wagon, balls, slides. Sports equipment: basketball hoop. Sand: buckets, shovels. Accessories: toy professionals, families and vehicles; things that sink or float. Natural items: shells, rocks Letter-shaped pegboards. Fiction: picture books, story books (print and CDs). Non-fiction: diverse abilities, races, cultures; animals, plants, professions. Puppets Objects: feathers, leaves, shells. Living things: fish bowls, bird houses. Puzzles: human body, life cycles. Nature-themed games, natural sequences cards Measuring: cups, spoons, tape measures, thermometers. Shapes: magnetic shapes, puzzles with geometric shapes. Counting: beads, animals, play money Instruments (home-made or purchased): xylophone, drums, tone blocks from several cultures, bells. CDs of many styles of music. Dance props Computer, software to introduce concepts such as matching, numbers, colours. Printer, headphones. Videos: familiar activities such as baking

(Adapted from Knopf & Welsh (2010), Early Childhood Ireland (n.d.) and Early Learning and Child Care Program (n.d.))

Table 27.2 Synthesis of ECERS
3 Environment Rating Scale for four learning centres Learning goal Dramatic play

Encouraging children’s use of books Nature/Science

Promoting acceptance of diversity

Categories/topics/themes Themes: housekeeping, jobs and professions, fantasy, free time activities, materials that reflect diversity Topics: eight, among which are differing abilities, cultures and races, jobs and professions, maths, nature and sports Categories: living things for close observation or taking care of; natural objects; non-fiction books, picture games; tools for nature or science; sand or water plus toys for use inside or outside Types of diversity: age, culture, different abilities, non-traditional gender roles, race. Types of props: books, pictures on display, play materials

Criteria for Good rating Many varied materials and props Minimum of 35 books for 20 children Minimum: 15 materials; each category should be represented. Books should represent 5 materials. Sand/water can count as 1 material. Minimum of 2 different types of props. Minimum of 10 positive examples of diversity: one of each type.

27

Criteria for Selecting Materials and Resources for the Pre-primary. . .

425

5 ¼ good and 7 ¼ excellent. In general, several materials from each category are required for a ‘good’ rating. Table 27.2 offers several examples. It is important to bear in mind that rating scales do not predict learning outcomes (Clifford & Reszka, 2010 and Setodji et al., 2018). Significant correlations between a wide variety of materials and children’s learning have not yet been established (Melhuish et al., 2015, p. 59). Furthermore, the scale may or may not reflect a teacher’s educational beliefs. For example, comparing R and ECERS
3, Neitzel et al. (2019) observe that ECERS–3 reflects a shift in emphasis from materials to the teacher’s role as a facilitator of learning. In short, L1 scales are references for CLIL practitioners, not prescriptions.

Selection Criteria Drawn from CLIL Research CLIL research on materials does not often focus on pre-primary contexts. However, eight features are selected for consideration, see bold text in Table 27.3, from the work of four researchers (see key in Table 27.3).

Table 27.3 Characteristics of quality CLIL materials with examples of their relevance for pre-primary contexts. Key: 1 – Coyle et al., (2009 and 2010), 2 – Steiert and Massler (2011), 3 – Mehisto (2012), 4 – Meyer (2013) A. Rich, meaningful input and motivating contexts (All) are offered by learning centres stocked with appropriate materials and organised in a clear, attractive way. Dramatic play materials enable role-playing of life at home and across cultures. Books reflecting topics such as cultural and racial diversity, health, science, etc. make learning relevant. B. Authentic language and language use (1, 3, 4) occurs as teachers share books, songs, rhymes and experiences when they interact with learners, introducing or explaining words (Harms et al., 2015, p. 37 and Early Childhood Ireland, n.d.). (1, 3, 4) C. Curricular content integrated with language (1, 3, 4). Content is offered in learning centres such as Music (names of instruments), Maths (numbers) and Science (names of tools for measuring and observing). It is integrated with language as teachers talk with the children about the materials they are using (Harms et al., 2015). D. Critical thinking (All) is stimulated as children sort and compare materials by size and shape. They use planning and problem-solving skills in art and construction (Knopf & Welsh, 2010). Teachers encourage higher order thinking skills and creativity with open-ended questions: What could we use to build a tent? (Early Childhood Ireland, n.d., p. 3). E. Intercultural understanding (All) and tolerance for diversity are supported by reading aloud books from learning centre collections (Table 27.2) and by dramatic play activities carried out with culturally authentic props (Harms et al., 2015). F. Independent and autonomous learning (2, 3, 4) are stimulated when learners are encouraged to choose materials and decide the nature and duration of activities (Knopf & Welsh, 2010, p. 4). Materials organised on low shelves, in labelled boxes and in clearly delineated spaces facilitate learner autonomy. G. Cooperative learning (All) opportunities arise when children negotiate roles in dramatic play, take turns in games, care for class pets and play musical games (Knopf & Welsh, 2010). H. Scaffolding (All) is provided by teachers who gradually introduce more challenging materials and activities as learners become more proficient.

426

M. C. Guerrini

Criteria Based on the 4 Cs: Looking Deeper Selecting Multi-Modal Materials Content input is available in many modes. Beacco et al., (2015, p. 62) refer to “nonverbal semiotic systems (symbols, formulae, maps, plans, etc.)”. Meyer (2013) argues in favour of multi-modal materials because they offer diverse approaches to a topic, stimulate visual literacy and clarify content. The six modes examined by Kalantzis & Cope (n.d., website https://newlearningonline.com/learning-by-design/ multimodality) are summarised below: • • • • • •

Oral: live speech or a recording Written: reading and writing, printed pages, screens Audio: music, noises, sounds Gestural: movements of hands, facial expressions or body movements, dance Tactile: touch, smell and taste, kinaesthesia, physical contact, manipulatives Spatial: layout, spacing, land and streetscapes, interpersonal distance

Pre-primary environments that reflect the ECERS–3 Environment Rating Scale (Harms et al., 2015) would reflect all these modes. The oral and audio modes are represented when the teacher reads texts aloud or learners listen to songs. The written mode is present via books, labels and classroom signs. Dramatic play, performances on a screen or interpreting meaning in picture books represent content in the gestural mode. The spatial mode may be reflected in the pre-primary environment if learning centres, quiet areas and cosy spaces exist as described in popular rating scales. Children learn to navigate this environment because space separates each area, and tactile input, such as furnishings, defines them: soft cushions in the literacy area, sand/water in the messy play area. Multi-modal input enables teachers to differentiate content and better attend to learner needs and preferences (Steiert & Massler, 2011; Meyer, 2013). Selecting learning centre materials from a multi-modal perspective leads to a richer environment.

Selecting Resources and Materials from a Language Perspective As indicated in Table 27.3, CLIL researchers prioritise authentic language and authentic language use. Stories, songs, informational texts and computer games are sources of authentic language. Pre-primary learners do not analyse language, but teachers do as they interact with the children and, as Luna (2017) observes, when they choose materials for learning centres and reading-aloud activities. The three-tiers model developed by Beck et al. (2nd edition, 2013) and widely exploited in L1 and L2 contexts (Spycher, 2009, Sibold, 2011, Kucan, 2012, Christ & Wang, 2012, Graves et al., 2014) may facilitate selection of authentic texts. This model classifies words by the context in which learners usually come in contact with them. In

27

Criteria for Selecting Materials and Resources for the Pre-primary. . .

427

pre-primary contexts, teachers may use Tier 1 words, typical of everyday oral interaction, as they introduce new themes, and Tier 2 words through cross-curricular texts (Barnes et al., 2016). Tier 3 words, for example, chrysalis, appear in specialised domains such as Science. Before-use evaluation may help identify relevant Tier 2 words in authentic texts, stories and songs. Questions 1–5 are based on Kucan (2012, p. 363) and 6–7 on Gillanders et al. (2014, p. 217). 1. Where would learners normally come in contact with this word? In everyday language or in books? Boy – everyday language. Author – books. 2. Could learners draw on prior knowledge or experience to understand the word? Knowledge of wet can help understand saturate. 3. Can the word be found in texts from several curricular areas? Wet: weather, geography. 4. Does the word enable understanding of key points in the text? 5. Can the word be used in several ways and connect to other words? Wet ¼ not dry, get wet. 6. Can this word be demonstrated in a gesture or be represented with an object or picture? 7. Is there a variety of types of words (i.e., nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs)? Vocabulary is one criterion for selecting non-fiction and fiction texts for learning centres and reading-aloud activities (Luna, 2017). Learners’ experiences and important concepts can also help teachers select four or five words per week for special attention (Pappano, 2008). Pre-primary practitioners who adopt a “soft CLIL” approach prioritise language issues over content and use materials such as games or songs related to a topic (García Esteban, 2015). For Coyle (2005), preparation of a CLIL unit begins by selecting a topic. The topic contextualises foreign language learning and increases opportunities for interaction (Segura et al., 2021). The routine and repetition typical of playful activities reinforce target language phrases and vocabulary, leading to fluency and confidence for learners and teachers (Brumen, 2011, p. 731 and Melhuish et al., 2015, p. 51). Implementing CLIL on a small scale may enable practitioners to identify and deal with challenges more easily (Anderson et al., 2015, p. 146).

Selecting Resources and Materials to Develop Thinking Skills Thinking skills figure among the characteristics of quality CLIL learning materials (see Table 27.4). These skills are typically organised into six levels and two categories (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). At pre-primary level, developing thinking skills often involves explicit activities, materials such as objects, games or toys, and adult intervention. Salmon (2008) describes how a ‘draw and compare’ routine improved observation skills for 3- and

428

M. C. Guerrini

Table 27.4 The six thinking skill levels based on Krathwohl (2002, p. 215) Higher order

Lower order

Creating: putting elements together to make something new or original Evaluating: using criteria to formulate a judgment Analysing: breaking something into parts and discovering the relationships between them Applying: implementing a procedure Understanding: grasping the meaning of a communication Remembering: extracting a piece of information from memory

4-year-olds. Applying creating skills, learners drew a picture of the inside of their classroom. The following day they drew it from the outside. Finally, applying understanding and analysing skills, they compared and checked both drawings. Classifying or sorting items exemplifies thinking at the understanding and analysing level. It can prepare learners for recognising patterns (Alanís, 2018 citing Rittle-Johnson et al., 2013). Children observe objects, then sort them first by one property and later by more properties as the teacher encourages them to find alternative groupings (Gur, 2011). For example, children sort pairs of toy cars and trucks of the same colour: a red car and a red truck, etc. Sorting focuses attention on the main characteristics of each vehicle: does a yellow car belong with red cars or is it a separate category? (Aizikovitsh-Udi & Cheng, 2015). Alanís (2018) describes sorting in pairs: first the child with stronger skills sorts; the other identifies the criteria, e.g., colour, and finally, carries on the sorting. In several studies, questions based on stories develop children’s thinking (García Esteban, 2015; Schiller & Bartkowiak, 2001; Ioannou-Georgiou & Ramirez Verdugo, 2011). Before-use questions help identify appropriate stories: does the story stimulate learners to link to prior knowledge (remembering)? Does it offer opportunities for comparing (analysing)? Does the plot invite predictions (evaluating)? Dialogic story reading helped 3–6-year-olds to make causal inferences, a skill that supports reading comprehension (Filiatrault-Veilleux et al., 2015). The teacher combines reading with questioning: for example, what is [protagonist’s name]’s problem? What do you think will happen next? Stories that support this approach have a setting, an event that causes a problem, an internal response to that problem, a goal that moves the character to action, one or more attempts to solve the problem, the consequences of those attempts and a resolution (Filiatrault-Veilleux et al., 2015). Pre-primary play activities and associated materials also yield cognitive benefits. Garaigordobil & Berrueco (2011) describe a cooperative creative play program which stimulates creativity. All the games reflect these five characteristics which could become before- and during-use criteria: • Participation: all players strive to achieve group goals. There are no winners or losers. • Communication: verbal and nonverbal communication is structured within the game. Learners are actively involved, for example, talking and making decisions.

27

Criteria for Selecting Materials and Resources for the Pre-primary. . .

429

• Cooperation: the games encourage players to achieve a common goal. • Fiction-creation: learners pretend they are butterflies or magicians, etc. • Fun: players have fun through constructive, friendly interaction. Although very young learners may not have developed socialisation skills, Bay-Hinitz et al. (1994) observed that cooperative game play led to increased cooperative behaviour and reduced aggressive behaviour among 4- and 5-olds. For example, when the music stops in cooperative musical chairs, children share the chairs so everyone can be seated. Toys can be rated by the thinking they stimulate. Trawick-Smith et al. (2014, p. 41) observed children and asked questions to determine the quality of play: Does the child. . . • Display thinking and learning behaviours: e.g., concentrating, sharing discoveries? • Use the toy to solve problems or do tasks? • Use the toy creatively in a new or unusual way? • Pretend the toy is something else, giving it a symbolic meaning? Divergent or convergent thinking is encouraged by some materials (Lloyd & Howe, 2003). Materials that can be used in multiple ways, for example, blocks and sand are open-ended: they encourage divergent thinking. In contrast, closed-ended materials such as puzzles are primarily designed for one use: they encourage convergent thinking. Both types appear in Table 27.1. “Hands on” experiences provide multiple opportunities for stimulating thinking skills. The Center for Early Childhood Education (2013) developed an experience in which children explored balls and other objects to discover what makes them roll. Gur (2011) proposes a playground activity in which learners discover how to position themselves on a seesaw in order to balance it: Can you group yourselves in a different way? Before-use evaluation could identify appropriate materials. The materials cited above are typical of learning centres (see Table 27.1). In most of these experiences, teachers select materials, provide models and ask questions. It is important to note, however, that in the most effective ECEC centres, a balance exists between child-initiated and adult-initiated activities (Melhuish et al., 2015, p. 52).

Developing Cultural Objectives Coyle et al. (2010, p. 17) propose four objectives for the culture “C”. Two seem most relevant for the pre-primary context: “building intercultural knowledge, understanding and tolerance” and “developing intercultural communication skills.”. McKay (2004) suggests that selecting the most relevant cultural source(s) may take into account the cultural identity of the learners and the teacher, degree of familiarity with cultural topics, the learners’ ability to discuss cultural topics and the teacher’s beliefs regarding the link between language and culture. Culture is multi-faceted, so the aspects selected as cultural input should reflect this diversity. Furthermore, in CLIL, children are encouraged to participate actively

430

M. C. Guerrini

to discover cultural aspects. They may become comparative ethnographers (Pulverness and Tomlinson, 2013, p. 444), comparing and contrasting their own culture with others in order to see the world in a different way and improve understanding of their culture (Skopinskaja, 2003, p. 54). Developing cultural awareness is facilitated by appropriate cultural artifacts (Kirova, 2010, p. 87). Materials for the Dramatic play, Encouraging children’s use of books and Promoting acceptance of diversity learning centres (Table 27.2) provide some input. The 3Ps framework (Dema & Moeller, 2012) helps teachers develop a more comprehensive approach to cultural awareness: • Products: What tangible and intangible elements are produced by a culture? For example, games. • Practices: How do people behave or use cultural products? For example, how do people drink tea? Do games prioritise group goals or winners? • Perspectives: Why are these products and behaviours common in this culture? What beliefs or values underpin the culture’s worldview? For example, in some cultures, games reflect the belief that achievements should be shared by the group; in others, winning is all-important.

Selecting Materials and Resources to Develop Cultural Objectives Pre-primary learners are beginning to develop their cultural identity and awareness of others. Picture books and stories, dramatic play and human resources support this development. Selecting picture books and stories can be facilitated by the Critical Language Awareness approach and a checklist. Teachers ask questions such as: Who wrote it? What was the intended audience? to discover the social and political context in which the text was created (Pulverness & Tomlinson, 2013). The checklist in Table 27.5 offers a focused before-use analysis. Most pre-primary learners do not read, but they are sensitive to visual information. Picture books, described on the ICEPELL website as social, cultural, historic documents, consist of closely linked illustrations and text. The pictures may contain more cultural nuances and details than the text. Teachers who are sensitive to these nuances highlight them, ask questions and help learners to compare their culture with the one depicted. In addition, the gap between pictures and words may prompt learners to ask questions and reflect on their own culture (ICEPELL, n.d.). When selecting books for learning centres, picture books offer versatile exploitation options. Several studies provide insight into the use of role-plays to develop intercultural skills. Acting out character roles from stories contributes to cultural awareness (Klefstad & Martínez, 2013, p. 75), and is more effective if carried out with authentic clothes (Rettig (1995, p. 5). Kirova (2010) describes a program for 3½ year olds from four cultures in which children role-played tea ceremonies or “cultural scripts”.

27

Criteria for Selecting Materials and Resources for the Pre-primary. . .

431

Table 27.5 Identifying and evaluating cultural features in picture books and stories. Key: 1 – Narahara (1998, p. 16), 2 – Rettig (1995, pp. 5 – 6), 3 – Jackson (1993-1994, p. 301), 4 – Klefstad & Martinez (2013, pp. 76 and 81), 5 – Pellicer Ortin & Asin Abad (2018) Positive features • Are there models for behaviour? (1) • Can the children identify with the characters? (1) • Are universal human emotions presented? (2) • Do characters show pride in their heritage? (2) • Do characters show how it feels to be different? (2) • Are there strong ethnic characters? (3) • Is the cultural group portrayed accurately? e.g., perspectives, attitudes and feelings (3) • Is there a range of cultural input, e.g., foods, celebrations, daily routines? (4) • Do the illustrations provide images of diverse children and customs? (4) • Is the information about other cultures realistic? (2) • Are the facts in information texts accurate? (3)

Negative features • Are gender stereotypes or sexism shown? (1, 5)

• Are there racist comments, cliches or words? (3)

Initially the role-plays used generic materials from the Home learning centre. Later, the L1 facilitators contributed culturally appropriate products: pots, tea, spices and spice grinders. The role-plays included sharing practices such as cooling hot tea by pouring it into the saucer. The ceremonies led to enjoyable sharing and acceptance of cultural practices (Kirova, 2010). Cooking role-plays might enable learners to share how meals are prepared (Rettig, 1995, p. 6). Kirova (2010, citing Knörr, 2005, p. 15) observes that role-plays enable children to become mediators between their own culture and others. For this reason, when selecting books and props for Literacy and Dramatic play learning centres (Tables 27.1 and 27.2), CLIL teachers might consider if they support interculturality and role-play. Human resources also support development of intercultural skills. L1 facilitators asked questions to elicit details from the children about their customs: when was tea taken, what snacks were offered, etc. (Kirova, 2010). In this way, language skills and cultural identities developed through interactions as all learners acquired knowledge of the world (Byram & Wagner, 2018). Parents and community representatives may share products, e.g., Kurdish orange-peel necklaces (Kirova, 2010) or the home language (Durden et al., 2015 and Mary & Young, 2017). Guests may contribute cultural insights from cross-curricular perspectives. For example, in Australia, Indigenous peoples often participate as guest storytellers or artists (Miller-Petriwskyj, 2013). A female basketball team demonstrated and taught sports skills enhancing children’s understanding of balls (Center for Early Childhood Education, 2013). When guests and practitioners negotiate the goals of participation, equity and power relations can be addressed and stereotypes avoided (Miller-Petriwskyj, 2013).

432

M. C. Guerrini

Focus on Digital Resources, Non-fiction Texts and Textbooks Selecting Digital Resources Digital resources are increasingly used in pre-primary contexts (Clements & Sarama, 2002; Arnott et al., 2008; NAEYC & the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media, 2012; Blackwell et al., 2014). Among them are interactive whiteboards, digital cameras (still and video), desktop computers, tablets (iPad), videos and a wide range of apps. Some are included in Technology learning centres. In general, best practice integrates technology into the curriculum enabling new activities that complement traditional ones (Bostic, 2000; Penuel et al., 2009; NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center, 2012; Kalaš, 2012; Petranova & Burianová, 2014; Masoumi, 2015; Yelland, 2018). For example, digital cameras enable capturing and sharing traditional activities such as role-plays to facilitate further oral interaction and collaboration, celebrate achievements and record the children’s progress (NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center, 2012). Digital learning tools can be selected with reference to characteristics of CLIL materials (Table 27.3). They may offer media-rich, multi-modal experiences – a combination of audio, visual and language learning – that complement traditional literacy activities such as naming letters and associating sounds with those letters (Yelland, 2018; Penuel et al., 2009). Tracing over letters and numerals on a screen offers tactile experiences that can be repeated with paper and pencil, in sand or with paint (Price et al., 2015 and Yelland, 2018, p. 853). Other tools may stimulate thinking and exploration of content in areas such as Maths: sorting activities and familiarising learners with numbers (Nikolopoulou, 2020). They may support intercultural awareness by extending knowledge of the world through videos (Masoumi, 2015 and Plowman et al., 2010). They may stimulate learner autonomy through features discussed by Gilakjani et al. (2011) and Kiddle (2013), expressed here as before- or during-use evaluations: • • • •

Can the learners control the resource, for example, stop, start or pace it? Are the learners actively engaged with the resource? Can learners apply knowledge? Do learners receive feedback?

Scaffolding, an important feature of the CLIL approach, can be supported by the digital resource and/or how teachers use it. For example, if pictures and narration are presented simultaneously, the link between visual and verbal becomes clearer (Mayer, 2009). Assistive technologies such as screen magnifiers or large print keyboards support children with special needs (Burne et al., 2010). Software that allows trialand-error enables children to correct mistakes (Bostic, 2000). Teachers who provide oral explanations first, delay taking control of the mouse, thus offering “low touch” scaffolding (Barbuto et al., 2003). Discussion of digital resource characteristics similar to those cited above can be found in Bostic (2000), McManis & Gunnewig (2012) and Papadakis et al., (2017).

27

Criteria for Selecting Materials and Resources for the Pre-primary. . .

433

The criteria proposed by Kalaš (2012) overlap with those in this section and summarise key features: ICT tools should be intuitive, support play and educational content, involve parents, avoid violence and stereotypes, and link with ECEC activities and projects.

Exploring Non-fiction Texts Non-fiction texts are recommended for learning centres such as Language and Literacy (Table 27.1) and Nature/Science (Table 27.2). Mallett (2020) analyses instruction, recount, report and explanation genres using four criteria: design, coverage, language and illustration. For example, in instruction texts, Mallett prioritises well-designed pages with procedures clearly identified by numbers, bullet points or letters plus complete, accurate topic coverage. Regarding language and illustration, good texts are focused and concise, words and pictures closely linked, especially in the procedure section. Humour is optional, but appropriate for young learners. Genre analyses and discussions of age-appropriate texts make Mallett’s work a valuable reference. Non-fiction text features serve as scaffolding in CLIL contexts (Guerrini, 2009), and could be additional criteria for non-fiction text selection. For example, a variety of typefaces and fonts in different sizes and colours focuses attention. Photos and drawings, often with labels, highlight significant parts. Cross-sections of objects such as fruits let learners see inside. Graphic organisers such as mind maps and timelines convey conceptual and temporal relationships. Combining sets of criteria into before-use evaluation could guide text selection for learning centres.

Criteria for Selecting Textbooks Research into EFL and CLIL textbook evaluation focuses mainly on primary and secondary contexts (Haggarty & Pepin, 2002; Chu Yin & Young, 2007; Morton, 2013; López-Medina, 2016; Banegas, 2018; Marongiu, 2019). However, some of the criteria appear relevant for pre-primary. For example, Banegas (2018) cites four key textbook features: content (relevance to the curriculum, appropriate for learner level and needs, well sequenced), variety of input sources (e.g., authentic or modified), varied activities, and flexibility (can parts be skipped or re-ordered?). Research in pre-primary contexts reveals that content (unit topics and activity types), supplementary resources and curricular approach influence textbook selection (Ping et al., 2013). Mourão & Ferreirinha (2016) report that although textbooks are not recommended for pre-primary classes in Portugal, over 60% of the respondents use them. Audio input, flashcards, puppets and story cards were the most-used materials, and are available through textbooks. Summing up, content (unit topics and activity types) and multi-modal resources in audio, visual (flashcards and story cards) and tactile formats (puppets) are the most valued pre-primary materials. Existing research and the selection criteria from the

434

M. C. Guerrini

Tables in this chapter could serve as a bank of options for evaluating textbooks. Nevertheless, as Tomlinson (2013) observes, learners, the context and the teacher’s views on learning will also play significant roles in the selection process.

Conclusions CLIL at pre-primary level is relatively new, so this chapter shares the work of educators who are actively experimenting, analysing and adapting resources and materials. The criteria offered here draw on L1 approaches to pre-primary learning, learning in second or foreign language contexts, research in CLIL materials, the 4 Cs of CLIL, key materials of learning centres, features of non-fiction and fiction, digital resources and textbooks. The criteria are offered as references. Future research should draw on the work of pre-primary CLIL practitioners who explore and describe what best suits their contexts and reflects their understanding and experience of how very young children learn language and content. As pre-primary CLIL becomes more widespread, more experiences will be shared via research, surveys and professional conferences. Pre-primary CLIL practitioners are encouraged to take an active role in this process.

References Aizikovitsh-Udi, E., & Cheng, D. (2015). Developing critical thinking skills from dispositions to abilities: Mathematics education from early childhood to high school. Creative Education, 6, 455–462. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.64045 Alanís, I. (2018). Enhancing collaborative learning: Activities and structures in a dual language preschool classroom. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 12(1), 5–26. https:// doi.org/10.24974/amae.12.1.375 Anderson, C. E., McDougald, J. S., & Cuesta Medina, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In C. N. Giannikas, L. McLaughin, G. Fanning, & N. Deutsch Muller (Eds.), Children learning English: From research to practice (pp. 137–151). Garnet Education. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. Arnott, L., Paliologou, I., & Gray, C. (2008). Digital devices, internet-enabled toys and digital games: The changing nature of young children’s learning ecologies, experiences and pedagogies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 803–806. Banegas, D. L. (2018). Evaluating language and content in coursebooks. In M. Azarnoosh, M. Zeraatpishe, A. Faravani, & H. R. Kargozari (Eds.), Issues in coursebook evaluation (pp. 21–29). Brill. Barbuto, L. M., Swaminathan, S., Trawick-Smith, J., & Wright, J. L. (2003). The role of the teacher in scaffolding children’s interactions in a technological environment: How a technology project is transforming preschool teacher practices in urban schools. In CRPIT ’03: Proceedings of the International Federation for Information Processing Working Group 3-5 Open Conference on Young Children and Learning Technologies, 34(July), 13–20. Barnes, E. M., Grifenhage, J. F., & Dickinson, D. K. (2016). Academic language in early childhood classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 70(1), 39–48. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44001403

27

Criteria for Selecting Materials and Resources for the Pre-primary. . .

435

Bay-Hinitz, A. P., Peterson, R. F., & Quilitch, H. R. (1994). Cooperative games: A way to modify aggressive and cooperative behavior in young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(3), 435–446. Beacco, J.-C., Fleming, M., Goullier, F., Thürmann, E., Vollmer, H., with contributions from Sheils, J. (2015). A handbook for curriculum development and teacher training. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/language-policy/a-handbook-for-curriculum-development-andteacher-training.-the-language-dimension-in-all-subjects Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press. Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2014). Factors influencing digital technology use in early childhood education. Computers & Education, 77, 82–90. Bostic, N. (2000). Integrating appropriate software in the pre-school curriculum. https://corpora. tika.apache.org/base/docs/govdocs1/369/369785.pdf Brumen, M. (2011). The perception of and motivation for foreign language learning in pre-school. Early Child Development and Care, 181(6), 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2010.485313 Burne, B., Heyn, P. C., & Melonis, M. (2010). The use and application of assistive technology to promote literacy in early childhood: A systematic review. Disability and rehabilitation: Assistive technology, 6, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2010.522684 Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 140–151. Center for Early Childhood Education, Eastern Connecticut State University. (2013). Investigating balls. https://www.earlychildhoodeducationandcare.com/bloggers/2020/2/21/videos-from-cen ter-for-early-childhood-education-at-eastern-connecticut-state-university-are-a-great-resourcefor-early-childhood-educators Christ, T., & Wang, C. (2012). Supporting pre-schoolers’ vocabulary learning: Using a decisionmaking model to select appropriate words and methods. YC Young Children, 67(2), 74–80. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42731159 Chu Yin, C., & Young, K. (2007). The centrality of textbooks in teachers’ work: Perceptions and use of textbooks in a Hong Kong primary school. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 16(2), 115–163. https://eprints.usq.edu.au/6575/2/Chien_Young_2007_PV.pdf Chukwbikem, P. E. I. (2013). Resources for early childhood education (E. C. E.). Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(8), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.19.1 Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2002). The role of technology in early childhood learning. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 340–343. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41197828 Clifford, R. M., & Reszka, S. S. (2010). Reliability and validity of the early childhood rating scale. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stephanie-Reszka/publication/265098120_Reliability_ a n d _ Va l i d i t y _ o f _ t h e _ E a r l y _ C h i l d h o o d _ E n v i r o n m e n t _ R a t i n g _ S c a l e / l i n k s / 5527e2ad0cf2779ab78ae5f2/Reliability-and-Validity-of-the-Early-Childhood-EnvironmentRating-Scale.pdf Coyle, D. (2005). Planning tools for teachers. The University of Nottingham School of Education. https://www.scribd.com/document/85341173/CLIL-Planning-Tools-for-Teachers-Do-CoyleEdited-Version Coyle, D., Holmes, B., & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum – CLIL national statement and guidelines. The Languages Company. http://www.rachelhawkes.com/PandT/ CLIL/CLILnationalstatementandguidelines.pdf Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Dema, A., & Moeller, A. J. (2012). Teaching culture in the 21st century language classroom. In T. Sildus (Ed.), Touch the world: Selected papers from the 2012 central states conference on the teaching of foreign languages (pp. 75–91). Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/181 Durden, T. R., Escalante, E., & Blitch, K. (2015). Start with us! Culturally relevant pedagogy in the preschool classroom. Faculty Publications from CUFS, 86, 1–17. https://digitalcommons.unl.

436

M. C. Guerrini

edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article¼1086&context¼cyfsfacpub First published in Early Childhood Education Journal, 43, 223-232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-014-0651-8 Early Childhood Ireland. (n.d.) Equipment and materials for pre-schools and playgroups. https:// dlrccc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/equipment-for-preschools.pdf Early Learning and Child Care Program. (n.d.). Materials/equipment list for preschool child care centres. https://www.gov.mb.ca/fs/childcare/resources/pubs/equipment_preschool.pdf Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., & Kubanek, A. (2006). The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners. Languages for the children of Europe. Published research, good practice & main principles. https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/ languages/policy/language-policy/documents/young_en.pdf Filiatrault-Veilleux, P., Bouchard, C., Trudeau, N., & Desmarais, C. (2015). Inferential comprehension of 3–6-year-olds within the context of story grammar: A scoping review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 50(6), 737–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1460-6984.12175 Garaigordobil, M., & Berrueco, L. (2011). Effects of a play program on creative thinking of preschool children. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(2), 608–618. https://doi.org/10. 5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n2.9 García Esteban, S. (2015). Integrating curricular contents and language through storytelling: Criteria for effective CLIL lesson planning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 212, 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.297 Gilakjani, A. B., Ismail, H. N., & Ahmadi, S. M. (2011). The effect of multimodal learning models on language teaching and learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(10), 1321–1327. Gillanders, C., Castro, D. C., & Franco, X. (2014). Learning words for life: Promoting vocabulary in dual language learners. The Reading Teacher, 68(3), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1291 Graves, M. F., Baumann, J. F., Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Manyak, P., Bates, A., Cieply, C., Davis, J. R., & Von Gunten, H. (2014). Words, words everywhere, but which ones do we teach? The Reading Teacher, 67(5), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1228 Guerrini, M. C. (2009). CLIL materials as scaffolds to learning. First published in CLIL Practice: Perspectives from the field. CCN, 74-84. University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved from https:// englishglobalcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/guerrini-clil-materials-as-scaffoldslearning.pdf Gur, C. (2011). Physics in preschool. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 6(4), 939–943. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJPS10.653 Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: Who gets an opportunity to learn what? British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567–590. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1501441 Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (2015). Early childhood environment rating scale (ECERS3) (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. Intercultural citizenship education through picturebooks in early English language learning (ICEPELL). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://icepell.eu/ Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (2011). Stories as a tool for teaching and learning in CLIL. In S. Ioannou-Georgiou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education (pp. 137–155). PRO-CLil. http://arbeitsplattform.bildung.hessen.de/ fach/bilingual/Magazin/mat_aufsaetze/clilimplementation.pdf Jackson, F. (1993-1994). Seven strategies to support a culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Reading, 37(4), 298–303. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40017437. Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. Multimodality. https://newlearningonline.com/learning-by-design/ multimodality Kalaš, I. (2012). Policy brief: ICTs in early childhood care and education. UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000224207 Kiddle, T. (2013). Developing digital language learning materials. In Tomlinson B, Developing Materials for Language Teaching, 2nd ed., pp. 189–205. Bloomsbury.

27

Criteria for Selecting Materials and Resources for the Pre-primary. . .

437

Kirova, A. (2010). Children’s representations of cultural scripts in play: Facilitating transition from home to preschool in an intercultural early learning program for refugee children. Diaspora Indigenous and Minority Education, 4, 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595691003635765 Klefstad, J. M., & Martínez, K. C. (2013). Promoting young children’s cultural awareness and appreciation through multicultural Books. YC Young children, 68(5), 74–81. Knopf, H. T., & Welsh, K. L. (2010). Preschool materials guide. https://www.scchildcare.org/ media/35569/Preschool-Materials-Guide.pdf Knörr, J. (Ed.). (2005). Childhood and migration: From experience to agency. London: Transaction. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice., 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 Kucan, L. (2012). What is most important to know about vocabulary? The Reading Teacher., 65(6), 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01054 Lloyd, B., & Howe, N. (2003). Solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking skills in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0885-2006(03)00004-8 López-Medina, B. (2016). Developing a CLIL textbook evaluation checklist. LACLIL: Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 9(1), 159–173. https:// laclil.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/LACLIL/article/view/6016 Luna, S. M. (2017). Academic language in preschool: Research and context. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 89–93. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26632511 Maley, A. (2013). Creative approaches to writing materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 167–187). Bloomsbury. Mallett, M. (2020). Choosing and using fiction and non-fiction 3
11: A comprehensive guide for teachers and student teachers. (2nd ed. Updated by Goodwin, P. & Mallett, D.). Routledge. Marongiu, M. A. (2019). Teaching materials and CLIL teaching. Linguæ & - Rivista di lingue e culture moderne, 2, 81–104. https://www.ledonline.it/index.php/linguae/article/viewFile/1705/1217 Mary, L., & Young, A. S. (2017). Engaging with emergent bilinguals and their families in the pre-primary classroom to foster well-being, learning and inclusion. Language and Intercultural Communication, 17(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2017.1368147 Masoumi, D. (2015). Preschool teachers’ use of ICTs: Towards a typology of practice. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 16(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949114566753 Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/CBO9780511811678 McKay, S. (2004). Teaching English as an international language: The role of culture in Asian contexts. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 1(1), 1–22. http://journal.asiatefl.org/main/main.php?inx_ journals=1&inx_contents=1&main=1&sub=3&submode=3&PageMode=JournalView&s_ title=Teaching_English_as_an_International_Language_The_Role_of_Culture_in_Asian_ Contexts McManis, L. D., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2012). Finding the education in educational technology with early learners. Young Children, 67(3), 14–24. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi¼10.1.1.388.2016&rep¼rep1&type¼pdf Mehisto, P. (2012). Criteria for producing CLIL learning material. Encuentro, 21, 15–33. Melhuish, E., Ereky-Stevens, K., Petrogiannis, K., Ariescu, A., Penderi, E., Rentzou, K., Tawell, A. Leseman, P., & Broekhuisen, M. (2015). A review of research on the effects of early childhood education and care (ECEC) on child development. https://ecec-care.org/fileadmin/ careproject/Publications/reports/CARE_WP4_D4__1_review_of_effects_of_ecec.pdf Meyer, O. (2013). Introducing the CLIL-pyramid: Key strategies and principles for CLIL planning and teaching. In M. Eisenmann & T. Summer (Eds.), Basic issues in EFL teaching (2nd ed., pp. 295–313). Universitätsverlag Winter GmbH Heidelberg. Miller, M., & Petriwskyj, A. (2013). New directions in intercultural early education in Australia. International Journal of Early Childhood, 45, 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-0130091-4

438

M. C. Guerrini

Morton, T. (2013). Critically evaluating materials for CLIL: Practitioners’ practices and perspectives. In J. Gray (Ed.), Critical perspectives on language teaching materials (pp. 111–136). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137384263_6 Mourão, S., & Ferreirinha, S. (2016). Early language learning in pre-primary education in Portugal. Associação Portuguesa de Professores de Inglês (APPI). https://appi.pt/storage/app/media/ docs_appi/Pre-primary-survey-report-July-FINAL-rev.pdf NAEYC & the Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent College. (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. 1–15. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globallyshared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/ps_technology.pdf Narahara, M. M. (1998). Gender stereotypes in children’s picture books. https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED419248.pdf National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. (2020). Aistear Síolta practice guide: Using open-ended materials. https://www.aistearsiolta.ie/en/creating-and-using-the-learning-environ ment/resources-for-sharing/using-open-ended-materials.pdf Neitzel, J., Early, D., Sideris, J., LaForrett, D., Abel, M. B., Soli, M., Davidson, D. L., HaboushDeloye, A., Hestenes, L. L., Jenson, D., Johnson, C., Kalas, J., Mamrak, A., Masterson, M. L., Mims, S. U., Oya, P., Philson, B., Showalter, M., Warner-Richter, M. K., & Wood, J. (2019). A comparative analysis of the Early childhood environment rating scale–revised and Early childhood environment rating scale, third edition. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 17(4), 408–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X19873015 Nikolopoulou, K. (2020). Preschool teachers’ practices of ICT-supported early language and mathematics. Creative Education, 11, 2038–2052. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2020.1110149 North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE). (2016). Guidelines for Excellence. Early Childhood Environmental Education Programs. https://eepro.naaee.org/ sites/default/files/eepro-post-files/early_childhood_ee_guidelines.pdf Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2017). Designing and creating an educational app rubric for preschool teachers. Education and Information Technologies (Educ Inf Technol), 22, 3147–3165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9579-0 Pappano, L. (2008). Small kids, big words. Research-based strategies for building vocabulary for preK to grade 3. Harvard Education Letter, 24(3), 1–3. https://www.hepg.org/hel-home/issues/ 24_3/helarticle/small-kids,-big-words Pellicer Ortin, S., & Asin Abad, A. (2018). The invisible reality: English teaching materials and the formation of gender and sexually oriented stereotypes (with a focus on primary education). Complutense Journal of English Studies, 26, 165–191. Penuel, W. R., Pasnik, S., Bates, L., Townsend, E., Gallagher, L. P., Llorente, C., & Hupert, N. (2009). Preschool teachers can use a media-rich curriculum to prepare low-income children for school success. Results of a randomized controlled trial. Educational Development Center. Petranova, D., & Burianová, L. (2014). Potential of digital technologies use in the formal pre-primary education. European Journal of Science and Theology, 10(1), 263–276. http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi¼10.1.1.1086.1684&rep¼rep1&type¼pdf Ping, P., Vicente, G., & Coyle, Y. (2013). Preschool English education in the Spanish curriculum. Analysis of the region of Murcia. Porta Linguarum, 20, 117–133. http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/ articulos/PL_numero20/8%20%20Zhou.pdf Plowman, L., Stephen, C., & McPake, J. (2010). Supporting young children’s learning with technology at home and in preschool. Research Papers in Education, 25(1), 93–113. Price, S., Jewitt, C., & Crescenzi Lanna, L. (2015). The role of iPads in pre-school children’s mark making development. Computers and Education, 87, 131–141. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/ eprint/10021686/1/AAM_C_E.pdf Pulverness, A., & Tomlinson, B. (2013). Materials for cultural awareness. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 443–459). Bloomsbury.

27

Criteria for Selecting Materials and Resources for the Pre-primary. . .

