Why CLIL? An analysis of the literature from the perspective of teachers of non-linguistic subjects
Issue
Section
Keywords:
CLIL implementation, teacher role, student evaluation, classroom environment, European citizenship
Published
Abstract
Since its birth in 1994 until now, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) has been seeing and implementing in different ways, depending on government or school policies or stakeholders’ attitudes, which has caused a margin of vagueness about its definition. This is very important, because the European Union adoption of CLIL to support the aim of multilingualism has focused on the linguistic results at several levels and so the researches and surveys, although it is implemented mainly by subject teachers, who need to see the effectiveness from their point of view, not only linguistic. This paper reviews the literature, finding out the definition of CLIL as ‘open environment of education’, definitely suitable for subject teachers in order to be involved in its implementation. It is also underlined, taking into account the European Directives, how CLIL, in particular if taught through tools offered by new technologies, tend to achieve the students’ global growth and their European citizenship, as well as to be the first step for a new kind of schooling.
Downloads
Supporting agencias
NoLicense
Copyright (c) 2020 The authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant in the journal the right of first publication of the work, registered under a Creative Commons acknowledgement licence (CC BY-NC-SA), which allows dissemination with acknowledgement of authorship and first publication in this journal.
- Authors may independently enter into other contractual arrangements to allow publication of the version published in this journal in other media (e.g., in an institutional repository or in a book), with acknowledgement of initial publication in this journal.
- Authors have permission to publish their work online and are encouraged to do so (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, because it can produce good results and lead to the published work receiving more citations (see The Effect of Open Access).
PRIVACY STATEMENT
Names and email addresses on the journal website will only be used for the uses indicated in this journal and will not be made available for any other use or to third parties.
Downloads
References
Agolli, R. (2013). A Penetrating Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) Praxis in Italian Mainstream Education: Stemming Novelites and Visions. Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 138–157.
Agolli, R. (2015). Content and language symbiosis in a maieutic, translanguaging pattern (CLSL): An exploratory practice in Italy. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 161–183. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2015.8.1.5
Ball, P., Kelly, K. & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Banegas, D. L. (2012). Integrating content and language in English language teaching in secondary education : Models , benefits , and challenges. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2012.2.1.6
Barcelona European Council. (2002). Presidency Conclusions, 35, 0–72. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/barcelona_european_council.pdf
Biçaku, R. Ç. (2011). CLIL and teacher training. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3821–3825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.379
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002
Cinganotto, L. (2016). CLIL in Italy: a general overview. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 9(2), 374–400. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2016.9.2.6
Council of the European Union. (2002). Resolution of 14 February 2002 on the promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning in the framework of the implementation of the objectives of the European Year of Languages 2001. C 50 45: 1–3 http://europa.eu/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/c_050/c_05020020223en00010002.pdf
Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: supporting students in content and language integrated contexts, in Masih J., Learning through a Foreign Language (46-62) London CILT.
