Content uploaded by Beatrice C Dupuy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Beatrice C Dupuy
Content may be subject to copyright.
Dupuy, B. (2011). CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 21-32. ISSN 2011-6721.
CLIL: Achieving Its Goals through a Multiliteracies Framework
AICLE: El logro de sus objetivos a través de un marco
multialfabetizaciones
Beatrice DUPUY
University of Arizona
(Tuscon, AZ, USA)
Abstract
This article examines how CLIL goals can best be realized by adopting a multiliteracies (New
London Group, 1996) framework as it can provide 1) the critical link between content and
language and allow students to not only develop their ability to produce and interpret texts, but
also expand their critical awareness of the relationship between one another, discourse
conventions, and social and cultural contexts, that our times demand and 2) an organizing
principle for CLIL teachers that potentially promotes more principled curricular and
pedagogical decision making and practices. Accordingly, I begin by examining shared rationales
and goals between CLIL and a multiliteracies framework. Next, I highlight the ways in which to
organize CLIL instruction through a multiliteracies framework. Finally, I conclude by presenting
a model multiliteracies-based CLIL lesson.
Key Words: CLIL; multiliteracies; four curricular components; principles of literacy; education;
pedagogy.
Resumen
Este artículo examina cómo los objetivos de AICLE se puede lograr de mejor forma por la
adopción de un marco de multialfabetizaciones (New London Group, 1996), ya que puede
proporcionar 1) el vínculo fundamental entre el contenido y el idioma y permite que los
estudiantes no sólo desarrollan su capacidad de producir e interpretar textos, sino también
expandir su conciencia crítica de la relación entre uno y otro, las convenciones del discurso, y
los contextos sociales y culturales que nuestros tiempos exigen y 2) un principio de organización
para profesores de AICLE que promueve potencialmente tomas de decisiones y prácticas
curriculares y pedagógicas más de principios. En consecuencia, comienzo por examinar razones
y objetivos compartidos entre AICLE y un marco de multialfabetizaciones. A continuación,
pongo de relieve las formas en que se puede organizar la instrucción de AICLE a través de un
marco de multialfabetizaciones. Por último, concluyo con la presentación de una lección modela
del AICLE basada en multialfabetizaciones.
Palabras Claves: AICLE; multialfabetizaciones; cuatro componentes curriculares; principios de
alfabetización; educación; pedagogía.
INTRODUCTION
With the rise of globalization, the world has become interconnected in ways never seen before.
New communication technologies are not only making it possible to exchange information
broadly and quickly but are also allowing meaning to be made in increasingly multimodal ways.
Dupuy 22
Dupuy, B. (2011). CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 21-32. ISSN 2011-6721.
Due to an ever-growing mobility, both physical and virtual, the world is becoming a global
village, and this is having a direct impact on language education, both in terms of what we teach
and how we teach it. An integrated world calls for integrated learning with integrated
technologies. It is in this context that CLIL, a dual-focused educational approach wherein an
additional language is used for the learning and teaching of both content and language, has
emerged to cater to the linguistic and cultural demands created by this global age.
As one reads the CLIL literature, one cannot but notice that core concerns of CLIL as
well as its major program models point beyond mainstream SLA and mainstream pedagogies.
Coyle, Hood, and Marsh (2010) foreground the integrative aspects of CLIL in the 4Cs
Framework which connects “four contextualized building blocks: Content (subject matter),
communication (language learning and using), cognition (learning and thinking processes) and
culture (developing intercultural understanding and global citizenship),” (p.41) and as such
“takes account of integrating content learning and language learning within specific contexts and
acknowledges the symbiotic relationship that exists between these elements.” (p.41) In other
words, Coyle et al. recognize that acquiring and knowing a content/subject-matter area is not
about learning a language for expressing knowledge one already has. Instead, it is about
acquiring and knowing its texts (spoken, written, visual, audio-visual) where such knowing is
tied to acquiring and knowing the language specific to them (communication) which students
need in order to support and advance their thinking processes (cognition) while acquiring new
knowledge, advancing their language learning, and developing new ways to interpret the world
(culture). “Content subject language competence is to a large extent text competence” (Wolff,
2010, p. 557).
