EU Policy on Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity As It Relates to Content and Language

EU policy on language learning and linguistic diversity as it relates to Content and Language Integrated Learning and Higher Education.

Paul Holdsworth,Language Policy Unit, Directorate-General for Education and Culture,European Commission

()

EU policy on language learning and linguistic diversity as it relates to Content and Language Integrated Learning and Higher Education.

Abstract:

Content and Language Integrated Learning has an important contribution to make to the development of quality Higher Education, and to the promotion of foreign language skills, in the European Union.

The decision to offer CLIL courses is best taken in the context of a coherent university language policy that promotes linguistic diversity; courses should be offered in a range of languages. CLIL courses will have most impact when they are taught by appropriately trained teachers and structured around appropriate learning objectives for both language and content.

1.Introduction

As Commissioner Reding says in her letter of welcome, the theme of this conference is one which the Commission considers to be very important, both in the context of the development of Higher Education in Europe, and also in terms of our strategy for promoting language learning and linguistic diversity.

I should like to talk to you about European Union policy, as set out in our recently published Action Plan “Language learning and linguistic diversity”[i], and within that I shall try to set out firstly what the Commission thinks about Content and Language Integrated Learning in Higher Education, and secondly some other aspects of our policy which, I hope to persuade you, are germane to you discussions here.

2.Political Context

I’d like to start by quickly reminding you of the political context. The European Union is rapidly enlarging – another 10 new Member States will join in May 2004, bringing with them many more language communities, and a different range of linguistic skills amongst their populations.

This is a Union that has committed itself to becoming “the most competitive and dynamic, knowledge-based economy in the world, by the year 2010”; and, what’s more, a Union that has committed itself to “making Europe’s education and training systems a world quality reference by 2010”.

This, let me remind you, is a European Union in which the responsibility for the structure and content of educational systems rests firmly with Member States, but where Member States have agreed to work together on a rapprochement of their educational policies and practices through what is called the “open method of coordination”.

This is the same Europe whose Higher Education ministers have pledged themselves to work through the Bologna process towards the transparency of degrees, a more unified degree structure, transferable credits, quality assurance, and freer student and teacher mobility.

3.Action Plan

So, there was already a lot going on in the field of Education and Training in Europe when the Commission published its Action Plan Language learning and linguistic diversity at the end of July 2003. This is a Communication by which the Commission hopes to build upon the great success of the European Year of Languages 2001. It sets out the Commission’s vision for the future, as regards language learning and linguistic diversity, and spells out 45 actions that the Commission will take to try to encourage Member States to make progress in key areas.

The Action Plan was foreshadowed by a Commission Discussion Document[ii] which sought the views of specialists and the general public alike through a public consultation and which was the subject of a Consultation Conference in April this year.

Now, there are three main fields in which the Commission believes that education and training authorities need to take action:

1. Extending the benefits of lifelong language learning to all citizens,
2. Improving the quality of language teaching, and
3. Creating a more language-friendly environment.

(This latter point includes, for example: encouraging greater respect for all languages, whether regional, minority, or migrant languages, making better use of the human language resources that are all around us and increasing the demand for, and the supply of, language learning at all ages.)

I’d now like to take some time to look at some aspects of the Action Plan that are particularly relevant to your discussions today. It seems logical to start with . . .

4.Higher Education

It’s useful to recall here that most universities are linguistically very rich environments: they have specialist teaching staff in literature and linguistics as well as foreign languages themselves, extensive facilities for language learning (often in well-equipped language centres), a host of international links and significant numbers of guest students and teachers from abroad.

This privileged position as regards languages brings with it certain responsibilities. The Action Plan supports the idea that every university should formulate and implement a coherent languages policy, spelling out its role in promoting language learning and linguistic diversity, not only amongst its learning community, but also in the wider locality.

Such policies could answer questions such as:

• How will the university make sure that all students and teachers - no matter what their specialism - have real opportunities to improve and to add to the repertoire of languages that they began in primary school?
• How can universities make sure that all students spend at least a term abroad, studying through a foreign language, as part of their degree course, and that they can have their language skills accredited?
• In what ways will the university actively promote and safeguard its own language? (For example, what facilities will it make available to teach this language to foreign teachers and students - yes, even when its language is a “regional” and “minority” language? There are some very good examples of this, from Finland in the north to Catalonia in the south).
• What steps will the university take to ensure that any course that is taught through a foreign language also continues to be taught through the university’s mother tongue? (Can the Finnish model be applied elsewhere? are there other models available?)
• And, not least, in what ways will the university open up its rich multilingual environment to language – learners from the local community?

