Abstract
This chapter critically discusses Content and Language Integrated Learning and puts its educational benefits and drawbacks into perspective by reviewing relevant studies in the field. It will become apparent that many of the alleged advantages of CLIL with regard to language learning cannot always be reliably attributed to the teaching approach alone, even though a generally positive effect can nonetheless be observed in conjunction with regular language classes. Furthermore, external, internal as well as organisational characteristics of successful CLIL programs are distilled from a qualitative analysis of selected publications. Finally, the discussion of an empirical study by the authors on authentic language use in CLIL Science classes, which may serve as a step** stone for materials writers and CLIL teachers to increase authentic language use in the CLIL classroom concludes the chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: Students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500392160
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (complete). Longman.
Ball, P., Kelly, K., & Clegg, J. (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press.
Banegas, D. L. (2012). The challenges of CLIL implementation in EFL contexts. 21st BETA-IATEFL Annual International Conference, University of Ruse, Ruse, Bulgaria.
Bland, J. (Ed.). (2015). Teaching English to young learners: Critical issues in language teaching with 3–12 year olds. Bloomsbury Academic.
Bruton, A. (2011). Are the differences between CLIL and non-CLIL groups in Andalusia due to CLIL? A reply to Lorenzo, Casal and Moore (2010). Applied Linguistics, 32(2), 236–241. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr007
Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41(3), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Cimermanová, I. (2020). Meta-analysis of studies on the acquisition of receptive skills and vocabulary in CLIL. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 8(1), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.2478/jolace-2020-0003
Clarke, M. A., & Silberstein, S. (1977). Toward a realization of psycholinguistic principles in the ESL reading class. Language Learning, 27(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00297.x
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated (CLIL) classrooms. John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in content and language integrated learning (CLIL): Current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & L. Volkmann (Eds.), Future perspectives for English language teaching (pp. 139–157). Carl Winter.
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
de Zarobe, Y. R. (2010). Written production and CLIL: An empirical study. In C. Dalton Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 191–212). John Benjamins.
Ellison, M. (2018). Implementing CLIL in schools: The case of the GoCLIL project in portugal. E-TEALS, 8, 43–72. https://doi.org/10.2478/eteals-2018-0003
European Commission. (2006). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Eurydice.
Gefaell, C., & Unterberger, B. (2010). CLIL programme evaluation: Deriving implementation guidelines from stakeholder perspectives. Views, 19(3), 29–35.
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004144
Goris, J. A., Denessen, E., & Verhoeven, L. T. W. (2019). Effects of content and language integrated learning in Europe: A systematic review of longitudinal experimental studies. European Educational Research Journal, 18(6), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119872426
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. British Council.
Lancaster, N. K. (2018). Innovations and Challenges in CLIL Program Evaluation. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1484034
Marsh, D. (Ed.). (1999). Implementing content and language integrated learning: A research-driven TIE-CLIL foundation course reader. TIE-CLIL.
Mehisto, P., Marsh, D., & Frigols, M. J. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education. Macmillan.
Navés, T. (2009). Effective content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programmes. In R. Zarobe, J. C. Yolanada, & R. MarÃa (Eds.), Content and language integrated learning: Evidence from research in Europe (pp. 22–40). Multilingual Matters.
Nikula, T., Dalton-Puffer, C., Llinares, A., & Lorenzo, F. (2016). More than content and language: The complexity of integration in CLIL and bilingual education. In T. Nikula, E. Dafouz, P. Moore, & U. Smit (Eds.), Conceptualising integration in CLIL and multilingual education (pp. 1–26). Multilingual Matters.
Paran, A. (2013). Content and language integrated learning: Panacea or policy borrowing myth? Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0014
Pérez Cañado, M. L. (2018). CLIL and educational level: A longitudinal study on the impact of CLIL on language outcomes. Porta Linguarum, 29(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.54022
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
San Isidro, X. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL implementation in Europe. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1484038
Siqueira, D. S. P., Landau, J., & Paraná, R. A. (2018). Innovations and challenges in CLIL implementation in South America. Theory into Practice, 57(3), 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2018.1484033
Soler, D., González-Davies, M., & Iñesta, A. (2017). What makes CLIL leadership effective? A case study. ELT Journal, 71(4), 478–490. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw093
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Xu, X. (2015). The effects of English bilingual education in the Netherlands. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.3.1.01ver
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kemsies, R., Hellmayr, G. (2023). Content and Language Integrated Learning. In: Tajeddin, Z., Griffiths, C. (eds) Language Education Programs. Language Policy, vol 34. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38754-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38754-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38753-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38754-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)