Find attached what it proposed me.

The AI did what I asked. However, you can see this proposal has some shortcomings of you keep in mind: 

1. what we said about the psycholinguistic foundations of CLIL

 b) what you heard in the first video we saw during lesson

→ In small groups explain these shortcomings on this shared padlet (names of group members must be visible)

Sabrina Peli 1075877

Claudia Taiocchi 1023325

Emanuela Civillini 1025659

Considerations based on video:

1. This science lesson is not perfectly based on CLIL, as the use of the L2 seems to be limited to provide instruction, without a deeper integration. The main focus seems to be on vocabulary and not on meaningful content.

2. Cooperative learning and peer tutoring are not used and the students’ work is not displayed.

3. Teacher’s feedback is not included.

4. Students are not the main protagonists of the learning process, indeed they aren’t fully engaged.

5. Useful strategies and methods, such as brainstorming, group work discussion and group presentation are not used. 

Considerations based on slides (about the psycholinguistic foundations of CLIL):

1. When students work in pairs, their work is just based on repetition of the linguistic structures, previously taught by the teacher. So in this way implicit knowledge is missing. 

2. Focusing on the output, in this science lesson, it is poor because there is no communicative intent. Without comprehension and involvement, there isn’t a real acquisition of L2.

Agata Marchina 1090071

Gloria Baldelli 1089948

Michela Confortola 1090003

Shari Bassis 1090010

• In the warm-up and presentation we noticed that the implicit knowledge is missing: students are exposed to English but they could interact more spontaneously describing pictures or making short experiments.

• In this lesson posters and slides could be put on walls as support to the lesson.

• The teacher can use a video to show the cycle of water according to make the lesson more engaging and richer.

• In the communication step, exercises aren’t communicative because they are based on repetition and there is a limited interaction between children (there is only the moment in which they work in pairs using mini dialogues). In these activities the communication isn’t meaningful.

• The video shows the importance of small groups work and in our opinion this aspect is missing in the lesson.

• Students aren’t the protagonists of the lessons because the teacher is dominant.

• The teacher doesn’t give feedback to students.

• The video tells that both languages, L1 and L2, are important, but in this lesson the activities don’t give importance to children’s L1.

• One hour for all the activities doesn’t allow to give much importance to the cultural aspects, because the children have only 5 minutes to talk about the use of water in the different countries.

Amedea Dehò 1025870

Martina Serughetti 1089979

Marina Romedi 1089984

Sara Guercilena 1082930

There are some critical parts about what Chat GPT suggested: 

• About the psycholinguistic foundations of CLIL, for example, there is not a proper implicit knowledge, therefore it seems more like an explanation which is not engaging in the first phases of the project. The interaction between the pupils, where they can communicate spontaneously, is not very present whatsoever. On the other hand there are conversations with already decided questions and answers. It should have activities which revolve more on cooperation to make the overall project more appealing and especially genuine.

• About the first video we saw at the lesson it seems like the plurilinguism is completely absent, or at least it's not explicit for the use of L1. Group work or the making of posters or of a final essay are missing. In the initial part, with the use of the flashcards, it appears more focused on learning vocabulary, rather than the linguistic structures.

• Regarding cognition, we think there is a lack of a real problem solving activity based on the cooperative learning methodology which, in addition to naming and understanding the content of images, stimulates critical thinking and spontaneous conversation. 

• Furthermore, although the language used is simple and of daily use, there is a lack of visual support or other educational tools to allow even students with lower linguistic abilities to operate independently and safely, as the complex terms (such as evaporation, condensation,...) are involved.

• Finally, in the culture phase, we believe there is a lack of an activity of a more experiential nature with a more practical aspect that can be experienced concretely and therefore be more engaging.

Viola Rigoni 1090025

The lesson created by AI has some short comings, especially in the communication part. Besides basic words, the children learn fixed phrases to talk about the main topic. They do not build their own sentences using what they already know. Instead, they repeat the phrases by heart. So, we cannot say they are really practicing communication in the second language.

The lesson is very teacher-centered. The first activity is repetition. In this case, learning is passive because the children repeat key words without trying to speak or take part. Also, the AI did not explain all the details of the activities. It is not clear how the different steps of the lesson are explained or what the teacher’s role is in each phase.

According to the CLIL method discussions should be propose in groups so that everyone has a chance to speak.

The part called “Culture and Cognition” is more similar to the CLIL method.

1. there is a lack of implicit knowledge, the teacher doesn't consider what students may already know.