These are questions that every university in Europe needs to start asking itself, asking its funders, and asking its local community. Some of them will perhaps be seen as too radical by some, but is it not high time that European universities were more visible and more vocal in actively promoting societal and individual multilingualism?

I would argue that you cannot sensibly answer questions about CLIL in Higher Education unless you’ve also got a fix on some of these wider issues relating to the role of universities in a multilingual and multicultural European society.

So, what does the Action Plan have to say about CLIL?

5.Content and Language Integrated Learning

As you would expect from a Commission that has been promoting and funding work on CLIL for over a decade, the Action Plan refers explicitly to the benefits of CLIL approaches (albeit in the context of secondary education):

“CLIL has a major contribution to make to the Union’s language learning goals. It can provide effective opportunities for pupils to use their new language skills now, rather than learn them now for use later. It opens doors on languages for a broader range of learners, nurturing self-confidence in young learners and those who have not responded well to formal language instruction in general education. It provides exposure to the language without requiring extra time in the curriculum, which can be of particular interest in vocational settings. The introduction of CLIL approaches into an institution can be facilitated by the presence of trained teachers who are native speakers of the vehicular language.”

To this list, we might add the fact that CLIL facilitates the learning of language competencies that are specifically linked to the area of study or professional interest.

In arriving at these conclusions we’ve been very much helped by the excellent study coordinated by David Marsh of JyväskyläUniversity “CLIL – the European dimension”[iii].

Now that CLIL has gained a foothold in mainstream education, it is time for it to become much more widespread at all stages of education and training. In order to persuade more decision-takers that now is the time for CLIL, a major conference on CLIL in school education is planned for 2004.

You don’t need me to say any more about the benefits of CLIL. Suffice it to say that so far as CLIL is concerned, we at the Commission are all for it.

But apart from these specific references to Higher Education and CLIL, the Action Plan delivers a number of other messages which I think are worth reflecting on: on lingua francas, on active multilingualism, on diversity in language education, and on teacher training.

6.Lingua francas

The Action Plan says unequivocally that for European citizens, learning one lingua franca is not enough. Why? Well, there are of course the instrumentalist reasons: businesses need to speak the language of the customer if they are to trade abroad; and citizens who move to live in another MemberState won’t integrate into the local community by using just a lingua franca.

But these arguments won’t apply to everybody. Our reason for saying that a lingua franca is not enough goes back to the reasons why the European Union promotes foreign language learning in the first place. It’s not merely in order to improve basic communication between citizens (if we wanted to do that we could simply propose that everyone learned English or Esperanto . . .). No, learning other languages is also a means to an end. Learning other languages brings with it the capacity to start to understand another culture, to adopt another view of the world; it helps us to be more tolerant and promotes solidarity. These are basic skills for citizens of the European Union.

This is why a lingua franca won’t do, and I think it raises some questions for CLIL.

• How can we make sure that the language we use as a medium of instruction is not a denatured, dumbed-down version of the language, but the authentic, vibrant, quirky original: the real thing? (And if we don’t do that, is it really CLIL?)
• How can we make sure that we really use the opportunity to teach the target language and culture, as well as the content, by setting appropriate language learning goals for CLIL courses?
• How can we ensure that, in promoting CLIL, we are not inadvertently promoting the idea that English is enough?

7.“Mother tongue plus two”

The Action Plan sets as an objective for the European Union that every citizen should have meaningful communicative competence in two languages in addition to his/ her mother tongue. This is a clear - if ambitious – objective. It’s ambitious because at present the proportion of people with no foreign language skills at all can be as high as 66% in the UK, although as low as 2% in Luxembourg[iv].

The good news is that as far as students are concerned: only 12% speak no other language than their mother tongue. This suggests that the CLIL approach should pose fewer problems for students in Higher Education than it would, say, in adult education; but beware; because there are at present no figures on students’ actual communicative ability in the languages they have learned at school: can we be sure that a student who has had 6 or 8 years of English lessons at school, is actually able to follow a course that’s given in English? Currently, I don’t think that we can.