If it is indeed the case that texts (spoken, written, visual, audio-visual) are the focus of
CLIL instruction, then specifying how this textual focus will help students meet the goals set out
by CLIL, becomes key.
In this paper, I suggest that CLIL goals can best be realized by adopting a multiliteracies
(New London Group, 1996) framework as it can provide 1) the link between content and
language and allow students to not only develop the ability to produce and interpret texts
(spoken, written, visual, audio-visual), but also a critical awareness of the relationship between
one another, discourse conventions, and social and cultural contexts, that our times demand and
2) an organizing principle for CLIL teachers that potentially promotes more principled curricular
and pedagogical decision making and practices. Accordingly, I begin by examining shared
rationales and goals between CLIL and a multiliteracies framework. Next, I highlight the ways in
which to organize CLIL instruction through a multiliteracies framework. Finally, I present a
model multiliteracies-based CLIL lesson.
CLIL AND A MULTILITERACIES FRAMEWORK:
A CONFLUENCE OF RATIONALES AND GOALS
Recently the world has experienced dramatic social, economic and technological change. With
the emergence of new communication technologies and the multimodal ways in which they
allow meaning to be made—written-linguistic modes of meaning increasingly interface with
visual, audio, gestural and spatial patterns of meaning, growing local diversity and global
connectedness, and classrooms that are characterized by learners from diverse places, languages
and cultures, the key communicative challenge is to be able to cross linguistic and cultural
boundaries, both in the real and virtual world. This rapidly changing world requires a new
educational response and this is the core proposition underlying both CLIL (“… CLIL developed
Dupuy 23
Dupuy, B. (2011). CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 21-32. ISSN 2011-6721.
as an innovative form of education in response to the demands and expectations of the modern
age”. (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 5)) and a new pedagogy of literacy that the New London Group
(1996) calls “multiliteracies”, “one in which language and other modes of meaning are dynamic
representational resources, constantly being remade by their users as they work to achieve their
various cultural purposes” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p. 5) .
Not only does the new economic, social and technological fabric change the way we
might think about language and literacy, they also influence the way we might think about
teaching and learning more generally. Graddol (2006) describes CLIL as “the ultimate
communicative methodology”. While communicative language teaching was “one step towards
providing a more holistic way of teaching and learning languages… it has been insufficient in
realizing the high level of authenticity of purpose which can be achieved through CLIL”. (Coyle
et al, 2010, p. 5). CLIL integrates four different but interrelated and contextualized components:
content (subject matter), communication (language learning and using), cognition (learning and
thinking processes) and culture (developing intercultural understanding and global citizenship),
and calls for learners to be “active participants in developing their potential for acquiring
knowledge and skills through a process of inquiry and by using complex cognitive processes and
means for problem solving”. (Coyle et al, 2010, pp 5-6) Similarly, literacy scholars, while
recognizing the contributions made by communicative language teaching, acknowledge its
shortcomings. Kern (2000) stresses that communicative language teaching, in primarily focusing
on face-to-face, spoken communication, has by and large succeeded in its “goal of promoting
learners’ interactive speaking abilities” (p. 19). However, it has “tended to be somewhat less
successful in developing learners’ extended discourse competence and written communication
skills—areas of language ability that are extraordinarily important in academic settings”. (p. 19)
Furthermore, Swaffar (2006) underscores that communicative language teaching which “still
reflects the strong structuralist leaning of its audiolingual predecessors” and “focuses on student
recall of information rather than analysis of that information” (p. 247) is not preparing learners to
express and evaluate abstract ideas and concepts in the new language. She argues for
“implementing a curriculum that enhance[s] students’ intellectual horizons and, in so doing,
enable[s] them to apply FL language abilities to a range of academic and practical endeavors”
(Swaffar, 2006, p. 248). Swaffar, Arens and Byrnes (1991) contend that, from the start, students
must do more than just learn vocabulary and grammar, and talk about their immediate world;
they “must hear and read about verbally created worlds” (p. 2). Primarily interested in the social
dimensions of language learning, Kramsch (1993) sees the classroom itself as a special locus of
“cross-cultural fieldwork” (p. 29) where students learn and use the target language as well as
reflect on its learning and use in order to achieve a deeper understanding of the target language
and of themselves as intercultural explorers. For this kind of reflective engagement to take place,
Kramsch and Nolden (1994) hold that a new type of literacy, one that is “centered more on the
learner, based more on cross-cultural awareness and critical reflection” (p. 28) has to be at the
core of language education.