2. The teacher doesn't really support the output in any way, there are neither substitution tables or graphic organiser or posters on the classroom wall. There is only the sentence reference but the teacher role is not explained

3. the activities lack of communication and interaction. there is not communicative intent in most of them as in the language activities the content is missing ( in the first and second exercise). The students work individually.

Gandola Martina 1089945

In our opinion, there are some shortcomings about the lesson plan ChatGPT has created.

- In the CLIL approach, the teacher should work as a scaffolding for the lesson, but in this lesson plan, almost every activity or part of the lesson start from her/him.

- This lesson plan is lacking in implicit knowledge. The class learn the water cycle from the slides that the teacher has created. With the CLIL approach implicit knowledge is very important and should be the base of the lesson.

- In the vocabulary practise ChatGPT suggested the game “Simon says”, which is not useful since is based on the repetition of the phrase, not for communicating something and doesn’t improve the acquisition of new vocabulary and academic language.

- The cognition section of this lesson plan should be more engaging and challenging. What ChatGPT has suggested doesn’t help the class developing thinking skills, since they just learn the main stages of the water cycle.

- In this lesson plan there is an important lack of communication between the children, since the student tent to work individually. This doesn’t help with the learning of new vocabulary and language skills.

Matteo Pirola 1090086

In our opinion, the lesson plan created by ChatGPT has several shortcomings:

•There is a lack of implicit learning. Students learn the water cycle directly from slides instead of discovering it through meaningful tasks or experiments.

•The vocabulary practice (“Simon says”) focuses on repetition rather than real communication, so it doesn’t help students use new words or academic language effectively.

•The cognitive level is too low: students just memorize and sequence stages, without engaging in higher order thinking or problem solving.

•There is too little communication among students. Pair and group work are missing, which limits peer interaction and cooperative learning.

• The integration of content and language is weak: English is used mainly for giving instructions or learning vocabulary, not for meaningful expression.

• Cooperative and reflective strategies (like brainstorming, group presentations, and peer tutoring) are not included.

• The teacher doesn’t give feedbacks and assessments to the students, so they don’t get guidance on how to improve

•The output is limited and not communicative — students repeat structures without real comprehension or purpose.

Leonardo Perego 1089969

Looking at the lesson, we noticed that the meaning seems not to be the focus of the activity. Implicit knowledge is not considered as a priority, and psycholinguistic foundations stress the need for scaffolding to bridge content and language.

Students mostly repeat or answer short questions instead of producing language for real purpose, while Clil should create opportunities for authentic communication and interaction should be more urged.

Clil should integrate cognition and content through problem-solving and reasoning, but in the purposed activity, the higher-thinking order is not really explored. Higher-order thinking means to predict, analyze causes and so on, while here it is limited to put cards in order. We could do more with these materials! Moreover, we think that is better to choose activities in which teacher's role is less directive.

Clil's cultural part should encourage empathy, perspective-taking and awareness of global issues linked to the topic. We think that this dimension is a bit understimated: it would be better to take childern's daily life as starting point instead of country. By this way children are more involved in the discussion and can practice communication better.

a) What we said about the psycholinguistic foundations of CLIL?

The psycholinguistic foundations of CLIL are rooted in the idea that language and content learning develop together through meaningful interaction and authentic communication. CLIL views learners not simply as students, but as social agents, actively using language to interact, negotiate meaning, and construct knowledge in real contexts.

In CLIL, learners don’t just study the language. They use it as a tool for thinking, reasoning, and learning across different subjects.

From a psycholinguistic point of view, learning happens through the dynamic balance between input, output, and the learner’s internal syllabus which is the internalized progression through which language is naturally acquired. Through content-based tasks and communication, learners develop implicit knowledge, which allows them to process and produce language more fluently and meaningfully.

CLIL promotes dual-focused education, where both content mastery and language acquisition are given conscious attention. It reinforces the principle that language is best learned when it is used to learn something else, engaging cognitive, linguistic, and social dimensions at the same time.

b) What you heard in the first video we saw during lesson?

In the first video by Peeter Mehisto, we saw an experiment that clearly illustrated the interactive and experiential nature of CLIL. Instead of merely describing their favourite drink, participants were asked to create one, which naturally led to greater communication, collaboration, and engagement.

Mehisto emphasized that CLIL is not just teaching a subject in another language, but learning through language, a process where students become social agents, actively involved in using L2 to interact, express ideas, and build knowledge. This demonstrates that learning to communicate in a foreign language is profoundly different from simply studying content in that language.

