# data[].attributes.body
Content

Topics and concepts that form the syllabus of a subject

# data[].attributes.body
http://onlinepaths.eu/pluginfile.php/8825/mod_resource/content/1/collaboration.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Journal of Teaching English with Technology

# data[].attributes.headline
English as a Medium of Instruction - EMI

# data[].attributes.subject
English as a Medium of Instruction - EMI

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, John Clegg states the importance of CLIL teachers collaborating with others to create a powerful learning system.

Teachers who teach their subject in a second language often have to collaborate. Of course we know that all teachers need to collaborate for one reason or another, but CLIL teachers need it more than most. I’d like to list the people they need to collaborate with and the reasons they need to do so.

1) Firstly, subject teachers need to collaborate with other subject teachers who are teaching in L2. The reason is that they are often not sure that they are doing the right thing. Teaching a subject in a second language is not easy: it requires a specialist pedagogical expertise. Teachers have to think about things which they don’t have to think about when working in their L1. They have to know how to talk in an especially comprehensible way, how to support learners when they listen to them, how to teach a lot of academic vocabulary, how to help learners talk back to them in the plenary classroom and talk in English in groups, how to read complex subject textbooks and write about new subject concepts in L2. Few subject teachers are trained to do this and they often feel the need to talk through with a colleague what they do in the classroom. Collaboration between subject teachers working in L2 can be very helpful: teachers can exchange ideas, trial techniques, report back to each other, develop strategies which are seen to work. Within the framework of formal school policy on raising achievement in L2-medium subjects, this kind of working together can develop official school practice and increase effectiveness – and ultimately grades – in L2-medium teaching.

Secondly, schools may wish to collaborate with each other for similar reasons. Schools differ widely in their capacity to attain high levels of achievement in subjects taught through L2. Some are clearly good at it; others not. It’s normally a matter of expertise: some schools have accumulated, documented and sustained it; others are new to it. In the absence of teacher-education in CLIL – which is rare – it is crucial to go to the best schools to find out how to do it. Schools and teachers which feel the need to get experience will do well to form a collaborative partnership with other schools in the neighbourhood – or even further afield, perhaps via the internet or by means of international partnerships – in order to become better at what they are doing.

Thirdly, the most crucial form of collaboration is between subject teachers and language teachers. Where both learners and subject teachers are adequately fluent in English, it is possible that neither needs help from an English language teacher. This situation may occur in countries with high ambient levels of English language ability. However, it often happens that in English-medium education programmes where levels of language ability amongst both teachers and learners are dangerously low, English language teachers have not been involved with the programme. They are not active either in helping subject colleagues with their teaching or in orientating their English curriculum to the language demands of English-medium subject learning. This can happen even in large-scale, system-wide, English-medium subject programmes. For example, there is evidence that in the Malaysian EM maths and science programme, the English curriculum, English language textbooks and English language teacher-training were not re-orientated to the language demands of EM science and maths. To neglect the crucial positive influence of English teaching on English-medium subject teaching, where that influence could contribute to raising EM subject achievement, is to put the success of such a project at risk.

In smaller, selective EM/CLIL projects such as are found in Europe, the role of English teachers can be crucial. Some forms of CLIL, for example, low-risk projects which may only offer one out of three hours of EM subject teaching per week over 20 weeks, it is common for English teachers to be full collaborative partners with a subject teacher in the project. They may be its instigators. In addition, the subject teacher may feel sufficiently unconfident in their English language ability so that the project can only run if an English language teacher in centrally involved. In this case, both teachers collaborate on a range of functions: co-planning of a scheme of work, co-planning of lessons, co-construction of materials, co-assessment of performance, co-evaluation of the project as a whole. Sometimes both teachers co-teach in the same classroom, though expense normally precludes this. This kind of project is especially common in Italy; the extent and rich professional rewards of this form of collaboration are a hallmark of this kind of CLIL.