Dupuy 24
Dupuy, B. (2011). CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 21-32. ISSN 2011-6721.
Table 1. Rationales and goals of CLIL and Multiliteracies frameworks
Frameworks
CLIL
Multiliteracies
Context
Preparing for globalization
√
√
Content
Accessing multiple perspectives for study
Preparing for future studies
Developing skills for working life
Obtaining subject-specific knowledge in
another language
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Language
Improving overall target-language
competence
Deepening awareness of both first language
and target language
Developing self-confidence as a language
learner and communicator
√
√
√
√
√
√
Learning
Increasing learner motivation
Developing individual learning strategies
√
√
√
√
Culture
Building intercultural knowledge,
understanding and tolerance
Developing intercultural skills
Introducing a wider cultural context
√
√
√
√
√
√
Although the visions articulated here may differ on some level, CLIL and literacy scholars
believe in the importance of moving from “a pedagogy of information-transmission to a
pedagogy of meaning construction” (Kern, 2000, p. 21) in which learners have opportunities to
create, interpret and reflect critically on the relations that exist between language and content and
become aware of how meanings are designed and understood in their own culture and the other
culture. A pedagogy of multiliteracies is one such framework that “can clear a path to new levels
of understanding of language, culture and communication” (Kern, 2000, p. 16). Within this
framework, Kern (2000) defined literacy as:
The use of socially-, historically-, and culturally-situated practices of creating and interpreting
meaning through texts. It entails at least a tacit awareness of the relationships between textual
conventions and their contexts of use and, ideally, the ability to reflect critically on those
relationships... It draws on a wide range of cognitive abilities, on knowledge of written and spoken
language, on knowledge of genres, and on cultural knowledge. (p. 16)
In the next section, I focus on the what and how of a pedagogy of multiliteracies.
ORGANIZING CLIL INSTRUCTION USING A MULTILITERACIES FRAMEWORK:
THE MEANING-MAKING PROCESS
A central notion in a multiliteracies framework is that knowledge and meaning are historically,
socially and culturally located and produced. As such a multiliteracies framework (Kern, 2000;
New London Group, 1996; Swaffar & Arens, 2005) expands the traditional and primarily
language-based notion of literacy – typically defined as the ability to read and write – to include
“not only the ability to produce and interpret texts, but also a critical awareness of the
relationships between texts, discourse conventions, and social and cultural contexts” (Kern,
2000, p. 6), with the purpose of preparing learners to participate in diverse discourse
communities, both at home and abroad, and fostering the critical engagement they need to
Dupuy 25
Dupuy, B. (2011). CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 21-32. ISSN 2011-6721.
“design their social futures” (New London Group, 1996, p. 60). Kern (2000) identified seven
principles of literacy (interpretation, collaboration, conventions, cultural knowledge, problem
solving, reflection and self-reflection, and language use) which can be summarized as “literacy
involves communication” (p.17). According to Kern, “this seven-point linkage between literacy
and communication has important implications for language teaching” (p. 17) and supports the
development of “translingual and transcultural competence”, in other words, learners’ ability to
“operate between languages” (MLA, 2007, p. 3-4) as well as between their associated cultural
framework. Design is a key notion of a multiliteracies framework and includes three interrelated
concepts:
Design is a dynamic process, a process of subjective self-interest and transformation, consisting of
(i) The Designed (the available meaning-making resources, and patterns and conventions of
meaning in a particular cultural context); (ii) Designing (the process of shaping emergent meaning
which involves re-presentation and recontextualisation—this never involves a simple repetition of
The Designed because every moment of meaning involves the transformation of the Available
Designs of meaning); and (iii) The Redesigned (the outcome of designing, something through
which the meaning-maker has remade themselves and created a new meaning-making resource—it
is in this sense that we are truly designers of our social futures). (Kalantzis and Cope, 2008, pp.