He also highlighted CLIL’s dual focus on content and language, underlining that both dimensions require planning, attention, and assessment. Through active, task-based, and cooperative learning, CLIL fosters not only linguistic competence but also critical thinking, creativity, and intercultural awareness.

In short, the video showed that CLIL turns the classroom into a social and cognitive space, where learning happens through authentic use of language, active participation, and meaningful collaboration.

Final consideration on the proposal:

I think that this lesson plan is quite appropriate to the learning objectives. What I mean is that the structure created by the AI is well organized and coherent, but it could be improved in some aspects. For example, I would expect more active feedback and participation from the pupils, as interaction is essential in CLIL.

In addition, I would include a practical and experiential (laboratory-like) activity to encourage students to learn through action and collaboration, just as Peeter Mehisto did in his experiment described in the video. In that example, students were asked to create a drink instead of simply talking about their favourite one, and this led to more authentic communication, cooperation, and engagement.

Such an approach would make pupils act as social agents, using the language to express themselves, solve problems, and construct meaning, rather than merely studying it. This is precisely the kind of active and dual-focused learning that lies at the heart of CLIL.

GRIGIS VALENTINA 1078292

LONGONI SABRINA 1089988

• Overemphasis on vocabulary

The lesson focuses heavily on teaching scientific vocabulary. However, CLIL is about building meaningful communication through content. 

• Limited language scaffolding

While some useful language structures are mentioned (“Water evaporates when…”), the plan lacks clear scaffolding strategies to support students in producing language. According to psycholinguistics, learners need comprehensible input, repetition and language models. 

• Low interaction and communication

The tasks mainly focus on individual understanding. A good CLIL lesson encourages group work, discussion, and interaction. The current plan could include more opportunities for students to use language in real communication.

• No reference to L1

The proposal does not use the students’ first language (L1), which can be a powerful support tool in CLIL. L1 has a great value in CLIL activities, especially in helping students grasp complex concepts or make comparisons between cultures. 

• Learning environment underused

From the video we saw classroom’s walls can be resources, and student work should be displayed. This lesson does not include visual support in the classroom.

• Lack of input and output

The input is almost absent, constipating only of a series of images that lack both meaning and engagement for children. In addition, there is not a  genuinely communicative output because the children do not have a real purpose for communicating; they only have to answer questions in order to pass the final quiz.

Overall, the lesson is difficult for third-grade children due to both the lack of scaffolding and the absence of L1. Furthermore, there aren’t activities in which the children have to create and do something with the aim of communicating and learning the content, because the lesson is too focused on discussion and teacher’s explanation, these activities are too complex for eight-years-old children.

Group work, scaffolding, cooperative learning and peer tutoring are missing; furthermore, the lesson focuses too much on repetition without promoting truly active learning or presenting a cognitive challenge that could stimulate the students.

The teacher’s proposals also appear not very engaging and motivating; also, in the students’ output there is a lack of a real communicative purpose, leaving no space for meaningful learning.

Marino Federica (1090049)

Vimercati Gaia (1084743)

Novelli Sofia (1084761)

IA document:

- We don’t understand the warm up, only answering looking at the pictures makes no sense. There isn’t a picture of a cloud that is possibly the answer to the question. This activity is not really engaging. Instead in the first part of the lesson you can show pictures of lakes, seas and other natural land and ask the children if those things belong in the water cycle. You can do a fill-in quiz where, as the students identify that the image is part of the water cycle, they place the image in the diagram. At the end of the warm-up, the class will have the complete water cycle chart, which can then be used throughout the lesson.

- The teacher has too much space in the lesson, every part of the lesson starts from she/he, most activities are teacher-led and based on repetition or memorization (e.g. Choral repetition, Simon says), not on real communication.

- The activity Simon says is really fun and engaging but it does not promote academic language, which should be introduced together with the content. Constructing sentences that allow the student to speak competently about the topic is one of the fundamental parts of the CLIL method.

- The cultural part does not directly deepen the content; students will not have the vocabulary or proper scaffolding to engage in a discussion on a complex topic. Dialogue is not always easy to manage, so it is better to use additional supporting tools. You can for example show videos that spoke about problems in the water cycle in different countries and give the students time and specific tools (internet, books…) to search for a solution and discuss it in the class.

- In general there is a lack of scaffolding.

- To propose more authentic communicative tasks, for example: a mini book that illustrates the water cycle, explain the content to another student or do a mini-roleplay between “water droplets” traveling through the phases.