439

Rettig, M. (1995). Play and cultural diversity. The Journal of Educational Issue of Language Minority Students, 15(Winter), 1–9. https://ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/BE020476/Play_and_Cul tural_Diversity.pdf Rittle-Johnson, B., Fyfe, E. R., McLean, L. & McEldoon, K. L. (2013). Emerging understanding of patterning in 4-year-olds. In Journal of Cognition and Development, 14(3), 376–396. Schiller, P., & Bartkowiak, R. (2001). Creating Readers. Gryphon House. Salmon, A. K. (2008). Promoting a culture of thinking in the young child. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42(1), 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-007-0227-y Sandseter, E. B. H., Sando, E. J., & Kleppe, R. (2021) Associations between Children’s Risky Play and ECEC Outdoor Play Spaces and Materials. In International Journal of Environmental research and Public Health. https://open.dmmh.no/dmmh-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/ 2737144/ijerph-18-03354.pdf?sequence=2 Segura, M., Roquet, H., & Barón, J. (2021). Receptive vocabulary acquisition in pre-primary education through soft-content and language integrated learning. English Language Teaching, 14(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n10p1 Setodji, C. M., Schaack, D., & Le, V. N. (2018). Using the early childhood environment rating scale-revised in high stakes contexts: Does evidence warrant the practice? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 158–169. Sibold, C. (2011). Building English language learners’ academic vocabulary. Strategies & tips. Multicultural Education, 18(2), 24–28. Skopinskaja, L. (2003). The role of culture in foreign language teaching materials: An evaluation from an intercultural perspective. In I. Lázár (Ed.), Incorporating intercultural communicative competence in language teacher education (pp. 39–68). European Centre for Modern Languages. Council of Europe Publishing. http://archive.ecml.at/documents/pub123be2003_ lazar.pdf Spycher, P. (2009). Learning academic language through science in two linguistically diverse kindergarten classes. The Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 359–379. https://doi.org/10. 1086/593938 Steiert, C. & Massler, U. (2011) Guidelines for evaluating and developing CLIL materials. In Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education (pp. 98–113). PRO-CLil. http://arbeitsplattform.bildung.hessen.de/fach/bilingual/Magazin/mat_aufsaetze/ clilimplementation.pdf The State of South Australia, Department of Education and Children’s Services (2004). Choosing and using teaching and learning materials. https://www.academia.edu/4251595/Choosing_and_ using_teaching_and_learning_materials_Guidelines_for_preschools_and_schools_Choosing_ and_using_teaching_and_learning_materials_Guidelines_for_preschools_and_schools_Note_ Choosing_and_using_teaching_and_learning_materials_Foreword Tomlinson, B. (2013). Materials evaluation. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing materials for language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 21–48). Bloomsbury. Trawick-Smith, J., Wolff, J., Koschel, M., & Vallarelli, J. (2014). Pre-school: Which toys promote high-quality play? Reflections on the five-year anniversary of the TIMPANI study. YC Young Children, 69(2), 40–46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ycyoungchildren.69.2.40Copy Yelland, N. J. (2018). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Young children and multimodal learning with tablets. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(5), 847–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet. 12635 Zeller, J. M., & McFarland, S. L. (1981). Selecting appropriate materials for very young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 8, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02539527

Promoting Intercultural Competence Through Children’s Literature Raquel Ferna´ndez-Ferna´ndez

28

and Ana Virginia Lo´pez-Fuentes

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intercultural Competence in CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Intercultural Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intercultural Awareness in Relation to Culture in CLIL: Meeting Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Review on the Use of Literary Texts to Develop the Intercultural Competence . . . Choosing Literary Texts for Intercultural Education in Pre-primary CLIL Classrooms . . . . . . . Strategies to Implement Literature in the Classroom: An Example with Handa’s Surprise . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

442 443 443 445 448 449 450 452 453

Abstract

The CLIL pedagogical approach has put forward a notion of culture that goes beyond celebrating traditions and imitating the ways of living of stereotyped groups of native speakers. This challenging perception goes hand in hand with the societal need to promote intercultural understanding, which has been found to be at the core of severe social problems, such as social exclusion, gender inequality or racial discrimination. In this chapter, we will unveil the potential of literature to develop intercultural competence in pre-primary CLIL classrooms from both a theoretical and a practical perspective. The present contribution has a twofold objective, as it attempts to inform future research while also guiding classroom practice to promote CLIL intercultural education through literature. The last section of the chapter presents a real experience using Handa’s Surprise in the

R. Fernández-Fernández (*) Universidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares, Spain e-mail: [email protected] A. V. López-Fuentes Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_28

441

442

R. Ferna´ndez-Ferna´ndez and A. V. Lo´pez-Fuentes

pre-primary classroom in order to provide an authentic example of the use of children’s literature with intercultural purposes. Keywords

Intercultural competence · Children’s literature · Pre-primary · CLIL · Resources · Strategies

Introduction In our childhood, literary texts were pivotal to understanding the world around us. They showed us the words and sounds of our language while also demonstrating routines, explaining how to interact with others, describing religious beliefs and customs, and modelling behaviours in specific situations. Furthermore, the roles, actions, behaviours and contexts portrayed in the stories were also part of our world. They instantly become part of the repertoire of our vicarious experiences. Through observation, comparison and imitation, we assimilate these as elements that create our identity and culture. In a society characterised by high mobility and interaction, readers (or listeners) of literature may realise that we are not the product of a unique culture. In Rosenblatt’s (1995) words: “in our highly complex civilisation, people may be the products of practically different subcultures” (p. 140). This heterogeneous population fosters continuous ‘intercultural communication’ in our everyday lives (Olson & Kroeger, 2001). More often than not, these pluricultural encounters happen in educational settings using additional languages. In Europe, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) incorporated the notion of ‘intercultural competence’ as an integral area of language learning. In its most recent version (Council of Europe, 2020), plurilingual and intercultural education are targeted, highlighting the need to build learners’ pluricultural repertoire. This cultural dimension has also been found in CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) policies, where culture has been placed under the spotlight. In their central work, not only did Coyle et al. (2010) consider culture as one of the 4 Cs components, but a fundamental dimension that unites all the rest (content, cognition, and communication). In classroom practice, authentic materials have been claimed to be essential to unveil intercultural issues (Byram et al., 2002). Among them, literature has been found advantageous to enhance students’ cultural awareness and understanding (McGroarty & Galván, 1985 and Gajdusek, 1988), promoting tolerance towards other customs, values and lifestyles (McKay, 1982). However, even if literature is considered a valid tool in practice, there is a lack of research on how literary texts are being used in CLIL classrooms, as described by the state-of-the-art research presented by Graham et al. (2020). Research should inform classroom practice, because the mere presence of literary materials is not a guarantee of the development of intercultural competence. It may be the case that books are employed as complementary material used at a surface

28

Promoting Intercultural Competence Through Children’s Literature

443

level, reading lists are portraying similar lifestyles and cultures, common misunderstanding or stereotypes, and teaching practices are solely focused on linguistic elements, not tapping their full potential as educational tools. The present work aims to support the use of literary texts, more specifically children’s literature, to facilitate the development of learners’ intercultural competence in pre-primary CLIL contexts. This is done using both a theoretical and a practical perspective, attempting to offer the reader valuable information to inform further research and/or classroom practice. To do that, first, the notion of ‘intercultural competence’ is described and explored. Second, this competence is put in relation to what is understood as culture in the CLIL methodological approach. Third, a literature review is performed to offer a state-of-the-art analysis in this research area. Fourth, we have included a section to raise awareness of the importance of choosing appropriate books to develop intercultural competence in this context. Finally, a real example revolving around Handa’s surprise and conducted in a Spanish pre-primary classroom is described and discussed.

Intercultural Competence in CLIL The Intercultural Approach As global processes and interconnectedness take place on an everyday basis, intercultural contact becomes unstoppable, and so does the need to respond to intercultural understanding. Several authors have highlighted the importance of understanding global interconnectedness and its challenges for society, such as educational challenges (Popkewitz, 2009; Booth & Ainscow, 2016). In 2013 UNESCO stated that, “since it is impossible to stop contact between cultures, learning to positively shape a common future for humankind at all levels becomes essential” (p. 7). Cultures cannot be understood as independent entities separate from social, political, and communicative updating (Aguado, 2011, p. 130), since they are dynamic entities in constant change, influenced by the social, political and economic environment of each moment. From the intercultural approach, culture occurs in relationships with others, and is not developed through static elements such as traditions. As mentioned by Byram & Wagner (2017) “culture is mistakenly viewed as a fixed entity” (p. 142). The static elements and enclosed territories understood as culture, are an outdated approach, which does not allow us to understand contemporary reality, and which makes it impossible to achieve valuable educational achievements (Aguado, 2011, p. 130). In this sense, the intercultural approach advocates dynamic school practices that respond positively to students’ learning contexts, where diversity and heterogeneity is the norm. Until today, the scientific community has found no consensus about how to address the terms interculturality, intercultural competence, intercultural approach, etc., (Moeller & Nugent, 2014; Wolff & Borzikowsky, 2018). In this chapter, the intercultural approach focuses on diversity as a human attribute involved day by day in the ordinariness of our daily activities. Martínez-Salanova comments on how

444

R. Ferna´ndez-Ferna´ndez and A. V. Lo´pez-Fuentes

interculturality promotes cultural pluralism and non-discrimination for reasons of race or culture, the right to recognition of cultural difference and its involvement in the social organisation of the community or human group in which you live (2006, p. 48). For her part, Aguado affirms that intercultural education is not a model to be achieved, but a perspective, a metaphor that allows us to understand what we think, say and do in relation to cultural diversity from the assumption of a commitment to equity and social justice (2017, p. 1). The CEFRL (2001), which, as mentioned previously, introduced the ‘intercultural competence’ as an important area of language learning, states that from an intercultural approach, “it is a central objective of language education to promote the favourable development of the learner’s whole personality and sense of identity in response to the enriching experience of otherness in language and culture.” (p. 1). Thus, the intercultural approach is about working with the students’ individual identity, its relationship with the identity of others and about recognising the opportunities that diversity presents for society in general. A traditional definition of intercultural competence is offered by Byram (2000, p. 10), who described it as the ability to “see relationships between different cultures – both internal and external to a society—and to mediate, that is, interpret each [culture] in terms of the other, either for [themselves] or for other people”. For Beacco et al. (2016) the intercultural competence “is the ability to experience otherness and cultural diversity, to analyse that experience and to derive benefit from it” (p. 10). Moreover, these authors argue that once acquired, the intercultural competence helps “to understand otherness, establish cognitive and affective links between past and new experiences of otherness, mediate between members of two (or more) social groups and their cultures, and question the assumptions of one’s own cultural group and environment” (Beacco et al., 2016, p. 10). The Council of Europe (2013) states that the intercultural competence combines the understanding and respect for people with different cultural affiliations, the appropriate and respectful communication with them, the establishment of fruitful relationships with these people and to “understand oneself and one’s own multiple cultural affiliations through encounters with cultural “difference””(p. 17). Some other relevant ideas are presented by Magos (2018) who argues that the intercultural competence is linked to the development of empathy, referring to “the emotional understanding of the Other, a necessary element for the harmonious coexistence of the members in any social group” (p. 28–29). In this way, the intercultural approach implies the ability to deviate from the existing labels in contemporary society, since the standardisation of diversity begins with fairness and equality among people without pigeonholing anyone, promoting a fruitful and balanced coexistence among all of them. For this piece of research it is important to highlight the values and dimensions that are fundamental to achieving intercultural competence in schools. In 2013, Byram et al. developed the intercultural approach in the foreign language classroom through competencies, which helped plan teaching and assessment (p. 18). The first competence was “Knowledge”, which referred to learning about different social groups and their practices. The second competence was “Skills of interpreting and relating” which focused on the ability to relate different documents and data from other cultures with our own ones. The third competence is called “Skills of discovery and interaction” and refers to the “ability to acquire new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices and

28

Promoting Intercultural Competence Through Children’s Literature

445

the ability to operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constraints of real-time communication and interaction” (p.18). In fourth place, there was the “Attitudes” competence, which encouraged to develop openness and curiosity towards other cultures. Finally, the fifth competence is “Critical cultural awareness” which is “an ability to evaluate, critically and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries” (p. 18, based on Byram, 1997, p. 53). For their part, Moeller & Nugent (2014) distinguish three critical factors to guide the process of becoming skilled in the intercultural field. The authors establish as a first step to become interculturally competent the need of developing a “transformation of attitude, including self-awareness and openness to new values and beliefs” (p. 3). From the teaching perspective, educators should take the time with their students to discuss and “reflect on their preconceived ideas and perceptions before entering into studies of other cultures in the classroom” (p. 4). Secondly, Moeller and Nugent imply that while acquiring the intercultural competence the student acts as an inquirer and a researcher about different cultures. In this step, teachers should take the role of facilitators and try to create a learning environment of curiosity in which knowledge is shared between the participants, new values and ideas arise from collaborative talks, and students conduct their personal learning. The third factor considers the issue of assessing and measuring the learning process. As Deardorff (2006), Moeller and Nugent (2014) suggest becoming interculturally competent is a process that never ends. The starting point of intercultural knowledge is different in every student, as their experiences shape their intercultural and world views. In this way, the learner keeps changing and transforming while opportunities to meet new cultures in depth are provided for them. Becoming competent in the intercultural area is a long learning process which should start at a very early age, when children are developing their minds and identities. Derman-Sparks and the ABC Task Force (1989) suggest that children develop their self-identities and build social interaction skills between the ages of 2 to 5 years. Moreover, the authors argue that children at this age become aware of gender, race and ethnicity. They figure out how they are alike and different from other people, and how they feel about those differences. In this way, it is considered of paramount importance to start dealing with the intercultural competence in the pre-primary stage. In fact, “there are several studies which argue that any subject can be taught effectively to children at any stage of development, and thus the issue of intercultural competence is relevant for the youngest of children’‘(Bryam & Doyle, 1999, in Takeuchi, 2015, p. 47). The following section will put together the importance of dealing with intercultural issues during childhood and its relationship with the culture approach provided by the CLIL methodological approach.

Intercultural Awareness in Relation to Culture in CLIL: Meeting Points Cultural diversity and intercultural competence must be addressed throughout the school years to prepare students for our interconnected and diverse society. This process requires several changes in the structure of the education system. To start

446

R. Ferna´ndez-Ferna´ndez and A. V. Lo´pez-Fuentes

with, it requires a transformation in the content and delivery of the curricula in order to develop the students’ skills necessary to achieve a cultural and intercultural awareness. Early childhood is the perfect moment to develop attitudes of tolerance, respect and empathy towards the other (Nutbrown et al., 2013). However, this does not seem to be enough in a society that presents emergent ‘third cultures’, not ours or theirs, but a common one, an “emergent space in between cultures” (Byram, 2000, p. 10). This space requires dialogic practices that promote a conversation among cultures (Kelen, 2002, p. 275). In this sense, UNESCO (2013, p. 45) states that “intercultural competences become an indispensable element of school curricula within a larger framework of cultural literacy training”. Hence, working with culture at a very early age while learning languages becomes essential. Professor Do Coyle (2007) has worked on the idea of using culture as the basis for learning a language, arguing that “Culture(s) permeates the whole” (p. 550), and then using Douglas Brown’s definition of culture, which states that “Culture is really an integral part of the interaction between language and thought” (1980, p. 138). She considers that culture is a fundamental part of CLIL, the methodological approach defined as “an educational approach in which various language-supportive methodologies are used which lead to a dual-focused form of instruction where attention is given both to the language and the content” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 3). While the CLIL methodological approach shares some characteristics with other bilingual methodologies, “its distinctiveness lies in an integrated approach, where both language and content are conceptualised on a continuum without an implied preference for either” (Coyle, 2007, p. 545). In this sense, Coyle argues that integrated approaches “can offer learners opportunities to engage in meaningmaking and language progression through cognitively challenging and culturallyembedded sequenced activities, as reflected in the 4Cs Framework” (2015, p. 84). The renowned Coyle’s 4C’s framework (1999) asserts that there are four building blocks for effective CLIL practice, those are: “content” which refers to the subject matter, “communication” that deals with language, “cognition” which is related to learning and thinking, and lastly, “culture” that involves “social awareness of self and ‘otherness’” (Coyle, 2007, p. 550). The framework situates culture awareness at the core and intercultural understanding, as it is considered the fundamental block from which all the others emanate. As the relation between cultures and languages is difficult, intercultural awareness is fundamental to CLIL, so Coyle et al. state that “[i]ts rightful place is at the core of CLIL” (2010, p. 10). Méndez García comments on how CLIL promotes the understanding of the real world and facilitates the acquisition of knowledge about different countries, territories and minority groups, placing the cultural dimension in the highest position of the procedure. According to González & Borham (2012, p. 110) the CLIL methodological approach allows dealing with a range of topics inside the classroom related to the construction of people’s cultural diversity. They suggest that as one of the aims of CLIL is to develop critical thinking, it could help to introduce an awareness of worldwide issues and, in this way, lead to intercultural competence. Indeed, these authors classify CLIL as an integrated dual-focused approach to FL teaching which can include the cultural dimension in the teaching and learning process to arrive at a

28

Promoting Intercultural Competence Through Children’s Literature

447

comprehensive and blossoming view of foreign cultures and people. Other authors have also classified CLIL as a dual-focused approach that not only considers linguistic, communicative, content and cognitive components but also develops the intercultural competence in an atmosphere of reflection (Mehisto et al., 2008; Ioannou-Georgiou & Ramírez, 2011). Méndez García (2012) asserts that the primary focus of CLIL in Europe lies in the development of an intercultural competence, referring to “individuals who are able to interact with members of other social groups [in the world. . .] on a basis of flexibility, mutual respect and understanding” (p. 199). More recently, new notions around interculturality have been created to highlight learners’ active role in developing their intercultural competence. More specifically, Coyle & Meyer (2021) refer to cultural consciousness, a term borrowed with the purpose of “stress[ing] the need for the active involvement of the learner in using cultural tools” (p. 147). In this vein, the ICEPELL Erasmus+ project is based on the development of Intercultural Citizenship Education, understood as a combination of the intercultural communicative competence of foreign language education and civic action in the community, as fostered by citizenship education (Byram et al., 2016). In both cases, these authors insist on the impact these pedagogical principles should have on students’ lives and communities. As can be noted from the previous statements, intercultural awareness is on the agenda of the CLIL pedagogical approach, and it can be argued that not only in older ages, but also in pre-primary education. Green mentions that “early learning of foreign languages involves embedding practices through which cultural awareness and self-awareness is to develop” (1995, p. 148). Moreover, Méndez García asserts that establishing contact with different cultures at an early age “leads to drawing comparisons, awakening learners’ interest in diverse lifestyles, values, beliefs and behaviour, and forges the creation of a harmonious identity built upon intertwined elements from personal and alien identities” (2012, p. 198–199). The Royal Decree 1630/2006 (“Real Decreto 1630/2006”) that regulates the teaching and learning process of pre-primary education in Spain, also ensures that young children should carry out learning oriented towards the establishment of broad and diverse social relationships, raising their awareness of diversity, and provoking positive attitudes towards it. Furthermore, the area of Self-Knowledge and Personal Autonomy indicates that in pre-primary education children need to acquire a positive assessment and respect for differences, acceptance of the identity and characteristics of others, avoiding discriminatory attitudes (Spanish Royal Decree 1630/2006). In this way, the CLIL methodological approach can respond to these requirements thanks to its focus on culture. Intercultural awareness encourages human beings to understand the new challenges of globalisation and aids us to combine our own local point of view with a global vision. Moreover, intercultural competence, embedded in the CLIL approach, can encourage learners to build a productive and more open-minded society in line with the needs of different cultures, ethnicities and races. Even those which are not present in our context can be represented through literature. In other words, literature is a way of introducing different cultures in the classroom without travelling, so teachers might be encouraged to take advantage of this artefact within the CLIL

448

R. Ferna´ndez-Ferna´ndez and A. V. Lo´pez-Fuentes

methodological approach. The following section will present the possibilities of literature in relation to the promotion of the intercultural competence in CLIL contexts.

Literature Review on the Use of Literary Texts to Develop the Intercultural Competence The use of children’s literature in the CLIL classroom is scarce in the body of research on the use of literature in CLIL. As Paran (2008) stated, most studies on literature in EFL contexts are conducted in university settings. The tendency in the last decade has not changed, with studies such as Gómez (2012), who worked with Colombian university students reading short stories in English; Hecke (2013), who used graphic novels from Iran and Mexico with German university students or Hibbs (2016), who used two long novels to be explored by elementary-level university students in an American university. It is worth noting that these studies found reading literary texts more beneficial in developing intercultural competence than other more traditional practices. For studies in educational levels other than higher education, Graham et al. (2020) performed a systematic review of research on the use of children’s literature in the CLIL classroom. The authors analysed 15 articles that fulfilled the selection criteria: written in English, involving empirical research on the use of children’s literature in EFL, and in pre-kindergarten through grade 12 classroom contexts. Their analysis, divided into the 4 Cs (Coyle et al., 2010), showed that the use of literature for a cultural purpose is more present in studies developed in secondary schools. Although this may reinforce the idea that literary texts are frequently used with more language competent students, we should be cautious, as the analysed studies were all by the same author and located in Israel (Hayik, 2011, 2015a, b, 2016). These studies addressed the use of literature to work on religious diversity, gender issues and group conflict, among other areas. From the studies in early levels of education analysed by Graham et al. (2020), only Lee (2016) related to culture directly. This study was developed in Korea and examined the relationship between identities, literacy learning and children’s literature. One of his fundamental contributions resides in the notion of ‘transforming identity’. The author insists on the need for students to be open to making connections to their and others’ identities. This need to achieve an authentic Connection in the CLIL classroom has been identified as the fifth C (Fernández-Fernández & Johnson, 2016) and points out the need to cover the ‘emotional’ side of learning, creating classroom environments conducive to equalitarian dialogue and meaningful learning. A different perspective on the use of literature in the CLIL classroom is taken by Chang (2018). In this doctoral dissertation, the author focuses on 31 elementary language arts teachers to assess how their intercultural competence influenced their use of multicultural literature in the classroom. Participants were classified into ethnorelative or ethnocentric, and their classroom practice was analysed. Findings

28

Promoting Intercultural Competence Through Children’s Literature

449

show that teachers’ intercultural competence may impact the application of literature, as teachers in the ethnorelative orientation were more efficient in selecting and implementing multicultural literature in the classroom. This efficiency was shown in the diverse literature used, the use of activities that promote high order thinking skills, their flexibility to create an integrated, constructivist curriculum, their capability to engage in reflective teaching, and their ability to consider students’ prior knowledge and experiences. Therefore, educating teachers in intercultural competence is fundamental to ensure teaching practices that positively embrace diversity. More recently, interculturality, literature and language learning have been the focus of several European initiatives. Among them, it is worth highlighting the Erasmus+ project “Intercultural Citizenship Education Through Picture Books in Early English Language Learning” (ICEPELL) coordinated by the University Nova de Lisboa. The project comprises six partners from five European countries (Portugal, Germany, Italy, Norway and the Netherlands) and will make its research outputs available on the website http//icepell.edu in August 2022. In 2021, they celebrated an international colloquium that served to disseminate the preliminary results of the ICE survey. This study attempted to collect the needs and attitudes of teachers around intercultural citizenship and early language learning. Also, the conference included information about the ‘ICEkits’, a teaching pack the members of the project have created to use with a picture book.

Choosing Literary Texts for Intercultural Education in Pre-primary CLIL Classrooms Literary texts are very influential in the creation of learners’ knowledge of the world or cultural schemata. However, they may also be responsible for offering us a very limited vision of the world. This may happen if all the texts we read belong to the same culture and are written from the same perspective. Not long ago, many of the bookshelves in the pre-primary classroom were plagued by books written by Western white men. Therefore, literary texts should show a variety of authors in terms of gender and origin. More specifically, Hawley & Spillman (2003) suggest the choice of authors who have experienced the culture first-hand. Some books that may be useful are Jacqueline Woodson’s Brown Girl Dreaming (2014) or Sarah Garland’s Azzi in Between (2012), which the author created after spending time with refugees in New Zealand (Dolan, 2014). In the CLIL pre-primary classroom, books that allow students to interpret and pay attention to detail will be preferred. This will spark dialogue more naturally, inviting learners to be part of the meaning-making process. This type of book has been labelled as ‘complex’ (Mourão, 2021) compared to too obvious and plain (simple) books. In this area, the quality and interactivity of illustrations are pivotal to fostering interaction. Some examples suggested by Mourão are of Yo! Yes, written and illustrated by Chris Raschka (2007), Tom Percival’s Perfectly Norman (2017) or Julian is a Mermaid (2019) by Jessica Love.

450

R. Ferna´ndez-Ferna´ndez and A. V. Lo´pez-Fuentes

Finally, it is vital to guarantee that the multicultural reading menu contains books that emphasise similarities in cultures. As Sims Bishop (1990, p. ix) puts it: “When there are enough books available that can act as both mirrors and windows for all our children, they will see that we can celebrate both our differences and our similarities, because together they are what make us all human”. Some titles that can help practitioners in the pre-primary CLIL classroom are Norah Dooley’s Everybody. . . series, starting with Everybody Cooks Rice (2009). Another book in the same line is Same, Same but Different (2011) by writer and illustrator Kostecki-Shaw.

Strategies to Implement Literature in the Classroom: An Example with Handa’s Surprise For the purposes of this contribution we have selected a real experience using Handa’s Surprise in the pre-primary classroom. The experience aims to demonstrate the first steps to building plurilingual and pluricultural curricula assisted by literary texts. The proposal follows the curriculum scenario approach suggested by the CEFR (▶ Chap. 8) and is fed with the recommendations of the guide created by Beacco et al. (2016) and its aims for initial levels, namely: to accommodate language plurality, open children's minds to cultural diversity, establish the status of the language of schooling and familiarise children with its normal conventions, while also – informally and with the help of various illustrations and activities – helping them to master it and realise its potential. (p. 103)

Handa’s Surprise by Eileen Browne (2014) tells the story of a black girl called Handa who lives in a small village in southwest Kenya. She decides to bring to her friend Akeyo, who lives in a different village, seven pieces of fruit carrying them in a basket in her head. Several animals eat the different pieces of fruit, one by one, while walking from one village to the other. The story can be seen as a valuable tool to discover the Kenyan culture, learn the typical fruits from the country and the name of the animals of the environment, and also to explore the way of life presented by Handa and his friend Akeyo. Some authors suggested the use of Handa’s Surprise in the pre-primary education stage (4–5 years old) with the following objectives: “develop intercultural awareness”, “become familiar with the African environment” and “become familiar with the way of life of children from African countries” (Ioannou-Georgiou & Ramirez Verdugo, 2011, p. 151). Similarly, our implementation of Handa’s Surprise was based on the guidelines provided by the Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education by Beacco et al. (2016) which proposes several early childhood education learning experiences that can help to promote plurilingual and intercultural competences at schools (pp. 78–79). The project of Handa’s Surprise was developed in a pre-primary classroom with 4-year-old children. The teacher used a wrapped box containing a gift to connect the students with the story and create an initial interest. To elicit some vocabulary, the

28

Promoting Intercultural Competence Through Children’s Literature

451

facilitator asked pupils what could be inside the box. Once opened, the box contains the teachers’ favourite fruit. Students were then asked which their favourite fruit is, and are helped to learn/revise this vocabulary family with the help of flashcards. A second step was to look at the book’s cover. This was an excellent opportunity to let children explore what elements are different from their context using the simple question: “What do you see?”. The teacher then told the story to the kids with Handa’s story book and the classroom puppet. Once they wanted to know more about the story, the teacher played the YouTube animation video “Handa’s Surprise”. In these first steps of the lesson, the aim of encouraging “Linguistic and cultural diversity and plurality” (p. 78) through learning experiences from the guide, was promoted by presenting this story, as it portrays the lifestyle of a non-European culture through storytelling and the animation video, while also providing visibility of the clothes, food, lifestyle and the environmental context of the Kenyan culture. With the goal of promoting “respect for otherness” (p. 79), all the students’ contributions were considered valid. Children were encouraged to develop attitudes of curiosity towards the elements they could identify (the landscape, the character’s physical appearance and way of dressing, the different types of animals and fruits depicted in the book). The purpose here is not to tolerate difference, but to explore it, as indicated by Byram et al. (2013, p. 18). In this exploration, the teacher talked in the target language and children responded in their mother tongue, Spanish. The interaction proved to be useful and encouraged them to talk about their own cultures and connect with the one presented in the story. For instance, one of the girls in the classroom with Nigerian origins explained to the rest of the children how they wore similar clothes and brought wicker baskets on their heads to carry food in her village. She was proud to participate and allowed us to realise that the class was made of different nationalities and cultures, and that we could all learn from each other. Next, we started to create the story of Handa using a yellow poster. The poster depicted a drawing of Handa’s path in the story. The students coloured the different animals and fruits, cut them out and stuck them on their poster. They also made drawings based on the environment shown in the video and the storybook. Here we followed the advice from Beacco et al. (2016), who invites teachers to introduce “Multimodal and multi sensorial experiences” (p. 79) in the classroom to develop intercultural competence. In this case, the learning experience proposed by the guide was to create different ways of using senses and expressing knowledge, such as “listening to a story and producing a drawing based on it” (p. 79). Thus, we created Handa’s poster with drawings and clippings from the actual storybook and video we have previously used. In the following lesson stage, learners were invited to recreate the text and take it outside the classroom. Pupils were helped to retell the story using their individual posters in class. Transforming the text into a different format is an excellent scaffolding learning technique. We explored intonation and pronunciation, but also learners’ engagement and motivation. Learners’ performances were recorded and enjoyed by all. Then, we invited children to use the structure to write stories which portrayed them as the protagonists. One step at a time, children were orally rewriting the story using Total Physical Response techniques, where they used gestures and

452

R. Ferna´ndez-Ferna´ndez and A. V. Lo´pez-Fuentes

movements to reinforce vocabulary and discourse linkers. The teacher and the language assistant used the skeleton of Handa’s story to fill the gaps with their ideas and modelled different stories. Some guiding questions used were: Will you carry a basket? What type of fruit would you put in it? What animals will you meet on your way? Will you go on foot or use any type of transport? According to Rosenblatt (2005) for a text to reach its fullest potential in the classroom, a transactional reading should be encouraged where the reader is affected by the text, and the text is affected by the reader. Its unique interaction takes place when the reader and the text are involved in this making meaning process, where literal words in the text are also affected by the reader’s background knowledge and experiences. In this dialogic process, and to foster intercultural awareness, we need to consider this framework of reference for reading as culturally biased. It is then when the studentreader needs to consider ‘the truth of the other,’ while also recognising, understanding and critically reflecting on their own ‘truths’ or realities. After a few days, learners were asked to retell their experiences sharing the story with their community. Learners reported that many members of their family did not know about some fruits in the story. Some went to the market with their parents or grandparents and looked for more exotic fruits, such as papaya. It was nice to see that some of them brought this fruit as their break snack and shared it with other children (some of them even brought them wrapped as a present). They learned to give small healthy gifts, and the variety of fruit was a great metaphor to show that we are all different. As intercultural awareness cannot happen in isolation from the world around us, it is then of paramount importance to promote activities that involve the community. This demonstrates that for a story to lead to true transformation, it needs to become “a culminating experience that crystallises a long, subconscious development” (Rosenblatt, 1995, p. 188). Children will continuously compare their reality with what they can find in books, but only when those patterns have been reflected upon, discussed, and compared will they permeate in our personal framework of reference to understand life.

Conclusion The present chapter aimed to explore the potential of literature for developing intercultural competence in the pre-primary CLIL classroom from both a theoretical and practical perspective. To do so, the notions of intercultural competence and culture, as understood in CLIL, have been explored. Then, recent empirical studies in the area have been described and analysed. Finally, practical underpinnings regarding the effective implementation of literary texts in this context have been covered with a section on how to select books and a practical example based on the book Handa’s Surprise. Our contribution attempts to demonstrate that literary texts are a valid resource for intercultural competence in the pre-primary CLIL classroom. However, two main gaps in the area have been identified. First, there is an evident need to promote dialogic pedagogical strategies that enhance cultural consciousness (Coyle & Meyer, 2021). Classroom practices should consider learners as active agents who

28

Promoting Intercultural Competence Through Children’s Literature

453

critically reflect on their cultures, the cultures of others, and also the ‘third culture’ that emerges, from these encounters, in and outside the classroom. In our view, these dialogic practices will help children assimilate the difference, but also discover that they can transform their views, behaviours and actions together with others. It is our belief that in this space of exploration, discovery and creation is where an authentic pluricultural identity is developed. The second gap spotted corresponds to the research area. Even if literature is claimed to be aligned with the purposes of the CLIL pedagogical approach, there is a need for classroom studies focused on this educational stage. The body of empirical research is not large and is mainly focused on levels other than pre-primary. This may be explained by the difficulties research with young learners may pose. However, it is at this early stage where learners’ self-identity originates. Therefore, studies focused on observation, focus groups and interviews would be extremely useful. Furthermore, these initial studies could be established as the base for longitudinal studies that demonstrate the impact in the long run. Finally, we would like to add a word of caution concerning teacher education programmes. As presented by Chang (2018), the ethnocentric and ethnorelative views may have an influence on the use of multicultural literature in CLIL settings. The body of research on this topic should also be enlarged and be subjected to further analysis and discussion. Parallel to this, university teaching degrees, pre-service and in-service teacher education programmes should be revised and improved to guarantee that practitioners self-assess their intercultural competence and know how to put it into practice effectively.

References Aguado Odina, T. (2011). El enfoque intercultural en la búsqueda de buenas prácticas escolares. Revista Latinoamericana de Inclusión Educativa, 5(2), 129–143. Aguado Odina, T. (2017). El Enfoque Intercultural en Educación. In T. Aguado Odina, P. Mata Benito (Coords.). Educación intercultural. (pp. 15–29) UNED. Beacco, J. C., Byram, M., Cavalli, M., Coste, D., Cuenat, M. E., Goullier, F., & Panthier, J. (2016). Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. Council of Europe. Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows and sliding glass doors. Perspectives, 1(3), ix–xi. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2016). Index for inclusion: A guide to school development led by inclusive values (4th ed.). Index for Inclusion Network. Bryam, M., & Doyle, P. (1999). Intercultural competence and foreign language in the primary school. In P. Driscoll & D. Frost (Eds.), The teaching of modern foreign languages in the primary school (pp. 138–151). Routledge. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2000). Assessing intercultural competence in language teaching. Sprogforum, 18(6), 8–13. Byram, M., Golubeva, I., Hui, H., & Wagner, M. (2016). Introduction. In M. Byram, I. Golubeva, H. Hui, & M. Wagner (Eds.), From principles to practice in education for intercultural citizenship. Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., Gribkova, B., & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in language teaching: A practical introduction for teachers. Council of Europe.

454

R. Ferna´ndez-Ferna´ndez and A. V. Lo´pez-Fuentes

Byram, M., Perugini, D. C., & Wagner, M. (2013). The development of intercultural citizenship in the elementary school Spanish classroom. Learning Languages, 18(1), 16–31. Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2017). Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 140–151. Chang, S.C. (2018) Assessing intercultural competence and exploring practices of multicultural literature among elementary Language Arts teachers. [PhD. Dissertation, Kent State University College] ETD Ohio Link. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe. (2013). Developing intercultural competence through education. Council of Europe. Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. http://www.coe.int/ lang-cef Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language. CILT. Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb459.0 Coyle, D. (2015). Strengthening integrated learning: Towards a new era for pluriliteracies and intercultural learning. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2015.8.2.2 Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL. Pluriteracies teaching for deeper learning. Cambridge University Press. Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Assessing intercultural competence in study abroad students. In M. Byram & A. Feng (Eds.), Living and studying abroad: Research and practice (pp. 232–256). Multilingual Matters. Derman-Sparks, L., & the A.B.C. Task Force. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for empowering young children. National Association for the Education. Dolan, A. M. (2014). Intercultural education, picturebooks and refugees: Approaches for language teachers. CLELEjournal, 2(1), 92–109. Douglas Brown, H. (1980). Principles of language learning and teaching. Prentice HallEnglewood Cliffs. Fernández-Fernández, R., & Johnson, M. (2016). (Coords.) Bilingual education at the university level. The CLIL approach at Centro Universitario Cardenal Cisneros. Centro Universitario Cardenal Cisneros. Gajdusek, L. (1988). Toward wider use of literature in ESL: Why and how. TESOL Quarterly, 22(2), 227–253. Gómez, R. L. R. (2012). Fostering intercultural communicative competence through reading authentic literary texts in an advanced Colombian EFL classroom: A constructivist perspective. PROFILE, 14(1), 49–66. González Rodríguez, L. M., & Borham Puyal, M. (2012). Promoting intercultural competence through literature in CLIL contexts. Atlantis, 34(2), 105–124. Graham, K. M., Matthews, S. D., & Eslami, Z. R. (2020). Using children's literature to teach the 4Cs of CLIL: A systematic review of EFL studies. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 13(2), 163–189. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2020.13.2.2 Green, A. G. (1995). Culture, identity, and intercultural aspects of the early teaching of foreign languages. Encuentro, 8, 143–153. Hawley, S. W., & Spillman, C. V. (2003). Literacy and learning. An expeditionary discovery through children’s literature. The Scarecrow Press. Hayik, R. (2011). Critical visual analysis of multicultural sketches. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(1), 95–118.

28

Promoting Intercultural Competence Through Children’s Literature

455

Hayik, R. (2015a). Addressing religious diversity through children's literature: An “English as a foreign language” classroom in Israel. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(2), 92–116. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v17i2.911 Hayik, R. (2015b). Diverging from traditional paths: Reconstructing fairy tales in the EFL classroom. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 9(4), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15595692.2015.1044084 Hayik, R. (2016). What does this story say about females? Challenging gender-biased texts in the English-language classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(4), 409–419. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jaal.468 Hecke, C. (2013). Developing intercultural competence by studying graphic narratives. In J. Bland & C. Lütge (Eds.), Children’s literature in second language education (pp. 119–128). Bloomsbury. Hibbs, B. (2016). Developing students’ intercultural competence through children’s and adolescent literature. Studie z aplikované lingvistiky-Studies in Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 7–19. ICEPELL (Intercultural Citizenship Education Through Picturebooks in Early English Language Learning) (30 de octubre de 2021). Key concepts. https://icepell.eu/index.php/key-concepts/ Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Ramírez-Verdugo, M. D. (2011). Stories as a tool for teaching and learning in CLIL. In P. Pavlos & S. Ioannou-Georgiou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education (pp. 137–155). Cyprus Pedagogical Institute. Kelen, C. (2002). Creative writing for foreign learners of English: Some opening arguments. TEXT. The Journal of the Australian Association of Writing Programs, 6(1), 265–276. Lee, Y. J. (2016). Letting the story out: Drawing on children’s life stories and identities to help them read beyond and enhance their comprehension. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 15(6), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2016.1239537 Magos, K. (2018). “The neighbor’s folktales”: Developing intercultural competence through folktales and stories. Bookbird: A Journal of International Children’s Literature, 56(2), 28–34. Martínez-Salanova, E. (2006). De la transculturación a la interculturalidad. Cómo presentan los medios la emigración, el mestizaje y las relaciones interétnicas. Portularia. Revista de Trabajo Social, 5(2), 45–53. www.uhu.es/cine.educacion/articulos/transculturacion.htm McGroarty, M., & Galván, J. L. (1985). Culture as an issue in second language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Beyond basics: Issues and research in TESOL (pp. 81–95). Newbury House. McKay, S. (1982). Literature in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 529–536. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Education. Méndez García, M. C. (2012). The potential of CLIL for intercultural development: A case study of Andalusian bilingual schools. Language and Intercultural Communication, 12(3), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2012.667417 Moeller, A. K., & Nugent, K. (2014). Building intercultural competence in the language classroom. Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education, 161, 1–18. Mourão, S. J. (2021, mayo 28). Mediation and read-alouds: the potential of picturebooks in early language learning [Keynote Speaker]. Developing Foreign Language Literacy in CLIL contexts. Virtual conference organised by the LIT4CLIL Erasmus+ Group. Ljubliana, Slovenia. Nutbrown, C., Clough, P., & Atherton, F. (2013). Inclusion in the early years. SAGE Publications. Olson, C. L., & Kroeger, K. R. (2001). Global competency and intercultural sensitivity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 5(2), 116–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/102831530152003 Paran, A. (2008). The role of literature in instructed foreign language learning and teaching: An evidence-based survey. Language Teaching, 41(4), 465–496. Popkewitz, T. (2009). El Cosmopolitismo y la Era de la Reforma Escolar: la Ciencia, la Educación y la Construcción de la Sociedad Mediante la Construcción de la Infancia. Morata. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). Modern Language Association. Rosenblatt, L. M. (2005). Making meaning with texts. Selected essays. Heinemann Educational Books.