203-204)
In other words, Available Designs refers to all the resources—linguistic, visual, audio, gestural
and multimodal, social and cultural—that a learner brings to a text to create meaning.
To interpret or produce a text, a learner draws upon these Available Designs to engage in
Designing. Listening and speaking, reading and writing are all productive activities, forms of
Designing. Oral and written texts are Available Designs. When engaging with texts, a learner
draws on their experience with other Available Designs as a resource to making new meanings
from these texts. In turn, Designing transforms the resources learners received in the form of
Available Designs called the Redesigned. In order to facilitate the integration of textual
interpretation and creation into CLIL instruction, learners would need to be made aware of their
existing Available Designs in their L1 and help them decide which of their L1 Available Designs
will be useful for interpreting or producing a given text and which should be replaced by
Available Designs in their L2.
For example, in an English-taught CLIL course focusing on
earth’s climate, several sessions might be devoted to examining the
science and politics of global climate change, and the focus of one
of these sessions might be ecolabels, how they came about and
what their purpose is. For example, for learners to be able to design
the meaning of the text Environmental Choice and graphic (three
interlaced birds that make up a maple leaf) in the label in Figure 1,
they must have an understanding of vocabulary and syntax, of
typographical conventions (capitalization is typically used to draw
attention), of style (familiarity with the label genre, which is often
characterized by an elliptical style. If learners were to fill in what
language has not been made explicit in the text, they would read
“[By buying this product, you make a] choice [that is good for the
environment].”). Learners must also have background knowledge
regarding the maple leaf, a symbol of Canada’s historical, economic and environmental link to
trees, the fact that Canada has two official languages—French and English—and that product
labels must be shown in both languages to be in compliance with regulations, and of the stories
related to the development of this label as a result of growing global concerns for ecological
Figure 1. EcoLogo label
(Retrieved from:
http://www.ecologo.org/).
Dupuy 26
Dupuy, B. (2011). CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 21-32. ISSN 2011-6721.
protection and its launching in 1988 by the Canadian federal government. One also cannot ignore
the ideological component of the discourse found in the text and graphic of this label. Specific
reader knowledge is key in interpreting such a text and graphic. While teachers’ explanations can
initially be the primary source of the background knowledge learners need, ultimately, learners
will have to derive background knowledge in the same way native speakers do, that is by
extensive experience with texts. It is by using these Available Designs that learners construct
meaning and access the linguistic, social and cultural content of the label. Next, learners can
make further use of these Available Designs to engage in Designing and by that means transform
the text by modifying its vocabulary and grammar, drawing a different logo, or rewriting the text
to better fit their purposes. Each of these transformations is an example of the Redesigned. And,
now, the Redesigned becomes a new Available Design, a new resource of meaning-making.
To translate the process of meaning-making into the pragmatics of pedagogy, four
curricular components—Situated Practice, Overt Instruction, Critical Framing, and
Transformed Practice—proposed by the New London group (1996), provide the structure to
organize multiliteracies activities which engage learners in acts of meaning design.
Situated practice activities give learners the opportunity to immerse themselves in
meaningful, unrehearsed language use on topics anchored in the ‘here and now’ within a
community of learners, which must include experts who can serve as mentors and designers of
their learning processes. Situated Practice activities involve “the use of Available Designs in a
context of communication but without conscious reflection, without metalanguage” (Kern, 2000,
p. 133). Situated Practice contribute to what Cummins (1981) refers to as BICS (Basic
Interpersonal Communication Skills), that is context-embedded language use, whereas the other
three curricular components Overt Instruction, Critical Framing, and Transformed Practice
contribute to CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency). For example, in Direct-
Reading-Thinking Activities (DRTA), which is well suited for beginning learners, the goal is to
lead learners to pause as they engage with a text, make hypotheses based on what will happen
next, and articulate their reasoning. In the process, learners develop their procedural knowledge
of reading, and also become aware of the individual and social dimensions of reading.