In more high-risk CLIL programmes where the whole of a subject is taught in English, perhaps for some years, collaboration with an English teacher is also important. There are two main ways in which the expertise of the English teacher can be brought to bear on the EM subject programme. The first is by helping learners. English teachers can do this by orientating the English language syllabus – in respect of the CLIL programme – partly to the language demands of the subject curriculum. Subject-teaching makes language demands on learners. Some of these demands are specific to the subject and can only be met by the subject teacher. Subject-specific vocabulary is a case in point, as are some aspects of subject-specific written and spoken discourse and learning activities. Some subject language demands, however, are not specific to the subject but specific to school learning; that is, they are cross-curricular in their application. This is the case with a lot of cross-curricular academic vocabulary at a middle level of specificity; it is also true of some more generic forms of formal written discourse and of language skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) for school use. Language teachers can teach these skills better then subject teachers; and subject teachers feel burdened by the necessity to teach them. The language curriculum can thus be re-orientated to accommodate these academic language skills and English teachers can accustom themselves – or indeed be trained – to teach them. This orientation of language teachers to the subject curriculum is at the heart of the way English language support for minority language users in the UK curriculum, for example, defines itself. EAL (English as an Additional Language) is largely a form of language support for subject learning, and EAL teachers are specialists in providing learners with the means of meeting the language demands of the subject curriculum. Language teachers within CLIL projects have not yet got used to seeing themselves in this role, but there is every reason why they should.

The second way in which language teachers can influence good practice in CLIL projects is by helping their subject colleagues. They have some of the skills to do so. They can, for instance, advise subject teachers on their own language use, on the language demands of their subjects and on the kinds of language support practice which the subject teachers can incorporate into their lessons. They can also work with them on planning schemes of work, making materials and assessment. Language teachers, however, are not used to doing this and they do not by training possess all the skills necessary. They have to be open-minded, undaunted by subject contents and learn some new tricks. In addition, this kind of collaboration has to be paid for: it must be accounted for in teachers’ timetables.

Collaboration can be an informal, bottom-up process: teachers work with each other if they get on well and if the enterprise is professionally interesting. However, this form of collaboration is rather hit-and-miss. A school with ambitious CLIL pretensions will wish to instigate formal administrative frameworks for collaboration which set out the purposes, means and requirements of the collaborating parties and acknowledge this formally and even contractually. School policy on CLIL development will require collaboration to take place and set out objectives and performance indicators which aim to raise EM subject achievement in specified ways. Formal collaborative planning agreements of this kind are also common in the UK EAL sector where they go by the name of ‘partnership teaching’. These collaborative frameworks are not yet common in CLIL contexts, but they are necessary wherever schools need to maintain standards in subjects taught through the medium of L2.

Collaboration in CLIL is not as common as it should be. In low-risk, language-led projects - often started by a language teacher - collaboration is widespread. But in subject-led CLIL, where a relatively high language level of teachers and learners is crucial in order that subject standards be maintained, it is too rare. In system-wide programmes in which every child in the school may be learning maths or science through L2, and where the language ability of both teachers and learners may be dangerously low, you need to use every weapon in your armoury to achieve acceptable levels of subject knowledge. In these contexts, English language teachers need to play as full a part as possible.

# data[].attributes.body
Posted by: Margaret Rouse

Contributor(s): Matthew Haughn

Web 2.0 is the current state of online technology as it compares to the early days of the Web, characterized by greater user interactivity and collaboration, more pervasive network connectivity and enhanced communication channels.

One of the most significant differences between Web 2.0 and the traditional World Wide Web (WWW, retroactively referred to as Web 1.0) is greater collaboration among Internet users, content providers and enterprises. Originally, data was posted on Web sites, and users simply viewed or downloaded the content. Increasingly, users have more input into the nature and scope of Web content and in some cases exert real-time control over it.

The social nature of Web 2.0 is another major difference between it and the original, static Web. Increasingly, websites enable community-based input, interaction, content-sharing and collaboration. Types of social media sites and applications include forums, microblogging, social networking, social bookmarking, social curation, and wikis.

Elements of Web 2.0

Wikis: Websites that enable users to contribute, collaborate and edit site content. Wikipedia is one of the oldest and best-known wiki-based sites.

The increasing prevalence of Software as a Service (SaaS), web apps and cloud computing rather than locally-installed programs and services.

Mobile computing, also known as nomadicity, the trend toward users connecting from wherever they may be. That trend is enabled by the proliferation of smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices in conjunction with readily accessible Wi-Fi networks.

Mash-ups: Web pages or applications that integrate complementary elements from two or more sources.

Social networking: The practice of expanding the number of one's business and/or social contacts by making connections through individuals. Social networking sites include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+.

Collaborative efforts based on the ability to reach large numbers of participants and their collective resources, such as crowdsourcing, crowdfunding and crowdsource testing.

