Learning from mistakes and detecting specific training needs: a CLIL grid. Maria Elisabetta Porcedda, Tarragona University “Rovira i Virgili”, Spain Juan González-Martínez, Girona University, Spain Abstract The present study is a part of a broader research about the implementation of CLIL in Italy through ICTs, aimed at spreading this approach among mainly non-linguistic Secondary school teachers, in particular from Linguistic Licei, where CLIL is compulsory from the third year. With this aim, according to a review of the literature and the European Directives, which point out engaging results for involving non-linguistic subject teachers and encourage their collaboration with foreign language teachers, a guided CLIL intervention has been proposed in two Linguistic Liceo in Cagliari (Italy). The CLIL microteaching of ten volunteer teachers has been monitored by the authors for two hours per teacher of their implementation, through a grid, which will be illustrated. It can be regarded as a tool both for CLIL inexperienced teachers, to adapt their lessons to essential elements, according to the literature (such as the length of inputs, the interaction in foreign language and the use of codeswitching, the use of online tools and so on), and for monitoring and tutoring CLIL implementations, in order to detect specific training needs. Indeed, video or audio recordings, suggested with the same aim, are often not welcomed by teachers during their lessons and our grid tries to answer the need to register several aspects during their CLIL practice and their results, so as to learn from mistakes with colleagues. Keywords: CLIL implementation, monitoring grid, teachers’ training INTRODUCTION CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is an approach which promotes the simultaneous teaching and learning of both content and foreign or minority languages, taking advantage of engaging learner-centred strategies and so many different models to become an ‘umbrella’ term [4]. It aims firstly at plurilingualism for the achievement of the European citizenship, as well as profoundly changing the traditionally teacher-centred education [4], also making extensive use of ICTs. Indeed, since its birth in 1994, CLIL has been, up to now, highly recommended by European Directives [6]. In Italy, CLIL has been compulsory in the upper Secondary schools since 2010: in the last year of the Licei and Technical Institutes a non-linguistic subject is to be addressed in a FL for the 50% of its total hours, whilst the Linguistic Licei have to start the CLIL for the first FL in their third year [5]. Consequently, the Ministry of Education has been making hitherto a great effort to train in-service non-linguistic teachers in CLIL, although its intrinsic complexity, depending on its embracing diverse competencies in many educational fields to be correctly implemented (as Didactics, Linguistics, Pedagogy, bilingual strategies, etc.), makes the full achievement of the Directives hard to obtain [2] and in many schools it has not been attained yet. BACKGROUND During the last scholastic year, after a survey which revealed the interest of teachers in CLIL, but not the implementation of it, in two Linguistic Licei, a guided CLIL intervention was done, to lay the basis of this approach through some theoretical lessons and a brief implementation with their students, tutored by the authors. The six non-linguistic teachers involved have B2/C1 CEFR level in Spanish, French and English (who attended the methodologic course, but rarely implemented the CLIL; the others were not admitted, because of the language), and collaborated with English and French teachers, as with German and Spanish FL colleagues, who participated in the theoretical part and implemented a part of multidisciplinary projects for History. Undoubtedly, they can all be seen as inexperienced CLIL teachers, but with decades of teaching experience. THE NEED FOR A GRID TO MONITOR TEACHERS With the aim of monitoring the above implementations, we would have video-recorded the teachers during our tutoring, so as to make teacher teams wholly apply the LOCIT [1], which is a great opportunity to create a collaborative environment at school, both for expert and beginner CLIL teachers. Indeed, only two of them previously allowed us, due to privacy reasons, only to voice-record a short starting phase of their project. Hence, the grid presented underneath (Table 1) is a perfectible and yet to be completely validated attempt to meet the concrete detected needs to: take notes to monitor the implementations through a form, as the LOCIT itself suggests; register strengths and weaknesses during the hours of monitoring per teacher, as decided with them; offer them a tool to take into account before and during their CLIL lessons, so as to perform better; foster the analysis of teachers’ implementation in the light of students’ results and evaluation, not only as a teacher’s self-assessment, like other checklists in the literature (e.g., the Cambridge one [7]); consider whether the observed