FROM BLOOM´S TAXONOMY TO CLIL METHODOLOGY

As I noticed in the last post, Bloom´s taxonomy outlined six different thinking processes, from  lower-order thinking to higher-order thinking, both of which are integral effective learning.

LOW ORDER

• REMEMBERING: recognize or recall knowledge of memory. 
• UNDERSTANDING: construct meaning from different types of writings or graphics. 
• APPLYING: ability to use learned material. 

HIGH ORDER

• ANALYSING: apply what was learned in the classroom in new situations.
• EVALUATING: make judgments based on criteria and standards.
• CREATING: put elements together or reorganize them to form a coherent or functional whole.

The cognitive engagement is central to the CLIL classroom.  Effective content learning has to take into account not only the defined knowledge and skills within the curriculum, but also how to apply these through creative thinking, problem solving and cognitive challenge.  It is not enough to consider content learning without integrating the development of a range of thinking and problem-solving skills. But, this is enough? According to Crandall (1994: 256):

“Students cannot develop academic knowledge and skills without access to the language in which that knowledge is embedded, discussed, constructed or evaluated. Not can they acquire academic language skills in a context (academic) content.”

So, in CLIL methodology: language is used to learn as well as communicate and it is the subject matter which determines the language needed to learn. 

To integrate content and language learning, Coyle (1999) created the 4Cs Framework which is integrated for four contextualized building blocks:

According to her, a successful CLIL lesson should combine:

• Content: proggression in knowledge, skills and understanding related to specific elements of a subject.
• Communication: using language to learn whilst learning to use language.
• Cognition: developing thinking skills which link concept formation (abstract and concrete), understanding and language.
• Culture: exposure to alternative perspectives and shared understandings, which deepen awareness of otherness and self.

With this in mind,  a CLIL lesson is facing an important challenge: the second language level of the learners, usually, is not the same as their cognitive level. And, in this sense there is a problem: if the language level is too demanding, effective learning cannot take place. If the cognitive level is too low taking into account the language level, then, learning is restricted. 

To face this, CLIL use the CLIL MATRIX:

This tool for CLIL teachers was adapted by Coyle (2002) from Cummins´ work (1984). This matrix can be used to measure the combination of cognitive and linguistic levels of the different tasks of a CLIL lesson. According to CLIL experts:

- If a task is placed in quadrant 1, it means that this task is cognitively easy, but that requires a demanding language. This is why, in CLIL settings, quadrant 1 is to be avoided.

- Most of the activities in CLIL classes should be placed on quadrants 2 and 3 of the matrix. These tasks are accesible in terms of language demands, and are either cognitively easy or difficult.

- In a sequence of activities, there should be a progression towards quadrant 4. These tasks require to master the language and are cognitively demanding at the same time, and for this reason they should be carefully planned.