But, when that happy day dawns on which every person leaving secondary education has meaningful communicative ability in two additional languages, what will that mean for CLIL in Higher Education? Can we foresee a wider range of languages being used in CLIL courses? Or will universities continue to take the easy option of using only English?

8.Range of foreign languages

As regards language teaching in general, the Action Plan argues that the education authorities, including universities, have a responsibility to make courses available in the widest possible range of languages. If English is not enough; English, French, German and Spanish is not an ideal range of languages for educational systems to offer, either. Primary, secondary and higher education institutions need to give learners the option of learning a much wider range of languages than at present. This could include more of the less-used national languages, regional and minority languages and the languages of our trading partners outside Europe.

This raises some questions:

• How can we use CLIL approaches to free up curriculum time for learning other languages in Higher Education as well as in secondary?
• And if we want university CLIL courses to be attractive, should we not offer them in languages other than the language that the majority of students will have been learning from the age of 5 or 6? Is there not a danger of over-exposure to English?
• How can we make sure that CLIL courses are offered in a range of languages?

9.Early language learning

After all, as the Action Plan points out, more and more Member States intend language learning to start early in pre-primary or primary school (and in most cases at present early language learning means early English learning). But the Action Plan offers no blanket approval for earlier and earlier language learning.

Rather, it says clearly that early language learning should only be introduced if all the conditions for success are in place: class sizes small enough for every pupil to have time to practice his/ her language skills, adequate time on the curriculum for language lessons, appropriate teaching materials, and so on. This requires some investment.

Are not some of these also pre-conditions for effective CLIL in Higher Education? Would it be right for institutions to offer courses through the medium of a foreign language without making adequate provision in these areas, or without adequately trained teaching staff?

10.Teacher training

The Action Plan highlights the crucial role of teachers in the promotion of language learning and linguistic diversity, not just because they have the linguistic skills that they can pass on to their learners, but also because we see language teachers as role models, exemplifying the ideals of openness to other cultures, willingness to listen, tolerance, and so on: the values that we hope language learning will imbue.

It emphasises the need for education authorities to ensure that teachers – including those who teach through a foreign language - have adequate initial and in-service training: they should have lived in a country where the language is spoken, they should undergo training in real classrooms, they should have a wide range of practical skills and techniques in their toolkit, and so on [v].

Surely, these ideas too apply to Content and Language Integrated Learning in Higher Education:

• How can we make sure that staff who teach through the medium of a foreign language have adequate communicative competence in that language and a specialist training in the skills of CLIL, as well as in the other subject?
• How can we make sure that academic staff have adequate training in setting learning objectives and in assessing learning outcomes in a CLIL environment (which is after all very different from the standard learning environment)?
• In short, how can universities make sure that staff teaching through an additional language really are integrating the content and the language?

11.Conclusion

If I may try to bring together these diverse strands, ladies and gentlemen, what I’ve been trying to say is that the main preoccupations of European Union language policy should also be the concerns of you who are involved in CLIL in HE:

• CLIL has to be a way of teaching a wider range of languages, not just one;
• CLIL should be introduced only if the conditions for its success are in place;
• CLIL requires a serious investment in teacher training (both content and language);
• And, crucially, CLIL needs to be developed as a part of an explicit, comprehensive and coherent language policy for each institution.

So, as the title of this conference reminds us, European universities do face quite a challenge; and that challenge stems from the very essence of Europe. Europe is not a melting pot, rendering down different groups into one homogenised culture; Europe is much more ambitious than that:

• it is a Union of very diverse peoples and language communities that are learning to pull together, instead of pulling apart
• it’s a knowledge community in which language skills are just as much core skills as are numeracy or literacy
• It’s a common home, in which people need to understand one another on a basic, human level, no matter what their language or culture.

The real challenge facing European universities is how to prepare their students to live and work and find fulfilment in this multilingual Europe.

Thank you

1

[i]The Action Plan is available at:

[ii]The Consultation Document is available at:

[iii]“CLIL – the European dimension”, Ed. David Marsh:

[iv]Taken from the Opinion Survey “Europeans and Languages”, available at

[v]See also the study “The training of teachers of a foreign language in Europe” by Michael Kelly and Michael Grenfell:
executive_summary_full_en.pdf