weaknesses are to be strengthened through further training, in particular aspects. THE GRID AND ITS SECTIONS Whoever aims at a CLIL intervention, carefully draws up a lesson plan, taking into account the specific elements of CLIL [1], but linking them to bilingual teaching strategies, such as the use of multimodal inputs connected with outputs and feedback [3], at the same time concerning a student-centred methodology, which is often achieved through task-based teaching. Consequently, it is important to particularly monitor and make teachers aware, before and during the CLIL implementation, of the points below, which are the partitions of our grid: inputs: their length, the choice of the language and the presence of codeswitching, according to the particular aim and to the addressees, are to relate to the students’ output, in our CLIL grid in terms of their understanding of inputs and FL, as well as their achieving content, FL and methodological goals (cooperation and interaction with classmates). feedback: it is crucial in the CLIL implementation, which is based on socio-constructivism [4]. Its length and modality have to be related to the results of the tasks. use of ICTs and online tools: since the employment of digital and online tools for CLIL is highly recommended [6], it is to verify if the chosen tools foster the content knowledge, the FL improvement and cognitive growth through the task, as well as cooperation among students. task: the results of each task should be evaluated in the light of the lesson plan objectives and of the scaffolding role of the teacher. students’ output: they can be evaluated through rubrics, but this section in our grid aims to be strongly related, as skills, to the modality teachers put into practice for their CLIL lessons. These aspects can be productively monitored during each phase of the implementation. The grid here presented shows a first part, which requires introductory and conclusive data, then the points illustrated above. CLIL MONITORING GRID (English version) Name: Subject: FL: Project Duration: Actual Duration: Monitoring time: Project Phase: Teacher’s CEFR level: FL % in project: Actual FL %: Number of inputs: Number of Feedbacks: Repeat for each phase, if monitored more than one INPUT VISUAL TIME total length: MT: FL: GESTURES: yes no SPEAKING TIME total length: MT: FL: CODESWITCHING: yes no ADDRESSED TO: Class: Groups/Peers: Individual students: AIM: Introducing: Clarifying: Scaffolding: TEACHER’S FEEDBACK Length: Positive: Negative: FL: MT: Gestures: ADDRESSED TO: Class: Groups/Peers: Individual students: ICTs BYOD: yes no SHARED DEVICES: yes no DEVICES: TOOLS CHOSEN BY TEACHER: TOOLS CHOSEN BY STUDENTS: TOOLS FOR FL ACQUISITION: COOPERATION THROUGH ICTs: yes no partially WORKING TIME THROUGH ICTs: TASK BLOOM’S PYRAMID LEVEL ACHIEVED: Planned Duration: Actual Duration: ACADEMIC LANGUAGE USE: Reduced: Medium: Large: CONTENT DEEPENING: Reduced: Medium: Large: WORKS PRESENTATION: Oral: Written: Online: STUDENTS’ GENERAL FEEDBACK: Positive Negative STUDENTS Number: General CEFR level of FL: PARTITION PER TASK: Peers: Homogeneous groups: Inhomogeneous groups: GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF INPUTS IN FL: Low: Medium: High: GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF INPUTS IN MT: Low: Medium: High: COOPERATION: Reduced: Medium: Large: INTEGRATION: Reduced: Medium: Large: INTERACTION IN FL: Reduced: Medium: Large: INTERACTION IN MT: Reduced: Medium: Large: STUDENTS WHO CARRY OUT THE TASK IN TIME: Table 1. CLIL monitoring grid CONCLUSION The grid in the present paper is born as a tool to concretely monitor what and how inexperienced teachers put into practice in a CLIL intervention, so as to verify together strong aspects of this approach in practice, how to improve their weaknesses and to detect their training needs, other than suggest them some essential points to reach. It is, finally, to underline that it is likely to enhance and completely validate it, as a monitoring form, hitherto missing. References [1] Coyle D. (2005), Planning tools for teachers: https://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/20-01-2014/coyle_clil_planningtool_kit.pdf [2] Pérez Cañado M. L. (2016), Are teachers ready for CLIL? Evidence from a European study, European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 202-221. [3] Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality-CLIL: successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso, 33(1), 11–29. [4] Banegas, D. L. (2012). 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. [5] Cinganotto, L. (2016). CLIL in Italy: a general overview. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 374–400. [6] Council of the European Union. (2019). Council Recommendation of 22 May 2019 on a Comprehensive Approach to the Teaching and Learning of Languages. Official Journal of the European Union, C 189/17, 15–22. [7] Checklist: How ‘CLIL’ are you? in Dale, L. and Tanner, R. (2012) “CLIL Activities” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.