456

R. Ferna´ndez-Ferna´ndez and A. V. Lo´pez-Fuentes

Spanish Royal Decree 1630/2006. Enseñanzas Mínimas del Segundo Ciclo de Educación Infantil. Boletín Oficial del Estado, num. 4, 474–482, de 29 de diciembre de 2006, pp. 1–16. https:// www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/2007/BOE-A-2007-185-consolidado.pdf Takeuchi, A. (2015). Developing a scale of children’s intercultural competence: Issues and challenges. Maebashi Kyoai Gakuen College, 1, 45–58. UNESCO. (2013). Intercultural competences: Conceptual and operational framework. UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002197/219768e.pdf Wolff, F., & Borzikowsky, C. (2018). Intercultural competence by international experiences? An investigation of the impact of educational stays abroad on intercultural competence and its facets. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(3), 488–514.

Fiction Books Suggested Browne, E. (2014). Handa’s surprise. Walker Books. Dooley, N. (2009). Everybody cooks rice. Carolrhoda. Garland, S. (2012). Azzi in between. Francis Lincoln Children's Books. Kostecki-Shaw, J. S. (2011). Same, same but different. Henry Holt and co. Love, J. (2019). Julian is a mermaid. Walker Books. Percival, T. (2017). Perfectly Norman. Bloomsbury. Rashka, C. (2007). Yo! Yes? Scholastic.

Digital Storytelling in Pre-primary CLIL Education

29

M. Dolores Ramírez-Verdugo

Contents Introduction: Digital Storytelling in Bilingual Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relevance of Digital Storytelling in CLIL Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exploring Digital Storytelling from the Different Perspectives in CLIL Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creating Stories: A Guideline for Digital Storytelling in CLIL Pre-primary Education . . . . . . Digital Storytelling as an Instructional Method in Early Childhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exemplifying Digital Storytelling in Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

458 459 462 463 463 466 469 470

Abstract

Digital storytelling may become a powerful methodological strategy in a pre-primary CLIL educational setting. It promotes and reinforces the essential features of the CLIL approach, integrating content, communication, cognition, culture, and competence in a meaningful way. It also helps develop early literacy while promoting peer collaboration and social skills. This chapter explores the theoretical principles of digital storytelling and its relevance to the CLIL approach in pre-primary education to serve as the basis for an instructional model to empower teachers and early childhood learners as emerging digital storytellers in bilingual contexts. This guideline allows teachers to use digital storytelling to support learners’ emergent language and content integrated learning. The purpose is to encourage very young learners to organize their ideas and knowledge, expressing them in L1 and L2 in an individual, meaningful way. The chapter illustrates the potential of digital storytelling in the pre-primary CLIL classroom by analyzing, as a representative sample, an early childhood digital story created by a very young learner enrolled in a bilingual school in Spain. The M. D. Ramírez-Verdugo (*) Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_29

457

458

M. D. Ramírez-Verdugo

chapter concludes by mentioning the benefits but also some challenges that need to be considered by teachers and educators in bilingual education and CLIL contexts. Keywords

Digital storytelling · Bilingual education · CLIL · Early childhood · Pre-primary · Emergent bilingual very young learners · Guidelines

Introduction: Digital Storytelling in Bilingual Education Storytelling has developed from ancient times and expanded to assume a dynamic, modern presence across settings and purposes. Storytelling in pre-primary education can provide a powerful opportunity to embed narrative, identity, and literacy elements into classroom methodology (Ramírez-Verdugo & Sotomayor, 2012). Stories are a natural way to capture young learners’ attention and motivate them to listen and learn actively by creating a meaningful context to understand contents, culture, or experiences in their first or second language, making disciplinary literacies more accessible (Isbell et al., 2004). They help young learners construct knowledge of their world and activate their cognitive schemata (Semino, 2009; Speer et al., 2009). As Lehne et al. (2015) argue, storytelling engages brain areas connected to cognition. They are also related to emotion (Hsu et al., 2015), empathy (Brink et al., 2011), and social norms (Berthoz et al., 2002). Stories create an opportunity to help learners connect new to prior knowledge and experience (Rossiter, 2002) since they help explain and illustrate abstract ideas and contents in an accessible way for young learners. Storytelling promotes collaboration in the process of telling and listening to stories (Papert, 2000). Inviting children to invent stories (storytelling) means encouraging their narrative cognitive skills along with their linguistic and creative competencies (Zomer & Kay, 2014; Rahiem, 2021). As discussed in this chapter, these features are directly related to the core and driving principles of CLIL as a dual approach to content and language integrating learning based also on cognition, communication, and culture (Mehisto et al., 2008). Referring to the global relevance of technology in bilingual education, digital storytelling has become a valuable tool to help teachers encourage their learners to interact and support content comprehension (Kosara & Mackinlay, 2013). Defined as “the modern expression of the ancient art of storytelling” by Rule (2021), “digital stories derive their power by weaving images, music, narrative and voice together, thereby giving deep dimension and vivid color to characters, situations, experiences, and insights” (ibid.). The increasingly ubiquitous nature of digital texts facilitates access to content and technological tools to improve learning by helping learners create their narratives and present and share them more effectively (McLellan, 2007). In addition, digital storytelling helps young learners with their digital competence (Prensky, 2001), as supported by research evidence (O’Byrne et al., 2018; Rahiem, 2021), which is also relevant for CLIL education.

29

Digital Storytelling in Pre-primary CLIL Education

459

Notwithstanding, there may be concerns about using these digital texts and tools in the pre-primary classroom and questions about the role and place of using these digital screens and devices in very young learners’ education (Burnett, 2010; Flewitt et al., 2015). Mentoring learners in digital storytelling may seem overwhelming in pre-primary education, and, hence, it is crucial to recall experts’ recommendations regarding quality and screen media time for young children. In this sense, the American Academy of Pediatrics (2016) or the Council on Communications and Media (2016) recommend limiting screen media access for children aged 2–5 to 1 h per day of high-quality educational programming. Besides, these new developments and technologies should consider the best practices and contemporary theories in educational psychology to best scaffold learners (Gilutz, 2009). As it seems inevitable that children grow surrounded by digital devices and resources from their early childhood, considering the global character of technology, the question then is to offer them quality resources to favour their development and learning. To achieve that goal, as Blackwell et al. (2015) argue, it is necessary to understand further the child-machine interaction and the function of educational technologies in early childhood educational contexts. In this respect, Robin (2008) argues that learners who participate in the creation of digital stories “may develop enhanced communications skills by learning to organise their ideas, ask questions, express opinions, and construct narratives” (Robin, 2008, p. 5). Among other scholars, Iversen & Brodersen (2008) consider that digital storytelling encourages learners to communicate skills, fosters collaboration, and strengthens emergent literacy practices. They consider digital storytelling can support young learners’ social-emotional development by helping them find their narrative voice through writing and digital content construction, these competencies being in line with those encouraged by CLIL educational models. Considering the potential for applications of these technologies as an educational tool, it is essential to explore their impact on very young learners to guarantee a high-quality standard (Read & Markopoulos, 2013; Rideout, 2014).

The Relevance of Digital Storytelling in CLIL Pre-primary Education Digital storytelling can serve as a vehicle to draw together personal, social, and cultural experiences about the world, its real inhabitants, and its fictional characters. The richness involved in children literature becomes a valuable approach to culture, content, and language learning. These skills and competencies are relevant for bilingual education, where L1 and L2 literacy emerge concurrently, specifically in the CLIL pre-primary classroom. This pedagogical approach represents a modern view of L2 learning and mirrors first language acquisition by providing learners with immersive experiences, expecting L2 to emerge naturally as their L1. In this respect, García et al. (2008) propose analysing and understanding young learners’ learning process as a translanguaging strategy. Applying the principles of translanguaging and digital storytelling to pre-primary CLIL education, can allow educators to help very young

460

M. D. Ramírez-Verdugo

learners enjoy their whole learning experiences and develop their identities by creating a welcoming, creative, and inclusive space. In this respect, García et al. (2008, p. 46) consider bilingual education should be established through meaningful bilingual early childhood programs to provide rigorous, high-quality education and build on the strengths very young learners bring to school, particularly their home languages and cultures. In similar terms, Espino et al. (2019) argue there is no reason emergent bilingual students cannot be given access to challenging content that will help them develop their skills, knowledge, and language proficiency. These scholars propose to adopt an approach that scaffolds everyday instruction and provides structured opportunities for reading and written and oral expression while teaching academic vocabulary. This methodological strategy helps build students’ background knowledge without waiting for them to reach a certain level of L2 proficiency. L1 prior knowledge is considered an asset to the pre-primary classroom as a valuable way to provide language support to emergent bilingual very young learners while also exposing them to other cultures, customs, and languages. In this chapter, storytelling, and more specifically digital storytelling, seeks to engage very young learners in content areas and language learning, initially navigating from their L1 to L2 through a collaborative, scaffolded, and structured methodological proposal. This pedagogical perspective can increase opportunities for very young learners to show what they already know in their mother tongue and help open the pathway to their emergent L2 to express their knowledge, feelings, and emotions in an enriching learning environment. In this sense, it is worthy to recall that at this educational stage, the methodological principles should be based on experiences, activities, and games applied in a friendly and confident atmosphere to enhance very young learners’ self-esteem and social integration. In pre-primary education, curricular contents should be global and holistic, as stipulated by the European legal framework regarding early childhood education, based on interconnected and transversal themes, first directly related to the learners’ experience and surroundings, and then progressively related to their external environment. In this sense, Mehisto et al. (2008) and Coyle et al. (2010) remark that CLIL lessons should include opportunities for cognition, community/culture, content, and communication that defines the so-called 4Cs-framework developed by Coyle (1999). Its purpose is to ensure holistic and contextualised learning. Coyle (ibid.) holds that effective CLIL takes place when there is progress in terms of knowledge skills and subject matter grasp. That is, cognitive processing engagement, interaction in a communicative context, developing appropriate language knowledge and skills and acquiring a deepening intercultural awareness through positioning self and ‘otherness’. From this perspective, CLIL entails learning to use language adequately while using language to learn effectively. The 4Cs Framework for CLIL starts with content (subject matter, themes, cross-curricular approaches). It focuses on the interconnection between content, communication (language, as a learning tool, functions in three ways, that is, the language of, for and through learning), cognition (thinking processes) and culture (awareness of oneself and ‘otherness’) to build on the synergies of integrating learning (content and cognition)

29

Digital Storytelling in Pre-primary CLIL Education

461

and language learning (communication and cultures). It embraces learning theories, language learning theories and intercultural understanding. The relevance of digital storytelling in CLIL contexts allows focusing on developing a chosen curricular content for a story. That global content is intrinsically interconnected to communication or the integrated development of L2 language learning. Cognition and the specific cognitive and thinking processes involved in storytelling are activated engagingly. Culture or community (as proposed by Mehisto et al., 2008) gains relevance as it implies understanding how the content relates to learners’ lives outside school and the introduction to intercultural understanding. Finally, competence (‘Can Do’ statements), in the extended 5Cs Framework (Coyle et al., 2010), or the ability that enables very young learners to learn by doing -including digital technology competencies- becomes a crucial framework component in early childhood education. Hence, the 5Cs Framework is a tool for mapping out CLIL activities and upgrading potential in any model, level, and age, and particularly useful with very young learners. Regarding communication, in early childhood education, where L1 literacy is still emerging, children’s mother tongue becomes a necessary scaffolding strategy for L2 initial literacy. As Hua et al. (2019) claim, learners achieve learning through translanguaging practices involving the maximal use of diverse resources. In this sense, as they argue referring to knowledge construction, the knowledge acquired through one’s first language can and must play a positive role in L2 learning. Therefore, in the pre-primary classroom, CLIL should be explored through a translanguaging perspective. In this constructive process, learners typically brainstorm, conduct research, plan, write and illustrate a script, and develop their storylines. Then, employing different multimedia tools, digital storytelling may combine graphics, script, recorded audio narration, video, music, or animation, to present information on a specific topic using technology. As Ramírez-Verdugo argues A digital story provides a meaningful learning context for children involved in diverse, bilingual immersion programs. Digital stories support a holistic approach that links together different content areas through a transversal storyline. This [. . .] helps design bilingual lessons, adds cohesion to the content and language integrated learning approach (CLIL), and brings relevance to learners both inside and outside the classroom (Ramírez-Verdugo, 2013, p, 90).

Digital storytelling can benefit learners by learning from listening to stories or creating their own digital stories (Contini et al., 2015). These methodological possibilities are instrumental in a CLIL classroom where learners can enhance their knowledge and academic skills as they are asked to select or research on a topic, draw, or illustrate their ideas, look for pictures, create or narrate their storyboard, record their voice, and share their stories with their peers, friends, or family. Prior studies had focused on using digital storytelling as a vehicle to help learners build capacity for storytelling, engage in literacy practices, and strengthen interactions with others in and out of the classroom (Ioannou-Georgiou & RamírezVerdugo, 2011). The following section presents a global guideline to implement

462

M. D. Ramírez-Verdugo

digital storytelling in pre-primary education that can be applied to bilingual education and CLIL learning contexts.

Exploring Digital Storytelling from the Different Perspectives in CLIL Pre-primary Education The linguistic and educational benefits of stories for children in pre-primary and primary education have been identified in the field of ELT since the early 1980s (Garvie, 1990). Stories bring life’s messages and provide ‘meaning potential without which the learning of language is rigid’ (Garvie, 1991, p. 56). In early childhood education, as specified by the European legal framework regarding contents and competences for this educational stage, digital storytelling allows very young learners to achieve the objectives as it contributes to developing abilities in children as for instance, know their own body and that of others and their possibilities of action; observe and explore their family, natural, social, and cultural environment; acquire progressive autonomy in their usual activities; develop their affective capacities; develop communication skills in different languages and forms of expression; get started in logical-mathematical skills, reading, writing and movement, gesture, and rhythm; develop creativity; get started in the knowledge of science; or initiate experimentally in oral knowledge of a foreign language (Ramírez-Verdugo, 2013). Besides, storytelling can be explored from two different perspectives. The first view refers to listening to stories being told, for instance, when children listen to adults reading aloud and telling them stories and tales. In this sense, for Ellis and Mourão (2021, p. 22–25), storytelling is often used as a generic term to “telling stories without a book or reading stories aloud from a book.” However, this interchangeable use can be “misleading and result in misunderstanding, as telling and reading stories are two different activities that require different competencies.” On the one hand, oral storytelling implies telling a previously memorised story. However, in L2 teaching, this strategy can be demanding for some ELT teachers’ memory and language skills. As a result, the language used may vary on each retelling, which does not facilitate the acquisition of formulaic sequences or chunks, as children need exposure to consistent repetition and recycling to transfer these to other situations (Ramírez-Verdugo & Alonso, 2007: 87). In addition, limited visual support makes greater demands on a child’s ability to concentrate and listen to access meaning. Without the effective use of gestures to support understanding, children may lose engagement and concentration. On the other hand, reading aloud implies connecting stories, tales, or picture books to a physical book, which is constant and permanent. The pre-primary teacher has access to the words, enabling them to read and dramatise the story aloud more confidently. The pictures, visuals or illustrations can support the children’s understanding – or challenge them to interpret meaning if they do not always synchronise with the words. During each re-reading, or when the child browses through the book, the words and pictures are always the same, a consistency which enables the child to match meaning to the verbal and visual texts to identify, repeat and eventually, use or

29

Digital Storytelling in Pre-primary CLIL Education

463

adapt formulaic sequences, grammatical and prosodic patterns, or chunks of language to situations of their own choice. In this respect, Ioannou-Georgiou & Ramírez-Verdugo (2011, p. 141–152) offer a guideline to implement stories read or listened to in a pre-primary and primary CLIL context that can easily be applied to digital stories. The second perspective refers to digital storytelling as the process of creating the stories as an aesthetic artefact, like a picture book created by very young learners. These views imply different pedagogical models to promote children’s digital and narrative competence and enhance teachers’ competence to use technology for educational purposes. This chapter focuses on this second perspective. Section 4 explores the strategies necessary for digital storytelling in early childhood and proposes a pedagogical guideline for pre-primary CLIL education.

Creating Stories: A Guideline for Digital Storytelling in CLIL Pre-primary Education Creating stories implies activating prior knowledge and using materials to build new narrative sequences actively or ‘learning by discovery’ (Ausubel, 2000). This process allows young learners to learn new knowledge about the world and consolidate what they already know (Barrett, 2006). McLellan (2007) or Bower (2015) suggest that different technological tools and programs in early childhood education contexts help teachers create digital stories. Using digital stories in the classroom fosters young learners’ curiosity about a topic or a concept or links prior knowledge to new knowledge (Robin, 2006), or to explore an issue in depth (Simmons, 2006). For CLIL in pre-primary settings, digital storytelling combines planning, reflecting, researching, creating, analysing, and combining visual images with written text (Cherry, 2017). These competencies are critical skills to develop from early childhood education. In this sense, Robin & Pierson (2005) indicate that integrating visual elements with written text enhances and accelerates learner comprehension. Besides, digital storytelling has various applications in the classroom, including telling personal stories, narrating past events, or teaching on a particular topic (Jakes, 2006).

Digital Storytelling as an Instructional Method in Early Childhood The value of digital storytelling derives from the combined use of different forms and channels of communication (Yuksel, 2011; Boase, 2013). The final product obtained has the advantage of being more durable in time, accessible, and easily transferable than traditional stories. Digital storytelling is a powerful communication tool, as digital technologies have become more widely available to more significant numbers of people (Yuksel, 2011). Several authors claim that digital storytelling can be considered a method to understand better how it is possible to support children in the production of digital stories in early childhood educational contexts, both experiential and fictional. This strategy can be used in various ways and with

464

M. D. Ramírez-Verdugo

many different possible outcomes. According to Boase (2013), it is a method for using digital devices to support the educational process. The importance of the learning process from a learner-centred perspective is, in fact, one of the driving principles of CLIL (Mehisto et al., 2008). Lambert (2010), founder of the StoryCenter, identifies the major components of a digital story by disclosing the story cycle and the creative process into seven stages called The Seven Elements of Digital Storytelling. These elements were taken successfully as a reference in a STEAM-CLIL-Digital Storytelling project-based learning study (Ramírez-Verdugo, 2021, pp. 9–13) and have been adapted to pre-primary CLIL education in the present chapter: • Stage 1. A point of view shows the purpose and the author’s perspective of the story. This stage is directly related to planning skills, asking young learners to think about the stories they would like to tell. Then, the story cycle involves generating, organising, composing, and revising skills, directly related to CLIL driving principles. This stage involves the translanguaging pedagogical approach of using L1 as a scaffolding learning strategy to L2 (Garcia et al., 2008). • Stage 2. A dramatic question triggers the audience’s curiosity and will be explained by the end of the story. In pre-primary, a surprising element in their initial storyline is often related to this stage. • Stage 3. The emotional content engages the audience in terms of feelings. Young learners’ socioemotional and experiential development is at the heart of most of their stories. • Stage 4. The gift of voice is a tool that helps the audience understand the story. With the teacher’s support and assistance, learners’ voices are recorded while telling or reading their own stories and become a powerful tool to connect with their peers, teachers, and families. The goal is to capture and praise learner voices, allowing their stories to be shared and retold. In pre-primary, the teacher, or whenever possible, the language assistant, fully supports this stage, who manages the technology (O’Byrne et al., 2018; Rahiem, 2021). • Stage 5. The power of the soundtrack is the music that supports the story. If possible, adding music or simple sound effects related to the story is very motivating and rewarding for young learners, though they need their teachers or language assistants’ help in the sound selection and technical assistance. • Stage 6. The principle of economy avoids overloading the viewer with excessive use of visuals and audio. Young learners’ stories tend to be simple and brief as they are still struggling with their narrative competence. Their artwork in the form of illustrations and drawings of pictures support their storyline, in line with learners’ developmental stage. • Stage 7. Story rhythm and pace, that is, how slowly or quickly the story is told. It seems that young learners tend to replicate the rhythm and schemata they have interiorised from listening to stories. This final stage involves the public product presentation of their digital storytelling to an audience, their peers, teachers, friends, and relatives. It is also a way to respect, attend and promote learners’ diversity.

29

Digital Storytelling in Pre-primary CLIL Education

465

Teachers in CLIL pre-primary education can adapt and simplify these stages, providing support for young learners by scaffolding the creative storytelling process. In this sense, for Hall (2001), referring to L1 very young learners, it is possible to support young learners in the creation of stories in three different ways: (1) by self–recorded stories; (2) by telling a story through adult recorded stories; and (3) by symbolic play as storytelling. Similarly, Karlsson (2013) refers to the support provided by adults to create a story as ‘the story-crafting method’. Teachers in early childhood education often co-teach with another teacher or even with the L2 language assistant, who can time and effectively be involved in the necessary technical support very young learners need. This teacher-language assistant cooperation should be planned and naturally integrated into the lesson dynamic, as Gerena & Ramírez-Verdugo (2014) or Ramírez-Verdugo & Gerena (2020) claim, and as it is also stressed in ▶ Chap. 1 in this volume. Petrucco & De Rossi (2009) argue that helping young learners transfer an oral story into a digital text using the storyboard technique becomes a helpful scaffolding strategy. For L2 young learners taught with a pre-primary CLIL approach, scaffolding becomes crucial, where young learners are developing their emergent literacy skills, concurrently both in L1 and L2 (García et al., 2008). On the other hand, even though storytelling promotes the narrator’s voice, in pre-primary education, working in small groups can be helpful for young learners (Garrety, 2008; Yuksel, 2011; Boase, 2013). This peer collaboration is another driving principle in CLIL contexts (Mehisto et al., 2008). Digital storytelling becomes an effective collaboration tool that teachers can use to support learner collaboration and communication. The most potent example of digital storytelling may be when learners are asked to create their narratives individually or in a small group (Sadik, 2008). The tools and methodological strategies included in digital storytelling are helpful as teachers encourage learners to prepare their own stories for their classmates and connect with others in and out of school. Young learners can create digital stories inspired by the content and express mastery of the content. As mentioned above, it is necessary to adjust the digital storytelling process in pre-primary education, acknowledging some relevant issues. It is important to consider timing allocation and the organisation of an extended time for young learners to feel free to think, plan, make hypotheses, create their narrative projects, and review their stories. The organisation of space and environment should favour the creative process and facilitate the hands-on and digital activities involved. Other issues involve the materials and resources used, including illustrations, pictures, outlines, or drawings; the technology and digital devices employed; the narrative storyboard or script; the strategies to develop the story; the emergent literacy strategies in L1 and L2; the social interaction and communication skills developed; and finally, the teacher’s role along the learning process (Gariboldi & Catellani, 2013). As Bertolini & Contini (2018) state, for digital storytelling activities to be practical, teachers need to be trained and acquainted with the structure and features of digital stories; with the basic steps for planning, implementing, and assessing a

466

M. D. Ramírez-Verdugo

digital storytelling project; and with the required media and digital pedagogical competencies and actions. The digital storytelling pedagogical design should be based on a constructivist view of learning, where knowledge results from individual construction processes. In the pre-primary classroom, the storytelling process is frequently triggered by the pictures sketched by very young learners. Those visuals help to activate the construction of their stories. Depending on the learners’ developmental stage, in early childhood, their stories tend to have a straightforward narrative structure, which will gain in complexity as learners develop and grow in their literacy skills both in L1 and L2, as the pedagogical translanguaging approach postulates (García et al., 2008). When very young learners’ pictures and drawings are digitised, the storytelling experience is extended and enriched. The digital format allows for permanent access to their learning creative process and outcome, which is very rewarding for very young learners, as they can show and share their work with their peers, friends, and family. Adding music and soundtracks to the digital stories adds aesthetic and emotional components essential in early childhood. The digital storytelling pedagogical model presented in this chapter involves a learner-centred approach based on the learners’ previous vital and learning experiences to holistic contents, culture, cognition, and communication, as storytelling promotes interaction and communication in L1 and L2. The digital storytelling pedagogical model should promote a competency-based methodology and create authentic and meaningful learning situations for young learners, in the same line as the essential methodological principles of the CLIL approach.

Exemplifying Digital Storytelling in Pre-primary Education To illustrate the theoretical foundations reviewed in the previous sections, some digital storytelling in pre-primary education were examined and selected to support the pedagogical model proposed in this chapter. These samples were shared by pre-primary CLIL teachers collaborating with our research group, including 3, 4 and 5-year-old classrooms. Stories were often related to familiar environments or contexts, for example, animals and living things, the forest, or the sun, that are part of the holistic CLIL contents taught at this age. Contents related to young learners’ social and emotional environment and values such as family, friendship or pets are standard in their digital stories. In some cases, fictional and non-fictional characters are present in a story, displaying children’s developmental stages. In other cases, young learners are asked to develop their stories based on tales or stories they already know. A clear example is a story developed by Isa, a 5-year-old girl, who creates a story called Alexandra and the unicorn, about “a young girl who was walking in the forest, suddenly she heard a noise, went to see it, and found a unicorn. Alexandra asked him whether he would like to be her friend, he said “okay”, and that is the end of the story”. She wrote the story both in Spanish and in English with her teacher’s mediation. Here, the narrative structure is simple but involves a setting (the forest, a content area in pre-primary education), an element of surprise (a sudden noise),

29

Digital Storytelling in Pre-primary CLIL Education

467

actions and linguistic functions (being in the forest, greeting, meeting, asking questions, accepting an invitation), the relevant social and emotional value of friendship, and fictional (a unicorn) and non-fictional (a young girl) characters. Regarding literacy strategies, she used past tenses, direct speech when asking questions and reporting answers, and story opening (once upon a time) and closing (and they lived happily ever after) patterns. The closing formula was written in Spanish (y este cuento se [h]a terminado). She also includes the title of her story, signs her creation to claim authorship and dedicates it to her mum, as her potential reader, establishing a nice interconnection between her school and home. In this way, she is applying universal patterns of storytelling to her simple narration. With the help of her teacher, the next step in the creative process was to digitalise her story as part of the initial digital competencies at this age. The storytelling process could quickly end up at this stage. However, as Rahiem (2021) argues, it is time to go digital in early childhood education, given the current area of digitalisation. Therefore, for the digital dimension of her story, she drew several illustrations based on the story plot she had written first in Spanish, her mother tongue, see Fig. 29.1). Then, this initial L1 literacy process was used to rewrite the story in English, her L2. Her pictures were scanned and digitized, in this case using Storybird App (Fig. 29.2). This digital story served as the background for the video created, including her voice recording while reading out her story. The teacher used the movie to integrate video, voice, and sound effects. The resulting digital storytelling was played in the classroom show time so that all learners could enjoy the creativity and diversity of each of their stories. Then, the stories were shared with families extending the learning experience beyond the school and connecting it with the outside world. This artistic result was highly regarded by families reinforcing the necessary collaborative interconnection, appraisal, and mutual respect between the very young learners’ teachers and family, school, and community (Mehisto et al., 2008). Fig. 29.1 Isa’s Alexandra and the unicorn story in Spanish, her L1

468

M. D. Ramírez-Verdugo

A Storybird Alexandra and the Unicorn

Alexandra and the Unicorn

Alexandra asked him, would you like to be my friend?

by Isa

He said Okey. That is the end of the story.

A young girl was walking in the forest.

Digital story created

Suddendly she heard a noise, went to

by Isa.

see it and found a unicorn.

Fig. 29.2 Isa’s Alexandra and the unicorn digital story in L2, using Storybird App

Adapting the Seven Elements of Digital Storytelling, the story cycle and the translanguaging approach to the creative process in pre-primary CLIL education, as discussed in section “The Relevance of Digital Storytelling in CLIL Pre-primary Education,” involves asking young learners to think about the story they would like to tell (Stage 1). They decide on their story theme and plan their basic storyline (Stages 2 and 3). In this case, the child had initially written her story in Spanish, her mother tongue, and then, with her teacher’s support, had created her L2 version. At the ages of three and four, this initial planning stage is done mainly orally. In some cases, the initial planning phase of the story is done in L1 as a scaffolding strategy in the pre-primary CLIL classroom. At the age of five, depending on the child’s development, they may also note down some words, phrases, simple sentences, or formulaic speech (Bland & Mourão, 2017; Ramírez-Verdugo & Alonso, 2007; Van Scoter et al., 2001). The next stage usually engages young learners in producing their artwork and visual part of the story with drawings, pictures, stickers, or cut-outs (Stage 5). This stage also allows learners to develop their art and craft and psychomotor skills, which are relevant to integrating hands-on activities in their story cycle (Mourão & Ellis, 2021). In the final stage, their stories are made digital by combining their crafts with the technologies used. The typical digital techniques used in the story examples presented in this section involved scanning and digitising learners’ artwork to serve as the story background for the video created (Stage 6). The digital storytelling video included the learner’s voice recording of the story as a powerful tool to connect with their peers, teachers, and families (Stage 4). As mentioned above, the aim is for the learner’s voice to be captured and praised, allowing their stories to be shared and retold (Stage 7) as their final aesthetic outcome. This final stage involves the public

29

Digital Storytelling in Pre-primary CLIL Education

469

product presentation of their digital storytelling to an audience, either their classmates, teachers, or friends and relatives. The resulting digital storytelling video was uploaded to the school website with a link to YouTube. Along this creative process, teachers’ facilitating role is essential as they assist and supervise the whole process and help learners revise and reflect on their final projects. Tablets, digital cameras and video making software were the more popular digital tools used. Other digital stories were created applying this pre-primary CLIL approach for early childhood education in three global content areas about (1) self-knowledge and personal autonomy; (2) environment knowledge; and (3) languages, communication, and representation. This sample of digital storytelling exemplifies the results of adapting the Seven Elements of Digital Storytelling story cycle strategy together with the translanguaging approach to pre-primary CLIL education. Other methodological strategies and techniques could be used in this context, reinforcing an integrated approach to content and language learning.

Conclusion This chapter aimed to examine the theoretical foundations of digital storytelling to demonstrate its relevance to the CLIL approach in early childhood education. This theoretical backbone analyses digital storytelling from different perspectives, listening to stories or creating stories as storytellers. Each of these perspectives represents different pedagogical approaches. The instructional models aim to empower early childhood learners as emerging digital storytellers in bilingual contexts. These models allow teachers to use digital storytelling to support learners’ language and content integrated learning. When creating stories, the purpose is to encourage young learners to organise their ideas and knowledge, expressing them in L1 and L2 in a personal and meaningful way. This methodological strategy also helps develop communication skills and early literacy while promoting peer collaboration and social skills. Digital storytelling implies a learner interaction with technological tools, computers, or tablets to create their stories. Some examples of good practice presented in the chapter illustrate the potential of digital storytelling and some challenges that need to be considered by teachers and educators in bilingual education. In this sense, technological advances and multimedia applications favour the renewed interest in the value of the story in digital format in pre-primary school settings. This digital component in a particular story might facilitate a more global and complete picture and experience of the new language and culture inside and outside the classroom. A digital story seems to be also helpful when developing auditory perception skills as they tend to be supported by visual and interactive modes of information and communication. The digital storytelling process is directly linked to the CLIL driving principles as it creates a rich learning environment and supports learners’ linguistic, social, and emotional and digital competencies. Content, cognition, communication, and culture or community (Mehisto et al., 2008), as defined in the present study, are also prominent in digital storytelling and CLIL, adapting their principles to pre-primary

470

M. D. Ramírez-Verdugo

education, supported by the translanguaging approach proposed by García et al. (2008), as discussed in this chapter. Referring to the CLIL approach theoretical and methodological principles, curricular content is the initial triggering element within the extended 5Cs Framework (Coyle et al., 2010), that should dictate communication (language as a learning tool operates in three ways, that is, the language of, for and through learning), cognition and culture contents, competences, and strategies. The digital storytelling approach also develops literacy skills, including narrative competencies and grammatical and phonological skills. It can also be a valuable instrument to detect and identify potential difficulties in early language and cognitive development, which is relevant in pre-primary education. The multimodality associated with digital tools allows young learners to express their ideas using visual and graphical representation to support their literacy development and as a scaffolding strategy. Technical issues involved in implementing digital technology in early childhood education are faced and solved by fostering a co-teaching methodological dynamic in the pre-primary classroom, integrating the L2 language assistants within the lesson plan sessions efficiently and cooperatively (Gerena & Ramírez-Verdugo, 2014; Ramírez-Verdugo & Gerena, 2020). Further research is needed to examine digital storytelling impact on young learners, as pre-primary CLIL education can provide exciting environments for testing and assessing these digital technologies to support and improve quality learning.

References American Academy of Pediatrics. (2016). Managing media: We need a plan. American Academy of Pediatrics. Annamaria Contini, A., Bertolini, C., Manera, L., Martin, I., Schlemmer, D., Kiefer, M., Nousiainen, T., Merjovaara, O., & Sinan, M. (2015). Guidelines for digital storytelling in early childhood education. Erasmus+ KA2 – Cooperation for innovation and the exchange of good practices Strategic Partnerships for school education 2015–1-IT02-KA201-015118. Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Barrett, H. C. (2006). Researching and evaluating digital storytelling as a deep learning tool. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2006 (pp. 647–654). AACE. Berthoz, S., Armony, J. L., Blair, R. J. R., & Dolan, R. J. (2002). An fMRI study of intentional and unintentional (embarrassing) violations of social norms. Brain, 125(8), 1696–1708. Bertolini, C., & Contini, A. (2018). Digital storytelling for education. Aracne. Blackwell, C. K., Wartella, E., Lauricella, A. R., & Robb, M. (2015). Technology in the lives of educators and early childhood programs: Trends in access, use and professional development from 2012 to 2014. Center on Media and Human Development at Northwestern University. Boase, C. (2013). Digital storytelling for reflection and engagement: A study of the uses and potential of digital storytelling. Available at https://gjamissen.files.word-press.com. Retrieved June 20, 2021. Bower, M. (2015). A typology of web 2.0 learning technologies. Educause, 47, 763–777. Brink, T. T., Urton, K., Held, D., Kirilina, E., Hofmann, M., Klann-Delius, G., Jacobs, A. M., & Kuchinke, L. (2011). The role of orbitofrontal cortex in processing empathy stories in 4-to 8-year-old children. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 80. Retrieved July 10, 2021. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.

29

Digital Storytelling in Pre-primary CLIL Education

471

Burnett, C. (2010). Technology and literacy in early childhood educational settings: A review of research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 247–270. Cherry, W. R., Jr. (2017). Our place in the universe: The importance of story and storytelling in the classroom. Knowledge Quest, 46, 50–55. Council on Communications and Media. (2016). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162591. Coyle, D. (1999). Supporting students in content and language integrated contexts: Planning for effective classrooms. In J. Masih (Ed.), Learning through a foreign language – Models, methods, and outcomes (pp. 46–62). Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT). Coyle, D. (2005). The teaching observatory: Exploring zones of interactivity. In G. Holmberg, M. Shelley, & C. White (Eds.), Languages and distance education: Evolution and change (pp. 309–326). Multilingual Matters. Coyle, D. (2007). Content and language integrated learning: Towards a connected research agenda for CLIL pedagogies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 543–562. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Putting the pieces together: Impact of preschool on children’s language and literacy development in kindergarten. In D. K. Dickinson & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school (pp. 257–287). Paul H Brookes Publishing. Espino Calderon, M., Dove, M., Staehr Fenner, D., Gottlieb, M., Honigsfeld, A., Ward Singer, T., Slakk, S., Soto, I., & Zacarian, D. (2019). Breaking down the wall: Essential shifts for English learners’ success. SAGE Publications. Felix, U. (1995). Theater interaktiv: Multimedia integration of language and literature. On-CALL, 9, 12–16. Flewitt, R., Messer, D., & Kucirkova, N. (2015). New directions for early literacy in a digital age: The iPad. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15, 289–310. Gariboldi, A., & Catellani, N. (Eds.). (2013). Creativity in pre–school education. Sern. Garrety, C. M. (2008). Digital storytelling: An emerging tool for student and teaching learning, retrieved from Iowa State University, Digital Repository (Retrieved July 10, 2021). Garvie, E. (1990). Story as vehicle: Teaching English to young children. Multilingual Matters. Garvie, E. (1991). Teaching English through story. In C. Kennedy & J. Jarvis (Eds.), Ideas and issues in primary ELT. Nelson. Gerena, L., & Ramírez-Verdugo, M. D. (2014). Analysing bilingual teaching and learning in Madrid, Spain: A Fulbright scholar collaborative research project. GIST Education and Learning Research Journal, 8, 118–136. Gilutz, S. (2009). Young children’s learning of novel digital interfaces: How technology experience, age, and design come into play. Columbia University. Glazer, S. M., & Burke, E. M. (1994). An integrated approach to early literacy: Literature to language. Allyn and Bacon. Hall, N. (2001). Young children as storytellers. Facilitating preschool literacy. International Reading Association. Hoven, D. (1999). A model for listening and viewing comprehension in multimedia environments. Language Learning and Technology, 3(1), 88–103. Hsu, C. T., Jacobs, A. M., Citron, F. M., & Conrad, M. (2015). The emotion potential of words and passages in reading Harry Potter – An fMRI study. Brain Language, 142, 96–114. Hua, Z., Wei, L., & Jankowicz-Pytel, D. (2019). Translanguaging and embodied teaching and learning: Lessons from a multilingual karate club in London. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1599811 Isbell, R. (2002). Telling and retelling stories: Learning language and literacy. Young Children, 57(2), 26–30. Isbell, R., Sobol, J., Lindauer, L., & Lowrance, A. (2004). The effects of storytelling and story reading on the oral language complexity and story comprehension of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32, 157–163.

472

M. D. Ramírez-Verdugo

Iversen, O. S., & Brodersen, C. (2008). Building a BRIDGE between children and users: A sociocultural approach to child–computer interaction. Cognition Technology and Work, 10(2), 83–93. Jakes, D. (2006). Standards-proof your digital storytelling efforts. Tech & Learning (Retrieved July 10, 2021). Jennings, C. (1991). Children as storytellers. Oxford University Press. Karlsson, L. (2013). Storycrafting method to share, participate, tell, and listen in practice and research. The European Journal of Social Behavioural Sciences, 6(3), 1109–1117. Kosara, R., & Mackinlay, J. (2013). Storytelling: The next step for visualisation. Computer, 46, 44–50. Lambert, J. (2010). Digital storytelling cookbook. Digital Diner Press. Lehne, M., Engel, P., Rohrmeier, M., Menninghaus, W., Jacobs, A. M., & Koelsch, S. (2015). Reading a suspenseful literary text activates brain areas related to social cognition and predictive inference. PLoS One, 10, e0124550. McLellan, H. (2007). Digital storytelling in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(1), 65–79. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Education. Mourão, S., & Ellis, G. (2020a). Teaching English to pre-primary children. Delta Publishing. Mourão, S with Ellis, G. (2020b). Teaching English to pre-primary children: Educating very young children. Ernst Klett Sprachen. Mourão, S., & Ellis, G. (2021). Demystifying the read-aloud. Teaching Young Learners Journal, Issue 136, 22–25. O’Byrne, W. I., Stone, R., & White, M. (2018). Digital storytelling in early childhood: Student illustrations shaping social interactions. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1800. (Retrieved July 20, 2021). Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3.4), 720–729. Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 22–33. Petrucco, C., & De Rossi, M. (2009). Narrating with digital storytelling at school and in organizations [Narrare con il digital storytelling a scuola e nelle organizzazioni]. Carocci. Polly, D., Allman, B., Casto, A., & Norwood, J. (2018). Sociocultural perspectives of learning, Ch. 12. In R. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. Pressbooks. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Rahiem, M. (2021). Storytelling in early childhood education: Time to go digital. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 15, 4. Ramírez-Verdugo, D., & Alonso, I. (2007). Using digital stories to improve listening comprehension with Spanish young learners of English. Language Learning & Technology, 11(1), 87–101. Ramírez-Verdugo, M. D. (2013). Experiencing a digital story in bilingual education and CLIL settings. In M. Alcantud-Díaz & C. Gregori-Signes (Eds.), Experiencing digital storytelling (pp. 90–98). JPM Ediciones. Ramírez-Verdugo, M. D. (2021). International teacher education network: Innovation, research, and good practices. In M. D. Ramírez-Verdugo & B. Otcu-Grillman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches toward enhancing teacher education (pp. 1–19). IGI-Global Editions. Ramírez-Verdugo, M. D., & Gerena, L. (2020). Bilingual education from learner perspectives. In M. E. Gómez Parra & C. H. Abril (Eds.), Handbook of research on bilingual and intercultural education (pp. 408–426). IGI-Global Editions. Ramírez-Verdugo, M. D., & Sotomayor, M. V. (2012). El valor de una historia digital en el contexto europeo de aprendizaje integrado a través de lengua y contenido (CLIL). Digital Education Review Journal, 22, 52–67. Read, J. C., & Markopoulos, P. (2013). Child–computer interaction. International Journal of ChildComputer Interaction, 1(1), 2–6.