User-generated content (UGC): Writing, images, audio and video content -- among other possibilities -- made freely available online by the individuals who create it.

Unified communications (UC): The integration of multiple forms of call and multimedia/cross-media message-management functions controlled by an individual user for both business and social purposes.

Social curation: The collaborative sharing of content organized around one or more particular themes or topics. Social content curation sites include Reddit, Digg, Pinterest and Instagram.

The History of Web 2.0
The foundational components of Web 2.0 are the advances enabled by Ajax and other applications such as RSS and Eclipse and the user empowerment that they support.

Darcy DiNucci, an information architecture consultant, coined the term “Web 2.0 In her 1999 article, "Fragmented Future”:

“The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens.”

Tim O'Reilly is generally credited with popularizing the term, following a conference dealing with next-generation Web concepts and issues held by O'Reilly Media and MediaLive International in 2004. O'Reilly Media has subsequently been energetic about trying to copyright "Web 2.0" and holds an annual conference of the same name.

Web 2.0 controversy
Critics of Web 2.0 maintain that it makes it too easy for the average person to affect online content, which can impact the credibility, ethics and even legality of web content. The extent of data sharing and gathering also raises concerns about privacy and security. Defenders of Web 2.0 point out that these problems have existed ever since the infancy of the medium and that the alternative -- widespread censorship based on ill-defined elitism -- would be far worse. The final judgment concerning any web content, say the defenders, should be made by end users alone. Web 2.0 reflects evolution in that direction.

Web 2.0 technologies
Most of the technologies used in delivering web 2.0 are rich Web technologies, such as Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight and JavaScript (in addition to Ajax, RSS and Eclipse).  Web 2.0 applications are often based on the decentralized download methodology that made BitTorrent so successful, in which each downloader of content is also a server, sharing the workload and making heavily demanded content more accessible that it would be in the centralized model where demand can lead to overwhelmed servers and pages.

Manufacturing 2.0
The integration of Web 2.0 communication and collaboration applications into traditional manufacturing practices and processes has been dubbed Manufacturing 2.0. Manufacturing 2.0 takes typical Web 2.0 apps and services and incorporates them into every stage of development and production. The use of these technologies and tools facilitates greater collaboration and sharing and referencing of information in a business, ideally leading to better thought out design and more efficient production.

Enterprise 2.0
Similarly, the inclusion of Web 2.0 technologies into an enterprise’s business processes, intranet and extranet is sometimes referred to as Enterprise 2.0. Most enterprise 2.0 followers use a combination of blogs, social networking and social collaborative tools as well as free, paid and homegrown technologies. The term Enterprise 2.0 was coined by Harvard Business School Associate Professor Andrew McAfee in an MIT Sloan Management Review he named "Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration."

Web 2.0 suicide
So synonymous with Web 2.0 is social networking that the deletion of one’s social networking presences throughout the Internet is referred to as Web 2.0 suicide. There are web applications designed to facilitate the process, such as the free service Web 2.0 suicide machine. The application attempts to purge user info on some of the most common social networking presence points: Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and Twitter before adding the user to the Social Network Suiciders group on Facebook and signing them out.

The future of Web 2:0: Web 3.0
Some industry pundits are already claiming that Web 2.0 is merely a transitional phase between the early days of the World Wide Web's existence and a more established phase they're calling Web 3.0, also known as the Semantic Web.

The creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, suggests that the Web as a whole can be designed more intelligently to be more intuitive about how to serve a user's needs. Berners-Lee observes that although search engines index much of the Web's content, they have little ability to select the pages that a user really wants or needs. He suggests developers and authors, singly or in collaboration, can use self-descriptions or similar techniques so that new context-aware programs can better classify the information that might be relevant to a user. Web 3.0 will involve the publishing of web resources in languages intended for data (such as XML, RDF, OWL and XHTML) to supplement them with metadata that will allow software to analyze, classify and deliver content for more personal relevance. The Semantic Annotations for Web Services group at W3C is defining the specifications for the Web 3.0.

Ubiquitous Computing
The model of Web 3.0’s machine-classified, data sharing world creates a basis for ubiquitous computing. Ubiquitous computing, also known as pervasive computing, is a scenario in which embedded processing in everyday objects enables intercommunication and unobtrusive data sharing throughout the user’s environment. The concept overlaps with that of the Internet of Things (IoT), in which almost any entity or object imaginable can be outfitted with a unique identifier (UID) and the ability to exchange data automatically. A modest example of this concept is a fridge that sends a grocery lists to one’s smartphone.