Coyle, D. (2002). Relevance of CLIL to the European Commission’s language learning objectives. CLIL/EMILE the European Dimension. In Marsh, D. (2002). The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential (27–28). Strasbourg: European Commission. UniCOM, University of Jyvaskyla. Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/47616
Coyle, D., Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
Coyle, D. (2015). Strengthening integrated learning: Towards a new era for pluriliteracies and intercultural learning. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2015.8.2.2
Czura, A. & Papaja, K. (2013). Curricular models of CLIL education in Poland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2013.777388
Dallinger, S., Jonkmann, K., Hollm, J. & Fiege, C. (2016). The effect of content and language integrated learning on students’ English and history competences - Killing two birds with one stone? Learning and Instruction, 41, 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.003
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092
Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., Lorenzo, F. & Nikula, T. (2014). “You can stand under my umbrella”: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee & Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics, 35(2), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu010
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2014). CLIL and motivation: The effect of individual and contextual variables. Language Learning Journal, 42(2), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2014.889508
European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and learning - Teaching and learning: towards the learning society, 70. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com95_590_en.pdf
European Council. (2008). Council resolution of 21 November 2008 on a European strategy for multilingualism. 2008/C 3210/01. C320. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/?uri=celex:32008G1216(01)
Eurydice. (2017a). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. 2017 Edition. Luxembourg: EU Publications. https://doi.org/10.2797/839825
Eurydice. (2017b). Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. 2017 Edition [brief edition]. Luxembourg: EU Publications. https://doi.org/10.2797/828497
Fokides, E. & Zampouli, C. (2017). Content and Language Integrated Learning in Opensimulator Project. Results of a Pilot Implementation in Greece. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), p. 1479-1496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9503-z
Gaisch, M., Rammer, V., Hruskova, L., Krátká, J. & Mádlová, G. (2017). Content language integrated learning as a driver for enhanced graduate employability. A cross-cultural study between Austria and the Czech Republic. In M. Uberwimmer, M. Gaisch, R. Fureder & Y. Costa (Eds.) (233), Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2017. Germany: Shaker Verlag GmbH. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317013155_Content_Language_Integrated_Learning_as_a_Driver_for_Enhanced_Graduate_Employability_A_cross-cultural_study_between_Austria_and_the_Czech_Republic
Goris, J., Denessen, E. & Verhoeven, L. (2017). The contribution of CLIL to learners’ international orientation and EFL confidence. Language Learning Journal, 1736, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1275034
Guillamón-Suesta, F., Luisa, M. & Renau, R. (2015). A critical vision of the CLIL approach in secondary education: A study in the Valencian Community in Spain. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2014.8.1.1
Kiely, R. (2011). Understanding CLIL as an innovation. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 153-171. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.1.9
Kovacikova, E. & Luprichova, J. (2018). A good CLIL practice among European educational institutions International, International Journal of Learning and Teaching. 10(1), 50-60. https://doi.org/10.18844/ijlt.v10i1.3145
Llinares, A. & Morton, T. (2010). Historical explanations as situated practice in content and language integrated learning. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463011003750681
Marsh, D. (1994). Bilingual Education & Content and Language Integrated Learning. Paris: International Association for Cross-cultural Communication, Language Teaching in the Member States of the European Union (Lingua), University of Sorbonne.
Marsh, D. (2002). The European Dimension: Actions, Trends and Foresight Potential. Strasbourg: European Commission. UniCOM, University of Jyvaskyla. Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/47616
Marsh, D. & Frigols Martín, M. J. (2012). Introduction : Content and Language Integrated Learning. In C. A. Chapelle, The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Chichester, West Sussex, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0190
Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality-CLIL: successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso, 33(1), 11–29. Retrieved from http://revistapulso.cardenalcisneros.es/documentos/articulos/114.pdf
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K. & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning – mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2014.1000924
Muñoz-Luna, R. (2014). From Drills to CLIL: The Paradigmatic and Methodological Evolution Towards the Integration of Content and Foreign Language. Profile, 16(1), 1657–790. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v16n1.37843
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C. & García, A. L. (2013). CLIL classroom discourse: Research from Europe. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1(1), 70–100. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.1.1.04nik
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2016). From the CLIL craze to the CLIL conundrum: Addressing the current CLIL controversy. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.667
Pfenninger, S. E. (2014). The misunderstood variable: Age effects as a function of type of instruction. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 529–556. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.3.8
Ramírez-Verdugo, M. D. (2012). From Research to Development on Virtual Language , Content and Intercultural Learning Across European Schools, In L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL: Using, Learning, Knowing, EUROCALL Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 22-25 August 2012, 245-249. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED574909.pdf
Van Kampen, E., Meirink, J., Admiraal, W. & Berry, A. (2017). Do we all share the same goals for content and language integrated learning (CLIL)? Specialist and practitioner perceptions of “ideal” CLIL pedagogies in the Netherlands. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 0(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1411332