29

Digital Storytelling in Pre-primary CLIL Education

473

Richards, J. C., & Anderson, N. A. (2003). What do I see? What do I think? What do I wonder? (STW): A visual literacy strategy to help emergent readers focus on storybook illustrations. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 442–444. Rideout, V. J. (2014). Learning at home: Families’ educational media use in America. A report of the families and media project. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Robin, B. (2006). The educational uses of digital storytelling. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2006 (pp. 709–716). AACE. Robin, B. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 220–228. Robin, B., & Pierson, M. (2005). A multilevel approach to using digital storytelling in the classroom. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference 2005 (pp. 708–716). AACE. Rossiter, M. (2002). Narrative and stories in adult teaching and learning. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education. Rule, L. (2021). Digital storytelling. Digital Storytelling Association. Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged students learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 487–506. Simmons, A. (2006). The story factor: Secrets of influence from the art of storytelling. Basic books. Semino, E. (2009). Text worlds. In G. Brone & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains, and gaps (pp. 33–71). Mouton De Gruyter. Speer, N. K., Reynolds, J. R., Swallow, K. M., & Zacks, J. M. (2009). Reading stories activates neural representations of visual and motor experiences. Psychological Science, 20, 989–999. Van Scoter, J., Ellis, D., & Railsback, J. (2001). Technology in early childhood education: Finding the balance. Northwest Educational Technology Consortium. Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive reading and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 243–250. Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872. Wright, A. (2000). Stories and their importance in language teaching. Humanising Language Teaching, 2(5), 1–6. Wright, J. L., & Shade, D. D. (Eds.). (1994). Young children: Active learners in a technological age. National Association for the Education of Young Children. Yüksel, P. (2011), Using digital storytelling in early childhood education: A phenomenological study of teachers’ experiences. (PhD dissertation). The Middle East Technical University. Yuksel, P., Robin, B., & Mcneil, S. (2011). Educational uses of digital storytelling all around the world. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference 2011 (pp. 1264–1271) AACE. Zevenbergenn, A. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2003). Dialogic reading: A shared picture book reading intervention for preschoolers. In A. van Kleek, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 177–200). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zomer, R. N., & Kay, R. K. (2014). Technology use in early childhood education: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Informatics, 1, 1–25.

CLIL-ing Preschoolers Through Cartoons and Other Audiovisual Materials

30

Thomaı¨ Alexiou

Contents The Importance of Input in the CLIL Pre-primary Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Audio-Visuals in the CLIL Pre-primary Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Audio-Visual Material in the CLIL Pre-primary Classroom. Evidence from Classroom Experience and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Studies on Animated Series and Educational Videos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Studies on Picture Books and Story Sacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Studies on ICT and Digital Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facts and Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

476 478 479 481 481 483 485 487 489 489

Abstract

One of the major challenges for pre-primary EFL instruction is the provision of a sufficient amount of appropriate input. Learning at these early stages takes place in a playful and experiential way that includes games, songs, rhymes, stories, colouring and drawing, arts, crafts and projects. Recent developments in early language settings consider CLIL an ideal approach for learning both language and content. Within this framework, audio-visual materials and resources are undoubtedly essential tools. Ranging from picture books and story sacks to computers, tablets, whiteboards and TV, audio-visual materials can serve as useful tools offering ample visual stimuli in the integration of content and language in the preschool context and offer huge potential for L2 language learning (Milton J, Garbi A, Educ Technol Soc 3:286–292, 2000). Animated television series and cartoons are a promising source of such input and a stimulus for classroom interaction. These can be suitable both linguistically but also T. Alexiou (*) Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_30

475

476

T. Alexiou

cognitively for children. Moreover, cartoons offer a naturalistic and implicit exposure to relatively authentic language (Alexiou, 2015). This chapter will focus on different forms of using and utilizing cartoons and other audio-visuals as a way of complimenting a CLIL approach in preschool education in the hope to unveil all the potential and multi-dimensions this framework may offer. Keywords

Cartoons · Audio-visuals · Pre-primary · CLIL · EFL

The Importance of Input in the CLIL Pre-primary Context A common myth regarding early childhood education is that children may get overwhelmed or confused if they are to acquire grammatical structures and vocabulary other than those of their first language. Espinosa (2010) among other researchers affirmed that this is untrue, especially since young children are innately competent to learn any language, particularly at these young ages. However, as with all other similar studies in this area the general consensus is that children should be provided with ample stimuli in the additional/second/foreign language. Through early exposure, children benefit holistically and develop in cognitive, linguistic, socio-cultural and emotional domains (Alexiou, 2020; Espinosa, 2010). In the course of shaping plural identities through coming in contact with multicultural contexts and in agreement with twenty-first century skills, the methodology known as CLIL or else Content and Language Integrated Learning has become widely popular (Cortina-Pérez & Pino Rodríguez, 2021). CLIL approach to methodologies has even been embedded in the pre-primary setting (Marsh, 2002, 2005). It has ceased therefore to be a privilege of some, as it used to be the case (Coyle, 2009). In fact, CLIL has managed to cultivate a spirit of multilingualism as well as plurilingualism (Huang, 2015), and thus offer a “European solution to a European need” (Marsh, 2002, p. 11). Coyle et al. (2010) emphasize that if language learning takes place in a naturalistic way, integrated with other types of learning, then early language learning is achievable. This is one of the reasons why CLIL seems to be an effective approach in pre-primary education (Fernández, 2014). Moreover, the holistic approach of CLIL may actually offer satisfactory results even at a very young age (ibid) while the flexibility CLIL offers makes it even more appropriate in the preschool context. Unsurprisingly, the way in which CLIL is implemented in the preschool setting concentrates on the development of young learners’ oral and aural skills (Fernández, 2014) and limited attention is placed on literacy. According to Mehisto et al. (2008, p. 13–18), at this young age, implementation takes the form of “language showers” and/or “early immersion”. As Fernández (2014) explains, both aforementioned approaches aim to familiarize young learners with the target language via activities which are engaging, fun and familiar to them. Nonetheless, in order to meet the reality of the pre-primary classroom, ‘CLIL-ing’ very young learners entails the

30

CLIL-ing Preschoolers Through Cartoons and Other Audiovisual Materials

477

adoption of a variety of methods, approaches and techniques in order to integrate language learning into the pre-primary curriculum (ibid). The use of authentic, real language can positively affect young learners’ motivation and attitude towards language learning in general (Marsh, 2000). Marsh (2000) further affirms that CLIL helps children immerse into topics that interest them, so that they do not focus on the language or its structure. This immersion into a naturalistic language environment, similar to that of native young learners, allows not only a bountiful of language resources available to the learners but also the opportunity to develop in a holistic way (Fernández, 2014). In that sense, “children learn to use the language, and use language to learn” (Mehisto et al., 2008, p.26). Still, rather surprisingly, there is little CLIL implementation in pre-primary schools worldwide. Galés & Vives’ (2013) study gives a summary of the most prominent FL teaching programs implemented in bilingual Catalonia, content-based project-work and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). As indicated, these are the approaches which allow learners to successfully learn a third language, English, after Spanish and Catalonian (Galés & Vives, 2013). The main training programmes included Primary and Preschool English Teaching Programmes (Formació per a l’ensenyament de l’anglès a l’educació infantil i primària-ANIP), and Preschool English Teaching Programmes (Formació per a l’ensenyament de l’anglès a l’educació infantile-ANIN)’ (Galés & Vives’, 2013, p.159) and yielded promising results. The authors conclude that by implementing a CLIL or a content-based project-work approach, young learners can acquire or develop lifelong learning skills and competences effectively (Galés & Vives, 2013). An inspiring innovation in the CLIL area was the PROCLIL programme which focused on a type of CLIL instruction in the primary and pre-primary context (Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011). In collaboration with universities in Spain (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) and in Germany (Weingarten University of Education), the University of Cyprus investigated various types of CLIL implementation, recognizing issues, suggesting solutions and highlighting good practices (Ioannou-Georgiou & Pavlou, 2011). Additionally, the programme aimed at offering training and courses for practicing teachers and educators (Kiely, 2011). Through systematic observations, interviews and analysis of the materials, a bank of good practices and a database of teaching materials was created. As Kiely (2011) outlines, the importance of CLIL expertise and peer support, the support of the learners as well as the creation of a safe and nurturing learning environment were essential parameters for CLIL to be successful in the early years. More recently, Greece introduced EFL in preschools through the EAN project (2021–2022) according to which English is integrated into the preschool curriculum in an original and pioneering way through CLIL. The EAN project follows the New Preschool curriculum, introduces English naturally through CLIL, promotes the cooperation between EFL and preschool teachers, develops intercultural competence, and cultivates children’s holistic development. In the course of the project, a mass asynchronous training scheme for both EFL and preschool teachers (more than 18,000 trainees) is offered by an interdisciplinary

478

T. Alexiou

team of academics and systematic monitoring (including focus groups, evaluation processes, and measuring children’s learning outcomes) is realized. All CLIL educational scenarios (introduced for the very first time) along with a rich array of resources and ideas are accessible on EAN educational site (www.ean.auth.gr). EAN does not only reflect international practices but advances them both in the context of early foreign language learning and in relation to teacher training and support.

Types of Input The quantity and quality of input in early foreign language learning remains the only factor that can hardly be disputed. Teaching in early childhood is informal, following a playful approach with an array of rhymes, songs, short stories, colouring and more (Alexiou, 2015), but ample stimuli and systematic input are imperative if we want to achieve any results at all. (Mehisto et al., 2008, p.22) emphasize that “the language input needs to be simple enough and presented in a reader-friendly manner so as to facilitate comprehension, while at the same time being sufficiently content-rich and cognitively challenging to capture students’ interest”. It is apparent, therefore, that if young foreign language learners are to put in use their implicit learning capabilities, they need to be exposed to a vast amount of input and particularly more than any other context (Scheffler et al., 2020). Nonetheless, input alone is not adequate to ensure ultimate attainment, as research suggests that children should also be provided with opportunities for conversing and socially interacting with proficient and competent users (Dąbrowska, 2004). Being exposed at an early age to adult input by people who are competent in the target language, children will be better prepared to enter preschool and revisit all the linguistic elements they have already been exposed to (Scheffler et al., 2020). The estimations of vocabulary uptake in L1 at the early years of childhood differ across literature. Some researchers argue that approximately 1000 words per year are acquired at these young ages (Schmitt & McCarthy, 1997). Others argue that children can acquire as many as 3000 words per year (Nagy & Herman, 1984). It is supported that native speakers of English around the age of four or five may master roughly 4000 to 5000 word families (Nation & Waring, 1997). More recent research, however, has revealed that the number of lexical growth in L1 early childhood is indeed quite smaller, that is approximately 600 words per year (Biemiller & Slonim, 2001). What is the case with early L2 lexical growth, though? Studies have revealed that after being exposed to English for five years, L2 young learners have acquired between 1000 to 2000 word families (Nation, 1990; Milton & Alexiou, 2009). It is evident therefore, that there is a big difference between L1 and L2 early childhood lexical growth. This could be explained due to the smaller amount of exposure as well as input foreign language young learners receive, compared to the native ones. This gap between L1 and L2 young learners’ lexical growth (Milton & Alexiou, 2009) can be bridged with supplementary exposure of the second to a variety of

30

CLIL-ing Preschoolers Through Cartoons and Other Audiovisual Materials

479

materials, such as cartoon series, computer games, etc., that will assist in the increase of vocabulary uptake (Alexiou et al., 2019). Word frequency is another factor to be taken into consideration when it comes to vocabulary learning (Milton, 2009). Although a tendency has been observed to focus on highly frequent function words over less frequent content words (Nation, 2001), there should be a balance. In other words, the input provided to young learners should include a combination of highly and low frequent words (Milton & Vassiliu, 2000), attracting young learners’ attention and interest as well as appealing to their real life world (Alexiou & Konstantakis, 2009).

Types of Audio-Visuals in the CLIL Pre-primary Classroom This chapter looks at 3 important types of audiovisual materials that can be used in CLIL pre-primary settings. It is not entirely clear which materials fall into the ‘Audio-visual’ category. Audio-visual materials could be generally defined as “an amount of visual and aural techniques that support the teaching, facilitating a bigger and faster comprehension and interpretation of the ideas” (Sierras, 2002, p. 83). As Sierras (cited in Castro, 2016) notes, the television, the video, the video camera and the (old school) cassette are considered as audio-visual media (p. 86). Zúñiga (1998), though, believes that the television, the radio and the cinema constitute audio-visual materials, including newspapers and posters, too. Figure 30.1 below shows an indicative representation of the types of audiovisuals usually used in contemporary classrooms. Starting with TV and videos, it is a fact that authentic videos or television programmes accommodate both entertaining as well as uncomplicated content, in a story-based framework, which is particularly appropriate for young learners and quite efficient for their vocabulary development (Sydorenko, 2010). Motivation,

Fig. 30.1 Example of audio-visual materials with the use of technology. (Author’s figure)

480

T. Alexiou

therefore, stems from the ability to understand a real person speaking English in different accents and using various expressions In that sense, videos can be considered as cultivating a real world life skill, and thus, provides purpose in learning the language. Moving to picture books, multimodality is what makes them so unique (Kress, 2003). Meaning is created with the combination of pictures, words and design (Kress, 2003). The fact that this is an interdependent combination is what actually characterizes the uniqueness of this tool (Lewis, 2001). As Shulevitz (1985, p.15) has stated, picture books “could not be read over the radio and be understood fully”. The combination of visual cues along with the text can ensure comprehension of the meaning entailed (Nikolajeva & Scott, 2006; Nodelman, 1988). In fact, the visual cues may enhance or explain completely or offer a contradictory message to the wording of a picture book (ibid). Picture books, however, offer input, if there are many words included, as some of them are wordless, for the sake of providing an interesting story (Mourão, 2019). That said, their authenticity lies with the fact that authors and illustrators do not modify their work in order to accommodate or assist language learning (Mourão, 2019). Story sacks, first introduced by Neil Griffiths, is another set of audio-visual materials that can be employed in the CLIL pre-primary classroom. Story sacks are composed of books specifically designed for children, materials that will trigger reading activities, soft toys and puppets, which relate to the story, all in one bag. Usually, story sacks also contain an audio tape or a CD, language games related to the book and ideas and suggestions for parents to support their children’s efforts to improve their literacy skills. Although story sacks are not widely discussed in literature, there is an abundance of research underlining their importance (Barron & Powell, 2003). Finally, “all forms of ICT are essential instruments as they provide ample visual stimuli” (Alexiou, 2015, p.287). (Evans and Green, 2006) (cited in Ramirez, 2013), further explain that young learners acquiring an additional language are forming connections and creating associations between their previous knowledge and the knowledge to be acquired. It is documented that children are able to form connections regarding what they are watching and what they are listening to (CanningWilson, 2001). Audio-visual materials facilitate and expand vocabulary learning, as children have visual stimuli accompanying language input and therefore new word schemas are created. The use of audio-visual materials can change the dynamic of a typical classroom and transform it into a lively one, where learners feel motivated to participate, enthusiastic with the materials used and hence actively engaged in the activities (Rusmiati & Rosdiana, 2017). Lin (2016) underlined that when providing learning experiences for young learners, we need to employ multimodalities, such as audiovisuals, images, graphic organizers and every resource available to the young learners. Thankfully, as Andúgar & Cortina-Pérez (2018) note, there is an abundance of resources that offer a fun learning experience in the classroom.

30

CLIL-ing Preschoolers Through Cartoons and Other Audiovisual Materials

481

Using Audio-Visual Material in the CLIL Pre-primary Classroom. Evidence from Classroom Experience and Practice There is a variety of research and studies underlining the importance of using audiovisual materials in the pre-primary classroom. The use of audio-visual materials to promote early childhood language learning traces back years. More interestingly though, the audio-visual materials help to effectively implement the CLIL methodology, that is the 4Cs - Content, Cognition, Communication and Culture (Coyle, 2002). The use of authentic language speech, and the exposure to different cultures and civilizations via many TV programmes as well as their communicative purpose adhere to the main principles of CLIL. More specifically, audio-visual materials may offer ample and variegated genres of language speech and different accents, adding more authenticity to the exposure and input learners receive. Consequently, rich input is ensured while learners receive information about different people, customs, and ethics around the world. In the following section we will see what research data show regarding the most popular and important types of audio-visual materials and how these apply to the CLIL preschool context.

Research Studies on Animated Series and Educational Videos Starting with cartoons and animated series, one of the first and most studied programmes for children in television is Sesame Street (Krcmar et al., 2007). It has been aired since 1969 (Ball & Bogatz, 1970). The target audience was young children between the ages of three and five, aiming to assist pre schoolers prepare for school (Ball & Bogatz, 1970). Via watching Sesame Street, children were taught numbers, letter recognition as well as some skills, such as matching. Authentic language exposure is one of the most important criteria for audio-visual selection, as it ensures the development of lexical competence as well as the uptake of incidental vocabulary (Siyanova-Chanturia & Webb, 2016). Moreover, cognition, a basic CLIL tenet, can be achieved while using this particular animated series as a teaching tool. A very popular cartoon series, Peppa Pig is thought to be a very useful tool for language learning, especially at young ages (Alexiou, 2015). Alexiou’s study on Peppa Pig in 2015 highlighted that young learners who watched the episodes were able to acquire approximately one third of the vocabulary they were exposed to, without any further instruction. What is more, the Peppa Pig series provides ample exposure to lexical chunks, which support young learners’ memory growth and boosts their confidence (Alexiou & Kokla, 2018a; Alexiou & Konstantakis, 2009). Moreover, Alexiou & Kokla (2018a) conducted a corpus analysis of Peppa Pig episodes, investigating the vocabulary contained in the 243 episodes analysed. They focused on the vocabulary frequency, the appropriateness for young learners as well as the existence of lexical chunks and the repetition of them. Results suggested that more than half of the highly frequent English words are included in Peppa Pig

482

T. Alexiou

episodes as well as a huge number of infrequent ones. Additionally, it was discovered that a broad variety of simple and situation – related lexical chunks were found in eight of the episodes analysed (ibid). The findings of the particular corpus study indicated that the Peppa Pig series is a TV programme suitable for young learners, with authentic instances of language and vocabulary which relates to the young learners’ world, such as fairy, dragon, or the similar. In fact, the combination of frequent and infrequent vocabulary along with ample repetition is what constitutes this particular TV series an impressive linguistic tool for pre schoolers. Furthermore, it has been found that the particular series promotes multiculturalism and teaches positive pro-social behaviour (Alexiou & Kokla, 2019). Finally, it is worth mentioning that what makes Peppa Pig greatly suitable for young children is that all actions and situations involve preschool experiences which is a setting familiar to children (Prošic-Santovac, 2016); that could be one reason why Peppa Pig is so popular in this age group. Such a cartoon would serve well in a CLIL classroom environment, supporting in fact all the main principles of the particular methodology. Furthermore, Alexiou et al. (2015) conducted a study with 75 Greek preschool learners between the ages of 5 and 7. The participants were split into two groups, 40 pre schoolers watched five Cailou episodes, receiving no instruction and 35 pre schoolers viewed 5 Peppa Pig episodes and they were then explicitly instructed with ICT regarding the vocabulary included. Results indicated that, through both of the aforementioned series, an abundance of words were gained by the participants in an effortless and quick way. Findings of the particular study also highlighted the positive attitude of pre schoolers towards learning through the implementation of ICT (ibid). Here again, it is apparent that both TV programmes could be effectively exploited to ensure CLIL instruction can take place, aiming particularly towards cognition and communication. Charlie and Lola is another popular series of episodes designed for children at preschool age. This animation promotes true values but also has humorous moments full of imagination. The visual representations depicted are appealing to young children, the content is simplified, yet entertaining, and there is sufficient repetition of words as well as simplistic and clear speech (Alexiou & Yfouli, 2019). Alexiou & Yfouli (2019) also comment on the depiction of two siblings and characterize this particular animation as a worthy tool for young learners’ vocabulary development. Their study concerned 30 young learners watching the particular animations with no further explicit or implicit instruction. The results indicated that learners were able to identify many words and phrases included in the episodes they have watched, and they were also able to produce some of them (ibid). The authors conclude that this animated series can serve as a rich source for language input and vocabulary development. In the CLIL pre- primary context, the particular animation could enhance children’s cognitive, communicative and cultural development and also depicts a nice sibling relationship. Additionally, Baby Wordsworth, a cartoon specifically addressed to very young ages was found to promote building of words, as individual lexical items but also as fixed phrases (Robb et al., 2009). This is quite important, as it promotes cognition and its development, one of the main CLIL principles. The Table 30.1 below lists the

30

CLIL-ing Preschoolers Through Cartoons and Other Audiovisual Materials

483

Table 30.1 Multidimensional benefits of using cartoons in the early years Cartoon Sesame Street

Peppa Pig

Charlie and Lola

Baby Wordsworth

Benefits according to research • Assists pre schoolers prepare for school • Teaches number learning and letter recognition • Facilitates the acquisition of important simple and complex cognitive skills for example matching, classification, etc. Ball & Bogatz, 1970 • Provides ample exposure to lexical chunks • Develops socio-emotional elements, i.e. confidence and intrinsic motivation • Develops pro-social behaviour and promotes multiculturalism Alexiou, 2015; Alexiou & Kokla, 2019 • Provides authentic language exposure and accurate representation of spoken words Prosic- Santovac, 2016 • Offers sufficient repetition of words • Provides simplistic and clear speech • Promotes socio – emotional aspects such as a beautiful siblings relationship is portrayed, emphasis is placed on values in general Alexiou & Yfouli, 2019 • Assists word building: individual lexical items and fixed phrases • Offers cross-situational stimuli Robb et al., 2009

suggested audio-visual material along with the benefits that research indicates accompanies them. All these benefits mentioned before are not just linguistic but also cognitive, socio-cultural or even content and for that reason, they adhere to the CLIL principles. Regarding videos, educational videos have also been found effective as teachers can use colourful clips, films or even slideshows to attract the learners’ attention to the lesson and encourage them to learn the language. The advantages of using videos as audio-visual materials in the CLIL pre-primary classroom are numerous. Most importantly, young learners’ motivation increases, as they focus on the language they are watching and listening to (Fernández, 2014). Fernández (2014) particularly states that this conscious attempt can help them improve their comprehension skills. Videos also need to be chosen based on the learners’ interests sparking their imagination and their creativity. That is, once the learners are interested in the content, they will be ready to learn and they will be receptive to the activities planned. Since videos provide strong visual cues, comprehension of authentic texts is facilitated as well as cultivation and development of strategies (guesswork, prediction). Therefore, cognition, one of CLIL’s 4Cs can be achieved.

Research Studies on Picture Books and Story Sacks Regarding picture books, Mourão has investigated their importance in depth, claiming that not only do they provide authenticity when it comes to the language context, but they also assist children to make meaning in the language classroom

484

T. Alexiou

(Mourão, 2013a, b, 2016, 2019). The use of illustrations represents content and supports story-telling (Wu, 2019). Picture books rely on concept, including predictable, repetitious (Linse, 2007) or sometimes accruing rhyming patterns of language, along with eye pleasing illustrations which add more meaning or provide additional information (Mourão, 2017). While some picture books are simple, meaning they enhance wording the visual cues, some others make this interdependence more complex (Mourão, 2019). More specifically, sometimes the pictures represent differentiated meaning to the text, so that illustrations do not coincide with wording (ibid). This creates a “gap” which “challenges young learners to search for and, in the classroom, negotiate understanding and meaning” (Bland, 2013, p. 32), while providing “realistic opportunities for interaction and talk, instinctive in children at this age” (Halliwell, 1992, p. 5). Research on the use of English picture books in Portuguese pre school English classes indeed indicates that foreign language learning is increased when visual cues are combined with verbal texts, as they offer ample language input (Mourão, 2009). More interestingly though, results indicated that learners are actively engaged while striving to make meaning, enabling them to successfully acquire the target language (ibid). Mourão’s (2006) study on the reading and repetition of two picture books, Peek a boo friends and My Daddy revealed that the 22 pre schoolers were able to retell chunks successfully or occasionally the whole script. This shared process of storytelling and discovering meaning and gaining knowledge was found to be quite enjoyable for them (ibid). Hence, picture books, if they are to be used in a CLIL pre-primary classroom, can offer exposure to authentic language, enhance young learners’ cognitive skills as their try to decipher meaning, expose them to different cultures depending on the picture book used, while securing that the content is interesting and engaging for young learners. It is therefore apparent that picture books are one of the most valuable tools while CLIL-ing young learners. Story sacks aid the development of linguistic and literacy skills, as they are interwoven with the significance of parental involvement (Barron & Powell, 2003). Barron & Powell (2003) characterized story sacks “as a vehicle for developing the literacy skills of both parents and children” (p. 129). In a study carried out in England (ibid) the use of story sacks by parents and their young children was investigated. Via observation and interviews, it was found that both parties acknowledged that story sacks are an invaluable resource that allows for children’s exploration and expansion of language and literacy with the aid of adult support (Barron & Powell, 2003). It was also found that children were in a position to express themselves freely in the way they experience and comprehend the world around them (ibid). This creative activity in a pre-primary CLIL classroom could therefore stimulate communication, as young learners will strive to develop meaning while listening to the narration of a book and playing with the puppets or toys included. Weinberger & Stafford (2004) carried out an interview with a practitioner regarding story sacks. The parameters of social, emotional as well as personal development while using story sacks with young learners were raised. Turn taking and role play with puppets were some of the examples given, showing both the aforementioned

30

CLIL-ing Preschoolers Through Cartoons and Other Audiovisual Materials

485

development (Weinberger & Stafford, 2004) but also the development of communication skills. Moreover, story sacks could enhance the multicultural awareness of children and the world around them. Specifically, the interviewee mentioned the use of sacks related to animals, and this could include animals from around the world, introducing their history and also providing geographical and historical information (ibid). This is another example of how story sacks could be used in a CLIL pr-primary classroom for the benefit of the young learners and their development regarding cultural understanding.

Research Studies on ICT and Digital Games Play is one of the basic ways in which children acquire knowledge and explore the world around them (Singer & Singer, 2005; Van Hoorn et al., 1993). Technology has indeed become an essential part of the learning process, as it increases learners’ motivation and engagement, increasing the learning outcomes while catering for different learning styles (Eady & Lockyer, 2013). An aspect that should not be overlooked is the fact that, over the years, children spend more and more time online or on the internet playing games instead of playing traditional games. This parameter, despite the concerns raised, should be taken into account in order to guide children safely to learning achievements and not mere exposure to internet material. Some educational digital games, such as Sesame Street or Disney Nickelodeon are designed in such a way that can actually teach children some appropriate for their age skills, based on the curriculum guidelines for pre schoolers (California Department of Education, 2000; Copely, 1999; Dodge, 2004; Kagan et al., 2003). For instance, well-designed educational games include preparation in maths, reading readiness, thinking skills, social skills and creativity (Lieberman et al., 2009). This multimedia material could function well in a pre-primary CLIL environment, provided that the digital games are well designed and serve the purposes mentioned above. Karasimos (2021) highlighted the idea of using board games in CLIL-ing preschoolers, which helps young learners remember and retain information while having fun. He particularly underlines the establishment of social relationships formed and the connection created with the other learners. Board games, therefore, are another great resource to use with youngsters. Their great variety is another asset. As Karasimos (2021, p.99) stated, “[f]or any CLIL scenario, there is always at least one board game that offers plenty of options for a more interactive, engaging and fun-learning experience”. Lately, there is a great variety of digital games designed for young learners. Although not all of them are age appropriate, some of them could offer children opportunities to learn and increase their self-confidence once achieving a goal, that of succeeding in the game (Lieberman et al., 2009). If the games are well designed, they could indeed stimulate a compelling interactive environment in which young children can learn and enhance their learning skills (Lieberman, 2006; Thai et al., 2009). Unfortunately, this is not always the case, because only a few digital games

486

T. Alexiou

fall into this category (Garrison & Christakis, 2005; Singer & Singer, 2002; Wartella et al., 2000). Research suggests that educational technology may indeed promote language learning (Warschauer et al., 2000; Adams & Thompson, 2011). Alexiou & Chondrogianni (2017) investigated the effect of using the Total Physical Response (TPR) method, along with Twister and Wii games on acquiring a foreign language at an early age. The researchers highlighted the significant role of games and play in teaching young learners as well as the positive results regarding vocabulary uptake. Furthermore, Alexiou & Vitoulis (2014) examined the effect of interactive media on receptive and productive vocabulary acquisition of 44 Greek preschoolers. The results of their study indicated youngsters’ positive attitude towards ICT as well as gains in vocabulary in an effortless and quick way. The possibility of exceptional learning opportunities and educational experiences is surprising and this could also be a good fit for the CLIL classroom. It is a fact that games are of paramount importance for the development of children (Hinske et al., 2008). It is also known that many children enjoy playing computer games (Kara et al., 2012). As Lampe & Hinske (2007) indicate, learning should ideally take place in an environment where physical experiences are combined with virtual ones in order to stimulate learners’ imagination. The gains of the use of Augmented Reality (AR) in education are visible with the implementation of images, videos, 3D models and animation in the learning process (Wang et al., 2013). The abovementioned AR tools are particularly effective in early foreign language learning, as they facilitate the process, they enhance learning and creativity while offering a positive and enjoyable experience to young children (Cascales et al., 2013). In fact, Cascales et al. (2013) discovered that using AR in preschool may make the learning process easier. AR can actually combine the use of textbooks and visual learning objects simultaneously, creating thus a rich learning environment for young learners (Dünser & Hornecker, 2007; Ibili, 2013). Eyikara & Baykara (2017) argued that the integration of technology in the preschool context may actually improve young learners’ cognitive, psychomotor and affective abilities. Soureshjani & Etemadi (2012) examined the oral English comprehension of preschool children via computer – based stories. Results indicated that children exposed to computer-based stories have actually benefited and that their listening comprehension skills improved, compared to a traditional storytelling classroom (ibid). Studies therefore indicate the significance of such a learning tool in the preschool context, and while implementing the CLIL methodology, in particular. Both communication, cognition, culture and content can be served via AR. Piqueras Romero’s (2017) cross-sectional study focused on the examination of three classes in Aragon, a Spanish monolingual region in which the most studied foreign language is English. The participants were three different teachers as well as 62 preschoolers who were observed during 45-minute sessions. The aim was to explore these diverse learning environments in terms of the variety in introducing English in preschool classrooms following the CLIL approach. Results of the observation protocol exhibited some common characteristics within these three

30

CLIL-ing Preschoolers Through Cartoons and Other Audiovisual Materials

487

learning environments (ibid). More specifically, the classroom allowed for children to spend time in a circle (assembly time), and the lesson would start with daily routines, such as the “Good morning song”, carrying on with days of the week and/or weather (ibid). Moreover, it was observed that all three teachers used similar audiovisual teaching materials and resources, for instance YouTube videos along with flashcards, where learners were expected to repeat what they have heard. Finally, a wide variety of activities and games were also observed in these three classes, with a normal allocation of free play, allowing teachers to observe and take notes on the learners’ progress (ibid). Based on these observations, the researcher concluded that with a broad variety of activities, games and tasks based on audio-visual materials, CLIL is the best approach to be followed in a preschool setting, as it allows learners to develop and evolve based on their individual needs and characteristics, irrespective of their differences (Piqueras Romero, 2017). In a study in 2010, the existence as well as the use of computers and technology for teaching purposes was investigated in 224 Czech Republic nursery schools (Maněnová & Skutil, 2010). The main aim was to discover whether there was any progress, through the years, regarding the use of technological advances as a tool to promote growth in oral communication competencies in preschool. Results indicated that the nursery schools in Czech Republic largely implemented the use of ICT and audio-visual materials, especially compared to years ago (ibid). The most important finding though, regarding this study, is the shift towards a more effective use and utilization of the audio-visual materials and ICT for educational purposes and always for the benefit of the children’s preparation for activities (Maněnová & Skutil, 2010). Finally, Mazarese et al. (2011) carried out a practice-based project aimed to explore the ways in which young children’s (3 to 5 years old) multimedia literacy may be stimulated, as well as the impact on them exploring the world around them and evolving as individual personalities. Interestingly, the vast majority of the participants (90%) expressed their wish to implement a ‘multimedia corner’ in their classroom, with some of them (56.8%) highlighting the importance of training for a proper implementation (ibid). It is mainly the last point that we need to consider and ensure that these materials are being intelligently exploited and wisely used for the children’s benefit.

Facts and Factors There are certain facts and factors involved while choosing which audio-visual materials to use with youngsters in a pre-primary CLIL environment. In this section I am going to discuss 4 important criteria that need to be taken into consideration when planning CLIL activities using audio-visual materials. First, the language input should be challenging but not difficult for young learners. The content should also be age appropriate, taking into account young learners’ developmental characteristics. Furthermore, the aim should be to broaden

488

T. Alexiou

young children’s horizons, cultivating a multicultural awareness. Quite naturally, when exposing children to audio-visual materials caution is needed. There has been some concern regarding the nature of cartoons and TV series for children regarding the roles and standards they promote. It was believed that they may have a negative impact on children, especially due to some violent scenes and characters depicted, as “[i]t is noted that cartoon content is full of violence than serial plays and comedies” (Potter & Warren, 1998 cited in Perween & Hasan, 2020). However, the use of age appropriate cartoons and animations and the selection of violence-free TV series can ensure ample opportunities for language and vocabulary learning. Second, an important factor to consider is the use of subtitles while exposing young children to cartoons and animations. As Bird & William (2002) claim, watching TV animations or series with subtitles contributes to the successful understanding of unknown vocabulary. This is in line with Webb & Rodger’s (2009) view that providing captions in TV series or children’s animation, along with adequate repetition of words and lexical chunks can ensure language learning and lexical growth, in particular. Indeed, the use of captions in TV programmes ensures language input via a three-mechanism model, “the visual image, the soundtrack (including foreign voices) and subtitles” (Lekkai, 2014, p. 82). Similarly, Ghorbani (2011) carried out a longitudinal study, investigating a non-native child’s oral communication in English and the impact of watching cartoons with subtitles. After two years of exposure to more than twenty different cartoon shows in English, the child’s oral communication improved to a great extent and, gradually, there was no need for captions while watching the show (ibid). Although at the pre-primary age children are pre-literate, the appearance and exposure to English subtitles is suggested (not for reading purposes) as a means of gradually developing pre-reading but also facilitating and expanding listening skills. Third, when it comes to picture books used in CLIL pre-primary classrooms, there needs to be ample thinking time for the learners (Hughes, 2006). This will allow them to imagine and predict meaning. Intonation, miming and gesture as well as the use of realia and props also play an important role in making the story clear and engaging (ibid). As Hughes (2006) underlines, pointing to the pictures while narrating the story and keeping eye contact with the learners is also very important. Additionally, following the story with the finger to show what is being read is also critical (ibid). Fourth, another factor that needs to be considered is the preparation of the learners on this new take on learning. Learners, and particularly younger ones, need to be provided with a justification to the new circumstances as well some transition time (Ioannou-Georgiou, 2011). By creating an age appropriate situation, such as starting a discussion on how non - native preschool classmates can feel included and welcome (ibid), teachers and educators can support the introduction of using CLIL and audio-visual materials. The real-life situation suggested above may make young learners sympathise with their classmates and make them eager to learn. This will also ensure a safe and comfortable learning environment as well as an enjoyable but still high quality experience.

30

CLIL-ing Preschoolers Through Cartoons and Other Audiovisual Materials

489

Conclusion The importance of using audio-visual materials can hardly be underestimated. This is even more important when it comes to CLIL, an approach that requires many visual stimuli to compensate for the lack of language and to facilitate comprehension of meaning and expand input. In a CLIL pre school context, audio-visuals are undoubtedly indispensable because of the multiple benefits emerging from their use and their contribution of children’s holistic development. Nowadays with the advances of technology, pre-primary teachers can consider shifting their attention towards inventories of ICT tools but also open educational resources. A reliable and evaluated site that could be of great help can be found at the European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML) https://www.ecml.at/ ECML-Programme/Programme2012-2015/ICT%20REVandmoreDOTS/ICT/tabid/ 1906/Default.aspx. This type of resources along with other open educational resources repositories could mark the new era in using multimedia in pre-primary education.

References Adams, C. A., & Thompson, T. L. (2011). Interviewing objects: Including educational technologies as qualitative research participants. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(6), 733–750. Alexiou, T. (2015). Vocabulary uptake from Peppa pig: A case study of preschool EFL learners in Greece. In C. Gitsaki & T. Alexiou (Eds.), Current issues in second/foreign language teaching and teacher development: Research and practice (pp. 285–301). Newcastle upon Tyne. Alexiou, T., & Chondrogianni, M. (2017). Bringing innovation to the primary EFL classroom: Total physical response with twister and Wii-fit. In Proceedings of the 3rd international convention of promoting educational innovation. Greece. Alexiou, T., & Kokla, N. (2018a). Cartoons that make a difference: A linguistic analysis of Peppa pig. Journal of Linguistics and Education Research, 1(1), 24–30. Alexiou, T., & Kokla, N. (2018b). iPads. In 5th international conference ‘crossroads of languages and cultures’: Rethimno, 1st -3rd June 2018. Alexiou, T., & Kokla, N. (2019). Teaching cultural elements and pro-social behaviour to preschoolers through Peppa Pig. In I. Tsichouridis et al. (Eds.), Conference proceedings from the 4th international conference for the promotion of educational innovation (pp. 299–305). Larisa. Alexiou, T., & Konstantakis, N. (2009). Lexis for young learners: Are we heading for frequency or just common sense? In Selected papers from the 18th international symposium on theoretical and applied linguistics (ISTAL) (pp. 59–66). Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of English. Alexiou, T., Roghani, S., & Milton, J. (2019). Assessing the vocabulary knowledge of preschool language learners. In D. Prosic-Sandovac & S. Rixon (Eds.), Integrating assessment into early language learning and teaching practice (pp. 207–220). Multilingual Matters. Alexiou, T., & Vitoulis, M. (2014). iGeneration issues: Tracing preschoolers English receptive and productive vocabulary though interactive media. Mission impossible? In J. Enever, E. Lindren, & S. Ivanov (Eds.), Conference proceedings from early language learning: Theory and practice (pp. 16–22). Umeå University. Alexiou, T., & Yfouli, D. (2019). Charlie & Lola: An innovative way of promoting young learners’ lexical development. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference for the promotion of educational innovation. University of Thessaly.

