Pixel International Conferences

The rapid and significant spread of CLIL is not supported by a comparable level of research [1]. There is much more still to investigate in order to empirically prove whether this methodological approach works efficiently. The basic premise is not being met since there is clear evidence that one of their four main axes is underdeveloped: the cultural one. Despite intercultural competence being one of the greatest potentials of CLIL, it is not automatically inherent in it and needs explicit attention [2]. Language, content and culture should be taught together as they are all part of everyday reality of the student. Then, it is highly necessary to strengthen the cultural axis as it pursues the awareness toward learning community.

Moreover, the development of intercultural education is one of the main goals of the 21^st century education and it is within the most consistent educational policies all over the world. Looking at various topics from different cultural angles, realizing that other cultures tend to see things differently, have different values and beliefs, is one of the most valuable experiences that CLIL may offer. Students need to learn about other countries because there is evidence that people’s willingness to cooperate significantly increases the better they know each other. If we want to prepare our student to succeed in a globalized word and enable them to work in teams across national and cultural borders, intercultural communicative competence needs to be the ultimate educational goal and it must be placed at the heart of our teaching [3]. Students need to become aware of the hidden cultural codes as well as of the appropriate linguistic and non-linguistic means and strategies to address them; that is, students need to be taught how to keep the flow of communication. This way, I am designing an intercultural education model for CLIL, whose main guidelines will be presented here.

Keywords: CLIL, cultural axis, intercultural education.

References:

[1] Coyle, D., Hood, P. and Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[2] Coyle, D. (2009). Language pedagogies revisited: alternatives approaches for interacting language learning, language using and intercultural understanding. In Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: new dilemmas for teachers, ed. Miller, J., Kostogriz, A. and Gearon, M., 172-195. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

[3] Byram, M. (2012). Language awareness and (critical) cultural awareness-relationship, comparison and contrasts. Language Awareness, 21 (1-2), 5-13.