Teaching Physical Education in English using CLIL Methodology: a Critical Perspective

By: Alessandra Fazioa, Emanuele Isidoria , Óscar Chiva Bartollb

Abstract

Relatively little research has been carried out in Europe on teaching Physical Education (PE) in English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) using the CLIL method. Although CLIL is widely used throughout Europe, the PE content is often limited merely to technical-practical skills without any significant links to a socio-cultural context, critical thinking and/or knowledge acquisition. The aim of this study is to integrate CLIL with the epistemological perspective of critical pedagogy applied to physical education (Kirk, 2014). A theoretical “deconstructive” method will be used to provide guidelines for teaching physical education through CLIL. A cultural content based on language, culture and knowledge “in action” (Schön, 1987) will be proposed.

 

 

Generally speaking we agree with Marsh’s words that “the assimilation of knowledge by students through the use of a different form to transmit and process content [...] can boost risk-taking, problem-solving, vocabulary learning skills, grammatical awareness, and also attitudes, linguistic spontaneity and
motivation” (2008).

 

Schön (1983, 1987) points out that cultural content and /or knowledge have to be strictly linked to the real language, culture and knowledge of the subject field considered “in action”, i.e. in real life situations. Considering that CLIL teachers are non-native speakers of the language, English is used as a medium for instruction (Graddol, 2006) or lingua franca (ELF).

 

On the basis of these introductory considerations, we believe three basic aspects must be taken into consideration with regard to the role of language and the degree of language competence to be achieved in CLIL for PE: Language Awareness, functional competence and cognition, and language proficiency.

 

 

The critical pedagogical perspective

An analysis of the scientific literature and specific cases of the use of CLIL with the English language to teach Physical Education (PE) indicates that the content of these cases seems to be very poor and centered on a purely practical rather than a deeper reflexive knowledge (Ruano, 2014). Moreover, this content seems to be selected in order to develop skills and abilities of a technical nature.This is due to the widespread conception of PE as an area of study and research whose main goal is simply to develop practical skills. Consequently, this subject is taught through technified methods focused on achieving goals related to the technical-tactical or bio-physiological aspects of sports and physical activity (Fernandez-Balboa, 1997).

If PE is taught in this way, that is to say, with little emphasis on the more profound contents of the subject, the development of critical thinking and interconnections with other disciplines on the curriculum, CLIL is unlikely to generate rich and deep learning. In such cases, CLIL courses tend to consist merely in a simple juxtaposition of some thematic blocks based on general topics of disciplines like anatomy (e.g. the skeleton and muscles), biology (e.g. health education) or techniques, rules, and tactics related to team sports and physical exercises (Coyle, Hood, Marsh, 2010).

An analysis of these contents reveals a lack of interconnection between PE, social sciences and the humanities (mainly history, sociology, philosophy, literature). This interconnection is fundamental in achieving the main goals of physical and sport education. If this connection does not occur, CLIL applied to PE does not generate authentic language and cultural learning, thereby contradicting one of the fundamental principles of CLIL, namely enhanced language learning in the context of improved reflexivity and communication aimed at developing pupils’ personality and their reflexive skills.

In brief, what is missing in CLIL applied to PE using the English language is a critical pedagogical perspective and a more critical approach with regard to its contents. An issue that should be analyzed critically for example is the one related to English as a lingua franca (ELF). That is to say, the one concerning the claim that English (as a lingua franca) acts as a means for promoting neo-capitalism in economic, cultural and globalized terms. In fact CLIL applied to PE will never become a critical pedagogical approach with regard to its relationship with its main learning language tool (Phillipson, 2008).

The main problem for CLIL applied to PE is that this methodology cannot be implemented if first we do not observe this field from the perspective of critical pedagogy. Such a critical perspective, however, is missing in both PE and CLIL as a methodology to teach language and culture (Marsh, 2013).

When we consider how CLIL is structured, we realize that by focusing only on the development of technical skills and competencies, this methodology cannot change our concept of PE towards a more social perspective, which is arguably one of the key objectives of CLIL since it aims at developing intercultural communication and mutual understanding among peoples and cultures.