490

T. Alexiou

Alexiou, T., Zapounidis, T., & Kostopoulou, I. (2015). In quest of the magic element in preschoolers’ vocabulary reception. International research conference: Issues of multilingualism in early childhood education: Zero to six. Rome. Alexiou, T. (2020). Introducing EFL in preschools: Facts and Fictions. In W. Zoghbor, & T. Alexiou (Eds.), Advancing English Language Education (pp. 61–74). Dubai, UAE: Zayed University publications. https://www.zu.ac.ae/main/en/research/publications/_books_reports/ 2020/AELE_Book_ALLT_Z U_Web_V02.pdf Andúgar, A., & Cortina-Pérez, B. (2018). EFL teachers’ reflections on their teaching practice in Spanish preschools: A focus on motivation. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), Preschool bilingual education: Agency in interactions between children, teachers, and parents (p. 227). Springer International Publishing. Ball, S., & Bogatz, G. (1970). The first year of Sesame Street: An evaluation. Educational Testing Service. Barron, I., & Powell, J. (2003). Story sacks, children’s narratives and the social construction of reality. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 5(3), 129–137. Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 498–520. Bird, S. A., & Williams, J. N. (2002). The effect of bimodal input on implicit and explicit memory: An investigation into the benefits of within-language subtitling. Applied psycholinguistics, 23(4), 509–533. Bland, J. (2013). Children’s literature and learner empowerment. Bloomsbury Academic. California Department of Education. (2000). Prekindergarten learning and development guidelines. Child Development Division. Canning-Wilson, C. (2001). Visuals and language learning: Is there a connection? The Weekly Column, 48. Retrieved from https://es.scribd.com/document/343256994/Article-48-VisualsLanguage-Learning-is-There-a-Connection-by-Christine-Canning-Wilson Cascales, A., Pérez-López, D., & Contero, M. (2013). Study on parent’s acceptance of the augmented reality use for preschool education. Procedia Computer Science, 25, 420–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.053 Castro, P. A. (2016). Using Disney movies in the CLIL framework: An innovative proposal based on frozen. Unpublished MA Thesis. Universidad de Oviedo. Copely, J. V. (Ed.). (1999). Mathematics in the early years. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics/NAEYC. Cortina-Pérez, B., & Pino Rodríguez, A.M. (2021). Analysing CLIL teacher competences in pre-service preschool education. A case study at the University of Granada, European Journal of Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2021.1890021 Coyle, D. (2002). Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission’s language learning objectives. In D. Marsh (Ed.), CLIL/EMILE the European dimension (pp. 27–28). University of Jyvaskyla. Coyle, D. (2009). Language pedagogies revisited: Alternative approaches for integrating language learning, language using and intercultural understanding. In J. Miller, A. Kostogriz, & M. Gearon (Eds.), Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: New dilemmas for teachers (pp. 172–195). Multilingual Matters. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Dąbrowska, E. (2004). Language, mind and brain: Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh University Press. Dodge, D. T. (2004). Early childhood curriculum models. Child Care Information Exchange, Jan./ Feb, 71–78. Dünser, A., & Hornecker, E. (2007). An observational study of children interacting with an augmented story book. In Proceedings of 2nd international conference of E-learning and games (edutainment 2007) (pp. 305–315). CUHK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-730118_31

30

CLIL-ing Preschoolers Through Cartoons and Other Audiovisual Materials

491

Eady, M. J., & Lockyer, L. (2013). Tools for learning: Technology and teaching strategies: Learning to teach in the primary school (pp. 71–89). Queensland University of Technology. https://scholars.uow.edu.au/display/publication76376 ECML. https://www.ecml.at/ECML-Programme/Programme2012-2015/ICT%20REVandmore DOTS/ICT/tabid/1906/Default.aspx Espinosa, L. (2010). Children of 2020: Creating a better tomorrow bilingual and monolingual. In V. Washington & J. D. Andrews (Eds.), The importance of language and literacy development for all children (pp. 73–80). Children of. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford University Press. Eyikara, E., & Baykara, G. Z. (2017). The importance of simulation in nursing education. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 9(1), 02–07. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet. v9i1.543 Fernández, A. F. (2014). Receptive vocabulary knowledge and motivation in CLIL and EFL. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 9, 23–32. Galés, N. L., & Vives, I. P. (2013). Report and evaluation of the development of CLIL programmes in Catalonia. Temps d’Educació, 45, 143–180. Garrison, M. M., & Christakis, D. A. (2005). A teacher in the living room? Educational media for babies, toddlers and preschoolers. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.kff. org/entmedia/7427.cfm Ghorbani, M. R. (2011). Watching cartoons with subtitles improves children’s foreign language acquisition. US–China Foreign Language, 9(4), 241–246. Halliwell, S. (1992). Teaching English in the primary classroom. Longman. Hinske, S., Langheinrich, M., & Lampe, M. (2008). Towards guidelines for designing augmented toy environments. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on designing interactive systems DIS ‘08 (pp. 78–87). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1394445.1394454 Huang, D. F. (2015). Exploring and assessing effectiveness of English medium instruction courses: The students’ perspectives. Procedia –Social and Behavioural Sciences, 173, 71–78. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.033 Hughes, A. (2006). The “why”, “what” and “how” of using authentic picture books and stories in the EYL classroom: Some practical considerations. In J. Enever & G. Schmid-Schönbein (Eds.), Picture books and young learners of English (pp. 151–164). Langenscheidt. Ibili, E. (2013). Geometri dersi için artirilmiş gerçeklik materyallerinin geliştirilmesi, uygulanmasi ve etkisinin değerlendirilmesi [Development, implementation and assessment of the effect of augmented reality on geometry teaching materials for geometry classes]. (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Gazi Üniversity, Educational Science Institute. Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2011). Transition into CLIL: Guidelines for the beginning stages of CLIL. In S. Ioannou-Georgiou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education (pp. 43–49). University of Cyprus Press. Kagan, S. L., Scott-Little, C., & Frelow, V. S. (2003). Early learning standards for young children: A survey of the states. Young Children, 58(5), 58–64. Kara, N., Aydin, C. C., & Cagiltay, K. (2012). Design and development of a smart storytelling toy. Interactive Learning Environment, 22(3), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011. 649767 Karasimos, A. (2021). #LetMeepleTalk1: Using board games for EFL pre-schoolers. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 93–103. Kiely, R. (2011). CLIL – History and background. In S. Ioannou-Georgiou & P. Pavlou (Eds.), Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education (pp. 21–33). University of Cyprus Press. Krcmar, M., Bernard, G., & Lin, K. (2007). Can toddlers learn vocabulary from television? An experimental approach. Media Psychology, 10(1), 41–63. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge. Lampe, M., & Hinske, S. (2007). Integrating interactive learning experiences into augmented toy environments. In Pervasive Learning Workshop at the Pervasive Conference, May (pp. 13–16).

492

T. Alexiou

Lekkai, I. (2014). Incidental foreign language acquisition by children watching subtitled television programs. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 13(4), 81–87. Lewis, D. (2001). Showing and telling: The difference that makes a difference. Reading: Literacy and Language, 35(3), 94–98. Ioannou-Georgiou, S., & Pavlou, P. (2011). Guidelines for CLIL implementation in primary and pre-primary education. Cyprus: Cyprus Pedagogical Institute. Lieberman, D. A. (2006). What can we learn from playing interactive games? In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 379–397). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lieberman, D. A., Chesley Fisk, M., & Biely, E. (2009). Digital games for young children ages three to six: From research to design. Computers in the Schools, 26(4), 299–313. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07380560903360178 Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Language across the curriculum & CLIL in English as an additional language (EAL) contexts: Theory and practice. Springer Science+Business Media. Linse, T. C. (2007). Predictable books in children’s EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 61(1), 46–54. Maněnová, M., & Skutil, M. (2010). ICT and audiovisual technic in nurseries in The Czech Republic. In International conference on applied computer science (ACS’10). WSEAS Press. Marsh, D. (2000). In D. Marsh & G. Langé (Eds.), Using languages to learn and learning to use languages. University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved from http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/clilmatrix/pdf/ 1uk.pdf Marsh, D. (2002). CLIL/EMILE-The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/47616/1/david_marshreport.pdf Marsh, D. (2005). The CLIL quality matrix. Central workshop report.. Retrieved from http://www. ecml.at/mtp2/CLILmatrix/pdf/wsrepD3E2005_6.pdf Mazarese, C., Vanuytven, N., Decin, G., & Buyse, E. (2011). Multimedia in preschool: An additional opportunity towards equal opportunities in education. EECERA congres, 21, 152–152. Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL. Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan Education. Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Multilingual Matters. Milton, J., & Alexiou, T. (2009). Vocabulary size and the common European framework of reference for languages. In B. Richards, H. M. Daller, D. D. Malvern, P. Meara, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition (pp. 194–211). Palgrave Macmillan. Milton, J., & Garbi, A. (2000). Collaborative foreign language learning on the internet for primary age children: Problems and a solution. Educational Technology and Society, 3(3), 286–292. Milton, J. L., & Vassiliu, P. (2000). Frequency and the lexis of low level EFL texts. In K. Nicolaidis & M. Mattheoudakis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th international symposium on theoretical and applied linguistics. Aristotle University. Mourão, S. (2006). Understanding authentic picture books. How do children do it? In R. MitchellSchuitevoerder (Ed.), Teachers and young learners: Research in our classrooms (pp. 157–179). IATEFL. Mourão, S. (2009). Surprised! Telling the pictures. Can the illustrations in picture books promote language acquisition? In Cruz, M. & Medeiros, P. (Coords) Revista Saber & Educar. n 14 Ensino de Línguas no 1 Ciclo do Ensino Básico e Pré-escolar (pp. 1–11). : Escola Superior de Educação de Paula Frassinetti. Retrieved from http://sandiemourao.eu/pages/articlesand songs, consultado em 20 de Julho de 2011. Mourão, S. (2013a). Picturebook: Object of discovery. In J. Bland & C. Lütge (Eds.), Children’s literature in second language education (pp. 71–84). Bloomsbury Academic. Mourão, S. (2013b). Understanding response to picturebooks. Encuentros, 22, 98–114. Retrieved from http://www.encuentrojournal.org/textos/Mourao_Picturebooks_revised_SM.pdf

30

CLIL-ing Preschoolers Through Cartoons and Other Audiovisual Materials

493

Mourão, S. (2016). Picturebooks in the primary EFL classroom: Authentic literature for an authentic response. Children’s Literature in English Language Education Journal, 4(1), 25–43. Retrieved from http://clelejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/PicturebooksAuthentic-literature-for-an-authentic-response-CLELEjournal-4.1.pdf Mourão, S. (2017). Picturebooks in instructed foreign language learning contexts. In M. Nikolajeva & C. Beauvais (Eds.), The Edinburgh companion to children’s literature (pp. 138–142). Edinburgh University Press. Mourão, S. (2019). Response during picturebook read alouds in English as a foreign language. The Journal of the Irish Association of Applied Linguistics, 10, 58–76. Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. (1984). Limitations of vocabulary instruction. (tech. Rep. No. 326). University of Illinois Center for the Study of Reading. Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. CUP. Nation, I. S. P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 122–127). CUP. Nodelman, P. (1988). Words about pictures: The narrative art of children’s picture books. University of Georgia Press. Nikolajeva, M., & Scott, C. (2006). How picturebooks work. Routledge/Educational Testing Service. Perween, S., & Hasan, S. H. (2020). The impact of cartoons on toddlers’ language acquisition. Language in India, 20(2), 113. Piqueras Romero, M. (2017). Contributing to the CLIL characterisation controversy: A case study in Aragon. MA Dissertation, Spain: Universidad de Jaén. Potter, W. J., & Warren, R. (1998). Constructions of judgements of violence. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the international communication association, 131. Prošic-Santovac, D. (2016). Popular video cartoons and associated branded toys in teaching English to very young learners: A case study. Language Teaching Research, 21(5), 1–21, 568–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816639758 Ramirez, M. (2013). Usage of Multimedia Visual Aids in the English Language Classroom: A Case Study at Margarita Salas Secondary School (Majadahonda) (Master’s thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid). Retrieved from https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/docs/119-2015-03-1711.MariaRamirezGarcia2013.pdf Robb, M. B., Richert, R. A., & Wartella, E. A. (2009). Just a talking book? Word learning from watching baby videos. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 27–45. Rusmiati, & Rosdiana. (2017). The role of audio visual aids in EFL classroom. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on innovative pedagogy. STKIP Bina Bangsa Getsempena. Scheffler, P., Jones, C., & Dominska, A. (2020). The Peppa pig television series as input in preprimary EFL instruction: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 1–15. Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge University Press. Shulevitz, U. (1985). Writing with pictures: How to write and illustrate children’s books. WatsonGuptill Publications. Sierras, M. (2002). Diseño de medios y recursos didácticos. Innovación y cualificación. Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (2002). Handbook of children and the media. Sage. Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (2005). Imagination and play in the electronic age. Harvard University Press. Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Webb, S. (2016). Teaching vocabulary in the EFL context. In W. A. Renandya & H. P. Widodo (Eds.), English language teaching today: Linking theory and practice (pp. 227–240). Springer International Publishing. Soureshjani, K. H., & Etemadi, N. (2012). Listening comprehension success among EFL preschool children using internet-based materials. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 7(1), 243–251.

494

T. Alexiou

Sydorenko, T. (2010). Modality of input and vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning and Technology, 14(2), 50–73. Thai, A. M., Lowenstein, D., Ching, D., & Rejeski, D. (2009). Game changer: Investing in digital play to advance children’s learning and health. Joan Ganz Cooney Center. Retrieved from http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/pdf/GameChangerFINAL.pdf Van Hoorn, J., Nourot, P., Scales, B., & Alward, K. (1993). Play at the center of the curriculum. Macmillan Publishing. Wang, X., Kim, M. J., Love, P. E. D., & Kang, S. C. (2013). Augmented reality in built environment: Classification and implications for future research. Automation in Construction, 32, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.11.021 Wartella, E., O’Keefe, B., & Scantlin, R. (2000). Children and interactive media: A compendium of current research and directions for the future. Markle Foundation. Webb, S., & Rodgers, M. P. (2009). Vocabulary demands of television programs. Language Learning, 59(2), 335–366. Weinberger, J., & Stafford, A. (2004). Using story sacks to talk with parents about young children’s literacy learning. Education 3–13, 32(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270485200071 Wu, J.-F. (2019). Research on picture books: A comparative study of Asia and the world. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 24(2), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis. vol24no2.5 Zúñiga, J. (1998). Comunicación audiovisual. Escuela de cine y vídeo.

Technology for the CLIL Preschool Jesu´s García Laborda , Slavka Madarova Cristina Calle Martínez

31

, and

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seeking Simplicity in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Taxonomy of Materials to Be Used in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for CLIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

496 497 498 508 509 509

Abstract

Busy teachers may find it difficult to implement technology in their classroom due to busy schedules or limited amount of time outside the class. Online technology progresses at a rapid pace and it is necessary to find open educational resources as well as pay-resources that can facilitate the integration of technology in the CLIL classroom at an early age. These resources should be easy to apply in the classroom and demand the minimal time investment from Preschool practitioners. This paper looks at the need of Preschool teachers to implement technology in their classroom by addressing the conditions and providing a list of resources that can be used. It also considers the constraints that many teachers find and suggests ways to reduce their fears and their anxiety due to the lack of knowledge or time. The paper has a significant section on resources that are easy to implement, that can serve in a variety of courses and whose access is either free

J. García Laborda (*) Universidad de Alcalá-Instituto Franklin, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] S. Madarova Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, Spain C. Calle Martínez Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_31

495

496

J. García Laborda et al.

or has a low cost. This chapter concludes that easily accessible technology has a remarkable value in teaching Preschool through CLIL. Keywords

CLIL · Preschool · Technology · Teaching

Introduction Technology has always been with us. A few years ago, the former Editor in Chief of the British Journal of Educational Technology mentioned that technology does not only refer to the use of virtual reality, iPads or even computers. The white board or even the blackboard were the latest technology at a certain time. On a few occasions we may come across people who understand technology as the brand-new computer, the latest apps, virtual online conferences and so on. Hardware devices are all very fashionable and indeed very flashy and spectacular. However, a significant number of teachers, and not always the senior members of the teaching staff, feel the anxiety due to the overwhelming quantity of new resources (Miller et al., 2020) which leads to a deficient self-efficacy and a high degree of stress (Atabek, 2020), up to the point that their limited free time does not allow them to keep up to date in their use of digital means in the classroom (Frederick et al., 2006). At times, this leads to a certain complex of technology under-users. This feeling is also due to the fact that quite commonly we attend courses and conferences where a speaker narrates and describes the use of those tools that they use the most. And although courses on IT are highly demanded and regarded (Thota & Negreiros, 2015), what we fail to see most times is that these tools are known to that specific person or even to many but certainly not to all the teachers, mostly because practitioners may not even need them. However, there is a tendency to change in terms of “teachers’ anxiety, selfefficacy and attitudes regarding educational technology” in the newer generations of teachers when pre-service training is provided (Efe et al., 2016). This chapter is aimed specifically to the teachers who face the difficulty to implement digital technology in the CLIL preschool classroom due to the natural limitations imposed by personal reasons but who want to increase their knowledge of technological applications for their use in the classroom. The question is why this chapter is devoted to CLIL teachers rather than to general EFL teachers. The answer simply relies on the fact that the suggestions found in the following section relate to the learning of contents of English with the specific adaptations by their classroom teacher. Of course, most can be used by L1 learners or in bilingual education, but it is the role of the teacher to adapt the materials in a way that there is a balance between the language and content through, for instance, gaming or adapting the input to make it comprehensible by the students. However, gaming is intrinsic to most applications and the use of science applications must be guided in a way where the clarity of concepts prevails over the difficulties of the unknown language. As a whole, today’s teachers should consider that instead of compiling a list of resources it is vital to

31

Technology for the CLIL Preschool

497

improve the teachers’ perceptions, developing a digital literacy oriented in early childhood CLIL education rather than forcing tech gadgets into the classroom (Xie et al., 2019), which above all applies especially to Preschool teacher trainees (Anisimova & Ibatullin, 2018). Thus, use of specific tools must be replaced by digital literacy which gives a broader capacity to adapt tools or being able to use those available in an optimal manner (Maureen et al., 2018; Altun, 2019; Anisimova, 2020) in technologies for teaching (Gómez-Trigueros et al., 2019) and learning (Flewitt et al., 2015).

Seeking Simplicity in the Classroom One of the major concerns of most teachers is to be able to identify, implement and train the most relevant technology-based skills (Habeeb, 2018; Fox-Turnbull, 2019) and applications in the Preschool classroom (Riojas-Cortez et al., 2019) even from the early teacher training while still in college (Akcay, 2017; Aldemir et al., 2019). It may not mean that teachers create their own particular list but to develop the competence that can help them to choose the right resources at any given time. McGlynn-Stewart et al. (2019) looked at how just one app in conjunction with picture books supported the social, emotional, and literacy learning in multilingual environments and saw that just one application implied significant advances and learning chances both in school and at home. The implementation of IT tools in the Preschool classroom requires a number of conditions: • Motivation: This requires not only desire but also the belief that IT tools can be actually implemented in the classroom as well as that their use in the classroom will benefit the students (Fenty & Anderson, 2014; Magen-Nagar & Firstater, 2019) through formal training (Hatzigianni & Kalaitzidis, 2018) or, especially, through gaming (Manessis, 2014; Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2015). • Volition (Positive will of implementation): Motivation may not be enough so the look for opportunity is also important which can also be associated with the decision of incorporating technology into the classroom (Boschman et al., 2014). • Knowing what tool to use and how to use it: Teachers must consider that it is not necessary to know ‘all the tools for Preschool’ but rather use the tools adequate for one’s personal teaching style, lesson preparation time and capacity to evaluate and revise their use in each classroom (Jack & Higgins, 2019). • Time to use IT in the classroom: Often, teachers may be overly pressured by their regular lessons and activities leaving a short time for IT use. Being that the case, what should prevail is not the obligation to introduce IT because it will be good for the students but instead choosing activities that teachers consider as the most beneficial for their learners. • Previous knowledge of IT: Many toddlers may have had access to their parents’ devices (O’Hara, 2011; Neumann, 2015; Ebbeck et al., 2016) so teachers should not underestimate the pre-schoolers’ competence but instead consider what could be the most effective tool to use for the performance mostly in informal learning.

498

J. García Laborda et al.

• Physical conditions: this includes setting, hardware, connectivity and others. • Parental cooperation: Students perform better when parental acceptance and interest is associated with IT implementation (Lin, 2018). Many teachers also believe that they should be able to prepare their own materials for a technology supported classroom (Boschman et al., 2014; Sasi et al., 2017). This is mostly a time-consuming process as well as ranging from challenging to difficult, since they require the knowledge of tool administration and the capacity to develop or, at least, to adapt existing materials to those tools. Unfortunately, these needs prevent many teachers from getting involved in IT, especially because their Primary education colleagues often have resources from the textbooks publishers that they may not have available on Early education level. Additionally, many teachers do not feel secure about the kind of technology to be used in the classroom or even in blended learning with such young students, so they mostly rely on the textbooks (if any).

A Taxonomy of Materials to Be Used in the Classroom Recalling the students’ attention in Preschool is not an easy task. Teachers usually use a morning get-together activity commonly known as ‘assembly’ (Menendez, Payne, & Mayton, 2008) which is generally held on a daily basis at the very beginning of the day. From there, it is quite common to organize the daily schedule working in corners with just one or two common meetings. Most Preschool teachers use these general meetings to address IT especially in CLIL schools since IT provides valuable support in many ways – as videos, interactive activities, and so on. In Spain, most Preschools do not have more than 5 h of English per week. Only lately are some public schools that are doubling that many hours in the last few years. In reference to the use of IT during the sessions, since most schools do not have neither a computer nor an iPad for each individual student, many teachers fear that the use of IT may actually turn into further misuse (Baytak et al., 2011) due to caregivers, parents and teachers not being able to regulate the kid’s activity with the media (Sivrikova et al., 2020) For instance, the mismanagement of IT communication may turn into a very dark use of technology through communication. Bullying or illegal recording of under-age students makes parents afraid of the use of technology in the classroom (Giménez et al., 2017). A second factor of fear is usually the expected incapacity and thus a significant number of errors in the use of digital technologies. This is particularly true for the use of mobile phones leading to unintentional entry to the misleading or even criminal sites causing a wide range of issues (from undesired commercial advertisements to pages with content related to paedophilia) with added dangers such as hidden costs or even crime offenses (Levy, 2011). Therefore, it is important to consider all the possible safety measures such as controlled devices, specific use of wi-fi within the school and more teacher supervision. Unfortunately, in Spain, the ratio of teachers/

31

Technology for the CLIL Preschool

499

students is usually around 1/20. This implies that supervision is indeed a hard task although the school counsellors can play a very positive role to mitigate these problems (Paolini, 2018). When looking at the kind of resources to be used in Preschool, the first difference is established around the device itself, since teachers ordinarily do not control the wi-fi connection – this task usually corresponds to the school administrators. Thus, it is important considering the kind of device to be used not only in relation to its availability (i.e., most Preschools do not have more than one desktop but may have many or even up to one iPad per student). A second matter to consider is whether those are freely accessible or pay-for-use resources. This has a significant implication because not all the CLIL students have the same capacity to access paid resources. Having said that, the webs and resources that allow free access may not be as professional as those where a fee for use exists. The resources presented in the following section are within reach and very valuable for those teachers to whom this chapter is dedicated. They usually come with their own user guide and even have a support system. Busy teachers may find here some excellent exercises, usually readings and videos and even adapted e-books (graded e-readers).

ABCya ABCya (https://www.abcya.com/) is an American website developed by the teacher for the teachers and parents. It offers two modalities, free and subscriber content. Its main advantage is in the filtering – students are getting content that is free from any harmful elements (as mentioned previously, this is an important issue with early education students). This site covers ages from Pre-K until the 6th grade (Fig. 31.1). There are more than 300 activities, including reading and mathematics, all practiced through the use of games. Pre-K section is composed of games for practicing numbers, letters, strategy, skills and speaking about holidays. One of the

Fig. 31.1 Extracted from https://www.abcya.com/

500

J. García Laborda et al.

valuable assets of this application is the trial-and-error approach, where children can try out options to see the one that takes them to the right answer. Interesting feature within the games is the possibility to unlock another part of the game when a certain number of questions is answered without a fault. In such a way students are motivated to continue since they aim at reaching the next level within the game. In addition, ABCya allows them to compete with each other and thus progressing. As the creators of the site proclaim in their ‘about’ section: “children learn better if they are having fun” (https://www.abcya.com/about/).

Ooo4Kids Ooo4Kids (http://educoo.org/TelechargerOOo4Kids.php) (OpenOffice.orf for Kids) created by a French non-profit association EducOO.org is an office package (Office suite) aimed mainly at students from 7 to 12 years of age. It has been translated to various languages, including Spanish, it’s free to download and compatible with OpenOffice and Microsoft Office. Creators of Ooo4Kids strived for the same functionality as the MS Office but with a simpler interface in order to make it ‘kids friendly’ (Fig. 31.2 OOo4Kids_1.3_120524_Win32Intel_install_es.exe). Ooo4Kids consists of four main elements: a text editor, a spreadsheet, a tool for creating presentations and a tool for creating drawings. It can be considered as a first step towards the world of computer use for the younger students. Working independently without the need of adult supervision, they can use the suite to write essays, acquire skills in creating charts, spreadsheets, and presentation, learning at their own pace to become proficient in the use of software. One of the interesting characteristics worth mentioning is the lack of spelling and correction features to make students aware of their own use of grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Fig. 31.2 Extracted from http://ooo4kids.com

31

Technology for the CLIL Preschool

501

Khan Academy Kids Khan Academy, established in the United States in 2005, is well known worldwide for its contribution to education by offering free courses for children up to the high school and college level. Their latest addition is called Khan Academy Kids (https:// learn.khanacademy.org/khan-academy-kids). Unlike Khan Academy, which is a website, Khan Academy Kids is a mobile application that was developed to cater specifically to younger children, starting at the age of 2 up to the age of 8 years. To combat parental concerns about children spending too much time in front of the mobile phone screen, some studies have been conducted to see the effect of such applications. A study published in 2021 (Arnold et al., 2021), focusing on literacy skills of preschool children has demonstrated that use of Khan Academy Kids in comparison with other apps that were not specifically developed as educational has a positive effect on literacy skills. The app offers two modalities – children can either take the ‘Adaptive Learning Path’, which is a tailored experience approach by taking a ‘personalized learning journey’ with age-appropriate activities. Alternatively, they can tap on the library button and dive into independent learning by choosing from numerous resources including books, videos, songs, and games. After entering the app, students are greeted and accompanied by animated animal characters that appear within the activities. The navigation in the app is intuitive and children are able to follow along as they play and engage with the animal characters (Fig. 31.3). In addition, the app allows teachers to set up their own classrooms, assign classes to students and monitor progress of each individual child. They can choose from a wide range of subjects such as math, reading, language, social emotional development, and creative projects. Moreover, the app also offers detailed tutorials for teachers and parents to help them navigate the app.

Fig. 31.3 Extracted from https://es.khanacademy.org/kids

502

J. García Laborda et al.

IXL Learning IXL Learning (https://es.ixl.com/company/ix), established in 1998 under the name Quia Web, has evolved over time from a site destined to share teaching materials to a fully functioning education platform. Since 2007 it started to cover subjects such as mathematics and then progressively added English language arts, science and social studies and lately also Spanish, featuring over 4500 skills suitable for ages from Pre-K up to the 12th grade. It is a subscription-based website that allows its users to try out a certain number of exercises before offering a subscription service. Content is first divided into groups by age (1st, 2nd, 3rd grade, etc.) and then further classified by subjects relevant to each group (Fig. 31.4). Kindergarten learners can solve a wide range of tasks in math (252 skills) and language arts (114 skills), including matching pictures with words, listening to the vowel sounds, counting objects by clicking on the pictures, using colors, and identifying patterns (https://www.ixl.com/recommendations/kindergarten). Each student’s practice session is unique since questions automatically adjust in difficulty based on their skill level. Moreover, the platform provides learners with motivating challenges, awards, and certificates, making them keen to master new skills and concepts. DreamBox DreamBox (https://www.dreambox.com/) is an online mathematics software that features over 2000 lessons focused on improving students’ mathematical ability. It requires users to subscribe; however, a free trial version allows one to get a feel for it before the purchase. The site itself is divided into three main parts, one for administrators, one for teachers and one for families, each of them with detailed instructions on how to proceed. DreamBox offers three different levels: K-2, grades 3–5 and grades 6–8 and recommends implementing at least 5 math lessons per week on any Fig. 31.4 Extracted from https://ixl.com

31

Technology for the CLIL Preschool

503

of the mentioned levels, as an addition to an official curriculum. The interface of software varies depending on the age group – each of the previously mentioned levels uses a specific environment best suited to engage the students. The use of adaptive learning means that the program determines the most appropriate progress path for each student, making it an experience tailored to each student’s individual needs (Fig. 31.5). For example, once the kindergarten students enter their environment, they choose their avatar to play games, and earn tokens, which can be used for other games. They are accompanied by animated characters who narrate the actions happening on the screen and there is an option to use closed captions as well. By completing the challenges children collect certificates that can be printed and displayed. Each screen also includes a help button to explain what is needed of them in case the instructions were not understood. Activities within the kindergarten level include the following: counting, comparison and ordering, additions, and subtractions (see https://go. dreambox.com/rs/715-ORW-647/images/SL-curriculum_guide.pdf). In contrast, levels geared towards grade 3–5 and grade 6–8 groups feature a more somber environment, with narration limited to task instructions. However, here the students can personalize their individual learning environment by choosing music, wallpapers and icons that will appear by their name. Students also earn badges (e.g., 100 correct answers) and work towards their weekly goals of 5 lessons by completing tasks. Based on their performance within each level students are then moved from lower to higher grade levels. As mentioned by the blog Learning Works for

Fig. 31.5 Extracted from https://www.dreambox.com

504

J. García Laborda et al.

Fig. 31.6 Extracted from https://www.dreambox.com

Kids (2021), DreamBox through the study of mathematics helps students perfecting other areas such as their focus by persistently proceeding towards completing the weekly goals and self-awareness by offering a safe personalized environment where students can work on their problematic areas without the peer pressure. Finally, DreamBox can generate progress graphs, which are then concentrated in a database and that allows to closely monitor students’ progress by both teachers and parents alike (Fig. 31.6).

PBS Kids PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) was founded in 1969 in Boston and has been referred to as America’s largest classroom. The idea behind it, explained in the ‘about’ section states that “PBS’s educational media helps prepare children for success in school and opens up the world to them in an age-appropriate way” (2016). It’s programming aimed specifically at children was first launched in 1993 and was branded as PBS Kids (https://www.pbskids.org/) since 1999. Year 2016 has seen expansion of kids’ content destined for ages 2–8 years onto mobile devices via PBS KIDS Video app and PBS KIDS Games app, which are available on iPhone,

31

Technology for the CLIL Preschool

505

Fig. 31.7 Extracted from https://pbskids.org/daniel/

iPad, iPod touch and Android. This allowed children in families that do not own computers to interact with the content. In a survey carried out by Survey Sampling International (SSI, http://to.pbs.org/most_trusted_2016), 88% of parents considered PBS Kids as a trusted and safe place for children to watch television and to browse applications. PBS Kids is aimed at children from pre-K up to the 12th grade and engages both parents and educators in supporting children on their journey towards meaningful learning. Further responses from the survey (SSI, http://to.pbs.org/most_ trusted_2016) showed that 89% of parents considered that PBS Kids helps prepare children for success in school and life, and 92% agreed that PBS Kids helped children to learn skills needed for math, reading and social skills. The website offers interactive games and videos that can be played by children. It also includes a section named Apps & more with a selection of apps for different purposes that can be filtered by age, skills, and TV shows – this determines which character will appear in the app. They can be geared towards learning vocabulary (e.g., Martha Speaks), focus on school-readiness (e.g., Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood) or reading skills (e.g., Super Why!) (Fig. 31.7). Within the page there is an option to click on an icon named PBS Parents, which redirects to a page where parents can choose age-appropriate activities for children, helping them develop specific skills. PBS Education redirects to teaching resources, which among other include lesson plans and allow teachers to filter activities according to grade and subject, including math, arts, social studies, world languages and others. Finally, there is a section aimed specifically at students (PBS Learning Media for Students) where they can enter class or assignment code to join a class or submit their work.

Starfall Starfall (https://www.starfall.com/h/index.php) program, created by a non-profit organization Starfall Education Foundation in 2002, is intended for children aged from Preschool through Kindergarten and up to Grade 3. The activities on the

506

J. García Laborda et al.

Fig. 31.8 Extracted from https://www.starfall.com/h/

website can be accessed for free; however, should you wish to see more content a subscription is necessary. The website offers two main groupings – Kindergarten and Pre-K and Grades 1,2 and 3. Within each of those groups its content is divided in three main categories: math, language arts and music, and seasonal topics. Its main goal is to guide and help children who might struggle with reading skills and lead them towards finding joy in reading (Fig. 31.8). Starfall implements four reading levels, starting with ABCs (in the Kindergarten + pre-K level only) and continuing with three more levels that are progressively increasing in difficulty from ‘Learn to Read’ to ‘It’s Fun to Read’ and finishing with the ‘I’m Reading’. Each level uses charming animation and melodies, engaging students through the use of phonics and games. It caters to all types of young readers, from those who are discovering basic letter sounds of the alphabet, moving to word and sentence level to those more advanced who have reached the point of being able to read short books including folk tales and fiction/nonfiction stories (Fig. 31.9).

Edutopia All previously mentioned resources are dedicated to providing children with the space to practice their knowledge, offering interactive content that could be used by learners in school or home environments. Edutopia (https://www.edutopia.org/), an American website established in 1991 by George Lucas Educational Foundation, takes a different route. This site covers age levels from kindergarten to high school; however, it should be noted that there are no activities or tasks available on the site that could be done directly by children. Rather, Edutopia’s main objective is to provide a platform where teaching and administrative staff of educational centers can find and consult abundant resources related to teaching. Provided content revolves around innovating, imaginative stories from real classrooms around the United States. Users can watch videos, edited by the Foundation staff, and access a collection of blogs, articles and other resources written by other educators.

31

Technology for the CLIL Preschool

507

Fig. 31.9 Extracted from https://www.starfall.com/h/

Fig. 31.10 Extracted from https://www.edutopia.org/project-based-learning

Edutopia encourages the educators to register for free to provide them with more customized content. During the sing-up process the users are asked to indicate the grade level which is of their interest. Once the account is created, the site offers two types of newsletters. The weekly issue contains practical information on classroom management, related to the grade taught by the registered user. Another newsletter sent out once a month resumes the most important research relevant to the classroom environment. To date the site counts with more than 1 million of registered members and urges its users to engage in a dialog on social networks to avail of insights of fellow educators (Fig. 31.10). Topics on the site are organized around the six ‘core strategies’, based on an approach that is referred to as a whole child education (Darling-Hammond &

508

J. García Laborda et al.

Cook-Harvey, 2018). From the main menu the educators can access a list of topics that include integrated studies, project-based learning, professional learning, social and emotional learning, and technology integration. In addition to this grouping, topics are also organized alphabetically which allows the users browse through different approaches to learning and explore a variety of fields related to assessment, curriculum planning, critical thinking and more. Resources can be further sorted by recommended, latest contributions or, in case of registered users, by matching them to the level indicated during the sign-up process. Videos and written articles that appear on the page usually describe successfully integrated classroom practices. Educators are invited to make use of the content, adapt it for their own teaching environment and incorporate it in their classrooms. There is no need for reimbursement; what is asked is to simply give credit to the source and report back on the experience. An alternative offered by Edutopia is to actively contribute to the site, by writing about their own experience and in such a way augmenting the scope of sources available to all users. As claimed by the website, their motto is to bring to the focus “what works in education” (https:// www.edutopia.org/about). To sum up, Edutopia could be defined as a place that is helping the teachers to teach.

Implications for CLIL The organization of these online contents which aim to fulfil the gap between contents and language in order to implement CLIL in Preschool must be very different from Primary school. We consider that teachers should focus on one content subject or two at the most. After 3 years of Preschool, students might be able to get familiar with the areas of development through English as well as increase their digital literacy. The learning could also be done through cross-disciplinary projects which include both L1 and L2, say through a corners-learning organization where CLIL specifics are addressed in the assembly but reinforced (Chavarría, 2021). Teachers should be aware of the limited interaction that can be expected at this level especially in relation to specific contents to be addressed in these platforms. For instance, by using the Kindergarten level in ABC Mouse, lots of interaction is limited to input without high expectations on the student’s part. The extensive use of listening and, whenever possible, games may favour the acquisition of both contents and L2. In this way, students improve both communication and content knowledge through English which is used as a way of communication while keeping their L1 for most corner-based activities. We believe that the use of these platforms will certainly help to “normalize” learning contents through English naturally. The organization of each didactic unit should begin by promoting oral interactive activities, if possible, also facilitate discussion activities where L1 and L2 are equally valuable but where the use of L2 even in small chunks is promoted through positive feedback. The teachers should consider the structures that they want to reinforce but keep in mind that students might be able to (and should) understand beyond their current state of the language. In this sense, the visuals found in all these platforms

31

Technology for the CLIL Preschool

509

and applications presented in section “Implications for CLIL” will surely serve to facilitate the understanding and further acquisition of the language and ideas. Using limited short chunks of the teacher’s speech establishes the bridge between the concepts and the student. The selection of topics, games and audio-visuals requires a guide that can be found in most of these platforms and applications (especially in ABC Mouse or ABCya). It is recommended that teachers annotate the evolution of each student at this level to ensure that both the concepts and the language are adequately acquired.

Conclusions Teachers in Preschool may feel that they do not have the time to give space to the adequate presence of IT in schools. The resources described in this chapter are presented to facilitate the access of CLIL preschool teachers and students to basic but informative learning platforms and resources. All the sites and platforms hereby presented are aimed at the introduction of contents which can be paired with the teaching of the language. The paper has explained the conditions for their implementation of which the teacher’s beliefs and motivation are not the least important. As a whole, it is more important for most practitioners to develop their own basic technology literacy than relying on a set of resources, which may not be the best for their own teaching style. It is also necessary to train future teachers to be aware of the possible materials accessible to them as well as avoiding the high anxiety that is produced by walking in the land of the unknown.

References About PBS. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/about/about-pbs/blogs/news/most-trusted2016/ Akcay, A. O. (2017). Instructional technologies and pre-service mathematics teachers’ selection of technology. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(7), 163–173. https://www.proquest.com/ scholarly-journals/instructional-technologies-pre-service/docview/1913345767/se-2? accountid¼14609 Aldemir, J., Barreto, D., & Kermani, H. (2019). The integration of mobile technology into curricula for early childhood preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Technology, 16(3), 21–33. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/integration-mobile-technology-into-curricula/ docview/2396823497/se-2?accountid¼14609 Altun, D. (2019). Investigating pre-service early childhood education teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) competencies regarding digital literacy skills and their technology attitudes and usage. Journal of Education and Learning, 8(1), 249–263. https:// www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/investigating-pre-service-early-childhood/docview/ 2228649210/se-2?accountid¼14609 Anisimova, E. S. (2020). Digital literacy of future preschool teachers. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11(1), 230–253. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/digitalliteracy-future-preschool-teachers/docview/2459011500/se-2?accountid¼14609 Anisimova, E., & Ibatullin, R. (2018). Project method in preparation of future preschool teachers. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 9(2), 228–238.