# data[].attributes.body
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills

Experts such as Jim Cummins differentiate between social and academic language acquisition. Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) are language skills needed in social situations. It is the day-to-day language needed to interact socially with other people. English language learners (ELLs) employ BIC skills when they are on the playground, in the lunch room, on the school bus, at parties, playing sports and talking on the telephone. Social interactions are usually context embedded.
1) They occur in a meaningful social context.
2)They are not very demanding cognitively.
3)The language required is not specialized.
These language skills usually develop within six months to two years after arrival in the U.S.

Problems arise when teachers and administrators think that a child is proficient in a language when they demonstrate good social English.

Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
CALP refers to formal academic learning. This includes listening, speaking, reading, and writing about subject area content material. This level of language learning is essential for students to succeed in school. Students need time and support to become proficient in academic areas. This usually takes from five to seven years. Recent research (Thomas & Collier, 1995) has shown that if a child has no prior schooling or has no support in native language development, it may take seven to ten years for ELLs to catch up to their peers.

Academic language acquisition isn't just the understanding of content area vocabulary. It includes skills such as comparing, classifying, synthesizing, evaluating, and inferring.
Academic language tasks are context reduced. Information is read from a textbook or presented by the teacher. As a student gets older the context of academic tasks becomes more and more reduced.

The language also becomes more cognitively demanding. New ideas, concepts and language are presented to the students at the same time.
Jim Cummins also advances the theory that there is a common underlying proficiency (CUP) between two languages. Skills, ideas and concepts students learn in their first language will be transferred to the second language.

# data[].attributes.body
Teaching vocabulary in CLIL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this blog post, we are going to explain THE LANGUAGE TRYPTICH. It is a key concept in the CLIL approach and its use is necessary in one of the 4Cs, Communication. As you know in a CLIL context, language learning is a tool for communication and there are varieties of the language which are recognisable. The language needed in CLIL does not always correspond to the grammatical progression we would find in an ordinary language learning context. It is, for us, an amazing advantage because you can learn in a natural way as in your mother tongue. This triptych gives us the opportunity to make connections between content and language objectives. In this way, we can integrate cognitively demanding content with language learning and using, making meaningful the relationship between using the language for knowledge construction.

First of all, you can see here a triangle with three different concepts:

1. Language OF learning

2. Language FOR learning

3. Language THROUGH learning

Now, we are going to explain the meaning of each concept.

LANGUAGE OF LEARNING

It is the language needed for learners to access the basic concepts and skills of the topic. Thanks to this, students use the appropriate language in meaningful contexts. Obviously, teachers need to be aware of the linguistic demands of the subject to work in the vehicular language. Language of learning is subject-specific.

Examples of this could be:

Key vocabulary phrases

Language of describing/defining/ explaining

Modal verbs for prediction

Future/conditional tenses

Cause-effect language

2. LANGUAGE FOR LEARNING
It is the language to get by in a foreign language context. If we give our learners strategies to help them, they will able to use the foreign language effectively. Here we have the magic word SCAFFOLDING because it is the kind of language they need in order to complete the tasks they are given. Students need to be supported in developing skills such as those needed for pairwork, cooperative group work, asking questions, debating, enquiring, thinking, etc. Language for learning is subject-compatible.

Examples of this could be:

Presenting evidence

Writing a simple research report

Language for project work

Language for arguments/disagreements

3. LANGUAGE THROUGH LEARNING
It is linked to the student getting actively engaged in using the language and thinking. Effective learning cannot take place without active involvement of language and thinking. New settings will require new language and for this reason this language cannot be predicted in advance. This emergent language needs to be captured by the teacher, but it is difficult to predict beforehand what will emerge.

Examples of this could be:

Dictionary skills

Recycling discussion skills

Extending presentation skills

Using feedback

Questioning/ Answering

Language of learning and language for learning are predictable and should be planned for. However, language through learning is unpredictable and should be responded to.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this blog post, we are going to explain THE LANGUAGE TRYPTICH. It is a key concept in the CLIL approach and its use is necessary in one of the 4Cs, Communication. As you know in a CLIL context, language learning is a tool for communication and there are varieties of the language which are recognisable.