However, we can help CLIL develop into a methodology for promoting change and social inclusion (by enhancing communication and language skills that help people become more aware of the world they live in) by means of physical education and sport. The concept of sport, when interpreted in a pedagogical perspective, that is as sport pedagogy, can sum up the concept of physical education (Haag, 1992). It is a universal concept that involves the body, the play/game duality, and movement. Both physical education and sport can contribute in a remarkable way to the richness and variety of using languages to promote knowledge, intercultural communication and mutual understanding.

 

Language Awaress in CLIL

 

“Language Awareness” (Hawkins, 1984) is currently defined by the Association for Language Awareness (ALA) as “explicit knowledge about language, conscious perception and sensitivity in language learning, language teaching and language use” (ALA, 2012). Language Awareness is a crucial approach aimed at changing language learners’ perspectives towards explicit understanding of how language is used in a variety of contexts. In Marsh’s words (2012), Language Awareness “[…] is directly linked to the shift from focus on ‘form’ to ‘meaning’ and links to how people best learn languages, and how they can achieve deeper understanding of how to use languages in communication. By giving attention to language patterns found in usage, critical thinking skills can also be developed thus enabling a student to develop knowledge”

This field of study is strictly linked to current theories and practices in language teaching such as code-switching using English as a Lingua Franca (Cogo, 2009) and conceptual vocabulary (Thordarottir, 2011). Language Awareness also plays a significant role in investigating communicative awareness (Garret and James, 2000), critical language awareness (Fairclough, 1992), corpus linguistics for exploring connections between language patterns and language use in context (Sinclair 2004, O’Keefe, McCarthy and Walsh 2007) and pragmatics (Ishihara, 2007).

Thus Language Awareness covers a wide spectrum of fields and a broad range of issues related to language learning and can be considered as an approach that stimulates reflexivity and sensitivity in language/language learning but that also gives learners the ability to explore language and/or the language learning process and to appreciate it.

 

 

Language Proficiency

Although we agree with Barbero’s (2011) idea about the extreme diversity between languages and disciplines and that such diversity has a strong impact on the application of the CLIL method, we strongly disagree with her definition of the language of PE. In fact in her definition she reduces and simplifies the language of PE to a context limited to practical functions/structures such as understanding and giving orders and instructions and this is the reason why she classifies the language of PE at an elementary level (as mentioned in Section1).The specific field of PE, the framework generally theorised by Barbero for CLIL methodology illustrated below in Fig. 1 can be applied to the field of PE.

 

 

 

The framework in the figure above, adapted from Cummins (2000), represents the ratio of Language to Content in CLIL in an “analytic scheme for mapping in a general way how the construct of language proficiency can be conceptualized in terms of the intersections of cognitive (information-processing) demand and context” (Cummins, 2000).

According to Barbero (2011), the amount of language needed to communicate a given content is inversely proportional to the context. Consequently, greater proficiency is needed when communication is not related to a concrete situation and there are no additional indications other than those provided by the language itself. In this case, “Context-reduced communication [...] relies primarily (or at the extreme of the continuum, exclusively) on linguistic cues to meaning, and thus successful interpretation of the message depends heavily on knowledge of the language itself (Cummins, 2000)”. The quantity of cognitive demand depends on both the cognitive content and the complexity of elaboration through mental processes.

Considering the quadrants of the diagram above, CLIL activities can be classified (2011) “in four categories resulting from the combination of their different language and content:

1. low-demand of cognitive involvement that requires very limited use of the language;
2. activities with low cognitive demand, focused on language;
3. highdemand cognitive tasks that require limited use of the language;
4. high-demand activity and cognitive linguistics” (Barbero, 2011)

Thus according to Cummins “Mastery of “academic” function in Quadrant 4 academic register) is a more formidable task because such uses require a high level of cognitive involvement and are only minimally supported by interpersonal and contextual cues. Under conditions of high cognitive demand, it is necessary for students to stretch their linguistic resources to the limit to function successfully. In short “the essential aspect of language proficiency is the ability to make complex meaning explicit in either oral or written modality by means of language itself rather than by means of contextual or paralinguistic cues (gesture, intonation etc.)” (Cummins, 2000: 69).

The CLIL challenge applied to PE consists in being able to follow the 4 quadrants in Barbero’s diagram (2011) as contextualised in the proposal in the next section and summarised in Table 1. In this way it would be possible to achieve a higher level of language proficiency when dealing with abstract concepts related to the lexicalization of movement not only in relationship to space and time, but also to body-part and to play/game duality.