510

J. García Laborda et al.

Arnold, D. H., Chary, M., Gair, S. L., Helm, A. F., Herman, R., Kang, S., & Lokhandwala, S. (2021). A randomized controlled trial of an educational app to improve preschoolers’ emergent literacy skills. Journal of Children and Media, 15, 457–475. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17482798.2020.1863239. Published online 10 Jan 2021. Atabek, O. (2020). Associations between emotional states, self-efficacy for and attitude towards using educational technology. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(2), 175–194. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/associations-between-emotional-states-self/ docview/2459007319/se-2?accountid¼14609 Baytak, A., Tarman, B., & Ayas, C. (2011). Experiencing technology integration in education: Children’s perceptions. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 3(2), 139–151. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/experiencing-technol ogy-integration-education/docview/1697505687/se-2 Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2014). Understanding decision making in teachers’ curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9341-x Chavarría, R. R. (2021). Second language corner for children’s house: A practitioner-researcher journey into bilingualism in Montessori education. Journal of Montessori Research, 7(1), 67–82. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/second-language-cornerchildrens-house/docview/2595783357/se-2?accountid¼14609 Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. (2018). Educating the whole child: Improving school climate to support student success. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/145.655 Ebbeck, M., Yim, H. Y. B., Chan, Y., & Goh, M. (2016). Singaporean parents’ views of their young children’s access and use of technological devices. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(2), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-015-0695-4 Efe, H., Efe, R., & Yücel, S. (2016). A comparison of Swiss and Turkish pre-service science teachers’ attitudes, anxiety and self-efficacy regarding educational technology. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(7), 1583–1594. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/ comparison-swiss-turkish-pre-service-science/docview/1826536136/se-2?accountid¼14609 Fenty, N. S., & Anderson, E. M. (2014). Examining Educators’ Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices About Using Technology With Young Children. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35(2), 114–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2014.905808 Flewitt, R., Messer, D., & Kucirkova, N. (2015). New directions for early literacy in a digital age: The iPad. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1468798414533560 Fox-Turnbull, W. (2019). Enhancing the learning of technology in early childhood settings. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1836939119841457 Frederick, G. R., Schweizer, H., & Lowe, R. (2006). After the in-service course challenges of technology integration. Computers in the Schools, 23(1–2), 73–84. https://www.proquest.com/ scholarly-journals/after-service-course-challenges-technology/docview/62111069/se-2? accountid¼14609 Giménez, A. M., Luengo, J. A., & Bartrina, M. J. (2017). What are young people doing on internet? Use of ICT, parental supervision strategies and exposure to risks. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 15(3), 533–552. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/ scholarly-journals/what-are-young-people-doing-on-internet-use-ict/docview/2011270922/se2?accountid¼14609 Gómez-Trigueros, I. M., Ruiz-Bañuls, M., & Ortega-Sánchez, D. (2019). Digital literacy of teachers in training: Moving from ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) to LKTs (Learning and Knowledge Technologies). Education Sciences, 9, 1–10. https://www.proquest.com/ scholarly-journals/digital-literacy-teachers-training-moving-icts/docview/2396830330/se-2

31

Technology for the CLIL Preschool

511

Habeeb, K. (2018). Effects of interactive whiteboard training programs on teacher efficacy and student outcomes in kindergartens. Education and Information Technologies, 23(5), 2201–2212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9712-8 Hatzigianni, M., & Kalaitzidis, I. (2018). Early childhood educators’ attitudes and beliefs around the use of touchscreen technologies by children under three years of age. British Journal Educational Technology, 49, 883–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12649 Edutopia https://www.edutopia.org/ Jack, C., & Higgins, S. (2019). What is educational technology and how is it being used to support teaching and learning in the early years? International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(3), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1504754 Learning works for kids. (2021). Retrieved from https://learningworksforkids.com/apps/dreamboxlearning/ Levy, P. (2011). Confronting cyberbullying. T.H.E. Journal, 38(5), 25–27. Retrieved from https:// www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/confronting-cyberbullying/docview/881462125/se-2? accountid¼14609 Magen-Nagar, N., & Firstater, E. (2019). The Obstacles to ICT Implementation in the Kindergarten Environment: Kindergarten Teachers’ Beliefs. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 33 (2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2019.1577769 Manessis, D. (2014). The Importance of Future Kindergarten Teachers’ Beliefs about the Usefulness of Games Based Learning. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 4(1), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2014010105 Maureen, I. Y., van der Meij, H., & de Jong, T. (2018). Supporting literacy and digital literacy development in early childhood education using storytelling activities. International Journal of Early Childhood, 50(3), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-018-0230-z McGlynn-Stewart, M., Murphy, S., Pinto, I., Mogyorodi, E., & Nguyen, T. (2019). Technology supported early literacy learning in a multilingual community preschool. Education 3-13, 47(6), 692–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1520279 Menendez, A. L., Payne, L. D., & Mayton, M. R. (2008). The implementation of positive behavioral support in an elementary school: Processes, procedures, and outcomes. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(4), 448–462. Miller, S. C., McIntyre, C. J., & Lindt, S. F. (2020). Engaging technology in elementary school: Flipgrid’s potential. Childhood Education, 96(3), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056. 2020.1766677 Neumann, M. M. (2015). Young children and screen time: Creating a mindful approach to digital technology. Australian Educational Computing, 30(2), 1–15. Retrieved from https://www. proquest.com/scholarly-journals/young-children-screen-time-creating-mindful/docview/ 1773224068/se-2?accountid¼14609 Nikolopoulou, K., & Gialamas, V. (2015). ICT and Play in Preschool: Early Childhood Teachers’ Beliefs and Confidence. International Journal of Early Years Education, 23, 409–425. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2015.1078727 O’Hara, M. (2011). Young children’s ICT experiences in the home: Some parental perspectives. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 9(3), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1476718X10389145 Paolini, A. (2018). Cyberbullying: Role of the school counselor in mitigating the silent killer epidemic. International Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 1–8. Retrieved from https:// www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/cyberbullying-role-school-counselor-mitigating/ docview/2101403605/se-2?accountid¼14609 Riojas-Cortez, M., Montemayor, A., & Leveridge, T. (2019). Choosing the right app for preschoolers: Challenges and solutions. Childhood Education, 95(4), 56–62. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00094056.2019.1638717

512

J. García Laborda et al.

Sasi, S., Chang, M., Altinay-Aksal, F., Kayimbasioglu, D., Dervis, H., Kinshuk, & Altinay-Gazi, Z. (2017). Technology enhanced instruction: An example of English language learning in the context of peace. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13(6), 1605–1614. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/technologyenhanced-instruction-example-english/docview/1913345536/se-2 Sivrikova, N. V., Ptashko, T. G., Perebeynos, A. E., Chernikova, E. G., Gilyazeva, N. V., & Vasilyeva, V. S. (2020). Parental reports on digital devices use in infancy and early childhood. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 3957–3973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639020-10145-z Thota, N., & Negreiros, J. G. M. (2015). Introducing educational technologies to teachers: Experience report. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 12(1), 1–15. https://www. proquest.com/scholarly-journals/introducing-educational-technologies-teachers/docview/ 1697504489/se-2?accountid¼14609 Xie, K., Vongkulluksn, V. W., Justice, L. M., & Logan, J. A. R. (2019). Technology acceptance in context: Preschool teachers’ integration of a technology-based early language and literacy curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 40(3), 275–295. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10901027.2019.1572678

Part V Insights from the Classroom

Analysing Physical Appearance in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

32

Magdalena Custodio-Espinar

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A. Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B. Examples of Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C. Venn Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix D. Cultural Awareness: How Are People the Same and Different? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix E. Active Observation Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix F. Self-Assessment Checklist “Body Parts’ Description” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix G. Teacher’s Rubric to Assess the Oral Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

516 523 524 525 525 527 527 528 528

Abstract

The introduction of content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in preprimary education has meant the extension of bilingual education to young learners in mainstream education. This requires adequate training of pre-primary CLIL teachers because bilingual education provided through CLIL in pre-primary classrooms has its own peculiarities. It demands visible objectives to children, promotion of standard language, development of learning skills and autonomy, variety of evaluation forms, cognitive inclusion, critical thinking, cognitive scaffolding, and meaningful learning (Antequera & Gómez Parra, 2017, pp. 83–85). Therefore, CLIL lesson planning is a paramount competence in pre-primary teachers to integrate, analyze, and anticipate the cognitive and linguistic demands of the lessons. This chapter aims to offer an example of CLIL lesson planning at this stage of education that prompts all the components of the CLIL implemented in other stages of education, such as primary or secondary, in which students have more academic skills and more competence in the vehicular language of CLIL. The lesson plan designed for 5-year-old students in this M. Custodio-Espinar (*) Comillas Pontifical University, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_32

515

516

M. Custodio-Espinar

chapter offers an analysis and development of the 4Cs as demanding and complete as a CLIL lesson plan can be for older students because preschool CLIL, despite its peculiarities due to the age of students, does not involve a simplification or reduction of its methodological principles. Keywords

Pre-primary education · CLIL · Lesson planning · 4Cs · Young learners

Introduction Despite the widespread belief that CLIL is more appropriate for older learners, since they have greater cognitive development (Anderson et al., 2015), the truth is that, as stated by Coyle et al. (2010), “it is often hard to distinguish CLIL from standard forms of good practice in early language learning” (p. 17). According to Almodóvar Antequera and Gómez Parra (2017), Pre-primary CLIL should have visible objectives to children, promote the development of standard language and of learning skills, foster autonomy, include a variety of evaluation forms, provide cognitive inclusion, critical thinking, cognitive scaffolding and meaningful learning (pp. 83–85). In addition, a pre-primary CLIL lesson plan should organize the content from a global, comprehensive and interdisciplinary perspective through specific topics or cross-curricular contents (García Esteban, 2015). This global approach to teaching and learning conforms perfectly to the methodological principles of CLIL. The lesson plan designed for this chapter is an example of how CLIL for pre-primary students can be as challenging and effective as CLIL for primary or secondary students and prompt all the components of the 4Cs as described by Coyle et al. (2010). Concerning the C of content, this lesson plan combines content from the three main areas of knowledge included in the official curriculum of the Community of Madrid for this stage of education (Decree 17/2008): self-knowledge and personal autonomy, knowledge of the environment and languages. Besides, from the point of view of a pluriliterate CLIL student, the lesson aims at working on descriptions because this genre is not very demanding in terms of grammar and language and suits well the linguistic goals of the lesson. With regard to the C of cognition, it is necessary to consider that 5-to-6-year-olds are acquiring their mother tongue, have a pre-causal thinking and the reasoning used is primarily transductive (if A causes B today, then A always causes B). This means that this lesson will hopefully help the child to change, expand and rearrange their existing schemas about their physical appearance and that of others. The integration of content and language (C of communication) is reflected in the activities based on oral skills and Total Physical Response (TPR). They follow a progression from lower order thinking skills (pointing, spotting, matching, circling) to higher order thinking skills (identifying, comparing, analysing). Both the language and the content are scaffolded before (providing multimodal input, sharing the goals of the lesson in the learning intention wall, completing a Know/Want to learn/Learnt chart, and using vocabulary games), during (completing a Venn diagram, asking Thinking questions,

32

Analysing Physical Appearance in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

517

and using sentence cards) and at the end of the lesson (working on a substitution table for descriptions, which is the genre of the lesson) offering reception, transformation and production scaffolding (Dale & Tanner, 2012). The activities are all hands-on and learner-centred. They have been designed to encourage participation (individually, in pair and in group) and to embrace diversity by offering different patterns of families and approaching the comparisons of people from different backgrounds, ages and cultures, thus likely to boost children’s development of a multicultural understanding of the human body (C of culture). Finally, the assessment of the lesson is based on formative assessment tools that ensure classroom interaction, active observation and self-assessment. NAME Name of the lesson plan for Pre-primary Education AGE GROUP OBJECTIVES Learning targets students aiming to achieve with this unit

CONTENTS

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE Main content areas for pre-primary learners (knowledge about the self, knowledge about the environment, knowledge about languages, ie., artistic, verbal, numeracy, etc.) COMMUNICATION in L2 Tentative communicative competence contents in the target language (mainly orally)

DEVELOPMENT In terms of: a) personal, social affective and emotional development; b) Cognitive development; c) Physical

Same or different? 5–6-year-olds 1. Recognize yourself as a person differentiated from other living beings and non-living things. 2. Describe your body parts. 3. Represent attributes of elements and collections, and establish relationships of grouping and classification. 4. Analyze and compare people, animals and objects. Self-image, parts of the body and differences among people. Observation of animals, plants and objects to describe their attributes. Perception of similarities and differences. Discrimination of some attributes of people, animals and objects.

Body parts: Body, arm, hand, head, leg, foot, tail. I’ve got one, two. . . (body parts). Numbers (up to 5) Attributes: Color: black, white, beige, brown, red, blue, green. Size: big/small. Shape: round, square, triangle, human. Comparisons: I have two legs and my animal has two legs too. I have two legs but my animal has four legs. Connectors and/but a) Development of children’s self-image and self-esteem through analyzing, describing and comparing their body and the body of other peers and fantastic animals promoting diversity in the classroom. b) Progression from LOTS to HOTS (recalling, identifying, matching, (continued)

518

M. Custodio-Espinar

development; and d) creativity

CULTURE Raising intercultural and multilingual awareness

METHODOLOGY

MAIN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PRINCIPLES (describe how this unit is respectful with the key ECE principles such as: holistic learning, meaningful learning, experiential learning, play-based learning, active learning)

MAIN TEACHING STRATEGIES

explaining, analyzing, comparing) c) TPR activities, connected to their own body and physical appearance. d) Creation of fantastic animals changing their body parts. How are people different and the same? Using the three attributes studied pupils analyze differences among people according to color (continents), shape (sex), size (age) and body parts to arrive to conclusions. Content from different areas of knowledge is learnt in a realistic and integrated manner: body parts, numbers, attributes, comparisons. Learning is based on children’s previous knowledge, personal experience and individual cognitive progression. Children experiment changes in physical appearance , create their own representation on a puppet and use them to analyze and compare body parts. Many of the activities presented involve playing or singing both in group and individually. A learner-centered approach is used by providing different types of linguistic and cognitive scaffolding. Setting clear learning goals and sharing them with children. Total Physical Response method Progression from image to word-sentence using multimodal input (flashcards, videos, songs, sentence cards, games, worksheets) Matching activities to consolidate visual/ oral/written forms of new vocabulary and concepts. Active and dynamic design of activities to keep students’ attention. Cognitive scaffolding by adapting the cognitive demand to children’s actual cognitive level by reducing or increasing the challenge. Linguistic scaffolding to ensure classroom interaction. Using positive language for classroom management and encouraging students’ further thinking. Giving clear instructions, modelling and demonstrating how to do things in advance. Providing specific feedback. (continued)

32

Analysing Physical Appearance in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

SCAFFOLDING STRATEGIES

519

Including thinking questions in the routines. Using ICT Providing group, pair and individual work. Formative assessment Reception scaffolding (RS) Flash cards: HEAD/ARMS/BODY/FEET/ HANDS/LEGS/TAIL Multimodal input: song, story, TPR, IWB activities and games. Transformation scaffolding (TS) Sentence cards: I have 1 head and 1 body I have 2 legs and 2 arms I have no tail (The sentence cards should be split and given to students to match and form sentences I have / 1 / body) My animal has 1 / 2 / 4

Comparisons and connectors: (sentence cards) I have ONE BODY and my animal has ONE BODY too. I have TWO LEGS but my animal has FOUR LEGS. Production scaffolding (PS) Substitution table for the descriptions Who

What

I My animal

have got has got

How many no one two three four

Body part body arms legs head hands feet tail

(SAME) and (SAME) (SAME) but (DIFFERENT) (continued)

520 ACTIVITIES & TIMING

M. Custodio-Espinar Session 1 Human body parts (45 min.) – Welcome routine. Lesson intro: Students are brainstormed about the contents of the lesson and the teacher writes on the KWL chart what they know. Then they will visit the learning intention wall to check what we are going to learn in the lesson (KWL). – Activity 1: This is my body! Listen and say. Then listen and touch your body parts (TPR). (Body parts song) (RS: flashcards). – Activity 2: Click, listen and match (IWB). – Activity 3: Make a puppet of yourself. Then describe it. Use the sentence cards to make the sentences (TS). (See comments) Session 2 Animal body parts (45 min.) – Welcome routine. – Activity 4: Sing the body parts song again! – Activity 5: In groups create new animals by changing their body parts and give them a new name! – Activity 6: Describe the body parts of your new animal and yourself (they are displayed on a poster). Use the flashcards (RS) and sentence cards (TS) to make the sentences for the description. – Activity 7: Look at your classmate and think: are you same or different? (Thinking question). Watch the video and say if the animals are the same or different to Jenny the cow (TPS). – Activity 8: What things can we look at to say if something is the same or different? Watch the video and sing the song. Then, watch it again and match the pictures to the correct attribute: color, size, shape. (Appendix A) Session 3 Same or different? (45 min.) – Welcome routine. – Activity 9: Play the games to learn examples of attributes. (Appendix B) – Activity 10: What is the ant looking at to find Jenny the cow? Color, size or shape? – Activity 11: Find the odd one out! (Worksheet for color and shape) – Activity 12: Circle the same size. (Worksheet for size) – Activity 13: Now complete the diagram using the attributes you have learnt to describe yourself and your invented animal (TS: Venn diagram). Then compare your body parts and those of your animal. (continued)

32

Analysing Physical Appearance in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

CLASSROOM ROUTINES Associated with the areas of development and global and experiential learning

MEANS AND RESOURCE MATERIALS Songs and videos, worksheets, audio books, stories, crafts, crayons, pencils, etc.

521

(Appendix C) – Activity 14: Finally, compare these people looking at their body parts, color, size and shape. Look at the table and write S if they are the same and D if different. (Appendix D) How are they the same? (S) How are they different? (D) Extension activities – Compare yourself with some members of your family. – Compare yourself with some classmates, the teacher, the language assistant. . . – Compare different animals. KWL chart to ensure meaningful learning. Thinking questions to provoke students’ curiosity and desire to learn. TPS (Think-Pair-Share) to promote collaborative learning. Learning intention’s wall to share the learning goals and develop selfassessment using color-code stickers. Body parts song (Act. 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼gS_ Mz3ekkck Body parts matching activity (Act. 2) https://es.liveworksheets.com/ uy856301cm Puppet cutouts (Act. 3) Scissors, crayons, pencils. https://www. elmsleighinfantschool.co.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2020/02/Split-Pin-PersonTemplate1.pdf Changing animals’ body parts (Act. 4) https://switchzoo.com/newzoo/zoo.htm Looking for Jenny the cow video (Act. 7) https://www.youtube.com/watch? v¼8BOEm44u2Bg Same or different video-song by Amanda G. Ellis, MT-BC (Act. 8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼1_ ijSxaxLWM Find the difference (Act. 11) https://www.liveworksheets.com/ lv544616od Circle the same size (Act. 12) https://www.kids-pages.com/folders/ worksheets/Same__Different/Same% 20Size.pdf (continued)

522 EDUCATORS INVOLVED IN THE LESSON PLAN ASSESSMENT Assessment criteria (we encourage a respectful formative assessment through observation so rubrics, checklist, and observation charts Assessment tools are prioritized)

COMMENTS

M. Custodio-Espinar Class teacher, English teacher, language assistant, parents. To know and identify the parts of human and animal bodies. To describe body parts. To know and discriminate attributes. To compare people, animals and objects according to their attributes. For interaction – Random selection tool (sticks with names) to ensure that all pupils have an active role. – Thumbs up/down to check understanding and feelings. For active observation – Teacher’s checklist to assess pupils’ individual and group work. (Appendix E) For evaluation – Self-assessment checklist for the puppet description. (Appendix F) – Teacher’s rubric to assess the oral comparisons. (Appendix G) – Learning intention wall (KWL chart). This lesson can be linked to other curricular contents such as sound attributes, order and position, physical development of living things and respect towards others and their differences among others. This lesson can be used as an introduction to a STEM lesson in which students classify living things or non-living things according to different attributes using a scientific approach. ICT+ Activity 6 can be completed by animating a picture of the puppets in a talking book where students describe themselves using apps such as Morfo, Chatter Pix Kids or Voki. The language assistant and/or the families can help.

32

Analysing Physical Appearance in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

523

Appendix A. Attributes

COLOR

SHAPE

SIZE

Esta foto de Autor desconocido está bajo licencia CC BY-SA

524

M. Custodio-Espinar

Esta foto de Autor desconocido está bajo licencia CC BY-SA

Appendix B. Examples of Attributes Attributes Flashcards https://www.studystack.com/flashcard-3404275 Attributes Matching https://www.studystack.com/picmatch-3404275 Attributes Quiz https://www.studystack.com/quiz-3404275

32

Analysing Physical Appearance in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

525

Appendix C. Venn Diagram

Appendix D. Cultural Awareness: How Are People the Same and Different? PEOPLE A B C a

1 BODY

1 HEAD

2 ARMS

2 LEGS

COLOR

SIZE

SHAPE

Same (S) Different (D)

(A) Compare these children. Look at the parts of the body, color, shape and size.

526

M. Custodio-Espinar

(B) Compare these women. Look at the parts of the body, color, shape and size.

32

Analysing Physical Appearance in the Pre-primary CLIL Classroom

527

(C) Compare the members of this family. Look at the parts of the body, color, shape and size.

Appendix E. Active Observation Checklist GROUP/INDIVIDUAL WORK CHECKLIST-TEACHER Group: Date: Group member name 1. 2. 3. 4. a

Observationsa Listens to and shares with others. Respects the rules and classwork procedures. Supports the efforts of others. Stays on task.

Group members 1 2 3

4

a

a

a

a

Always (A) Sometimes (S) Never (N)

Appendix F. Self-Assessment Checklist “Body Parts’ Description”

NAME

DESCRIPTOR I CAN NAME MY BODY PARTS I CAN COUNT MY BODY PARTS I CAN DESCRIBE MY BODY

Note: This information will be used to complete the KWL chart (KWL)

528

M. Custodio-Espinar

Appendix G. Teacher’s Rubric to Assess the Oral Comparisons Oral Presentation Rubric : SAME OR DIFFERENT? Teacher Name: Student Name: CATEGORY

OUTSTANDING

VERY GOOD

Speaks clearly and distinctly all (10095%) the time, and mispronounces no words.

Speaks clearly and distinctly all (10095%) the time, but mispronounces 1-3 words.

Content

Shows a full understanding of the content.

Shows a good understanding of the content.

Shows a good understanding of parts of the content.

Does not seem to understand the content very well.

Comprehension

Student is able to accurately answer almost all questions posed by the teacher.

Student is able to accurately answer most questions posed

Student is able to accurately answer a few questions posed

by the teacher.

by the teacher.

Student is unable to accurately answer questions posed by the teacher.

Uses almost all vocabulary studied in the lesson.

Uses the vocabulary studied in the lesson.

Uses some words studied in the lesson.

Uses few words studied in the lesson.

Speaks Clearly

Vocabulary

GOOD Speaks clearly and distinctly most (9485%) of the time. Mispronounces some words.

CAN DO BETTER Often mumbles or can not be understood OR mispronounces many words.

Date Created: Sep 03, 2021 07:49 am (CDT)

References Almodovar Antequera, J. M., & Gomez Parra, M. (2017). Propuesta metodológica para la creación de materiales bilingües (AICLE) en educación infantil. El Guiniguada. Revista de investigaciones y experiencias en Ciencias de la Educación, 26, 77–88. Anderson, C. E., McDougald, J. S., & Cuesta Medina, L. (2015). CLIL for young learners. In Children learning English: From research to practice (pp. 137–151). Garnet Publishing Ltd. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL – Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press. Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities. A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge University Press. Decreto 17/2008, de 6 de marzo, del Consejo de Gobierno, por el que se desarrollan para la Comunidad de Madrid las enseñanzas de la Educación Infantil. Garcia Esteban, S. (2015). Soft CLIL in infant education bilingual contexts in Spain. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 1, 30–36.

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

33

Natalia García Ma´rtínez

Contents Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 1: The Five Senses Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 2: Spot the Difference Worksheet (Example) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 3: Lapbook Model (in Blank) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 4: The Five Senses Break Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 5: The Five Senses Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 6: Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix 7: The Five Senses Escape Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

547 547 548 548 550 551 551 551

Abstract

Bilingual education was introduced 18 years ago in the CAM. However, it has not been until 2022 that Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL henceforth) has been introduced in the pre-primary stage in all bilingual schools in this region. As a result, teachers at this stage ask for practical lesson plans to implement in their classrooms. Pursuant to this, lesson plans need to be adapted to students’ interests and needs at this age. In line with this, this chapter presents a pre-primary CLIL lesson plan example about the five senses in which children will have the opportunity to experiment with learning while sharing their thoughts with the rest of the class. Given that in this lesson children will be discovering and building their own knowledge in a meaningful context and environment, they will become the main characters of their learning process. In this lesson plan, the author describes an action research project for preprimary CLIL around the topic of the five senses. The project has been based on work conducted in state schools in the Madrid Bilingual Programme. It welcomes N. García Mártínez (*) Madrid Region Bilingual Programme, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_33

529

N. García Ma´rtínez

530

knowledge about the self, the environment, and languages through cooperative activities, a range of Lower Order and Higher Order Cognitive Skills, and both gross and fine motor skills. Keywords

CLIL · Pre-primary · Infant · Five senses · Senses lab · Young children education

NAME Name of the lesson plan for Pre-primary Education AGE GROUP OBJECTIVES Learning targets students aiming to achieve with this unit

CONTENTS

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE Main content areas for pre-primary learners (knowledge about the self, knowledge about the environment, knowledge about languages, i.e., artistic, verbal, numeracy, etc.)

The Five senses 3rd year (5 years old) To introduce the five senses. To review the parts of the body. To relate senses to parts of the body. To experiment with different objects and substances. To explore the world with the five senses. To express abilities using the expression “I can. . .”. To enjoy with art expression. Knowledge about the self a) The five senses. b) Parts of the body. c) Experimenting with the five senses d) Personal likes and dislikes e) Personal abilities. Knowledge about the environment. a) Interaction with the environment through the senses. Knowledge about languages ARTISTIC: PLASTIC AND MUSIC EXPRESSION a) Artistic expression. b) Musical instruments. c) Popular music. d) Connecting music and emotions. VERBAL AND NUMERACY a) Identifying letters and numbers. b) Eye-hand coordination (continued)

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

COMMUNICATION in L2 Tentative communicative competence contents in the target language (mainly orally)

DEVELOPMENT In terms of: a) personal, social affective and emotional development; b) Cognitive development; c) Physical development; and d) creativity

CULTURE Raising intercultural and multilingual awareness

531

(writing simple words or numbers). c) Acquiring/Consolidating the reading/listening to stories habit. BODY LANGUAGE a) Expressing perceptions and feelings with the body. b) Miming actions. c) Dancing. AUDIOVISUAL LANGUAGE a) Watching videos. ICT LANGUAGE b) Playing flashcards games and some escape room challenges on the smart board*. c) Use of tablet/ipad for “The five senses song” worksheet. *We can use the physical material, too. Expressing abilities (I can / I can’t. . .). Descriptions (use of present simple). Repeating words and expressions (pronunciation). Singing the song. Understanding oral instructions. Active listening to the story. Listening and singing the song: pronunciation, rhythm, vocabulary. a) Cooperative work, empathy, active listening, group and games rules. b) Identifying, memorizing, analyzing, classifying, playing, experimenting and creating. c) Gross motor skills (dancing and miming). Fine motor skills (colouring, sticking, modelling). d) Using colours and textures to create a collective mural. Music throughout the world: rock, classic music, flamenco, rap. Musical instruments: piano, drums, and Spanish guitar. Traditional games. (continued)

N. García Ma´rtínez

532 METHODOLOGY

MAIN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PRINCIPLES (Describe how this unit is respectful with the key ECE principles such as: holistic learning, meaningful learning, experiential learning, play-based learning, active learning)

MAIN TEACHING STRATEGIES

This unit is built upon these general principles: Active learning: There is a learning opportunity in every situation. Thus, children experiment and live every activity following their own needs and pace. Experiential learning: The activities are focused on experimenting. Thus, children memorize what is meaningful to them. Holistic learning: Including artistic, emotional, social, creative and physical aspects. This interdisciplinary approach encourages students’ self-confidence and well-being. Play-based learning: Children learn through playing games, as the brain learns better when having fun, and this lesson plan is full of games. Teamwork: Every child is different and can contribute to the group, helping each other and learning autonomously. Specific education needs students are considered and supported by their teammates. Relationships among children: Children learn from each other and learn how to interact respectfully. Basic materials: All materials are basic, such as the classroom materials, food, clothes. . . Children can identify them easily. This unit is based on three texts: “The five senses song”, “Kevin’s big book of the five senses” and “Learn all about the five senses”. Traditional games. Playing games. Experimenting. Interacting. Routines. Consolidating language through repetition. (continued)

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

SCAFFOLDING STRATEGIES

533

Applying the new knowledge through games and other activities. Working in small and big group. Sense of humor. Having fun together. According to Echevarria, Voght & Short, 2004: Verbal scaffolding: Effective use of wait time. Teaching familiar chunks: “Can you. . .? Yes, I can/No, I cannot”, “I can/can’t . . .”, “Do you like. . .? Yes, I do/No, I don’t. I like/don’t like . . .”. Clear enunciation and articulation by the teacher. Songs, rhyme, and rhythm. Procedural scaffolding: Using an instructional framework that includes explicit teaching (T)modeling (T)-practicing (St)applying (St). Pairing and grouping students so that less experienced/knowledgeable students work with more experienced/knowledgeable students. Activating prior knowledge (parts of the body, colours, food, and animals). Personalize information (related to children’s lives). Cooperative group techniques. Use of routines. Total Physical Response (TPR). Stopping the video and explanations to check understanding. Letting children to use the mother tongue to express themselves. Instructional scaffolding: Manipulatives. Using visuals and imagery. Making a variety of resources in the classroom. (continued)

534

ACTIVITIES & TIMING

N. García Ma´rtínez

Simple labeled visuals. Checking understanding: raising hands and letting one student to say the instructions in Spanish. Session 1: Introduction (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Unit introduction (5’). Activity 1: Warm up. The five senses song. (5’) Activity 2: Vocabulary review: Parts of the body (Body parts song for kids – This is me! ELF Kids videos). (10’) Activity 3: Vocabulary review. Parts of the body (II). Game with flashcards: Parts of the body. (10’) Closing activity: TPR game. The teacher will say a part of the body aloud and everybody will touch it. Then, we can do the same with a partner. (10’) Session 2: Sight (I) (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. The five senses song. (5’) Activity 1: Kevin’s big book of the five senses (Introduction and sight). (10’) Activity 2: Flashcard’s game. Shapes and colours. (5’) Activity 3: Kim’s game. The teacher will prepare a box with different materials inside (4-6). She will show all objects to the group naming them. Then, one pair of students will go in front of the class and have a look inside for 5 seconds. They must memorize the objects that are in the box. The teacher will tell the students to look at the class while she is taking one object off. After this, the pair of students will have a look inside again, find out the missing object and name it. The entire group, in pairs, will play the game at least once. We will focus on shapes and colours (10’). (continued)

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

535 Closing activity: “Touch something” game. After reviewing the colours and shapes, the teacher will call two students and tell them to touch something (colour/shape). Students must remember the vocabulary and identify an object in the classroom. If they don’t understand the word, the teacher will show the colour/ shape flashcard to make the activity easier for children. (10’) Session 3: Sight (II) (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. The five senses song. (5’) Activity 1: Spot the difference worksheet. After highlighting the differences on the worksheet, children will explain them orally. (10’) Activity 2: “I spy with my little eye” game. The teacher will explain the “I spy with my little eye” game to the students. All students will practice the sentence together. Then, the teacher will start the game “I spy with my little eye something. . . (colour/shape)”. Students will look around the classroom and raise their hands. The teacher will ask them in order. They can point to the object (and the group and the teacher will name it) or say the object in English (if they know it) or Spanish. If one of them is right he/she will go in front of the class and say, “I spy with my little eye something. . . (colour/shape)” and the game will continue. (15’) Closing activity: Playing with flashcards. Every small group (4–5 students) will have a set of flashcards (colours and shapes) to play naming them (vocabulary review). (10’) Session 4: Hearing (I) (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. The five senses song (5’) (continued)

536

N. García Ma´rtínez

Activity 1: Kevin’s big book of the five senses (Hearing). (10’) Activity 2: Farm animals. The teacher will stick three or four farm animals pictures on the board. Then, she will review their names with the group. After this, all students will make the noise of each animal, making gestures and saying their names. Then, the game will start. The teacher will play a recording with different animals’ sounds. Students that know what animal makes the sound will raise their hands. Then, the teacher will call one student to go to the board, point to the animal and say its name using the structure: “I can hear a ________ with my ears”. All students can make the animal gesture. (15’) Closing activity: Music and emotions. The teacher will explain to the students that sounds can affect emotions. To demonstrate it, she will tell them to listen to a (relaxing) song and do what they feel. After this, students will share the experience in small groups. (10’) Session 5: Hearing (II) (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. Covering and uncovering ears. The teacher will remind students that hearing is related to the ears, and they are going to prove it. To do so, they will cover their ears and try to identify different sounds (animals’ sounds). In order to support the activity, the animals flashcards will be stuck on the board. Then, the teacher will play the sounds while students have the ears covered for 3-5 seconds. She will stop the recording and ask them to identify the animal. Then, she will do the same with uncovered (continued)

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

537

ears and compare the results. (10’) Activity 1: Musical instruments. The teacher will stick the musical instruments on the board, introduce the vocabulary and the different sounds. She will also explain that instruments come from different countries and continents (Spanish guitar and African drums). After this, students will play a game identifying the instruments from their sounds and making gestures. If they don’t remember the name, they can stand up and point to the picture on the board. (10’) Activity 2: I can hear. . . The teacher will write on the board the sentence: “What can you hear?”. She will read it aloud and children will repeat it. Then, the teacher will write (and act it out) “I can hear a . . . with my ears” and read it aloud. The children will listen and repeat. When they learn the two sentences the game will start. The teacher will play a sound and children will raise their hands if they know it. The teacher will ask “What can you hear?” and one child will answer “I can hear a . . . with my ears”. After this, the child will play a sound with his/her body and ask the question to the group “What can you hear? Another child will answer using the structure “I can hear a . . . with my ears” and so on. (10’) Closing activity: Music and emotions. The teacher will play different types of music (rock, rap, classic, flamenco. . .) and children will dance as they feel. Then, we will share the experience in small groups. (10’) Session 6. Smell (I) (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. The five senses song. (5’) (continued)

538

N. García Ma´rtínez

Activity 1: Kevin’s big book of the five senses (Smell) (10’) Activity 2: The magic box/bag (smell). The teacher will put in the magic bag/box some objects with different scents. She will write on the board “stinky” and “fresh”. Firstly, the teacher will read aloud both words with the students making gestures to understand the meaning. Then, students will go one by one in front of the class, smell one object, identify the scent and classify it in one category (stinky or fresh). (15’) Activity 3: Closing activity. TPR game. The teacher will call one student to go in front of the class, pick up a word card/ flashcard and say the word aloud. The rest of students will make an agreed gesture depending on the scent (stinky or fresh). (10’) Session 7. Smell (II) (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. “Touch something” game (5’) Activity 1: Smell and nose. The teacher will remind students that smell is related to the nose, and they are going to prove it. To do so, they will cover their noses and try to identify different scents from different objects. In order to support the activity, there will be flashcards related to the scents stuck on the board. Then, the teacher will call two students, tell them to cover their noses and identify the scent. Later, they will do the same with uncovered noses and compare the results. All students will experiment this experience. (10’) Activity 2: Stinky or fresh? The teacher will put the objects on each table and students will (continued)

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

539

smell and classify the scents in small groups (stinky or fresh). Then, we will check the results together. We will reflect on the subjectivity of the smell sense. (15’) Closing activity: The five senses song. (5’) Session 7. Taste (I) (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. The five senses song. (5’) Activity 1: Kevin’s big book of the five senses (Taste). (10’) Activity 2: Salty or sweet? The teacher will introduce “salty” and “sweet” writing the words on the board and reading them aloud with the students. Then, she will give each group something salty and sweet to understand the meaning. After this, in turns they will stick on the board flashcards with different food under each option. (15’) Closing activity: TPR game: salty or sweet. Using flashcards, children in small groups will try to guess if something is salty or sweet and make an agreed gesture to show their answers. (10’) Session 8. Taste (II) (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. TPR game: Salty and sweet. We will play this game again. (10’) Activity 1: The magic box/bag. (Taste). There will be a box with different elements inside. In pairs, students will taste one and decide if it is salty or sweet. We can also add sour/ bitter if we feel children can integrate them. Then, we will check the food together. (15’) Activity 2: Tasting in groups. In small groups, children will play to classify food as salty or sweet. (10’) Closing activity: The five senses song. (5’) (continued)

540

N. García Ma´rtínez

Session 9. Touch (I) (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. The five senses song. (5’) Activity 1: Kevin’s big book of the five senses (Touch). (10’) Activity 2: TPR game. Smooth or rough? After introducing the vocabulary, the teacher will show a picture/ object and students will make a gesture depending on if it is smooth or rough. (5’) Activity 3: In the playground. We can play many touch games in the playground with wet and dry sand, for instance. Let children experiment and share the experience. (15’) Closing activity: Senses and parts of the body (Review). The teacher will revise with the students the relations between senses and parts of the body: sight-eyes, hearing-ears, smellnose, taste-tongue and touchskin/hands. The teacher will say aloud one sense (smell, taste, sight or hearing) and children will point to the part of the body related to it. Later, they will point to the part of the body of a partner. (5’) Session 10. Touch (II) (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. The five senses song. (5’) Activity 1: TPR game. Smooth or rough? The teacher will show a picture/object and students will make a gesture depending on if it is smooth or rough (5’). Activity 2: The magic box (Touch). The students will cover their hands with wool gloves and try to identify different shapes and texture (smooth/rough). Then, the teacher will call two students, tell them to cover their eyes and hands and identify the shape and (continued)

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

541

texture (smooth or rough). Later, they will do the same with uncovered hands and compare the experiences. (15’) Activity 3: In the playground. Children will work in pairs. One of them will cover his/her eyes and the other one will guide him/her touching different objects in the playground. It’s important to make all children feel safe in this activity. If someone doesn’t want to cover his/her eyes, we should respect it. (10’) Closing activity: Sharing experiences. Children will explain their feelings during the previous activity. (5’) Session 11. Review. (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. “Learn all about the five senses”. After an introduction, students will watch the video. (15’) Activity 1: Experimenting and creating with the five senses. Students will do this activity in small groups. There will be different materials: construction paper, finger paint, stamp pads, crayons, stickers, cotton, pieces of fabric, wool, cardboard. . . Every group will create a piece of art while relaxing music is played. (20’) Closing activity The five senses song (5’). Session 12. Review (II) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity: “Learn all about the five senses”. Students will watch the video again and we will reflect on it together. (10’) Main activity. Experimenting and creating with the five senses. Students will do this activity in small groups. There will be different materials: construction paper, finger paint, stamp pads, (continued)

542

N. García Ma´rtínez

crayons, stickers, cotton, pieces of fabric, wool, cardboard. . . Every group will finish creating last session’s piece of art while relaxing music is played. (20’) Closing activity. Sharing murals. Every group will share and explain their murals (10’). Session 13. Project (I) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. Murals. We will review the group murals from the previous session. (5’) Main activity: Break out “The five senses”. Everybody has forgotten what the five senses are. The group will face different challenges to find the materials to create “The five senses lapbook”, which will help people to remember them (see attached file). (30’). Closing activity. Party time! Dancing together (5’). Session 14. Project (II) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity: Touch something. . . (game). (5’) Main activity. The five senses lapbook. Children will use the compiled material from the escape room to create their individual lapbooks. (30’) Closing activity: The five senses song. (5’) Session 15. Assessing the unit (45’) Welcome routine (5’) Warm up activity. The five senses song. (5’) Activity 1: “Can do” chart. The teacher will explain the “can do” chart drawing emoticons on the board and explaining the meaning of each one of them. Then, she will read each sentence in English aloud. Students will ask each question individually. (15’) Activity 2: Adjectives. There will be a box with flashcards. Every student will (continued)

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

CLASSROOM ROUTINES Associated with the areas of development and global and experiential learning

543 take a flashcard and say an adjective related to it (and the name of the object, if possible). (10’) Activity 3: Dancing different types of music. We will dance together different types of music. (5’) Closing activity. The five senses song. (5’) Welcome routines (Assembly): date, weather and roll calling (Knowledge about the language). Warm up activity: (Knowledge about language). Flashcards games. We can use flashcards to review the vocabulary in a fun way. Thus, the teacher sticks the flashcards on the board and reviews the vocabulary aloud. Then, we can play different games: 1) The teacher will point to a shape and students will say the name aloud. 2) The teacher will ask students to point to different shapes. 3) The teacher will point to a shape and say a name. If she is right, students will clap three times. If she is wrong, students will tap the table once. 4) Children in small groups will classify flashcards. (Knowledge about the language). TPR games. Putting into practice the vocabulary of the day. (Knowledge of the Language, Knowledge about the self, knowledge about the environment). Reading/Listening activity. We use “Kevin’s big book of the five senses” to introduce every sense. For this purpose, we sit in a circle with the book and all children can participate in different ways: repeating words, expressing (continued)

544

MEANS AND RESOURCE MATERIALS Songs and videos, worksheets, audio books, stories, crafts, crayons, pencils, etc

N. García Ma´rtínez

feelings, making gestures, pointing at an image from the book, etc. (Knowledge about the language). Closing activity: reflection on the day or fun/relaxing activities (Knowledge about the self, Knowledge about the environment and Knowledge about the environment). Song: “The five senses song” - Sánchez García, R. https:// www.youtube.com/watch? v¼OWW5IaDCj1g Book: Slegers, L. (2012) “Kevin’s big book of the five senses”. Ed. Clavis New York Video: Learn all about the five senses – Turtle diary https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v¼1tTKLE72fJI Song: This is me! – ELF Learning https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v¼QkHQ0CYwjaI Worksheets: The five senses song worksheet (Appendix 1). This worksheet supports the five senses song. Teachers can adapt it to use it on tablets or ipads. Spot the difference worksheet (Appendix 2). Children have to mark and say aloud the differences that they can find in the two pictures. They can share first in the small group. Lapbook as a final project. (Appendix 3) Break out planning. (Appendix 4). Assessment tools: observation chart, Rubric (Appendix 5) and self-assessment. Flashcards. Other materials: Classroom material: computer, loudspeakers, and smartboard. Consumable material: crayons, construction paper, finger paint, assorted objects and food to create the mural (continued)

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

EDUCATORS INVOLVED IN THE LESSON PLAN

ASSESSMENT (we encourage a respectful formative assessment through observation so rubrics, checklist, and observation charts are prioritized)

Assessment criteria

Assessment tools

545

and lapbook and to practice with the senses, bags or boxes to hide the objects, blindfolds to cover the eyes. All sessions are thought to be developed by one teacher. However, having a second teacher or assistant in the classroom could help the development of the session, as well as to promote opportunities for language support and communication. To name and identify the five senses. To connect each sense to the body. To understand the vocabulary of the unit. To describe objects or images using adjectives from the unit. To classify objects or images according to the perception. To use the structure “I can. . .” in different contexts. To participate in the unit activities. To work in teams, sharing materials and waiting for the turn. To create a piece of art using different materials. Observation chart. This chart becomes an important tool to fulfill the rubric. Teachers should take notes about children’s performance every day, so we will have more accurate and objective information that will be very useful when fulfilling the rubric. Rubric. (Appendix 6). This rubric is focused on the main assessment criteria of this unit. Considering all these sections and the selfassessment chart, we will have a general picture of the unit in order to make some adjustments if necessary. Self-assessment chart. One of the multiple ways of (continued)

546

COMMENTS

N. García Ma´rtínez

increasing children’s motivation is by helping them to assess their own progress. Self-assessment charts help children to be aware of the responsibility they have of their own learning. At the same time, they can see what is expected from them in a particular lesson or project and encourage them to achieve it. Although this self-assessment chart will be individually completed at the end of the project, we will frequently refer to it as we progress in our learning process. By using it that way, the chart becomes a tool that contributes to make connections among the different sessions (the knowledge previously acquired), helping children to support their schema building. Some items we can include in the self-assessment chart are: “I can name four colours”, “I can differentiate stinky and fresh things”, “I can differentiate salty and sweet food”, and so on. It’s important to make all children feel safe in all the activities. We will encourage participation, but we will not force it. The teacher must be informed of the group’s allergies and intolerances. Sometimes children want to repeat a game, song or an activity because they liked it. We can adapt the planning according to their needs. We can ask families to collaborate at home. The kitchen is a great five senses lab, for instance.