# data[].attributes.body
https://englishglobalcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/clegg-providng-language-support-in-clil.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
My mind map about Animal behavior in winter

# data[].attributes.subject
My mind map about Animal behavior in winter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Esplora la mappa di gaia lombardi: Animal behaviour in Winter

# data[].attributes.body
My learning designer about animals in winter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
pluriliteracies.ecml.at > Principles > Planning For PLT

# data[].attributes.headline
A pluriliteracies approach to teaching for learning

# data[].attributes.subject
A pluriliteracies approach to teaching for learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
european centre for modern languages (ecml)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
centre européen pour les langues vivantes (celv)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ECML/CELV > Training & Consultancy > CLIL > Team

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
European Centre for Modern Languages (ECML), Centre européen pour les langues vivantes (CELV)

# data[].attributes.body
Planning CLIL with a Pluriliteracies focus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
So, in your CLIL lessons you:

keep an eye on the language output of students

make sure students are engaged with the tasks you prepared for them

motivate students to speak English all the time.

So far so good right? Indeed! But you are not done yet. Because once students are done with their work, you will have to look at what they have done and check if it meets your standards. In other words: assessment in CLIL.

The most common questions

During many workshops I hosted the questions I received about assessment in CLIL were quite different. In this blog post I want to cover the most common questions encountered during these workshops. So let's start!

Assess or evaluate?

The first topic that leads to confusion is the difference between assessment or evaluation. (Or even feedback, for that matter, but I won't discuss that here). So, what is the difference between the two?

An evaluation is the (subjective) means to look back at a certain event or happening, of which the value is concidered to be something worthy of checking.

An assessment is the (objective) way of measuring a predefined set of knowledge, amongst other things.

In other words: in this post I will primarily be looking at: What role does CLIL play in the tests I create for my students?

Assess language or content?

This is probably the question generating the most 'buzz'. I have had quite a few interesting disucssions on this topic, as teachers tend to think differently on this topic.

Which is fine.

As long as everyone does the same.

It would be unfair if one teacher corrects language mistakes in a history test and reflects these mistakes in a grade, when another history teacher does not.

However, generally speaking, most teachers I spoke with feel they should provide feedback on language in class and clarify the mistakes on tests, but not reflect this in a grade.

Alternatively, you could do a project every once in a while, where part of the grade is determined by a presentation or another language output activity. This will allow for an assessment on language.

Formative or summative?

Just to clarify: formative assessment is a more diagnostic way of assessment. This might include providing feedback to students if they are on the right track.

Summative assessment is focused more on the achievement of students at a specific point in time. Quite often resulting in a grade. As such, tests are always summative.

So, if tests are summative, what about language?

As mentioned: language might not be part of the assessment in tests. However, language can (and maybe: should) play a role in formative assessment throughout the topic/paragraph/chapter you are discussing.
But that takes so much time...
Teachers find time to be a challenge in most countries. Formative assessment tends to be limited to the occasional checking of homework or asking students to explain certain problems. That is fine, but using tools like Kahoot, Socrative or Quizizz, formative assessment can actually be a fun and interesting way of checking what you still have to focus on during the last lessons for a test.

Conclusion

In a CLIL lesson, assessment happens a lot. This can be either formative assessment on both content and language, as well as summative assessment on content (or language, if you choose to). There is not really a right or wrong here, but I would challenge you to discuss this with your colleagues and see what they think about it and together come up with a way to make assessment important in your CLIL lessons.

Do you have other questions? Post them in the comments below and I'll do my best to answer them!
Sources:
Want to know more about assessment in CLIL? Read all about it in " Putting CLIL into practice " by Phil Ball, Keith Kelly and John Clegg.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The (most) common quesions about assessment in CLIL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
So, in your CLIL lessons you: keep an eye on the language output of students make sure students are engaged with the tasks you prepared for them motivate students to speak English all the time. So far so good right? Indeed! But you are not done yet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rubrics are generally something that makes the life of an educator easier. Rather than adding an arbitrary grade to an assignment, with rubrics educators are able to determine exactly where a student's work excelled beyond expectations and exactly where it lacked quality. Although they are highly valuable tools, creating rubrics can be a difficult and time consuming process. That is, it used to be a difficult and time consuming process until you found out about these 5 best free Rubric making tools for teachers.

How To Use The 5 Best Free Rubric Making Tools For Teachers
Editor's note: We have originally written and published this article in January 2014. Thanks to your useful suggestions and our own following of the latest developments in the fast paced field of technology, we have updated this piece in November 2015 in the hope that you will keep finding it useful. Thank you for sharing!