Overt Instruction activities are not about direct transmission, mechanical drills, and rote
memorization, although it may have these connotations. Instead, in these activities, learners
focus on Available Designs and their use, in other words, they identify and analyze the formal
and functional aspects of texts which they may, in turn, use to create meaning on their own.
Semantic mapping is an example of Overt Instruction. In this activity, learners explore a word or
an idea found in a text, and identify relationships between the word or idea and other textual
elements. The purpose of semantic mapping is to help learners become aware of the role played
by contextual factors in their interpretation of words.
The goal of Critical Framing activities is to provide learners with opportunities to draw
“on the metalanguage developed through overt instruction to direct conscious attention to
relationships among elements within the linguistic system as well as relationships between
language use and social contexts and purposes” (Kern, 2000, p.133). In other words, Critical
Framing activities involve learners standing back from the meanings they are studying and
looking at them critically in relation to their context. In critical framing activities, such as critical
focus questions, the purpose is to make learners aware of the significance of the lexical and
syntactical choices authors make on how they react to a text. Once learners understand the effect
that one lexical choice versus another can have, they can be asked to rewrite the text from a
Dupuy 27
Dupuy, B. (2011). CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 21-32. ISSN 2011-6721.
perspective different than the one found in the original. At this point the critical framing activity
has been extended to transformed practice.
Being able to identify, analyze, and articulate their understanding of the various elements
that contribute to meaning or reflect on the relations and interactions among Design,
communicative context and sociocultural context is not sufficient. Learners need to return where
they began, Situated Practice, but now a practice, a Transformed Practice, which involves
transfer in meaning-making. In Transformed Practice, transformed meaning is put to work in
communicative, social and cultural contexts other than those for which they were intended in the
first place. In the previous example, rewriting the text from a different perspective exemplifies
what transformed practice is about.
In Table 2 below, additional reading, writing and oral activities are listed in terms of each
of the curricular components.
Table 2. Summary of activities for multiliteracies instruction organized by curricular component.
Curricular
Component
(New London
Group, 1996)
Reading-focused activities
(Kern, 2000, pp. 134-166)
Writing-focused activities
(Kern, 2000, pp. 192-211)
Orality-focused activities
(Willis-Allen, 2008)
Situated
Practice
• Directed Reading –
Thinking Activity
• Reader’s Theater
• Reading Journals
• Journal Writing
• Free Writing
• Creative Writing (blogs,
web pages, etc.)
• Voice Journals
• Peer / Small Group
Survey
• Oral Presentation (live or
recorded)
• Description / Analysis of
Visual Images
Overt
Instruction
• Identifying Word
Relationships /
Associations
• Identifying / Analyzing
Syntactic Relationships,
Discourse Markers, and
Cohesive Devices in
Texts
• Designing Text Maps
• Comparing two texts
who have the same genre
• Mapping
• Teaching Genres
• Revising / Editing
o Paragraph strategies
o Sentence and
Discourse Markers
o Sentence Combining
• Information Gap
Activity
• Word Association
Games
• Focused Description /
Narration of Visual
Images
Critical
Framing
• Critical Focus Questions
• Summary Writing (based
on Text Map)
• Sensitization through
reading
• Shifting Contextual
Parameters
• Peer Response / Editing
• Voice Reflective
Journaling
• Oral Presentation (live or
recorded)
Transformed
Practice
• Dialogic Transformation
• Redesigning Stories
• Stylistic Reformulation
• Genre Reformulation
• Inventing Story
Continuations
• Oral Reformulation
(Written ! Oral)
• Oral Presentation (live or
recorded)
Dupuy 28
Dupuy, B. (2011). CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 21-32. ISSN 2011-6721.
Cummins (2008) sums up a multiliteracies framework best:
The essence of this framework is that students should be given opportunities to engage in
meaningful experiences and practice within a learning community, and the development of
concepts and understanding should be supported by explicit instruction as required. Students
should also have opportunities to step back from what they have learned and examine concepts
and ideas critically in relation to their social relevance. Finally, they should be given opportunities
to take the knowledge they have gained further—to put it into play in the world of ideas and come
to understand how their insights can exert an impact on people and issues in the real world.