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

Appendix Appendix 1: The Five Senses Worksheet

547

548

Appendix 2: Spot the Difference Worksheet (Example)

Appendix 3: Lapbook Model (in Blank)

N. García Ma´rtínez

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

549

550

Appendix 4: The Five Senses Break Out

N. García Ma´rtínez

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

551

Appendix 5: The Five Senses Rubric 0 Naming/Identifyin The student is not able name g the five senses and identify any sense

1 The student names and identifies 1 or 2 senses

2 The student names and identifies 3 or 4 senses

3 The student names and identify all senses

Senses and parts of the body

The student is not able to match any sense to the body.

The student matches one or The student matches three 2 senses to their parts of the or four senses to their parts body. of the body.

Use of “I can …”

The student is not able to use the structure I can…

Descriptions

The student is not able to use the vocabulary of the unit to describe pictures or objects.

The student is able to use The student is able to use The student uses the the structure I can… in a the structure I can… in a structure “I can…” in context. guided activity making guided activity without mistakes. mistakes. The student is able to use The student is able to use The student is able to use the vocabulary of the unit to the vocabulary of the unit to the vocabulary of the unit to describe pictures or objects describe pictures or objects describe pictures or objects in a guided activity making in a guided activity without in context. mistakes. mistakes.

Teamwork

The student is not able to work in group, share materials and wait for her/his turn.

Worksheets

Participation

The student is able to work in pairs, shares materials and waits for her/his turn. but shows some difficulties working in small or big group. The student is not able to do The student is able to do the the worksheets, even with worksheets with individual individual support. support but making some mistakes. The student doesn’t show The student shows some interest in the activities. interest in some activities.

The student matches all senses to their parts of the body.

The student is able to work The student is able to work in groups but shows some in group, share materials and difficulties sharing materials wait for her/his turn. and waiting for her/his turn.

The student is able to do the The student is able to do the worksheets without mistakes worksheets without mistakes (with individual support) (without individual support) The student shows some interest in all activities.

TOTAL

Appendix 6: Rubric

Appendix 7: The Five Senses Escape Room

The student shows enthusiasm to participate in all the activities.

552

N. García Ma´rtínez

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

553

554

N. García Ma´rtínez

33

Working with the Five Senses in the Pre-primary Classroom

555

Getting to Know Animal Habitats in CLIL Pre-primary Education

34

Hazuki Nakata and Kazuko Kashiwagi

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564

Abstract

English education in Japan begins from third grade in elementary school and it is not part of the National Course of Study for kindergartens. However, incorporating CLIL principles in English activities for pre-primary children can enhance their learning experience and linguistic abilities. This lesson plan is designed for 4–5-year-old children in the pre-primary stage. It is based on CLIL principles and aims to help children learn the names of some animals and their habitats, and create animal dolls. The methodology is based on early childhood education principles such as holistic learning, meaningful learning, experiential learning, play-based learning, active learning, and teamwork. Keywords

Pre-primary Education · Animal Habitats · Play-based Learning

H. Nakata (*) Konan Women’s University, Kobe, Japan e-mail: [email protected] K. Kashiwagi Shitennōji University, Habikino, Japan © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_34

557

558

H. Nakata and K. Kashiwagi

Introduction The lesson plan presented below is a summary of a trial lesson plan for 4–5-year-old children at the Pre-primary stage. English education in Japan begins with English activities in the third grade of elementary school (children aged nine), and, as from 2020, compulsory schooling for fifth graders (children aged eleven). However, English education in kindergarten, based on the National Course of Study, has not been introduced. This is a trial lesson and does not aim to consolidate vocabulary or content. The time of the lesson is also flexible to suit the needs of the children. Therefore, the class time and evaluation methods described here are only examples. It is expected that in lessons incorporating CLIL principles, kindergarten children will actively use multiple intelligences and perform well. They will be actively involved in class content and will use the maximum cognitive thinking possible for their age. In addition, kindergarten teachers will find this teaching method consistent with the usual activities associated with education in Japanese kindergartens. It is further expected that children in classes of this type will acquire English linguistic patterns while being actively absorbed in the content. Marsh (2012) observed that since the mid-1990s, the popularity of CLIL has expanded considerably in Europe, where “early language learning, whether at kindergarten, preschool, or primary school, inevitably involved forms of CLIL” (p. 133). Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) emphasized that “it is often hard to distinguish CLIL from standard forms of good practice in early language learning.” This shows a strong affinity between early childhood education and CLIL. NAME Name of the lesson plan for Pre-primary Education AGE GROUP OBJECTIVES Learning targets students aiming to achieve with this unit

CONTENTS

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE Main content areas for pre-primary learners (knowledge about the self, knowledge about the environment, knowledge about languages, ie., artistic, verbal, numeracy, etc.)

Animal Habitats 4 years old 〜5 years old To know the names of some animals. To know some animals’ habitats. To create some animal dolls. Knowledge about the environment. a) Interaction with the environment through animal habitats. Knowledge about languages. ANIMAL AND MUSIC EXPRESSION a) Animal Movement BODY LANGUAGE b) Action (continued)

34

Getting to Know Animal Habitats in CLIL Pre-primary Education COMMUNICATION in L2 Tentative communicative competence contents in the target language (mainly orally) DEVELOPMENT In terms of a) personal, social affective and emotional development; b) Cognitive development; c) Physical development; and d) creativity

METHODOLOGY

CULTURE Raising intercultural and multilingual awareness MAIN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PRINCIPLES (Describe how this unit is respectful with the key ECE principles such as: holistic learning, meaningful learning, experiential learning, play-based learning, active learning)

559

Singing the song. Understanding oral instructions. Active listening of the story. Listening and singing the song. a) Through group and collaborative work and interaction both with peers and teachers. b) Promotion of high order thinking skills (HOTS) “analyzing, classifying, creating.” c) Dance, mimic animal movements d) Creating animal dolls Animal sounds from different countries This unit is built upon these general principles: Active learning: In this activity, the children collaborate with their peers and use their previous knowledge. Experiential learning: Activities in which children actually place the animal dolls they have made in the animal’s habitat are hands-on. Holistic learning: Children will think about the habitats of animals and the natural environment and have a sense of mutual respect. Play-based learning: The children move their bodies to imitate the movements of the animals with music. Teamwork: Every child is different and can contribute to the group, helping each other and learning autonomously. Specific education needs students are considered and supported by their teammates. Relationships among children: Children learn from each other and learn how to interact respectfully. (continued)

560

H. Nakata and K. Kashiwagi

MAIN TEACHING STRATEGIES

SCAFFOLDING STRATEGIES

ACTIVITIES & TIMING

Basic materials: All materials are basic. TPR Storytelling. Multimodal input (picture books, songs, video). Multisensory approach. Scaffolding of both content and language. Positive feedback. Give clear instructions. Creative questioning. Different grouping modes (whole group, small group, pair work, individual work). Eliciting Modelling Repeating Recasting Simplifying Highlighting key concepts and vocabulary Session 1: To know Animals (40’) Activity 1: Reading a picture book: “Five little monkeys jumping on the bed”. (10’) Activity 2: Chant: Five little monkeys jumping on the bed” (Five Little Monkeys/Word Play/ Pinkfong). (10’) Activity 3: Reading a picture book: “From Head to Toe” The teacher interacts with the children using the English expression, “What animal is this?” If the children know how to say the animal’s name in English, they answer in English. If they do not know the name of the animal, they answer in Japanese. The teacher immediately rephrases the name of the animal in English and gives input. (10’) The children, then, imitate the (continued)

34

Getting to Know Animal Habitats in CLIL Pre-primary Education

CLASSROOM ROUTINES Associated with the areas of development and global and experiential learning

561

movements of the animals in this book. (10’) Session 2: Making animal dolls (25’) Activity Making animal dolls (25’): The children choose their favorite animal, draw its eyes, nose, whiskers, etc., and paste it on the body of the triangular prism. By using different colored paper for the body. After the children have made their animal puppets, the teacher introduces their animal puppets to their friends, interacting with the children using the following expressions. “What animal do you like?” “(I like a) lion.” “Is this a lion?” “Yes, (it is).” “What color do you like?” “(I like) blue.” (25’) Session 3: Think about Where Animals Live (15’) Activity: To put the animal dolls (15’): Check with the children to see where the monkeys live. The preschoolers have seen the background in the Five little monkey video and will use their existing knowledge to answer where the monkeys live. Use the knowledge the children have gained from reading the picture books and watching the video to place the animal puppets in their respective habitats. Information board to let children know the session aims. Visual timetable for children to see the tasks they will do in every session. Creative questioning. (continued)

562

H. Nakata and K. Kashiwagi

MEANS AND RESOURCE MATERIALS Songs and videos, worksheets, audio books, stories, crafts, crayons, pencils, etc

EDUCATORS INVOLVED IN THE LESSON PLAN ASSESSMENT Assessment criteria (we encourage a respectful formative assessment through observation so rubrics, checklist, and observation charts are prioritized)

Assessment tools COMMENTS

Appendix Making the Outline of the Animals.

Chant: “Five Little Monkeys Jumping on the Bed” Video: “Five Little Monkeys Jumping on the Bed” https:// www.youtube.com/watch? v¼weHSNl8CbDo (Pinkfong Baby Shark – Kids’ Songs & Stories) Book: Eileen Christelow (1989) “Five Little Monkeys Jumping on the Bed (A Five Little Monkeys Story)”. Eric Carle(1999) “From head to toe” Other materials: Classroom material: computer, loudspeakers, and smartboard. Consumable material: Crayons, Homeroom teacher Children know and use different attributes. Children can compare animals according to their characteristics. Children can classify animal’s habitats according to given features. Children develop personal creativity. Children take active part in the planned activities and tasks. Teacher’s diary with observation notes. Since there is no English curriculum in public kindergartens in Japan, this plan is a temporary experience plan.

34

Getting to Know Animal Habitats in CLIL Pre-primary Education

The Eyes and Mouths, etc. Were Left Empty.

The Body Part Was Made by Folding Four Pieces.

563

564

H. Nakata and K. Kashiwagi

Sticking Sticker Magnets on Top.

Glue The Face to the Body of the Triangular Prism.

References Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Marsh, D. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) A development trajectory. University of Córdoba.

35

Using the Grouchy Ladybug for CLIL in Pre-primary Education Sara Arranz

Contents Why Investigate Trees? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573

Keywords

Integrated lesson · Trees · Explore · Skills

Why Investigate Trees? Trees fascinate children and spark their curiosity and wonder. This study builds upon children’s interest in trees to help them explore science and social studies. During this study, children use skills in literacy, math, technology and the arts. NAME Trees: Who lives in trees? What food comes from trees and who takes care of them?

AGE GROUP OBJECTIVES Trees fascinate children and spark their curiosity and wonder. This study builds upon children’s interest in trees and help them explore science and social studies.

5–6 year-olds To acquire vocabulary related to trees, plants and food. To develop skills towards taking care of nature. To improve healthy eating habits. (continued)

S. Arranz (*) District of Columbia Public Schools, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_35

565

566

CONTENTS

S. Arranz

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE

To expand respect towards other lands and cultures. Language Acquisition Listens to and understands increasingly complex language: a) Comprehends language b) Follows directions. Uses language to express thoughts and needs: a) Uses an expanding expressive vocabulary b) Speaks clearly c) Uses conventional grammar d) Tells about another time or place. Uses appropriate conversational and other communication skills: a) Engages in conversations b) Uses social rules of language. Literacy Demonstrates phonological awareness: a) Notices and discriminates rhyme b) Notices and discriminates alliteration c) Notices and discriminates smaller and smaller units of sound. Demonstrates knowledge of print and its uses: a) Uses and appreciates books b) Uses print concepts. Comprehends and responds to books and other texts: a) Interacts during read-alouds and book conversations b) Uses emergent reading skills c) Retells stories. Demonstrates emergent writing skills: a) Writes name b) Writes to convey meaning. Math Uses number concepts and operations: a) Counts b) Quantifies c) Connects numerals with their quantities. (continued)

35

Using the Grouchy Ladybug for CLIL in Pre-primary Education

COMMUNICATION in L2

DEVELOPMENT

567

Explores and describes spatial relationships and shapes: a) Understands spatial relationships b) Understands shapes. Compares and measures. Demonstrates knowledge of patterns. Science And Technology Uses scientific inquiry skills. Demonstrates knowledge of the characteristics of living things. Demonstrates knowledge of the physical properties of objects and materials. Demonstrates knowledge of Earth’s environment. Uses tools and other technology to perform tasks. Social Studies Demonstrates knowledge about self. Shows basic understanding of people and how they live. Explores change related to familiar people or places. Demonstrates simple geographic knowledge. The Arts Explores the visual arts. Explores musical concepts and expression. Explores dance and movement concepts. Explores drama through actions and language. Demonstrates progress in listening to and understanding English. Demonstrates progress in speaking English. Social emotional Regulates own emotions and behaviors: a) Manages feelings b) Follows limits and expectations c) Takes care of own needs appropriately. Establishes and sustains positive relationships: (continued)

568

S. Arranz

CULTURE

METHODOLOGY

MAIN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PRINCIPLES

a) Forms relationships with adults b) Responds to emotional cues c) Interacts with peers d) Makes friends. Participates cooperatively and constructively in group situations: a) Balances needs and rights of self and others b) Solves social problems. Physical Demonstrates traveling skills. Demonstrates balancing skills. Demonstrates gross-motor manipulative skills. Demonstrates fine-motor strength and coordination: a) Uses fingers and hands b) Uses writing and drawing tool. Cognitive Demonstrates positive approaches to learning: a) Attends and engages b) Persists c) Solves problems d) Shows curiosity and motivation e) Shows flexibility and inventiveness in thinking. Remembers and connects experiences: a) Recognizes and recalls b) Makes connections Uses classification skills. Uses symbols and images to represent something not present: a) Thinks symbolically b) Engages in sociodramatic play. Awareness and value for other lands, countries and foods which come from trees in different part of the world. Appreciate and nurture the different animals which live in trees. At the heart of this unit of study is knowledge of child development theory and careful consideration of the latest research in the field of early childhood education. Used to inform and shape this unit aims to provide guidance to teachers, the research base ensures that teachers know not only what and how to teach children but why (continued)

35

Using the Grouchy Ladybug for CLIL in Pre-primary Education

MAIN TEACHING STRATEGIES

569

particular practices are effective. By understanding the theory and research behind how children’s knowledge, skills, and behaviors progress over time, teachers are better able to support children’s development and learning. In this unit I want to highlight the important balance between applying a general knowledge of child development with the particular knowledge a teacher gains by forming a relationship with each child and family. The main three areas of focus of my unit are: child development and how children learn the individual strengths, needs and interests of each child each child’s family and community cultures. These are the principles: Positive interactions and relationships with adults provide a critical foundation for successful learning. Social–emotional competence is a significant factor in school success. Constructive, purposeful play supports essential learning. The physical environment affects the type and quality of learning interactions. Teacher–family partnerships promote development and learning. The investigations aimed at exploring trees. The investigations offer children an opportunity to learn more about the characteristics of trees and the role they play in our environment. The main strategies will be: Start with a welcome and develop oral fluency Whole group opening: songs and story Small groups: more intentional skill to be targeted: numeracy, literacy, science. . . (continued)

570

S. Arranz

SCAFFOLDING STRATEGIES

ACTIVITIES & TIMING

CLASSROOM ROUTINES Associated with the areas of development and global and experiential learning

Free choice: students are able to choose an area and the materials Provide visuals Use of authentic materials Provide sentence frames as a model Talk moves Session 1 (one day) Welcome routine: Welcome song, talk about who is here (attendance/ counting) check the weather, how I am feeling today. Collect and show different parts of the tree. Ask children to start helping you as the week passes by. Look, see, feel and tell: Count parts. Teacher present the authentic materials, each day a new one (sticks, acorns, leaves, etc) and places them in the Science corner for children to have access. The trees parts will be placed in a tray. Children will have access to tweezers to practice fine motor skills. Small groups. Literacy and numeracy groups. Writing tree words (leaves, tree, trunk, etc.) They trace, write and add illustrations. Free Choice Children get to choose what center related to trees want to go after small groups” wooden blocks, science station, art station. Read Aloud Session 2 (One day) Welcome routine: Welcome song, talk about who is here (attendance/ counting) check the weather, how I am feeling today. Collect and show different parts of the tree. Ask children to start helping you as the week passes by. Look, see, feel and tell Count parts Small groups Free Choice Read Aloud Interest Areas Art station, music station, literacy station, math station, science station. (continued)

35

Using the Grouchy Ladybug for CLIL in Pre-primary Education

MEANS AND RESOURCE MATERIALS Songs and videos, worksheets, audio books, stories, crafts, crayons, pencils, etc.

571

Each station has manipulatives and resources related to the unit of study. Question of the Day Each day the teacher poses a question to promote discussion. Day one “What are the characteristics of the trees in your community”. “Who lives in trees?” etc.. . . Large Group Building community, sharing experiences, practicing oral skills: active listening and speaking. Read-Aloud Stories will be shared and opportunities for thinking aloud and sharing. Small Group Targeted skills. Mighty Minutes Mighty Minutes turn every minute of the day into a learning opportunity. Teachers can use these short and playful Mighty Minutes at any time during the day. Short activities with songs, chants, rhymes, and games. They help you turn brief moments during routines and experiences into opportunities to foster a close and loving relationship between you and the children in your care. Mighty Minutes ® can be used anywhere to teach language, literacy, math, science, social studies, or physical skills throughout the day. But most importantly, they provide you with an opportunity to take a moment during or between your daily routines and experiences to truly connect with a child with a soothing song, a loving touch, or a playful game Songs: “Welcome song” “I am a sturdy oak tree” Videos: Trees | Educational Video for Kids – YouTube Trees for Kids | Learn all about trees in this fun educational video for kids – YouTube (continued)

572

S. Arranz

EDUCATORS INVOLVED IN THE LESSON PLAN

ASSESSMENT (We encourage a respectful formative assessment through observation, so rubrics, checklist, and observation charts are prioritized)

Assessment criteria

Families Partnerships: Encourage families to take their children for a walk around their neighborhood to examine the trees they see. Give each family a small bag and ask them to help their children gather interesting parts that have fallen, such as leaves, twigs, acorns, nuts, and bark. • Ask families to share memories with their children about when they were young and perhaps had memorable experiences with a tree, e.g., climbed a tree, enjoyed a picnic in the shade of a tree, or watched animals in trees. Ask them to send pictures if possible Authentic materials: Leaves, rocks, sticks, wood Arts and Crafts: paper, paint Story Books: The Grouchy ladybug Who lives in trees Chicka Chicka Boom Boom When the monkeys came back The Giving tree Be a friend to trees A tree is a plant. Class Teacher Librarian Science Teacher Music Teacher Art Teacher Assessment will be a “Celebration of learning”. Students will be able to count 10 parts of a tree/ foods. Students will be able to create a collage with tree parts. Students will develop an understanding of the characteristics of trees. Students will understand their role in our natural and man-made world. Students will plant a tree/plant. Students’ physical fun: we are trees, yoga trees, we grow as branches, time for students to use physical activity as a means of acquiring other content.

Assessment tools (continued)

35

Using the Grouchy Ladybug for CLIL in Pre-primary Education

COMMENTS

573

Creation of a Poster, use of a rubric. Observation and anecdotal notes. Oral production. Assessment on identifying parts of a tree. Assessment on identifying different foods that come from trees. The class will create a “Trees book” to keep at the library Families will receive a letter at the beginning of the study introducing the study. It will be used as a tool of communication with families and as an opportunity to invite their participation in the study.

Appendix Leaves and Trees – Science for Little Learners (preschool, pre-k, & kinder) (www. teacherspayteachers.com) Coconut Tree Rhyming FREEBIE!!! Center, Printable & Craftivity! (www. teacherspayteachers.com) FREE Oak Tree Life Cycle Sequencing Cards by Karen Cox – PreKinders (www. teacherspayteachers.com) Apple Tree Craft | Apple Activities | Fall Activity | Back to School (www. teacherspayteachers.com) First Grade Gallery- Lessons for Little Learners: Time to Plant, Grass Heads and a Freebie!

“You Are What You Eat”: An Integrated Language Approach to the Pre-primary Classroom

36

Lee Ann Bussolari

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588

Abstract

Pre-primary children are curious by nature and learn through play and inquiry. Designing interesting and motivating learning experiences for them ensures that more meaningful teaching and learning take place in the classroom. In this chapter, using English as the language of instruction, young children will learn about healthy eating habits while improving their communicative competence. In addition, the proposed activities will raise their perception of the importance of food on their health and widen their understanding of food as an essential element in social events. A carefully chosen variety of scaffolded learning engagements will allow our young learners to demonstrate their thinking and communication skills in the English language, as well as develop their creativity and adjust their eating habits to incorporate their new knowledge. The activities will be accompanied by direct links to resources and pertinent examples. Formative and summative assessment tasks are included as ways to evaluate the students’ growth and progress. Keywords

CLIL · Language · Pre-Primary

L. A. Bussolari (*) SEK International School Alborán, University of Almería, Almería, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_36

575

576

L. A. Bussolari

Introduction According to Marsh (2012, p. 28) CLIL is “the experience of learning non-language subjects through a foreign language”. In Pre-Primary stages, this type of learning is easily accomplished if the teachers work in collaboration to create a robust planner which allows children to experience tasks that interest and motivate them. This lesson plan is part of a Unit of Inquiry carried out in the Primary Years Program (PYP) within the International Baccalaureate (IB) framework. This holistic framework is the perfect place to carry out CLIL teaching and learning as its transdisciplinary nature allows us to incorporate any aspect of content into the language learning classroom. NAME Name of the lesson plan for Pre-Primary Education AGE GROUP OBJECTIVES Learning targets students aiming to achieve with this unit

CONTENTS

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE Main content areas for pre-primary learners (knowledge about the self, knowledge about the environment, knowledge about languages, i.e., artistic, verbal, numeracy, etc.) COMMUNICATION in L2 Tentative communicative competence contents in the target language (mainly orally)

You are what you eat (Healthy eating) 5–6 year olds 1. Understand the benefits of eating healthy food. 2. Classify and group healthy and unhealthy food. 3. Find and share information about how food is used socially. 4. Discover what other families around the world eat. 5. Make changes in their eating habits Perception of food as an element of our health. Understanding how to be healthy. Perception of similarities and differences between healthy and unhealthy food and habits. Observation and description of different foods. Understand the importance of food in our lives. Use of the verbs EAT and LIKE (e.g., I like fish, You eat apples). Use of the present continuous with sports “I am running”, “I am playing football”, etc. Healthy foods: vegetables (lettuce, tomatoes, carrots, etc.), fruit (apples, pears, banana, pineapple, etc.) rice, chicken, meat, bread. . . Unhealthy foods: sugar, ice cream, chocolate, sweets, fast food, etc. (continued)

36

“You Are What You Eat”: An Integrated Language Approach to the Pre-primary. . .

DEVELOPMENT In terms of: a) personal, social affective and emotional development; b) Cognitive development; c) Physical development; and d) creativity

CULTURE Raising intercultural and multilingual awareness

METHODOLOGY

MAIN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PRINCIPLES (describe how this unit is respectful with the key ECE principles such as: holistic learning, meaningful learning, experiential learning, play-based learning, active learning)

577

Attributes: healthy/unhealthy Comparisons: In my house I eat/In your house you eat. . . Affirmations (Yes, I do) and negations (No, I don’t). Use of color to describe food items (What color is the apple? It is red). a) Development of children’s self-image and comparing their ideas of food with those of families from around the world through an analysis of the food they eat (similarities and differences). b) Promotion of higher forms of thinking such as analysis, classification and evaluation of information. c) Understanding how healthy food leads to a healthy body. d) Drawing their own healthy food plate. Children will see how the food they eat is different from the food other people eat. They will begin to wonder what people in other parts of the world eat and ask questions such as, How are their meals different? Are there foods we have never seen/tasted before? Learning in the early stages is holistic and transdisciplinary, as children learn through discovery and play. Therefore, we must include many activities that provide opportunities for play and interaction. The student is placed at the center of the learning and the teachers act as guides and facilitators, scaffolding new experiences and concepts. Learning and teaching opportunities need to begin with activities and engagements that interest and motivate our young students. (continued)

578

L. A. Bussolari

MAIN TEACHING STRATEGIES

SCAFFOLDING STRATEGIES

They will incorporate new understandings as they interact with their teachers and classmates and take part in new experiences. We build on previous knowledge and experiences in order to incorporate new practices and knowledge. The main teaching strategies will include: use of circle time use of open-ended questions and modelling correct answers repetition of new knowledge scaffolded learning, moving from the known to the unknown direct instruction combined with interactive and experiential learning time for independent, pair and group work taking time for active play and exploration use of formative assessment and the provision of constant feedback to allow children to progress in their learning use of varied spaces and materials Total Physical Response (TPR). We will move from the names of food they know, to names of food they do not know and use the Word Wall to register this new vocabulary. We connect the foods they know (daily snacks and food they eat at home) to the way other people around the world eat. The songs provide simple structures for them to sing and learn (Do you like ____? Yes, I do/No, I don´t). Then, they will be able to use them independently. By working in pairs or groups we provide opportunities for students to collaborate and help each other in the learning. (continued)

36

“You Are What You Eat”: An Integrated Language Approach to the Pre-primary. . .

ACTIVITIES & TIMING

579

Session 1: Introduction to the unit (45 min) Circle time: All the children are sitting on the floor in front of the teacher and the interactive whiteboard. The teacher introduces the topic of food and asks the students what they like to eat. The teacher writes their answers on cardboard “bricks” (white cards) that they start putting on the wall to form a word wall. The teacher then plays the video on YouTube “Do you like broccoli ice cream?” (Super Simple Songs) which refers to strange food combinations. When the song is finished, the teacher asks the children “Do you like ______ (with different food elements)” and prompts the children to respond with “Yes, I do” or “No, I don´t”. Formative assessment 1: The teacher then asks the class to come up with more “strange” food combinations. Now the children work in groups cutting out items of food from magazines. The teacher walks around the room asking the children the names of the foods they are cutting out and providing the words for the ones they do not know. For the following session, the teacher will paste them on cardboard backgrounds and laminate them to make them more durable. This part finishes with the children holding up items of food and saying “I like______ (e.g., pasta, apples, sweets)” and the teacher asking them what color they are (e.g., What color is the banana? Or What color are the peppers?) Formative assessment 2: Class diary of the activities and the children’s responses. (continued)

580

L. A. Bussolari

Session 2: Healthy and unhealthy (45 min) Circle time: The teacher begins by showing a new video, similar to the one from the first session. This one is called “Do you like lasagna milkshakes?”. The children are again invited to invent new additions for the song The class views the book or the video of “The Very Hungry Caterpillar”. The teacher asks which food elements in the story are healthy (good for our body) and which ones are not. The teacher opens an online game about healthy and unhealthy food on the interactive whiteboard for the children to play with their guidance. Then, the teacher shows images of “healthy” people (doing sport, running, eating fruits and vegetables, etc.). Then, they show pictures of unhealthy people (watching TV, eating crisps and sweets, etc.). A class discussion is held on the healthy and unhealthy things the students do. The children are encouraged to use structures such as “I (don´t) eat. . ...” and “I play. . ..”. Formative assessment 3: The teacher says sentences such as “I ride a bike”, “I play football”, “I like running” and the children must jump up, repeat the sentence and do the activity. Formative assessment 4: Finally, as a class, students classify the foods they cut out the day before into two big circles the teacher has “drawn” on the floor with colored tape. They are instructed to place the healthy foods on one side and unhealthy foods on the other. (continued)

36

“You Are What You Eat”: An Integrated Language Approach to the Pre-primary. . .

581

Session 3: Food around the world (45 min) The teacher has asked the parents to upload a picture of the student and their families enjoying a meal on a special occasion onto a Jamboard they have prepared. The Jamboard with the pictures is displayed on the interactive whiteboard and the children comment on their pictures saying “In my family/house I eat. . ...”. The teacher asks the students if they think everyone eats the same food as they do and asks them to take out the snacks they have brought to school to show them to the class. When new vocabulary is used, it is added to the word wall. After a brief discussion, the teacher shows 10 pictures of families from around the world and what they eat. Children make comparisons to their own pictures and snacks with the pictures of these families. At the same time the pictures are shown on the whiteboard, the teacher uses a globe or a world map to point out where these countries are. Formative assessment 5: The food cutouts are placed on the tables and, in pairs, the children use them to make a healthy meal. Then, they walk around placing happy face cutouts on healthy meals and sad face cutouts on unhealthy meals of other classmates (peer assessment). The children are then asked to say if they think they are going to change how they eat to be more healthy. Children may say they will do more sport or eat less sugar. The teacher will record this information on the bulletin board. (continued)

582

L. A. Bussolari To finish, children draw a picture of a healthy snack following this cartoon directed drawing on YouTube.

CLASSROOM ROUTINES Associated with the areas of development and global and experiential learning

MEANS AND RESOURCE MATERIALS Songs and videos, worksheets, audio books, stories, crafts, crayons, pencils, etc.

Each day begins with circle time, where all the students are together with the teacher. It is a safe time for them to review routines and elements that are familiar to them before moving on to other newer elements and individual work. It is important to change and vary the activities frequently, as young children can neither concentrate, nor stay still for long periods of time. Each session should contain at least 3 or 4 different activities to keep children’s interest. The more agency, hands-on play and movement involved, the more significative and motivational the learning will be for the children. Word wall (adding words as needed). Modelling and repetition of language. Session 1: Cardboard “bricks” for the word wall Information about word walls: https://www.weareteachers. com/what-is-a-word-wall/ Do you like broccoli ice cream? Song: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v¼frN3nvhIHUk Old cooking magazines, scissors, glue, cardboard and plastic covering. Session 2: Do you like lasagna milkshakes? (continued)

36

“You Are What You Eat”: An Integrated Language Approach to the Pre-primary. . .

EDUCATORS INVOLVED IN THE LESSON PLAN ASSESSMENT (we encourage a respectful formative assessment through observation so rubrics, checklist, and observation charts are prioritized)

Assessment criteria

Assessment tools

583

https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=13mftBvRmvM Video of the story The Very Hungry Caterpillar: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v¼75NQK-Sm1YY Online food game: https://www.tinytap.com/ activities/g3etm/play/healthyvs-unhealthy Session 3: Jamboard: https://jamboard. google.com/ Pictures of families around the world: https://www.atchuup.com/aweek-of-groceries-around-theworld/ Cartoon snack drawing: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v¼5gf8Sm7GQxM Class teacher, English teacher, language assistant, parents. Do the students: know the names of foods? understand the concept of healthy and unhealthy foods and habits? know the difference between healthy and unhealthy foods? know how to use sentence structures used? understand that people in different parts of the world eat different food? Formative assessment 1: Were the children able to come up with more “strange” food combinations? Formative assessment 2: Class diary of activities. Formative assessment 3: TPR response record (checklist). Formative assessment 4: Did the class correctly classify the healthy and unhealthy food? (one point rubric) or worksheet. (continued)

584

L. A. Bussolari

Formative assessment 5: Peer assessment: Did the children make a healthy meal? Summative self-assessment: About the child’s understanding of healthy vs unhealthy, meals from other countries and new vocabulary learnt. *All the assessment tools are in the annexes. This lesson can be linked to other curricular contents such as Social and Natural sciences.

COMMENTS

Annexes Formative assessment 1: The teacher records the “strange” food combinations that the students have said after watching the video. Name of the child

Name of the food combination invented

Etc……

Etc…

Formative assessment 2: A class diary is kept by the teacher and comments are written as the activity progresses. Some examples of comments might be: Child X held up a plate of pasta and said “I like pasta”. This is the first time she has spoken in class in English

36

”You Are What You Eat“: An Integrated Language Approach to the Pre-primary. . .

585

Most children have been able to say short sentences following the structures given, but children X, X and X needed more prompting. I am worried that Child X still is not recognizing the colors. Children X and X said several sentences with great confidence. Formative assessment 3: With a simple class list and a check mark or using the words “yes” or “no” we can track who participated in the activity and who did not. Child´s name

Did they participate in the TPR activity?

586

L. A. Bussolari

Formative assessment 4: This is for the teacher to know how the class as a whole has responded to the teaching and learning about healthy and unhealthy food. This will help inform the learning and teaching that still needs to be done.

36

“You Are What You Eat”: An Integrated Language Approach to the Pre-primary. . .

587

Or you can use the worksheet below:

Formative assessment 5: Children can check the dishes that their classmates have “prepared” and decide if they were healthy or not. There are given happy and sad face cutouts and asked to place them on the meals according to if they are “correct” or not. Here the teacher can also check if both the participants and the evaluators have understood what healthy foods are.

588

L. A. Bussolari

Summative self-assessment: The teacher reads the sentences with the children and asks them to color in the face that best describes how much they know (a lot, some, or a little) about that statement. I now know more words for foods in English.

I know which foods are healthy and good for me.

I understand that people in other parts of the world eat different food.

I will begin to eat more healthy food.

Reference Marsh, D. (2012). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL): A development trajectory. University of Córdoba.

From Seed to Plant: Early Forms of Scientific Literacy Through an Additional Language in Pre-primary Education

37

Beatriz Lo´pez Medina

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annex A. Worksheet – Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annex B. Worksheet – Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annex C. Little Seed. Action Rhyme (Author Unknown) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

589 594 595 596 596

Abstract

Scientific literacy in one of the key objectives of pre-primary education curricula. Learning about the natural world at this stage involves numerous hands-on activities favoring multimodality, a key feature shared by the learning through additional languages. This chapter aims to show how to integrate scientific content and an additional language through the EEE model (Encounters, Engages, Exploits) by Mourão and Gamboa (2009). The chapter provides activities that engage pre-primary children in active Science learning through English as an additional language. Keywords

Scientific literacy · Scaffolding · Pre-primary education · Bilingual education

Introduction In pre-primary education curricula, Science is a privileged area, since scientific literacy is one of the key objectives of this stage. The content of Science for very young children includes a knowledge base of the natural world from the children’s B. López Medina (*) Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_37

589

B. Lo´pez Medina

590

immediate environment. Mostly through hands-on activities, this area also allows learners to experiment and explore to obtain scientific information in combination with the teaching of concept formation (O’Connor et al., 2021). In this respect, an additional language can be used as a vehicular language to scaffold and support the learning of science. In this chapter, the child-centred EEE Model (Encounters, Engages, Exploits) by Mourão and Gamboa (2009) is suggested to integrate content and language in Pre-Primary. As shown in Table 37.1, the inquiry based Science Education contributes to develop scientific competence with activities allowing learners to be exposed through the additional language while engaging in the content. Table 37.1 From seed to plant. Lesson plan for Pre-Primary Education NAME Name of the lesson plan for Pre-Primary Education AGE GROUP OBJECTIVES Learning targets students aiming to achieve with this unit

CONTENTS

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE Main content areas for pre-primary learners (knowledge about the self, knowledge about the environment, knowledge about languages, i.e., artistic, verbal, numeracy, etc.) COMMUNICATION in L2 Tentative communicative competence contents in the target language (mainly orally)

DEVELOPMENT In terms of: a) Personal, social affective and emotional development; b) Cognitive development; c)

FROM SEED TO PLANT 5–6 years old Learn about living things. Learn about the plant life cycle. Learn features about the day and the night. Participate in activities that that involve non locomotor movement patterns (tap, press, touch, wiggling fingers, etc.). Improve fine motor skills. Knowledge about the environment. Basic understanding about natural phenomena (rain, sun, day, night) and reflection upon their consequences. Basic numeracy (review).

Receptive skills (follows directions). Interaction with others (wordplay, singing, pointing). Phonological awareness (recognizing sounds of English language; onomatopoeias). Word recognition (words related to the environment). Producing spontaneous language. a) Personal, social affective and emotional development: enjoyment about reading. b) Cognitive development; literacy development. (continued)

37

From Seed to Plant: Early Forms of Scientific Literacy Through. . .

591

Table 37.1 (continued) Physical development; and d) Creativity

METHODOLOGY

CULTURE Raising intercultural and multilingual awareness MAIN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PRINCIPLES (describe how this unit is respectful with the key ECE principles such as: holistic learning, meaningful learning, experiential learning, play-based learning, active learning) MAIN TEACHING STRATEGIES

SCAFFOLDING STRATEGIES

ACTIVITIES & TIMING

c) Physical development: development of non locomotor movement patterns (tap, press, touch, wiggling fingers, etc.) fine motor skills (tracing) d) Creativity spontaneous language. Meaningful book reading. Develop listening and speaking ability in an additional language. EEE Model (Encounters, Engages, Exploits) by Mourão and Gamboa, 2009 Inquiry- based Science Education Total Physical Response: pointing, tapping, clapping, singing etc. Experiential learning: planting seeds at the school garden. Active learning: Get a seed to be planted at home. From a story-based activity (teacher-led) to a strudentcentred activity (planting a seed). Repetition. Modelling (reader wiggles her fingers so the children know what they have to do). Guided engagement (questions). Stressing key words. Session 1 (50 min.) Welcome routine. (10 min) Activity 1 Encounter. Presentation of new words through flashcards (visual props), teacher led activity through contextualization and repetition. (5 min) Fill-in worksheet (annex 1). (10 min) Activity 2 Engage: Listen to the story The Tiny Seed (read aloud by the author). The reading involves physical response or response in chorus). (15 min) Activity 3 Exploit: Summary of the plot by the (continued)

592

B. Lo´pez Medina

Table 37.1 (continued) teacher. Direct questions on comprehension (students respond as individuals in the language of their choice). (10 min) Goodbye time Session 2 (50 min.) Welcome routine. (10 min) Activity 1 Encounter: Listen and sing along The Seed Song. (10 min) Activity 2 Engage. Fill In worksheet 2 (annex 2). (10 min) Activity 3 Exploit. Telephone game: the teacher whispers a key term (wind, snail, seed, etc.) to a child and the whisper is passed around his/her group. The last player says the word aloud and the original word is compared to the final version. (20 min) Goodbye time Session 3 (approximate timing) Welcome routine. (10 min) Activity 1 Encounter. Show a visual prompt of the germination process. Describe the process and ask questions. The children answer in their L1 and demonstrate pointing. (10 min) Activity 2 Engage. Action rhyme: Little seed (annex 3); after listening to the rhyme, the children use body movements to develop oral language (squat down, stretch arms up, etc.). (10 min) Activity 3 Exploit. (20 min.). Working time to develop artistic expression. Children create the germination process using crayons and ribbon. Goodbye time Session 4 (50 min.) Welcome routine. (10 min) Activity 1 Encounter: Memory game using the (continued)

37

From Seed to Plant: Early Forms of Scientific Literacy Through. . .