1. Annenberg Learner

2. EssayTagger Common Core Rubric Creation Tool

About EssayTagger Common Core Rubric Creation Tool:
The Essay Tagger Common Core Rubric creation tool is a service that allows teachers to simply and easily create rubrics based on Statewide Common Core Standards.

How To Use EssayTagger Common Core Rubric Creation Tool:
Click the link above to visit the EssayTagger Common Core Rubric creation tool. Once there, click the "Begin" button at the bottom of the page. First, select the grade level of your rubric and click "Continue". On the next page, determine the elements from the Common Core Standards that you would like students to be graded on and click "Continue". On the next page, customize the Common Core elements you specified and click "Continue". Now input the title of the rubric as well as your personal information and click "Create Rubric". Now you are able to print, download or share your new Rubric!

Create the best Course for your School with the Right Vendor

Find, choose and compare the top eLearning Content Development Companies for K12!

3. Teachnology General Rubric Generator

Free Educational Technology

Now that you have the 5 best free Rubric making tools for teachers, there's no reason not to utilize them in order to make grading every assignment easier!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 5 Best Free Rubric Making Tools For Teachers - eLearning Industry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Rubrics are generally something that makes the life of an educator easier. Rather than adding an arbitrary grade to an assignment, with rubrics educators are able to determine exactly where a student's work excelled beyond expectations and exactly where it lacked quality. Although they are highly valuable tools, creating rubrics can be a difficult and time consuming process.

# data[].attributes.body
Debate has become a "hot" subject to teach and teach English by.
It can be very helpful and provides students with many great language learning opportunities and lots of practice. But it must be set up for success.

I usually set up debate for success by creating the proper classroom atmosphere. One of orderly discussion and freedom to participate. This is paramount.

You should teach the art of debate informally first, through a series of simple activities. The easiest is Advantages / Disadvantages. I call this -- Angel / Devil.

One student or group of students are the Angel and list the Pros of a topic. The other student or group, the Cons. Make sure they order their arguments! They can battle back and forth given so many topics. Write some on the board or use the handout below. Also see many debate materials in our Resource area.

The next step is a formal debate. Take a look at the attached handout which outlines the structure of a formal debate and how it should be held.

Here's How: 10 Easy Steps

1. Introduce debates by producing the rubric that you will be using to grade them.

2. Before the debate, give students the topic(s) to be covered. (see below)

3. Before you hand the debate assignments out, explain that some
students might be debating positions opposite to their beliefs. This is
an important skill for them to learn.

4. Students should completely fill out the debate organizer regarding the debate topic.(see reverse)

5. Begin the debate with the pro side speaking first. Allow them 5-7
minutes of uninterrupted time to explain their position. All members
should participate.

6. Repeat for the con side.

7. Give both sides about five minutes to confer and prepare for their rebuttal.

8. Begin the rebuttals with the con side and give them three minutes to speak. All members should participate equally.

9. Repeat this step for the pro side.

10. Closing arguments for both sides, starting with the pro side.

Allow the audience to ask questions of the debating teams.

You can really get more out of students by filming them! They really put on their best show and this can be very motivating.

Further, make sure you always go through the rubric and let them know what you are looking for in their debating. Also, it can be great to show them some video of others stating their viewpoints or debating. www.truetube.co.uk
has some fantastic material for this. Short videos on contentious subjects. It can be quite fast but I recommend you checking it  out.....Here's an example under "Beauty or Intelligence.?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An online debate tool facilitates the act of debating by helping to manage the structure of argumentation. This distinguishes it from general purpose communication tools such as wikis and forums. Some online debate tools provide graphical representations of arguments, but this is not a requirement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
RubiStar is a tool to help the teacher who wants to use rubrics, but does not have the time to develop them from scratch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Instantly create a beautiful, animated countdown clock, to share or embed in your website. Count down to a date with your own unique countdown timer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CLIL VIDEO LESSON: HEALTHY FOOD AND NUTRITION

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Edpuzzle assignment. Make video delivery an interactive experience. Students watch the lesson while answering the quizzes. The teacher gets the powerful hassle-free analytics.

# data[].attributes.body
I'm Gaia, a primary school teacher from Legnano, Milano, Italy.
This is my fourth time here on the TechnoCLIL,!
My expectations? To have a great time learning, collaborating and meeting colleagues from all Europe.