(p. 243).
These four curricular components do not make a linear hierarchy and do not represent a rigid
sequence, there is no prescribed order in which they need to appear; they are related in complex
ways and elements of each may at times overlap, while at different times, one or the other may
take center stage; and they can be revisited at different levels during an instructional sequence.
Situated Practice, Overt Instruction, Critical Framing, and Transformed Practice are four
essential elements of a full and effective pedagogy and teachers will want to make sure that all
four are represented when designing an instructional sequence.
IMPLEMENTING A PEDAGOGY OF MULTILITERACIES IN CLIL:
A SAMPLE INSTRUCTIONAL SEQUENCE
Before offering a multiliteracies-based instructional sequence for a CLIL lesson that brings
together all four curricular components, I first want to briefly focus on key differences between
CLT and multiliteracies frameworks to avoid confusion at the implementation stage.
It was established early on that while CLT has by and large succeeded in promoting
learner’s interpersonal spoken abilities, it has not been as successful in developing learners’
extended discourse competence and written communication skills. This is due in large part to the
fact that this framework does not incorporate many of the principles of literacy identified by
Kern (2000): interpretation, problem solving, reflection, and self-reflection. Furthermore, when
CLT appears to share principles with a multiliteracies framework, it turns out that they are
fundamentally different.
One of these principles is collaboration. CLT, a learner-centered pedagogy, focuses
primarily on individualistic oral self-expression carried out in pair, small group or teacher-led
activities, and not on joint social engagement with texts. Typically, the purpose of collaboration
in CLT is to practice language forms through the exchange of information about the self.
Interactions are often socially de-contextualized. Reading and writing are viewed as solitary
rather than collaborative acts and often take place outside of the classroom.
A second principle, only superficially shared by each framework, is language use.
Language use refers to the way language is used in spoken and written texts to create discourse.
In a multiliteracies framework, language use is always contextualized and involves both
linguistic and schematic knowledge. It primarily occurs within the context of oral or written texts
that belong to the secondary discourses of public life such as surveys, reports, or essays. On the
other hand, CLT emphasizes language use for the purpose of practicing targeted structures within
the context of oral or written texts that belong to the primary discourses of familiar life such as
diary entries, personal narratives, or casual conversations. CLT focuses on language use whereas
a pedagogy of multiliteracies focuses on language use and its relationship to language usage.
Conventions is another principle that also differs quite significantly between CLT and
multiliteracies frameworks. CLT’s focus is first and foremost on the acquisition of linguistic
conventions (e.g., writing systems, grammar, vocabulary, and cohesion and coherence devices)
Dupuy 29
Dupuy, B. (2011). CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 21-32. ISSN 2011-6721.
to carry out specific functions such as ordering food, relating past events, or complaining about
pains and aches. In a multiliteracies framework, conventions are viewed as culturally
constructed, informing how learners read and write, and evolving through use over time.
Conventions include linguistic resources as well as schematic resources related to a broad
spectrum of written and spoken genres (e.g., advertisement, political posters, labels, speeches,
etc.), their organizational patterns, and their specific ways of using language.
Finally, the cultural knowledge principle in CLT and multiliteracies frameworks is
different too. While language and culture and the link between the two is tenuous at best in CLT,
in a multiliteracies framework, language is viewed as operating within “particular systems of
attitudes, beliefs, customs, ideals and values” (Kern, 2000, p.17).
Table 3. Summary of goals of CLT and multiliteracies frameworks.