593

Table 37.1 (continued)

CLASSROOM ROUTINES Associated with the areas of development and global and experiential learning MEANS AND RESOURCE MATERIALS Songs and videos, worksheets, audio books, stories, crafts, crayons, pencils, etc.

EDUCATORS INVOLVED IN THE LESSON PLAN ASSESSMENT Assessment criteria (we encourage a respectful formative assessment through observation so rubrics, checklist, and observation charts are Assessment tools prioritized)

COMMENTS

flashcards from session 1 (x2). The flashcards have the picture upside down and the students try to find matching pairs saying out loud the words represented by the pictures. (10 min) Activity 2 Engage. The teacher re-reads “Plant the Tiny Seed” and reviews key vocabulary and contents through direct questions. (20 min) Activity 3 Exploit. Visit the school garden where the children will plant some seeds (task that develops understanding). Students get a seed to be planted at home. (20 min.) Goodbye time Assembly (welcome routine). Circle time activities 1. Video: Plant a tiny seed (Matheson, 2020) (story read aloud by the author). 2. Video The seed song (Mr. Ryan Music, 2020) 3. Worksheets (annexes A and B). 4. Action rhyme: Little seed (annex C) 5. Crayons. 6. Ribbon. 7. Flashcards. 8. Seeds. 9. School garden. Class teacher Interest in the task. Incorporation of new knowledge in the learning outcomes (actions, worksheet). Observation checklist (assessment of learning outcomes). Teacher’s diary

B. Lo´pez Medina

594

Annex A. Worksheet – Drawing

Name: ______________________________________ To grow, the magic tiny seed needs . . .

soil

water / rain

sun ANNEX A.

37

From Seed to Plant: Early Forms of Scientific Literacy Through. . .

Annex B. Worksheet – Tracing1

1

Word Tracing Worksheet created through www.createprintables.com

595

B. Lo´pez Medina

596

Annex C. Little Seed. Action Rhyme (Author Unknown) I plant a little seed In the ground, Out comes the sun Big and round. Down come the rain drops, Soft and slow, Up comes a flower, Grow, grow, grow!

References Matheson, C. (2020). Plant the tiny seed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼JYMgUvqs-D4 Mourão, S., & Gamboa, F. (2009). Best buddies. Teacher’s guide level 1. Editorial Macmillan de México, S.A. Mr. Ryan Music. (2020). The seed song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼3h2ujuvxp7A O’Connor, G., Fragkiadaki, G., Fleer, M., & Rai, P. (2021). Early childhood science education from 0 to 6: A literature review. Education Sciences, 11, 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci11040178

A CLIL Lesson Plan for 3–4 Year-Olds: Living on the Farm

38

Ana A. Uvarova

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601

Abstract

This chapter presents a set of lessons on the topic “Living on the farm” that were implemented by EFL teachers at kindergarten in Russia. The lessons were designed in accordance with CLIL (Content Language Integrated Learning) principles. While the project was created for children aged 3–4 years old, it could be adapted for older preschoolers as well. The main objectives of the lessons were to learn what animals live on the farm and why they are important for us. Throughout the lessons children could express themselves verbally and non-verbally through a wide range of multisensory tasks and engaging creative activities. Keywords

CLIL · Preschoolers · Multisensory approach · VYL · All-round development

Introduction CLIL (content-language integrated learning) allows teachers to rely on children’s curiosity as well as desire to explore the world around them. Hence, when choosing a topic for a CLIL lesson, it is important to consider children’s interests and needs. At the age of 3–4 the kids start exploring the world more intensively questioning every A. A. Uvarova (*) Pavlovo School, Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_38

597

598

A. A. Uvarova

fact/event. “Why do we need pigs?”, “How do we get wool?” – these are some of the questions that I hear quite often from my students. The following set of lesson plans deals with the topic “Living on the farm” and answers some of those questions. The learners focus on what animals live on the farm and how they help us. This plan is designed for learners 3–4 years old, but can be adopted to older kids as well. NAME AGE GROUP OBJECTIVES

CONTENTS

AREAS OF EXPERIENCE

COMMUNICATION in L2

DEVELOPMENT

CULTURE

METHODOLOGY MAIN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PRINCIPLES MAIN TEACHING STRATEGIES

SCAFFOLDING STRATEGIES

On the Farm 3–4 years old By the end of the unit the kids will know what animals live on the farm and why they are important for us (what they give us). World around us (farm animals). World around us (what farm animals give us). World around us (animal sounds). Maths (number recognition 1–5). Fine motor skills. Solve the jigsaw puzzle in groups, e.g. Does it fit here? Move it right/left, Put it here/there, etc. It lives on the farm/It doesn’t live on the farm. There’s a cow/etc.. . . in the barn. It gives us cheese/milk/etc. It goes moo/baa/etc. Acting out animals: walk like a cow/leap like a goat/etc. Acting out the song. Creating your farm with colourful barns. Creating and playing in the sensory bin. Animal sounds in different languages (Russian vs English). Farms in different countries (the picture of the farm is typical for US). The unit is designed in accordance with the ECE principles. It includes all round development and corresponds to kids’ needs and interests. Greeting routine Goodbye routine Circle time Quiet/loud activities balance Different interaction patterns (Group/pair/ individual work; teacher-students/studentstudent activities) Multisensory approach TPR Multimodal input (songs, fingerplays, worksheets, games, puppets, toys, sensory bin) Clear instructions through miming and gestures Motivation through positive feedback Elicitation Clarification Modelling (continued)

38

A CLIL Lesson Plan for 3–4 Year-Olds: Living on the Farm

ACTIVITIES & TIMING

599

Repetition Wait-time Elaboration of student response Recasting ICQ (instruction checking questions) Session 1 (45 min) Greeting routine (10 min) Jigsaw puzzle “Farm” (10 min). Discuss the solved puzzle: what can we find on the farm? What sounds do farm animals make? Add pictures “Farm animals” to the farm and act out the animals. (5 min) “Who lives on the farm?” Colour with play dough/crayons the animals that live on the farm. (10 min) “What animal is that?” Listen to the sound. What animal is that? Act it out https://www. youtube.com/watch?v¼pHtqU2mxZzg (5 min) Goodbye routine. (5 min) Session 2 (45 min) Greeting routine (10 min) The song “Old McDonald had a farm”. (5 min) https://www.youtube.com/watch? v¼5oYKonYBujg The kids listen to the song and put the animals in the order they appear in the song. Match the animals to the sounds and play the memory game together (10 min) “Sensory bin” Where do all the animals from the song live? The kids create a sensory bin “Farm in the box”. First, they add grains and hay; then, divide the bin in several areas and add animals. Act out how different animals “talk to each other” on the farm. They may greet each other, walk to different barns to visit their friends, go to sleep when it’s night time, wake up early in the morning, sing the song together (15 min) Goodbye routine. (5 min) Session 3 (45 min) Greeting routine. (10 min) Context: A farmer comes to the kids. He’s got a list of things he needs to find on the farm (milk, eggs, wool and cheese). The kids turn into farmers to pick up all the products from each barn. There are 4 barns in the farm (cows, chickens, sheep, goat). The kids open each barn to see what animal lives there. They complete a small task to get the product from the animal. (5 min) The song “Old McDonald had a farm”. (5 min) https://www.youtube.com/watch? v¼5oYKonYBujg (continued)

600

CLASSROOM ROUTINES

MEANS AND RESOURCE MATERIALS

EDUCATORS INVOLVED IN THE LESSON PLAN ASSESSMENT Assessment criteria

A. A. Uvarova Barn 1: The kids open the barn and find a sheep. The sheep asks them to make knots on her thread. (5 min) Barn 2: The kids open the barn and find a cow. The song “Old McDonald had a farm”. (5 min) Barn 3: The kids open the barn and find a chicken. Count the eggs – peg cards with numbers 1–5. (5 min) Barn 4 The kids open the barn and find a goat. Colour the pieces of cheese (numbers 1 to 5). (5 min) Goodbye routine. (5 min) Session 4 (45 min) Greeting routine (10 min) Context Today the kids turn into farmers and create their own farms. What animals live on the farm? Act out animals and their sounds (5 min) The song “Old McDonald had a farm”. (5 min) https://www.youtube.com/watch? v¼5oYKonYBujg Craft: The kids make their own 4 barns (out of a square, triangle and rectangle) and hide the animals and products there. (20 min) Goodbye routine. (5 min) Greeting circle time (discussing weather/ calendar/how the kids feel). Self-organization routine (discuss the lesson aims). Classroom management routine (use short finger plays to transit from one activity to another). Goodbye circle time (discussing what we have learnt today/what we have done today). The song “Old MaDonald had a farm”. Jigsaw puzzle “Farm”. Toy farm animals. Grains, hay and building blocks for the sensory bin. Farm animal flashcards. Worksheets: “Who lives on the farm”, “Count and colour the cheese”, “How many eggs are there?” Constructions paper, glue, scissors, crayons. English teacher, teacher assistant, kindergarten teacher (if required by school) Kids can recognize farm animals Kids can name farm animals (with some scaffolding if needed) Kids can match farm animals and their products Kids can match farm animals and their sounds Kids can recognize numbers 1–5 (continued)

38

A CLIL Lesson Plan for 3–4 Year-Olds: Living on the Farm

Assessment tools

601

Kids can classify animals (lives/doesn’t live on the farm) Kids participate in the lesson activities Kids develop creativity Rubrics Checklists Observation charts Teacher reflection&observation journal

Appendix All the printed materials (worksheets, flashcards, etc) have been designed by the author with the online tool Canva.com that gives her the right to use and publish those materials.

602

A. A. Uvarova

38

A CLIL Lesson Plan for 3–4 Year-Olds: Living on the Farm

603

604

A. A. Uvarova

38

A CLIL Lesson Plan for 3–4 Year-Olds: Living on the Farm

605

606

A. A. Uvarova

38

A CLIL Lesson Plan for 3–4 Year-Olds: Living on the Farm

607

Old Mcdonald had a farm by Super Simple Song https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v¼5oYKonYBujg

Farm animal sounds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼pHtqU2mxZzg

Dinosaurs: An Integrated CLIL Project for Pre-primary Education

39

A´ngela A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annex 1: Worksheet “Caveman Dave” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annex 2: Worksheet “Present and Past things” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annex 3: Worksheet “Classification” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annex 4: Classroom Work Pictures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

609 618 618 620 621 626 628

Keywords

CLIL · Dinosaurs · Lesson plan · Activities

Introduction The lesson plan presented below is a summary of a whole project developed for 3–4 year-old children at the Pre-primary stage. Since CLIL fosters integration of both content and language, one of the most suitable ways to do it is through project work, as it allows second language and content acquisition from a holistic and global perspective, delving in the three areas worked at this stage: communication, personal autonomy and knowledge of the world around us (Álvarez-Cofiño, 2009, 2010; Riera Toló, 2017; Díez Olmedo, 2020). Through CLIL integrated project work, children at early stages acquire the content and the second language in a natural way within a cross-curricular approach, where all subjects are worked from a given topic integratedly and in a holistic way. The kind of activities and tasks suggested are child-centred, experimental and hands-on, thus making the learning process more meaningful and memorable for Á. Álvarez-Cofiño (*) University Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, Spain e-mail: aalvarezcofi[email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_39

609

610

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

students, as its multisensory character allows children to put all their senses into what will be dealt with in class. Finally, assessment will be ongoing and formative, and very much based on direct observation in class, self and peer assessment. NAME Name of the lesson plan for Pre-primary Education

DINOSAURS: LIFE IN THE PRESENT AND LIFE IN THE PAST AGE GROUP 3–4 year-olds OBJECTIVES To learn about life now and life Learning targets students aiming to achieve with this unit in the past. To make comparisons. To differentiate dinosaurs attending to the food they eat. To link number, quantity and figure. To identify “a_e” as an alternative spelling for the sound /eɪ/. CONTENTS AREAS OF EXPERIENCE Comparison of our life now Main content areas for and life in the past. pre-primary learners Comparison of our clothes (knowledge about the self, now and clothes in the past. knowledge about the Identification of common environment, knowledge features in animals, people and about languages, i.e., artistic, objects. verbal, numeracy, etc.) Perception of differences and similarities. Identification of different spellings for a same sound. Basic numeracy skills. COMMUNICATION in L2 Simple present and simple Tentative communicative past, now and then. competence contents in the There are/were... target language (mainly orally) It has got. . . It is. . . Numbers (up to 10) Attributes: colours, sizes (big/small). Shapes: square, triangle, circle, semi-circle, rectangle. Comparatives and superlatives. Connectives: and. DEVELOPMENT a. Through group and In terms of: a) personal, social collaborative work and affective and emotional interaction both with peers and development; b) Cognitive teachers. development; c) Physical b. Promotion of high order development; and d) creativity thinking skills (HOTS). c. Total Physical Response (TPR), dance and kinaesthetic activities. (continued)

39

Dinosaurs: An Integrated CLIL Project for Pre-primary Education

CULTURE Raising intercultural and multilingual awareness

METHODOLOGY

MAIN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PRINCIPLES (describe how this unit is respectful with the key ECE principles such as: holistic learning, meaningful learning, experiential learning, play-based learning, active learning)

MAIN TEACHING STRATEGIES

SCAFFOLDING STRATEGIES

611

d. Creation of invented dinosaurs using foam shapes. Develop listening and speaking skills in a second language. Learning about cultural heritage from the past. Project Based Learning (PBL). Both the content from different areas of knowledge and the language are worked in a global and holistic way. Meaningful learning by starting from children’s prior knowledge and personal experience. Hands-on and experimental activities and tasks. Play-based learning with manipulative resources. Different grouping modes that enhance cooperative learning. Child-centred and active learning. Daily routines. Circle time. 5-min wait technique. TPR. Storytelling. Multimodal input (books, flashcards, videos, songs, games, manipulatives, worksheets). Multisensory approach. Scaffolding of both content and language. Positive feedback. Give clear instructions and use visual timetables. Creative questioning. Different grouping modes (whole group, small group, pair work, individual work). Ongoing and formative assessment. Eliciting Modelling Repeating Recasting Simplifying Shared reading Highlighting key concepts and vocabulary (continued)

612 ACTIVITIES & TIMING

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o Session 1 (45 min) Daily routines: calendar, weather, season, register, phonics work. Tune into topic: in advance, the teacher places some dinosaur footprints outside the classroom, leading children inside it. Focus children’s attention on the footprints; give them some magnifying glasses so as to investigate what they could be. Ask them to make hypotheses about what they think those footprints belong to. Follow the footprints path into the classroom. Find some toy dinosaurs. Ask children if they know what they are and if the footprints belong to them. Compare dinosaurs’ feet with the shapes of the footprints. Do any dinosaur’s feet fit the footprints? Circle time: sit in the assembly, show two dinosaur toys and elicit children’s prior knowledge about dinosaurs. Write down the things they already know and ask them “Have you ever seen a dinosaur? Why not? Aren’t any dinosaurs around now?” Then, ask them what things they would like to know about dinosaurs and the time they lived at. Storytelling: “Caveman Dave”. Oral questions to check story comprehension. Call children’s attention on the elements of the story that belong to the past: cave, clothes, animals. Good-bye song. Session 2 (45 min) Daily routines: calendar, weather, season, register, phonics work. Retell story. Work on the sound /eɪ/. Ask children to help (continued)

39

Dinosaurs: An Integrated CLIL Project for Pre-primary Education

613

you spot in the story all words that sound /eɪ/ (cave, Dave, shave, wave, brave) and to repeat them with you. Ask children to remind you the elements of the story that belong to the past. Show them a picture of a modern house and ask them to compare it with the cave (no lights, no doors, no windows. Point to Caveman Dave’s clothes and ask children if their clothes look like Dave’s. In what way are they similar or different? What do they think they are made of? Point to the animals in the story pictures: have they ever seen animals like those? Creative questioning: point to Caveman Dave’s beard. “Why do you think Caveman Dave doesn’t shave?” If after some time nobody answers, prompt children with the picture of an electric plug and a shaver. TPR Game: What other things couldn’t we do without electricity? Make a line on the floor (with some tape or chalk), show pictures of different daily actions (cook, wash dishes, clean teeth, shave, hoover, iron, walk, write, etc.) and tell children to jump to one side or another of the line, depending on if we can or can’t do those actions without electricity. Sorting out game: classify realia (or small pictures) into PRESENT and PAST columns. Worksheet: circle objects from the present and objects from the past, to consolidate the concepts worked along this session. Good-bye song. Session 3 (45 min) Daily routines: calendar, weather, season, register, phonics work. (continued)

614

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o Revision of /eɪ/ storywords playing flyswaters game: stick on the board a picture of Caveman Dave and write “Dave” below. Point to “Dave” and say the word aloud a couple of times. Explain that you will way say aloud different words and children must swat Dave’s picture when they hear a word that rhymes (that is, a word containing the sound /eɪ/). Workseet on /eɪ/ story words. Use the two toy dinosaurs and compare their size. Oral work: compare other classroom objects (e.g. boxes, pencils, books. . .). Finally, repeat the toy dinosaurs’ size comparison and ask children oral questions about them. Pair work: present children some dinosaur pictures and ask them to compare them attending to their size. Small groups work: classify dinosaurs attending to their size. Stick dinosaur pictures on the wall in size order and present them to the rest of the class (small, smaller, the smallest, big, bigger, the biggest). Ask children to bring their favourite dinosaur toy for the following session. Good-bye song. Session 4 (45 min) Daily routines: calendar, weather, season, register, phonics work. Animals from the past: dinosaurs. Ask children to show to the rest of the class the toy dinosaurs they brought. Comment of their characteristics (colour, size, features). Compare toy dinosaurs’ features: claws, sharp teeth, thick legs, 2 legs +2 arms, 3 legs, long neck, spikes, plates, etc. (continued)

39

Dinosaurs: An Integrated CLIL Project for Pre-primary Education

615

Show pictures of real dinosaurs eating. Point out the differences children can see. Talk about plant eaters and meat eaters, and their physical differences. Ask children to name the two toy dinosaurs as plant or meat eaters. Small groups work: give children a set of toy dinosaurs and two bowls (one with a picture of a tree branch full of green leaves and the other one with a picture of some meat). Ask them to look at each dinosaur carefully, paying attention to their physical appearance. Then, ask children to talk in their groups and decide where to classify each dinosaur. Whole group checking. Song: “Dinosaur Stomp” (with actions from both plant and meat eater dinosaurs). Are we plant eaters or meat eaters? Discuss on this. We are dinosaurs eaters!!! (Biscuits). Good-bye song. Session 5 (45 min.) Daily routines: calendar, weather, season, register, phonics work. Dinosaur making (small groups work): in the centre of the tables put a basked full of foam shapes (squares, circles, triangles, rectangles and semicircles of different sizes). Orally, revise the names and sizes of the shapes. Then, ask children to use all they know about dinosaurs to create one of their own using the foam shapes. Invent a name for your dinosaur. Numeracy: give children linking cubes to count the number of shapes they have used for their dinosaurs (continued)

616

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o (number of triangles, number of squares, number of semicircles, number of rectangles, number of circles). Tell them to link as many cubes as necessary to represent the number of each kind of shape they have used, and encourage them to count aloud as they link them. Present their dinosaurs to the class, saying its name, size, colour and number of different shapes they are made of. Good-bye song. Session 6 (45 min) Daily routines: calendar, weather, season, register, phonics work. We’re paleonthologists! Show a picture of a paleonthologist and comment children on the work they do: dig and look for dinosaurs’ bones. Tell children they are going to be paleonthologists and look for dinosaurs bones. Prepare a box with sand and hide dinosaurs skeletons. Present the tools to be used (children repeat them aloud): sieve, brush, magnifying glass. In turns, children will use a sieve to dig in the sand and take out a dinosaur skeleton. With the help of a brush, they will clean it up and observe it with a magnifying glass, to see if they can identify claws, sharp teeth, long neck, thick legs, long tail, spikes, plates, etc. Are we good observers? Once all dinosaurs’ skeletons have been discovered, put them on a table. Provide pictures of different dinosaurs and see if children can match the skeletons with the correct dinosaur (the pictures must contain very evident features like sharp teeth, claws, plates, spikes, etc. as the ones on the skeletons). (continued)

39

Dinosaurs: An Integrated CLIL Project for Pre-primary Education

CLASSROOM ROUTINES Associated with the areas of development and global and experiential learning

MEANS AND RESOURCE MATERIALS Songs and videos, worksheets, audio books, stories, crafts, crayons, pencils, etc.

EDUCATORS INVOLVED IN THE LESSON PLAN

ASSESSMENT (we encourage a respectful formative assessment through observation so rubrics, checklist, and observation charts are prioritized)

Assessment criteria

617

Worksheet: build up a dinosaur skeleton. Comment on the different parts (head, body, tail, legs). Song: “Dig It Up”, to review paleonthologists, the tools they use and the work they do. Good-bye song. *More sessions have been planned, but for space reasons we present just 6 as an example. WALT poster to let children know the session aims. Circle time area. Visual timetable for children to see the tasks they will do in every session. Creative questioning. Word wall. Flashcards. Flyswatters. Storybook: “Caveman Dave” by Nick Sharrat. Brown construction paper. Toy dinosaurs. Colourful plastic dinosaurs. Plastic bowls. Worksheets (see annexes). Magnifying glasses, brushes, sieves. Green and brown foam shapes in different sizes. Toy dinosaur skeletons. Linking cubes. Video: Dinosaur Stomp. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v¼Zw8fapoBDK4 Video: Dig it Up! https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v¼WJa9vtF0hMQ English teacher, language assistant (if any), parents (to provide dinosaurs from home). Children can match rhyming words. Children can identify present and past facts. Children can identify and name some elements of the present and some of the past. (continued)

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

618

Assessment tools

COMMENTS

Annexes Annex 1: Worksheet “Caveman Dave”

Children know and use different attributes. Children can compare animals according to their characteristics. Children can classify animals/ objects attending to given features. Children can match number and quantity. Children develop personal creativity. Children take active part in the planned activities and tasks. Thumbs up, thumbs down. FAN-tastic applause. Assembly. Plenaries. Check lists. Rubrics. Teacher’s diary with observation notes. For 3 year-olds, phonics work on the alternative spelling “a_e” for the sound /eɪ/ can be skipped.

39

Dinosaurs: An Integrated CLIL Project for Pre-primary Education

619

620

Annex 2: Worksheet “Present and Past things”

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

39

Dinosaurs: An Integrated CLIL Project for Pre-primary Education

Annex 3: Worksheet “Classification”

621

622

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

39

Dinosaurs: An Integrated CLIL Project for Pre-primary Education

623

624

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

39

Dinosaurs: An Integrated CLIL Project for Pre-primary Education

625

626

Annex 4: Classroom Work Pictures

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

39

Dinosaurs: An Integrated CLIL Project for Pre-primary Education

627

628

A´. A´lvarez-Cofin˜o

References Alvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2009). CLIL project work at early ages: A case study. In D. Marsh, P. Mehisto, R. Aliaga, T. Asikainen, M. J. Frigols, S. Hughes, & G. Langé (Eds.), CLIL practice: Perspectives from the field (pp. 62–67). CCN-University of Jyväskylä. http://icpj.eu/? id¼contents Álvarez-Cofiño Martínez, A. (2010). CLIL through collaborative projects at Infant stages. In Lend, lingua e nuova didattica, 2 (pp. 32–43). Mediaprint. Díez Olmedo, M. (2020). Implementing PBL and CLIL in an early childhood classroom in the United States (Final Masters Dissertation). UNIR. https://reunir.unir.net/bitstream/handle/ 123456789/9993/Diez%20Olmedo,%20María.pdf?isAllowed¼y&sequence¼1 Riera Toló, M. R. (2017). CLIL in preschool: An interdisciplinary approach. Departament d’Educació de la Generalitat de Catalunya . http://www.xtec.cat/sgfp/llicencies/200809/ memories/2017m.pdf

Part VI Final Remarks

CLIL in Pre-primary Education: Trends, Challenges and Future Directions

40

Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe

Contents Trends and Challenges of CLIL Implementation in Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632 Future Directions in CLIL in Pre-primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636

Abstract

This contribution summarises some of the theoretical and methodological concerns that have emerged throughout the chapters that make up this publication in order to analyse the trends and challenges posed by the implementation of CLIL in pre-primary education. Given that early childhood education is a very specific stage, the determining conditions for its correct implementation must also be very concrete. In addition, we indicate some future directions for all stakeholders when implementing CLIL in pre-primary education. Keywords

Pre-primary education-CLIL-trends-directions

In the foreword to this comprehensive book, David Marsh states that this publication is unique in opening windows on the theoretical and methodological issues in pre-primary education. It is true that in the last decade or so the research area of early childhood education (ECE) has burgeoned across contexts. However, it is difficult to find a publication that encompasses so many issues and in so many contexts as this volume does, covering both theoretical underpinnings and methodological issues across geographical contexts, while bearing witness to insights from the classroom and the usefulness of resources and materials for young learners. Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (*) University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Otto, B. Cortina-Pérez (eds.), Handbook of CLIL in Pre-primary Education, Springer International Handbooks of Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04768-8_40

631

632

Y. Ruiz de Zarobe

This volume includes thirty-eight chapters on different aspects of ECE. It is a very welcome contribution as it deals with ECE in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) contexts, two domains where joint research is still much needed. CLIL relates to any language, age or educational level from pre-primary to higher education, but it is in these early years where little research has been conducted so far, despite being mentioned, for instance, in the Eurydice survey of 2006, one of the first Europen Union (EU) reports devoted entirely to CLIL, as a means to promote new methodologies in language learning. In the report, where pre-primary education is defined as the initial stage of organised instruction for children aged at least 3 years, it is stated how several countries, like Belgium (the French and Germanspeaking communities), Spain, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Finland, the United Kingdom and Romania, organise activities in another language from pre-primary level onwards. However, this provision varies extensively as it may be available throughout the entire period of pre-school education or only for part of it. Almost a decade later, the Eurydice report Key Data on Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Europe puts forward that many European countries have no documents to guide providers of ECEC for younger children, in spite of acknowledging the importance of this stage to develop and substantiate learning throughout life. This 2014 report combines statistical data and qualitative information to describe the structure, organisation and funding of ECEC, and it analyses such issues as quality services and assurance, European policy cooperation or measures to support disadvantaged children, highlighting the importance of giving children a good start by providing quality early childhood education. However, as the report suggests, out of all the ECEC learning objectives and activities, foreign or second language learning is the least frequently mentioned in steering documents and, when specified, it usually refers to older children. The reason for this may somehow lie in the intrinsic idiosyncrasies of pre-primary education, where the stage has a non-compulsory nature and the learning process is characterised by interaction with peers and teachers, developing language and social skills that will prepare children for the start of primary school. How can language learning affect preschool education? In the next section we will discuss some of the trends and challenges of implementing CLIL with young children.

Trends and Challenges of CLIL Implementation in Pre-primary Education We all recognise the importance of pre-primary education as a key stage for children which will provide the foundations for their education. In fact, research not only demonstrates the benefits of attending ECE, but also the detrimental effects that low-quality education in ECE may have on children’s development (Britto et al., 2011). Probably one of the most delicate aspects of language learning in general and CLIL in particular at this stage comes from the belief that learning through an additional language may affect the cognitive development of children at a pre-operational stage. It is true that children develop very quickly at this stage

40

CLIL in Pre-primary Education: Trends, Challenges and Future Directions

633

physically, emotionally, socially, but also cognitively and linguistically, and the fact that the early introduction of a second/foreign language may affect their language and cognitive development has caused apprehension in parents and educators over the years. Some studies have shown how bilingual children tend to have a smaller vocabulary than monolinguals (Bialystok & Luk, 2012); however, their metalinguistic awareness, their knowledge about language, and other areas of development (see, for instance, Ruiz de Zarobe & Zenotz, 2019; Tedick & Lyster, 2020) may be better in the case of bilingual children. As Bialystok (2017) states, bilingualism is a positive force for children both cognitively and linguistically but with a crucial distinction: there may be a difference between bilingualism and second language acquisition in the case of those second language learners whose competence in one of the languages is still weak. This is pertinent, for instance, when learning to read in both languages (Bialystok et al., 2005). On the other hand, switching between languages can lead to cognitive advantages for emergent bilinguals because they develop greater mental flexibility (Bialystok, 2007) and student engagement (Lyster, 2019). How can we apply this knowledge when it comes to pre-primary education? The context in which the second or additional language is learned is important to decide how to undertake the learning. The context refers to whether it is the majority or minority language that we are learning, whether children have a different home language, or whether it is a foreign language such as English, which is quite often the case in CLIL scenarios. For instance, research shows that both minority and majority-language learners benefit most when they attain high levels of bilingualism and biliteracy. However, in the case of minority-language learners, their proficiency in their home language is fundamental to succeed academically and socially (Thomas & Collier, 2012). All this information regarding the linguistic background of students is important in order to face the cognitive and educational challenges of children and to understand what the best methodology may be. In fact, this is not different from other educational stages in language learning, where all actors involved in teaching additional languages must also face the contextual circumstances that surround students in the hope that deficiencies may be overcome. What makes it special is that we are dealing with a stage where children start to develop logical skills, where they explore their surroundings, where they learn about alphabetical concepts, and they do so in a very natural and holistic way, often without compartmentalising information. It is the job of teachers and educators to see how they can maximise the learning mechanisms of children to benefit from an early start. Insights from the classroom, research on good practices in CLIL and useful resources and materials shown by some of the studies reported in this volume demonstrate that we can apply an integrated approach to activate the natural language mechanisms of children, effectively planning the use of the target language and enhancing the linguistic and intercultural experience of early learners. Globalisation has provided us with a heterogeneity of languages and it is our job as teachers, educators and researchers to experiment with these multilingual repertories, to apply plurilingual pedagogies, which García and Flores (2012, p. 236) describe in reference to CLIL as an

634

Y. Ruiz de Zarobe

“immersion pedagogy combined with second language pedagogy”. For instance, if we go back to the relevance of learning to read in two languages, it is also crucial that reading instruction be coordinated in the different languages, emphasising the transfer of skills and strategies throughout the instructional languages (Ruiz de Zarobe, in press; Ruiz de Zarobe & Zenotz, 2015, 2018), while being driven by the recommended approaches to reading instruction (e.g. Escamilla et al., 2014). Teachers must be prepared to face these new challenges and, therefore, teacher development is crucial and needs to incorporate an understanding of what CLIL methodology involves in preschool, whether it is just for language showers, for instance, subject content methodologies delivered in the target language for 20–30 min several times a week, or for a more intense and comprehensive account of CLIL at pre-school. There is general agreement (see, for instance, Edelenbos et al., 2006) that a condition for success in language learning is the frequent exposure and use of the foreign language. One of the benefits of CLIL is precisely that it can provide more exposure to the target language without requiring extra time in the curriculum. Furthermore, in order to benefit from an early exposure, children need to have genuine and authentic contact (Banegas, 2013; Pinner, 2021) with the target language at their level of cognitive development. That is also one of the tenets of the approach: the possibility to introduce a more natural and communicative perspective to language learning, which may provide “learners with a fairly rich linguistic environment rather than a restricted set of formulae to be learned by heart”, quoting Lightbown (1985, p. 181) in her statement about language learning. Rather than using the target language as an end in itself, CLIL provides a means to learn content through the target language. In the case of CLIL with young or very young learners, that input in the target language quite often comes from the teacher, who will be the model of that language (Enever, 2011). Teacher modelling becomes of paramount importance, for example, in the teaching of correct pronunciation. As we all know, young children are very good at imitating and given the correct support and technique, modelling correct pronunciation can also enhance the effectiveness of instruction (Gallardo del Puerto et al., 2009). Teachers should therefore be sufficiently confident and fluent in the target language and be able to use an appropriate level of communicative competence to serve as a model. They should have not only a suitable level of competence in the target language but also ideally of language pedagogy. Teacher training programmes on a continuous basis are fundamental in that respect. Thus, as several of the chapters in this handbook portray in a number of contexts ranging from Portugal to Russia or Spain, CLIL provision may be challenging for teachers. Their need for expertise in content and language teaching, the changes they need to implement in the methodology to meet the requirements of the approach, and the selection and adaptation of content knowledge to students’ developmental and cognitive level with the adequate resources may pose a challenge for them. But with these challenges also come the affordances of CLIL methodology to promote learning and learners’ skills in pre-primary education. Some of the benefits of promoting early language learning run through the chapters of this book, ranging

40

CLIL in Pre-primary Education: Trends, Challenges and Future Directions

635

from cognitive benefits to intercultural competences which lay at the core of communication and which outweigh the challenges of the approach.

Future Directions in CLIL in Pre-primary Education In recent decades, we have witnessed the development of CLIL initiatives in many parts of the world at pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary levels. We have learned of some policy-driven initiatives both at regional, national and even international levels but, most of all, we have become acquainted with countless individual initiatives undertaken by teachers and stakeholders that have helped pave the way for CLIL implementation and research. Research at all these stages has shown, first of all, how each of these experiences needs to be underpinned by a theoretical structure that will provide the framework to substantiate procedures and practice in CLIL. The well-known 4Cs Framework (Coyle et al., 2010), which focuses on the interconnection between content, communication, cognition and culture, is still at the base of much of this research and the most influential framework in many contextual and educational levels. However, some authors in this volume (e.g. Andúgar & García-Abellán; Cortina-Pérez & Otto; Couto Cantero & Ellison), still inspired by the vision of the 4Cs framework that implies learning to use the language adequately while using language to learn effectively, adapt it to CLIL in pre-primary education (CLIL-ECE) because of the intrinsic idiosincrasy of pre-primary education, where pedagogies entail integrating pre-primary content with language learning in a more holistic, genuine and playful educational context. Theorising about CLIL in pre-primary education is one of the many important contributions of this handbook, one that is bound to open a number of research avenues in the future to elaborate models which might be applied successfully in different contexts. A second consequence of the research conduced so far is the confirmation that children at all ages need specific methodological and didactic techniques, and the existing literature proves how CLIL-ECE teaching needs to be adapted to the requirements of this stage, first to take advantage of the benefits that this early introduction to the target language may encompass and, secondly, to ensure a smooth transition to primary education. Taking into account the learners’ developmental stage and language competence, as some of the articles in this volume show, a learner-centred approach needs to be used to provide the necessary linguistic and cognitive scaffolding (Dale & Tanner, 2012) that will facilitate learning and ensure classroom interaction. Some of the scaffolding strategies include the following: instructional routines to establish contextual and spatial language patterns, the use of linguistic and paralinguistic strategies (body language and gestures, visuals, technologically enriched practices, digital media, etc.), and collective group work or modelling of routines and language (García & Flores, 2012). The role of the teacher as facilitator or guide is also envisaged, building “learning partnerships” with the student (Ruiz de Zarobe & Coyle, 2015) which in pre-primary education need to be carefully planned in order to stimulate new forms of motivation.

636

Y. Ruiz de Zarobe

The other issue emerging from these discussions is the role of different languages at this preliterate stage. Pedagogical translanguaging (Cenoz & Gorter, 2021; Cummins, 2021), the role of the first or home language, and the use of additional languages are at the core of multilingual pedagogies (García & Flores, 2012) and can be extremely useful for the child to foster interaction with the teacher. Last but not least, the central role of the teacher as the main stakeholder in the whole process is essential for the successful implementation of CLIL programmes. We have mentioned not only the need for teachers’ proficiency in the target language but also the appropriacy of their methodology. The integration of content-based instruction and task-based or project-based approaches are mentioned in some of the chapters in this volume, while fun and game-based activities and the learning to learn element are also present in some of the programmes presented here. In all contexts there seems to be a consensus on the basic principles underlying the approach: the need to adapt the methodology to the early stages, where it is carried out in a holistic way, stressing the importance of teaching oracy, listening and speaking skills (see, for instance, Fleta, this volume) and the development of literacy (see, for instance, Álvarez-Cofiño) while fostering children’s social, emotional and intellectual growth. Early language learning needs to be supported through teacher education and their continuous professional development. The evergreen question remains as to whether national and transnational structures will be able to cope with the challenge to balance teachers’ pedagogies and children’s academic and social skills. We must provide tools and suggestions for what needs to be addressed if CLIL-ECE is to remain useful to future practitioners, researchers and policy-makers. The guidelines of this book that stem from hands-on involvement in CLIL implementation will provide a basis for some of the next steps that need to be taken in a variety of educational contexts. Acknowledgments This work is part of the following research projects: PID2021-122689NB-I00 (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation) and IT1426-22 (Department of Education, Basque Government).

References Banegas, D. L. (2013). The integration of content and language as a driving force in the EFL lesson. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), International perspectives on motivation: Language learning and professional challenges (pp. 82–97). Palgrave Macmillan. Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 210–223. https:// doi.org/10.2167/beb441.0 Bialystok, E. (2017). Second language acquisition and bilingualism at an early age and the impact on early cognitive development. In R. Tremblay, M. Boivin, & R. Peters (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early childhood development. Springer.

40

CLIL in Pre-primary Education: Trends, Challenges and Future Directions

637

Bialystok, E., & Luk, G. (2012). Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual adults. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 397–401. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S136672891100040X Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., & Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, language proficiency, and learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 580–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.580 Britto, P., Yoshikawa, H., & Boller, K. (2011). Quality of early childhood development programs in global contexts: Rationale for investment, conceptual framework and implications for equity. Social Policy Report, 25 (2), Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD). Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2021). Pedagogical translanguaging. Cambridge University Press. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners. Multilingual Matters. Dale, L., & Tanner, R. (2012). CLIL activities. A resource for subject and language teachers. Cambridge University Press. Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., & Kubanek, A. (2006). The main pedagogical principles underlying the teaching of languages to very young learners No. EAC 89/04, Lot 1 study. European Commission. Enever, J. (Ed.). (2011). ELLiE early language learning in Europe. British Council. Escamilla, K., Hopewell, S., Butvilofsky, S., Sparrow, W., Soltero-González, L., Ruiz-Figueroa, O., & Escamilla, M. (2014). Biliteracy from the start: Literacy squared in action. Caslon. European Education and Culture Executive Agency, Eurydice, Key data on early childhood education and care in Europe: 2019 edition, Publications Office, 2019, https://data.europa.eu/ doi/10.2797/894279 Eurydice. (2006). CLIL at school in Europe. European Commission. Gallardo del Puerto, F., Gómez Lacabex, E., & García Lecumberri, M. L. (2009). Testing the effectiveness of content and language integrated learning in foreign language contexts: the assessment of English pronunciation. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe & M. R. J. Catalán (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 63–80). Multilingual Matters. García, O., & Flores, N. (2012). Multilingual pedagogies. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 232–246). Routledge. Lightbown, P. M. (1985). Great expectations: Second language acquisition research and classroom teaching. Applied Linguistics, 6, 173–189. Lyster, R. (2019). Making research on instructed SLA relevant for teachers through professional development. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 494–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1362168818776667 Pinner, R. (2021). Authenticity and motivation in CLIL: Creating a meaningful purpose by experiencing the language in use. In C. Hemmi & D. L. Banegas (Eds.), International perspectives on CLIL (pp. 23–41). Palgrave Macmillan. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (in press). Reading strategy instruction and transfer across skills in a multilingual context. In M. Gu, A. Liu, & C. Huang (Eds.), Re-envisioning English-medium instruction in K-12 schools: Policy, research and practice. Springer. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Coyle, D. (2015). Towards new learning partnerships in bilingual educational contexts – Raising learner awareness and creating conditions for reciprocity and pedagogic attention. International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(4), 471–493. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315448121-9 Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Zenotz, V. (2015). Reading strategies and CLIL: The effect of training in formal instruction. The Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09571736.2015.1053284

638

Y. Ruiz de Zarobe

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Zenotz, V. (2018). Learning strategies in CLIL classrooms: How does strategy instruction affect reading competence over time? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1391745 Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., & Zenotz, V. (2019). Effective learning interventions in young children: The impact of critical reading strategies. In J. Rokita-Jaskow & M. Ellis (Eds.), Early instructed second language acquisition (pp. 142–152). Multilingual Matters. Tedick, D. J., & Lyster, R. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2012). Dual language education for a transformed world. Dual Language Education of New Mexico-Fuente Press.