Frameworks
CLT
Multiliteracies
Emphasis
• Doing
• Language use
• Linguistic functions
• Functional ability to
communicate
• Doing and reflecting on doing
• Language use / usage relations
• Form-function relationships
• Communicative appropriateness informed by
meta-communicative awareness
Role of reading
and writing
• Language practice (linguistic
accuracy)
• Four skills (+ one) orientation
• Meaning construction (linguistic, cognitive and
social)
• Integrated communicative acts
Predominant
learner role
• Active participation – using
language in face to face
interaction in contexts and
genres characteristic of primary
discourses of familiarity
• Active engagement – using language, reflecting
on language use, revising and editing in contexts
and genres characteristic of secondary discourses
of public life
For example, the unit entitled “The spectrum of opinions on climate change: Scientists vs. the
Public” shows how the four curricular components work together to develop students’ academic
literacy and linguistic competence (see Appendix). After an introductory lesson in which such
notions as Co2 and Greenhouse gases have been presented, the unit continues with lesson two,
which starts off with Situated Practice in order to tap into students’ Available Designs through
interaction with a series of visual images of extreme weather phenomena. Students talk about
what they see in the images and make hypotheses about what the common factor among these
might be. This is followed next by students surveying their peers on their beliefs and attitudes
toward climate change. Next, students scan James Hansen’s 2008 testimony to the U.S.
Congress, and highlight the climate phenomena mentioned in the text and their underlying
causes. These activities are meant to prepare students for the next set of activities in which they
will be examining the emotional, social, cultural, and linguistic aspects of James Hansen’s 2008
testimony to the U.S. Congress. The instructional sequence continues with Overt Instruction in
which students draw a climate change concept map based on James Hansen’s 2008 testimony to
the U.S. Congress. Next, students go back to James Hansen’s 2008 testimony to the U.S.
Congress, this time engaging in Situated Practice through a Reader’s Theater (Kern, 2000) in
which they work in pairs to transform the testimony into an interview with 2 voices: a journalist
and James Hansen. Then, in an Overt Instruction activity, students examine the discourse
structure of James Hansen’s testimony. In a Critical Framing activity, students answer critical
Dupuy 30
Dupuy, B. (2011). CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 21-32. ISSN 2011-6721.
focus questions asked by the teacher. The goal is to allow students to examine the discourse
organization of James Hansen’s testimony, see the linguistic devices used in the testimony and
the effect they produce. Finally, students in a Transformed Practice activity elaborate on the
Reader’s theater activity they worked on earlier by writing up the interview with James Hansen
for a weekly news magazine of their choice. This can serve as summative assessment for the
lesson.
This instructional sequence serves to show how a multiliteracies approach can be
implemented. This is not a template but rather a set of best practices that can help teachers
structure CLIL instruction through a multiliteracies framework.!
CONCLUSION
The field of FL education is in the midst of a major paradigm shift which is fueled in part by the
realization that FL education can, not only help learners grow linguistically but also, help them
develop critical thinking and discourse skills necessary for them to be successful in a complex
world in which communities are ever more multiethnic, multilingual, and multicultural and in
which meaning is increasingly made in multimodal ways. The call for change found in Kern
(2000), Swaffar and Arens (2005), the 2007 MLA report is, first and foremost, a call for a type of
contextualized language instruction aimed at promoting students’ (critical) thinking skills while
helping them develop proficiency in the target language. This goal perfectly aligns with the
mission that meaning-based curricular approaches such as CLIL, supported by a pedagogy of
multiliteracies, can foster.
Reaching the goals of a CLIL multiliteracies-based curriculum largely hinges on the
professional development of language teachers. Given the predominance of CLT on language
instruction, many instructors have consequently been trained in CLT, and thus may have limited
or no knowledge of alternative frameworks, or how to apply them in the classroom. A
multiliteracies-based curriculum demands that language teachers re-conceptualize the nature of
their trade; in essence, it engages them in a struggle to explore, rearrange, and even reformat
preconceived notions regarding language teaching and learning.
To prepare teachers for a multiliteracies-based curriculum, teacher educators must think
of ways to prepare teachers not just as language experts but also as literacy experts. Teachers’
perceptions of what language teaching is all about must be broadened. Issues related to Available
Designs, the four curricular components, and the seven principles of literacy must be addressed.
Targeted pedagogical strategies and instructional materials that teachers can use in the classroom
must be examined. The development of conceptual knowledge and strategies for effectively
implementing a pedagogy of multiliteracies takes time.
To implement a pedagogy of multiliteracies, ongoing professional development ought to
include repeated opportunities for FL instructors to engage with and appropriate related concepts
and pedagogical strategies. The methods course is not enough, and professional development
opportunities beyond this course ought to include workshops, lectures/webinars given by outside
experts, informal discussions, and/or additional coursework in applied linguistics or FL
pedagogy. In addition, to be effective, professional development activities should be structured
according to a multiliteracies framework and reflect the four curricular components and
integration of principles of literacy such as interpretation, collaboration, reflection and self-
reflection.
Dupuy 31
Dupuy, B. (2011). CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 21-32. ISSN 2011-6721.
APPENDIX
Table 4. Model Design of an Advanced Level CLIL Multiliteracies-Based ESL/EFL Unit 1 on Climate
Change: Lesson 2
Unit
The spectrum of opinions on climate change: Scientists vs. Public
Materials
Primary Genre
* James Hansen’s testimony to U.S. congress in 2008
Secondary Genre
* Images of weather phenomena; * Climate Change Graphs; *
Survey (based on Climate change in the American Mind. Yale
Project on Climate Change)
Language Functions
* Talking about climate change; * Reporting Cause and Effect; * *
Identifying discourse structure relationships
Instructional
Sequence
Situated Practice
* Description and analysis of weather phenomena; * Students
survey peers; * Reader’s theater: interview of James Hansen by a
journalist
Overt Instruction
* Drawing a climate change concept map based on Hansen’s
testimony; * Examining the discourse structure of Hansen’s
testimony
Critical Framing
* Critical focus questions
Transformed
Practice
* Genre reformulation (oral ! writing)
REFERENCES
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (eds.) (2005). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of
social futures. New York, NY: Routledge.
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010) CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (1981) The role of primary language development in promoting educational success
for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling
and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Evaluation, Dissemination and
Assessment Center, California State University, Los Angeles
Cummins, J. (2008). Implications of multiple literacies for literacy. Instruction in School and
Workplace. In D. W. Livingstone, K. Mirchandani, & P. H. Sawchuk (Eds.), The Future of
Lifelong Learning and Work: Critical Perspectives (237-250). Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
Sense Publishers.
Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. London: British Council.
Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2008). Language Education and Multiliteracies. In S. May & N. H.
Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language Education, 2nd edition, Volume 1: Language
Policy and Political Issues in Education (195-211). New York, NY: Springer.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Kramsch, C. & Nolden, T. (1994). Redefining literacy in a foreign language. Die
Unterrichtspraxis, 27, 28-35.
MLA ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign languages and higher
education: New structures for a changed world. Profession, 234-245.
Swaffar, J. K. (2006). Terminology and its discontents: Some caveats about communicative
Dupuy 32
Dupuy, B. (2011). CLIL: Achieving its goals through a multiliteracies framework. Latin
American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 4(2), 21-32. ISSN 2011-6721.
competence. Modern Language Journal, 90, 246-249.
Swaffar, J. K., & Arens, K. (2005). Remapping the foreign language curriculum: An approach
through multiple literacies. New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America.
Swaffar, J., Arens, K., & Byrnes, H. (1991). Reading for Meaning: An Integrated Approach to
Languagel Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
The New London Group. (1996). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.
Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.
Willis Allen, H. (2008). Handout. Developing Foreign Language Courses: Using a Multiple
Literacies Approach. CERCLL. University of Arizona.
Wolff, D. (2010). Content and language integrated learning. In K. Knapp and B Seidlhofer
(Eds.), Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning (545-572). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
BIODATA
Beatrice DUPUY is an Associate Professor of French and Foreign Language Education in the
Department of French & Italian where she directs the French Basic Language Program, and a
faculty member of the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program in Second Language Acquisition and
Teaching (SLAT). She also serves as Chair of the SLAT Pedagogy Curriculum Sub-committee
and Co-Director of CERCLL. She holds a Maîtrise (in English literature) from the Université
Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV), a MS (in TESOL) and Ph.D. (in Education in Language, Literacy and
Learning) from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Her research focuses on
foreign language teaching and learning, with specific focus on experiential learning as a
theoretical and practical framework for foreign language education in home and study-abroad
contexts, and foreign language teaching assistants’ professional growth in relation to teaching in
an integrated multidisciplinary and multiliteracies curriculum.
